Month: December 2021

524.3.2 – Reinvisioning Coach Certification

Welcome back readers and Happy New Year!

Over the past 3 weeks, I’ve had the pleasure of working with Paula Insell, a professional instructional designer at WestJet. We used an empathic reflective process to explore a design challenge of mutual interest and propose a solution.

Our design solution aims to help more sports coaches in Canada achieve NCCP certification. To view our solution as a PDF, download our solution here. To explore the challenge in a greater context, download our design thinking reflection here.

***

Reinvisioning Coach Certification @ Cycling BC [Assignment 3a]

Using design thinking principles appropriately can help simplify the overwhelming instructional design process. Utilizing design principles that are empirical yet suitable for the unique task is akin to the importance of developing clear, articulate, and guiding brand and logo design for emerging organizations. This paper uses design thinking and proposes updates to the National Coaching Certification Program’s (NCCP) cycling coach training using multi-modal and flexible educational methods to help sports leaders learn during these complex cultural and technological times.

Our design approach begins with a comprehensive, problem-solving-based evaluation. Design thinking is problem-solving at its core (Kelley, 2001; Brown & Katz, 2009). We closely examined NCCP cycling coach training materials and practices currently administrated in British Columbia through multiple exploratory discussions. We focused on three areas of investigation:

  • What are the pain points for coach developers?
  • What are the pain points for coaches in training?
  • Which aspects of the program are currently out of scope or immovable?

Articulating the challenges individuals, communities, and organizations face during coach training (Dorst, 2015) helped our team understand the complexities of the scenario and confidently explore subsequent stages of the design thinking process. The investigation concluded that the following pain points are critical to our solution building:

  • National bodies own education materials, with no allowance for editing or context building,
  • Official resources are not contextually diverse, leading to low comprehension and retention of theoretical and practical learning outcomes,
  • Outdoor practical components are challenging to deliver in remote areas; sport-specific delivery policies are inflexible, and
  • Resources and support for coaches using home study methods are poor.

The above issues culminate in a low completion rate, with only 1% of coaches achieving certification over the past six years. Because of these pain points, our solution focuses on the following elements:

  • Increasing User Focus,
  • Problem Framing,
  • Increasing Diversity, and
  • Embracing Experimentation.

Figure 1:

Increasing the felt user experience can help shift public perception of coach training from a hoop-jumping process to a contextually appropriate and practical experience that allows sports enthusiasts to transform into sports leaders. Designers can add context using online participant message boards where official materials are restrictive or outdated. Coaches in training can then access more relevant resources to their cycling discipline, and engage with discipline-specific experts, instead of relying only on their interpretation of official resources. Recognizing that official resources cannot be modified in the short term, adding participant message boards can optimize user experiences until official revisions take place. These informal discussions invite experienced coaches to adopt a mentorship role, encourage the use of simple language that welcomes new learners (Baker & Moukhliss, 2020), and grant both readers and writers on the forum the autonomy to engage at a rate that appreciates cognitive load (Nielsen, 1994). Making coach training more user-focused and easier to access invites a broader frame of Canadians to explore their relationship with the sport as a community-building and self-discovery tool. Like the NCCP’s guiding principles, considering, and framing all the challenges of a given situation before choosing a course of action mirrors the next component of our design solution, problem-framing.

Problem framing allows researchers (or, in this instance, instructional designers) to extrapolate and address challenges where pre-existing models or principles do not exist. Given the rapid and expansive changes and challenges present across the Canadian sport sector, limited precedents are available to guide the introduction of eLearning, online-facilitated learning, and outreach to rural or emerging communities, including First Nations and new immigrants to Canada, respectively. Berman (2009) argues that designers can posit solutions more effectively when they ‘ leave their baggage at the door’ and frame problems (i.e., lack of accessibility to the end-user) using insight from numerous stakeholders. With appreciation for the stability created by the NCCP’s deliberate yet slow content revision cycles, its guiding constructivist principles encourage designers to role model user-focused and context-building learning experiences. Augmenting the training experience with online forums can help prospective coaches from different backgrounds, contexts, and experiences share insights and interpretations, learn from, and teach one another, and add credibility and relevance to the official documents (Hess, 2013). Limited quantitative and qualitative studies occur in the sports sector, and inadequate data collection and analysis poorly inform national and provincial coach development policies and revisions. By incorporating members of each territorial jurisdiction and allocating more time and resources to customer service and support, policymakers and instructional designers can make more informed policy and revision decisions.

