Mark is an air traffic controller, responsible for training and qualifying aspiring air traffic controllers. As the instructional supervisor he is responsible for the development of all terminal air traffic control instructors. He is routinely involved in both the development of training material and content delivery in the classroom, simulation and live phases of training.
Laren is a nurse, and the Lead Instructor of the Medical Office Assistant program at a post-secondary institution in the city where she lives. She develops and delivers curriculum for adult learners who wish to pursue an administrative career in health care office or hospital settings.
As a team, Mark and Laren participated in a design thinking process to compare learning needs in their diverse industries with the goal of identifying a common problem(s) for which they could develop an instructional solution. Through this design thinking process (which consisted of focused interviews with each other), they found a common problem which related to professional attributes. Their interviews revealed that while their industries were obviously diverse, there were specific attributes that would be mutually required from learners in both of their fields, given the stressful and high-stakes environments they were preparing their learners for. Table 1 lists which attributes the team identified as being critical to their respective professions, and depicts which attributes the team agreed were common to both industries.
Table 1
Considering those common attributes together with the context of their design challenge (that they were challenged to find ways to engage learners in an online setting), Mark and Laren were able to define their problem and articulate their subsequent prototype solution as follows:
Problem:
In an integrated online program, how can we assess/qualify (ensure a learner has) the necessary attributes and decision making abilities required to work effectively in a consistently and markedly stressful environment?
Solution:
A capstone assignment which will include:
- A scenario and environment delivered via virtual reality, which will present a critical decision that must be made by the learner directly within the simulated environment.
- The simulation will be presented in a deliberately distracting and stressful environment
- The decision presented will be high stakes and unsolvable
- Assessment will measure to what degree an individual is able to exhibit the necessary attributes (and not to what degree they are able to correctly solve the problem)
- A rubric to measure behaviors exhibited and responses within the simulation
The prototype solution in it’s current state relies on assumptions common to andragogy and constructivism; that learners are motivated when their learning has clear relevance to other aspects of their life (Knowles, 1975), and that learning is created once it is contextualized in real world scenarios, not before (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). The simulation environment described above would place the learner in a real-world scenario, that could be applied directly to either industry.
Mark and Laren acknowledge that their prototype in it’s current state would not be an introductory-level assignment, but rather a capstone affirmation of skill; and one that a learner has been adequately prepared for and equipped to achieve.
Your input would be valued…
- How would you preemptively prepare a learner to be successful in this type of evaluation?
- What types of elements would you include in a VR scenario when the goal is for the learner to demonstrate attributes and behaviors as opposed to perfectly perform a skill?
- Do you have any expertise to share from your own experiences in developing VR solutions?
We look forward to hearing your perspective.
References
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71
Knowles, M. S. (1975). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus pedagogy. New York: Association Press
December 2, 2019 at 12:49 am
Hello Mark and Laren, I like your idea very much, as I think it is a smart idea to test your learners in a stressful environment as peoples’ lives depend on employees in both of your fields, and VR is the perfect platform to get this experience before dealing with live/real life situations. In response to your questions:
How would you preemptively prepare a learner to be successful in this type of evaluation?
I’m sure you already have successful training programs in place, but I would ensure that the trainer(s) walk the learners through various hypothetical situations as well as use past real-life situations as a teaching tool while outlining all the possible outcomes based on the decisions made. I would also make certain that each learner shadow seasoned employees to see them in action and learn on the job and make use of any recordings of employees at work in difficult situations if these are available (I realize that may not always be feasible due to privacy issues). Also (and again you probably already have this) have the learners do practice tests (whether also through VR or in writing) asking them what steps they would take in a situation where they can later check their answers.And put the learners through stress tests. I wouldn’t be surprised if you already do this through the interview process.
What types of elements would you include in a VR scenario when the goal is for the learner to demonstrate attributes and behaviors as opposed to perfectly perform a skill?
I would introduce several problems/tasks at once so that the first thing the learner must do is prioritize. And then once the learner is in the process of addressing one issue, throw a new one into the mix which will make them second guess themselves. You already mentioned that there would be distractions; yes I’d have many visual and auditory distractions constantly around them.
Do you have any expertise to share from your own experiences in developing VR solutions?
Sorry I have no VR experience myself besides playing an arcade game!
December 4, 2019 at 8:36 am
Hi Susan,
Thanks for the response, and thanks for suggesting that we include the ability to prioritize as a skill that we should be measuring in conjunction with the identified common attributes. I agree. multi-tasking and prioritizing are necessary to both of our fields, and Mark and I missed identifying that as a common attribute (we left it only on his side of required attributes).
You hit the nail on the head in identifying that yes, both of our learners could potentially be dealing with making life or death decisions; which was really the driver for developing this solution. In fields such as these, it doesn’t only matter to what degree one can understand concepts or can pass tests. Real world practice and application are critical to each of these fields. Hopefully by being able to develop a VR solution – we can better assess behavioral responses and do so more frequently, thoroughly, and deliberately than we could without the use of VR.
Laren
December 3, 2019 at 1:12 am
Preparing learners for Visual Reality (VR) assessment requires (1) building on the existing knowledge of your students (2) embedding personalized learning pedagogy in your prototype.
Based on Merrill’s principles (2002), it is essential to prepare the students to work collaboratively on traditional group-based activities first (without the VR) then gradually complicate the learning setting to include complex problems and VR. In so doing, you can keep learners more engaged.
Engaging in a design thinking process, you have begun the process of engaging students and personalizing their learning. Crichton & Carter (2017) posited that the design thinking process as a tool helps teachers personalize students’ learning by changing their “actions, world view, and sense of selves” p.35. Considering the different characteristics, opinions, and emotions of students will also keep students engaged and in this case, help you utilize VR assessments in your prototype more successfully. Velev and Zlateva (2017) postulated that instructional designers should take into consideration (1) males and females different perspectives, psychological level of world perception, and behaviours towards VR (2) VR scenarios should include the direct hands-on experience to compensate face-to-face interactions that real-life exercises provide.
Would you consider adding gradual and personalized learning to the pedagogy of your prototype design? Why?
References
Crichton, S. & Carter, D. (2017). Section 5: Honouring the parts that make the process whole. In Taking Making into Classrooms Toolkit. Open School/ITA.
Velev, D., & Zlateva, P. (2017). Virtual reality challenges in education and training. International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 33-37. DOI: 10.18178/ijlt.3.1.33-37
December 4, 2019 at 8:48 am
Hi Tala,
Thanks for your thoughtful response to our solution, and thanks especially for providing us with a literary reference to explore in Velev & Zlateva.
You bring to light an affordance of VR simulations that I hadn’t yet considered – that a learner’s frame of reference, or perspective can (and perhaps should) inform the simulated environment that they learn in.
I certainly would could consider a more personalized pedagogical approach in developing this solution, but must admit the practicality of that raises some concerns for me. I wonder if it would be best to build one scenario that includes elements which would address the perspectives of multiples groups of people; or would it be better to include choices in the scenario to allow a learner some control and agency in selecting certain elements of their simulated environments.
You have given me much to contemplate Tala, and I look forward to digging into this research.
Laren