Maximizing user experience despite British Columbia’s vast geographical constraints requires agile and experimental solutions. In-person practice teaching components of the coach training program are challenging to organize and costly for individuals and the governing body. Historically, prospective coaches must attend a weekend module to assess their practical application of theoretical concepts. It is often financially and logistically impossible for coaches, especially north of Kamloops, to participate in these in-person events, representing a certification barrier. Having identified this as a critical barrier during our design thinking process, we suggest coaches are allowed to submit video recordings with easy-to-read instructions. By allowing coaches to demonstrate their teaching competencies close to home, learning can occur in a more relaxed and progressive fashion. Instead of rushing through two full days with multiple coaches, video submissions encourage learning through the preparation, recording, and debrief of their video submission with a certified evaluator. Developing easy-to-read instructions and evaluative criteria makes this video option more inviting, increases the likelihood of completion, and ensures uniform evaluation standards across the evaluator cohort. To successfully implement this design solution, designers and administrators must embrace a phase of increased experimentation and continued flexibility when evaluating video submissions.

Embracing experimentation may also help optimize conversations across all modalities of coach development. For example, NCCP coach evaluators use Thiagarajan’s (1992) six-question framework to guide certification debriefs. Crichton & Carter (2017) suggest evaluators use six additional guiding frames to encourage optimal feedback, like commenting on actions already taken or currently taking place, a student’s strengths or domain of expertise, and their ability to use proactive thinking and metacognition. To help pattern more comprehensive debrief skills across the entire coach community, debriefs skills using both frameworks can be added to coach training modules.

Creating design solutions in complex systems requires an investigative and empathetic inquiry. Both authors acknowledge their personal experiences impact the proposed design solutions, with the humble understanding that factors outside their scope may negate the ability of coaching organizations to implement these suggestions. With great appreciation for the work of coach developers across the country, our proposed updates aim to acknowledge the world-renowned status of the NCCP and help it maintain its position as a world leader in coach education despite these cultural and technological fluid times.

References

Baker III, F. W., & Moukhliss, S. (2020). Concretising Design Thinking: A Content Analysis of Systematic and Extended Literature Reviews on Design Thinking and Human‐Centred Design. Review of Education, 8(1), 305-333.

Berman, D. B. (2009). Do good design: How design can change our world. New Riders.

Brown, T. & Katz, B. (2009). Change by design. HarperCollins e-Books.

Dorst, K. (2015). Frame Innovation. The MIT Press.

Crichton, S. & Carter, D. (2017). Taking Making into Classrooms Toolkit. Open School/ITA.

Hess, W. (2013, July 13). 20 Guiding Principles for Experience Design. www.designprinciplesftw.com https://www.designprinciplesftw.com/collections/20-guiding-principles-for-experience-design

Kelley, T. A. (2001). The art of innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, America’s leading design firm. Currency.

Nielsen, J. (1994). Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. Association for Computing Machinery, 152–158. https://doi.org/10.1145/191666.191729

Thiagarajan, S. (1992). Using Games for Debriefing. Simulation & Gaming, 23(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878192232004

524.2.4 – iRide Instructor Tool Design Case

Introduction

After seven years of development, Cycling BC, a member organization of Cycling Canada, recently launched the new HopOn instructor training tool and physical literacy curriculum for young cyclists across the country. Inspired by existing programs, like Run Jump Throw Wheel, JackRabbits, and the 60-minute kid’s club, HopOn builds upon recent interest in physical literacy (Google Ngram Viewer, 2021) to give instructors and participants tools that help pattern fundamental movements and build confidence through sport. This design case explores the author’s instructional design process during the multi-year development of the instructor tool. In addition, it offers insights that may inform the development of similar programs in the future (Paulus & Spence, 2010). The final product includes an Articulate360 eLearning module hosted on a user-friendly Learning Management System (LMS). In addition, it provides multi-modal videos, laminated cheat sheets, digital textbooks, and the option for printed resources and continued mentorship.

Figure 1: Word use search via Google Ngram: Physical Literacy

Background

Figure 2: Movements & Games Sample

Previous iterations of the instructor tool started in 2017 and were developed annually through instructor feedback, stakeholder meetings, and core staff brainstorming. Nelson & Stolterman (2012) define instrumental judgment as an action taken to believe that it will positively associate with the desired outcome (Shanks & Dickinson, 1991). The program’s open-ended structure from 2015-2019 helped foster creativity, reinforce successful practices, and contextualize the choices made to pursue our prescribed end: big smiles, skilled riders, and confident instructors.

By playing the long game and adopting an appreciation for the non-linear and complex nature of teaching, new games, movements, and jargon could emerge at the local level and then be introduced at annual meetings and tested in another of our five operating regions across the province. Complexity theory encourages this osmatic approach (Brown, 2012; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001; Sprong, Driessen, Hillebrand, & Molner, 2021). After working with over 100 instructors and 60,000 students, attributes of self-organization (Boyatzis, 2008; Onyx & Leonard, 2010; Plowman et al., 2007) formed between the core staff and informed the recent 2021 design. The 2021 onboarding process uses an on-demand Articulate360 eLearning module, curated video libraries, and password-protected PDF materials to overcome previous challenges associated with geographic diversity, internet-connection inequities, document printing costs and logistics, and copyright concerns. The follow-up outdoor practice teaching session utilizes the entire video library and provides laminated textbooks for reference.

Design/Innovation Process

The program accommodates two distinct audiences. Ultimately, the program aims to help children explore their range of motion while riding a bike so that they can say with confidence, iRide! To make those experiences possible, instructors need to understand the cycling-specific movements, games, and jargon and engaging classroom-control techniques that maximize fun and safety. Guided by the Coaches Association of Canada’s NCCP program, this new instructor tool encourages participants to problem-solve and memorize the curriculum’s key attributes. Historical instructor demographics and feedback from earlier versions of the instructor training informed the design of the 2021 program. Due to current business models, instructors are often 16-22 and 35-45 years old seeking paid positions in their community. To help expand the program across the country and achieve Cycling Canada’s 2030 strategic goals, the author employed a small team of experts to design and develop the resources during the pandemic shutdown. The design needed to be comprehensive but flexible, multi-modal, highly visual, translatable/adaptable, easy to use, and bare no variable costs during future delivery.

Figure 3: Textbook illustration sample

The team included a certified master coach developer, an experienced yet un-trained instructional design partner, a professional speechwriter, and a sales executive. Through the 10-month process, the original 20-page PDF from 2018 transformed into an engaging, fun, and interactive 4-hour eLearning module, accompanied by a highly visual 150-page textbook and 150 narrated videos. The experience of guiding +20 new staff through the onboarding process each year reminded the author to include only the fundamental concepts in the eLearning module, deferring any “nice to know” information to weekly in-season mentorship calls or on-site visits. The 2nd author experienced mentorship from a family friend and leader in occupational safety, informing their process of creating a story-based and action-oriented concussion eLearning module for athletes and sports leaders.

Table 1: eLearning Table of Contents

Along the innovation continuum, the module is more transformational than evolutionary. It builds upon the teaching and skill analysis tactics of the NCCP coach program but is the first comprehensive module adopted by Cycling Canada’s Learning Management System, the first program to include detailed video examples (predecessors like Can-Bike, Sprockids and until recently, Professional Mountain Bike Instructors Association (PMBIA), did not optimize the use of video), and embraces microlearning. Highly effective for hard skills training (Dolanski, 2020), the eLearning module used microlearning to scaffold the most critical information into four units and 24 chapters, encouraging participants to complete one unit per week and include personal bike rides in between units to help them try out the movement cues and games on their own.

Evaluation

Much to the author’s surprise, in retrospect, the TAPPA (Target, Accomplishment, Past, Prototype, Artifact) instructional design model closely matches the process of development. The eLearning and outdoor orientation targeted preparing non-cyclists as instructors and encouraging Canadians of all experience levels to get involved. The new design accomplished this goal by isolating key concepts, re-enforcing them, and getting the team out in the community with mentorship as needed. Past iterations of the instructor tool and the skills curriculum also fostered an appreciation for creativity, prototyping, and critical reflection. As a result, the new artifact helps introduce more people than ever before to cycling-specific physical literacy movements, acknowledges and builds upon traditional Canadian games, and achieves our goal of making it easier and more fun to get started in cycling.

Moreover, the Rapid Prototyping (Tripp & Bichelmayer, 1990) of “the discovery years” helped condense the curriculum into an easy-to-understand (open-source) template that encouraged staff to provide necessary feedback (Piskurich, 2006, as cited by Moore, 2016). Nationwide success, therefore, relies on a continued sense of curiosity and innovation among core staff. As a national initiative, Cycling Canada’s HopOn program is one of many programs in a diversified portfolio (Christensen, 2013), decreasing the risk associated with trying new things (Nooteboom, 1994) like the on-demand video-heavy nature of this instructor eLearning tool. Fortunately, nationwide programs foster healthy differences of opinion (Becher & Trowler, 2001; Seely Brown & Duquid, 2000), and project managers can optimize future innovation by facilitating discussions between instructors (daily implementors) with core design staff (innovators) (Brown, 2009).

Figure 4: Narrated games video screenshot sample, including a lower third.

Conclusion

The process of first authoring the eLearning module and now reflecting on the process allows us to understand better how the prototyping nature and creative freedoms afforded by ‘the discovery years’ helped consolidate over 100 instructors’ experience into a practical microlearning experience ready for nationwide expansion.

References

60-minute kids club. (2021). Get Active, Get Healthy. https://60minkidsclub.org/

Arshavskiy, M. (2013). Instructional design for eLearning: an essential guide to creating successful eLearning courses. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

B.C. Athletics. (2021). Run Jump Throw Wheel. https://tinyurl.com/2p8mrx4p

Becher, T. and Trowler, P. (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories: intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines (2nd edition). Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE.

Boyatzis, R.E. (2008). Leadership development from a complexity perspective. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(4), 298–313. https://doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.60.4.298

Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. London: HarperCollins. Retrieved from http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8ZRpPgAACAAJ

Brown, B. C. (2012). Essentials of applying complexity thinking for sustainability leadership. Integral Sustainability Center, Resource Tool No. 12, 1–9.

Christensen, C. (2013). The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Watertown, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Clark, R.C. (2002). The new ISD: applying cognitive strategies to instructional design. Performance Improvement, 41(7), 10–16.

Dolasinski, M. J., & Reynolds, J. (2020). Microlearning: A New Learning Model. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 44(3), 551–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348020901579

Fabac, J.N. (2006). Project management for systematic training. Advances in Development Human Resources, 8(4), 540–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422306293010

Google Ngram Viewer. (2021, Dec 7). Physical Literacy. https://tinyurl.com/54p2r6hs

HopOn Canada. (2021). HopOn. http://hoponcanada.ca/

Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 389–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00092-3

Moore, R. L. (2016). Developing distance education content using the TAPPA process. TechTrends, 60(5), 425–432.

Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Nooteboom, B. (1994). Innovation and diffusion in small firms: Theory and evidence. Small Bus Econ 6, 327–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01065137

Nordiq Canada (2021). Engaging Youth Programs. https://tinyurl.com/2p8mrx4p

Onyx, J., & Leonard, R. J. (2010). Complex systems leadership in emergent community projects. Community Development Journal, 46(4), 493–510. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsq041

Piskurich, G. M. (2006). Rapid instructional design: earning ID Fast and Right (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Plowman, D. A., Solansky, S., Beck, T. E., Baker, L., Kulkarni, M., & Travis, D. V. (2007). The role of leadership in emergent, self-organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.004

Seely Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.

Shanks, D. R., & Dickinson, A. (1991). Instrumental judgment and performance under variations in action-outcome contingency and contiguity. Memory & Cognition, 19(4), 353–360. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03197139

Sprong, N., Driessen, P. H., Hillebrand, B., & Molner, S. (2021). Market innovation: A literature review and new research directions. Journal of Business Research, 123, 450–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.057

Tripp, S.D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298246

Van Rooij, S.W. (2010). Project management in instructional design: ADDIE is not enough. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 852–864.

524.2.2 – Design Case Critique

Welcome back readers, this week are continuing our exploration of design cases and using both Howard’s (2011) and Gray’s (2020) criteria for comprehensive design case precedents. After exploring the literature, we searched for two recent examples from the Scholar Works journal and today I’m using the criteria mentioned below to critique one of the examples I reviewed.

To keep my lens in the world of sport and coaching, I read a design case about grade-school teachers using a variety of coaching methods to help students build a more complete association with homeless populations, and conversely, an interactive game-based learning method to help prepare sports coaches to handle violent emergency situations. For today’s post, let’s look at the latter case.

For reference purposes, the following criteria informed this critique:

  • Howard (2011)
    • situating and describing the design,
    • depicting the experience of the design, and
    • developing trustworthiness and purpose.
  • Gray (2020)
    • interest to other designers,
    • rich representation of the design,
    • articulation of transparency and failure,
    • accessibility of style, and
    • acknowledgment of complexity and scope.

Current research indicates that interest in and motivation to complete self-defence training is not high in the public domain (Honess, 2016). Moreover, since defence training is often compartmentalized and skill development focused, it is not effective in real-world scenarios (Korner & Staller, 2018). The design case does a great job exploring the context of the study, or situating the design, during the introduction by including the above points from the literature.

With regards to promoting trustworthiness and a rich articulation of transparency, the design acknowledged “the recurrent issue of a lack of motivation in former mandatory training settings was frequently brought up by participants of the program” (Staller et al., 2020, p. 2). In response, the simple structural model was used to engage the learners. The final certification, therefore, included a 45-minute mock lesson run by groups student groups. This session included skill initiation in a controlled space, acquisition with a partner, and consolidation in a game-based environment. This progression matches skill development best practices across the sports sector.

With regards to depicting the design, the author included photos of the game and disclosed the photos and videos may be potentially triggering.

With regards to acknowledging the complexity and applicability of the design, the authors discussed how the rules may be modified in the future to better simulate real-world scenarios, therefore optimizing the effectiveness of the game.

In summary, the author used the below headings to guide their design case and I enjoyed getting acquainted with a real design case sample.

  • Introduction (includes literature)
  • Context of the design case
  • A game of self-defence
  • Reflection on the game
  • Conclusion

Next up, we are writing our own design case, due this weekend. Until then!

References

Gray, C. (2020). Markers of Quality in Design Precedent. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 11(3), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v11i3.31193

Honess, R. (2016). The mandatory delivery of ongoing training within the police service of England and Wales and its relationship to the adragogical principle of self-motivation (Unpublished dissertation). Canterbury Christ Church University.

Howard, C. (2011). Writing and rewriting the instructional design case: A view from two sides. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 2(1).

Körner, S., Staller, M. S. (2018). From system to pedagogy: Towards a nonlinear pedagogy of self-defense training in the police and the civilian domain. Security Journal, 31(2), 645–659.  http://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-017-0122-1

Staller, M. S., Heil, V., Koch, R., & Körner, S. (2020). “Playing Doom”: A Design Case in Self-Defense Training. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 11(2), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v11i2.24108

Svihla, V., Reeve, R., Field, J., Lane, W., Collins, J., & Stiles, A. (2016). Framing, Reframing, and Teaching: Design Decisions Before, During and Within a Project-based Unit. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v7i1.19427

524.2.1 – Design Case Superpowers

Welcome back, readers! The winter weather is here (the first snow in Vancouver today), and excitement for the holiday season is building. Why are the holidays so special for so many people? It is a time to reconnect with our family and friends, reflect on the lessons learned in the previous year, and explore the cultures that make us unique and beautiful from one another… like snowflakes. (Aside, learn about snowflakes here).

In our MALAT studies, my cohort and I are now in our 4th course and are exploring instructional design or how to create a curriculum and project manage the creation process. This week we are investigating the DESIGN CASE! The design case is an informal yet scholarly work whereby instructional designers reflect and unpack the entire process they experienced by creating and deploying a curriculum (Lawson, 2004).

The literature explains the purpose of a design case is to share a precedent (Boling, 2010). A precedent is a uniquely personal experience one gains by using a specific instructional design, and that new knowledge can inform future use (Oxman, 1994). Design cases, therefore, help others understand what designers exactly did in each circumstance and how future designers can balance these choices in future contexts. Lincoln & Guba (1985) remind us that this naturalistic inquiry is not to be generalized but rather understood. Therefore, design cases should include as much context as possible to help readers match the author’s choices with their circumstances. As a result, design cases encourage authors to take a leap of faith (Cross, 2007) and accept the bias created by their lived experiences (culture). The challenge is to disclose the factors of the decision-making process as best as possible (Bruce Archer, 1965) because it isn’t easy to articulate our tacit beliefs! (Cox & Osguthorpe, 2003; Rowland, 1992).

In preparing to write our design case for assignment 2, this week’s blog asks us to reflect on the tools we currently use in our workplace and articulate a superpower or talent that helps us apply these tools effectively. By exploring our relationship with instructional design with a criticality for our bias in a very phased, Vygotskian manner, our professors are helping prepare us for the next assignment.

As an NCCP master coach developer responsible for helping club and performance coaches achieve certification and preparing coach developers to lead workshops and debrief calls, I use various instructional design tools. I prefer to begin using a large whiteboard in the office that invites colleagues and stakeholders to articulate and connect ideas for the first time. Products like Powerpoint and fillable PDFs provide guidance for new workshop facilitators and coaches in training and encourage the most critical aspect of coach development, speaking and writing. We also employ a learning management system, google sheet templates and articulate 360 for step-by-step instructional theory. We often use a blended learning method that introduces theory concepts during on-demand modules and facilitated breakout rooms. Outdoor, interactive workshops and applications follow to help pattern new knowledge. Mentorship includes weekly video calls, outsourcing, and lots of prototyping. As a result, I aim to role-model and invite coaches to be creative and comfortable with a hybrid of AGILE and ADDIE instructional design (see last week’s Assignment 1 post) to keep trying new things until the ‘spaghetti sticks on the wall.’

Therefore, I fulfill the roles of facilitator, designer, narrator, demonstrator, informed by my recent experience as a student and coach in training. I have capitalized on my organizational superpowers throughout recent professional development to optimize resources (spreadsheets, documents) and help participants focus on the important stuff, speaking and writing. I also have focused on improving my public speaking abilities to use tone, word choice carefully, and body language to invite and engage audience members in a journey of discovery rather than a story to absorb passively.

This week’s readings about design cases remind authors to embrace their lived experiences and bias and use them as a superpower to propel engagement and defer the decision-making process to the next designer.

This concept matches nicely with the excitement for the holiday season, where we again are awarded the opportunity to reconnect with those who helped formulate our constitutions and propel us into the next annum’s adventures.

References

Archer, B. (1965). Systematic method for designers. London, UK: The Design Council.

Boling, E. (2010). The Need for Design Cases: Disseminating Design Knowledge. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v1i1.919

Cox, S., & Osguthorpe, R.T. (2003). How do instructional design professionals spend their time? TechTrends, 47(3), 45-47.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02763476

Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. London, UK: Springer-Verlag.

Lawson, B. (2004). Schemata, Gambits and Precedent: Some Factors in Design Expertise. Design Studies. 25, 443-457. 10.1016/j.destud.2004.05.001.

Lincoln, Y., Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage Publications.

Oxman, R.E. (1994). Precedents in design: A computational model for the organization of precedent knowledge. Design Studies, 12(2), 141-157.

Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65-86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1992.tb00546.x

524.1.4 – Assignment 1

ADDIE & AGILE

Instructional System Design (ISD) is a broad topic that explores how practitioners create educational experiences and manage the content revision process. Unfortunately, the academic discussion surrounding ISDs is as messy as teaching itself, leaving practitioners uncertain about the strengths and weaknesses of the various models. Today, two of the most prominent instructional design models are the ADDIE and AGILE models. A recent study found these two models are used 77% and 57% of the time, respectively (Giacumo, 2021). Indeed, practitioners sometimes use multiple models to meet the needs of their stakeholders and match their capacity with the required pace of development, shifting emphasis between planning and implementation like two titans on a seesaw. This paper compares the origins, strengths, weaknesses, and applications of both ADDIE and AGILE design methods and argues that both approaches are more similar than they are different. Both models exhibit an analytical framework and a project management structure that guides the instructional design process and reveal an iterative revision process despite conflicting definitions in the academic literature.

The ADDIE model has developed into an analytical framework for instructional design and a project management structure (Foshay et al., 2013). The acronym’s five phases: analyze, design, develop, implement, and evaluate, articulate a generic method of discovery and assessment, and is commonly employed as the standard for professional distance education programs, especially in complex systems (Bates, 2015). However, Molenda (2003) discovered “the label seems not to have a single author, but rather to have evolved informally through oral tradition” and that it is “just an umbrella term that refers to a family of models that share a common underlying structure” (p. 40). As a result, the literature has yet to define a standard length of time or associate a specific learning theory with the ADDIE design process. Indeed, Molenda (2003) emphasizes that ADDIE articulates the broadest phases of ISD, that these processes are both sequential and iterative, and that “any claims about [the model] beyond this are individual inventions” (p. 40). This is counter to viewpoints that ADDIE is a clearly defined ISD method that lacks explorative (Brown & Green, 2018) and transformational abilities due to excessive planning (Bates, 2015) rooted in a mimetic nature (Jackson,1986). Moreover, its language is too broad to failsafe against societal or cultural bias (Heaster-Ekholm, 2020), it “clings to the wrong world view” and is “too slow and clumsy” to keep up with the fast-paced nature of online learning revisions (Gordan and Zemke, 2000, p. 44), and was created before common online education and is therefore outdated (Irlbeck et al., 2006).

However, when we look further into the history of ADDIE, a more nuanced viewpoint is evident. The remnants of the acronym first appeared in Thiagaragan’s (1974) competency-based teacher training manual using his Four-D model: define, design, develop, and disseminate. Thiagaragan (1974) encourages a learner-centred approach by reminding readers, “ideally, instructional materials should be tailormade for the individual trainee” but cautioned that over-individualization of resources might result in the materials becoming less appropriate for other students (p. 25). Moreover, in 1978, the Centre for Educational Technology at Florida State University developed an application of the model for the US military, coined ADDIC, or analyze, design, develop, implement, and control (Molenda & Pershing, 2003). This is inconsistent with the current view that the military created the model, and it made the model during the 1940-50s when behavioural psychology featured prominently in teaching.

Moreover, words like ‘disseminate’ and ‘control’ clash with constructivist methodologies that view such terms as top-down or teacher-centred, preferring to incorporate language at every level of education that invites learners to participate in the knowledge-building process. In response, Molenda & Pershing (2004) built upon the performance improvement (PI) philosophy of the 1980s to explore “activities that contribute significantly to an organization’s strategic goals” and introduced their Strategic Impact Model (p. 26). Their new model incorporates three sub-categories within the traditional ISD phases (analyze, design, development, and production).  These sub-categories: output, evaluation, and change management, embody a thorough curiosity in each step of the process, rooted in the act of choosing definable goals and measuring success before advancing to the next stage. The model also highlights that “training alone seldom solves performance problems… [which are often] rooted in more than one cause” and that incentives, better tools, and changes in job design (the order that tasks are completed) impact the end-product (Molenda & Pershing, p. 27). Therefore, current claims that ADDIE does not incorporate iterative processes, are burdened by excessive planning, and focuses too heavily on the teacher, do not match this alternative historical inquiry. That said, even if the current, more discounting viewpoint prevails, the foundation of the ADDIE model lives on in the professional world and through new models like TAPPA, Rapid Prototyping, and Agile design methods.

AGILE is a definitive version of ADDIE that explicitly guides the product delivery timeline and communication between stakeholders but maintains the same fundamental structure. Based on software developers’ guiding principles to focus on the end-user and engage in consistent contact with both clients and team members (Agile Manifesto, 2001), Conrad Gottfredson adapted the concept for instructional design (Minaya, 2020). The acronym: align, get set, iterate & implement, leverage, and evaluate adopts an explicit cyclical nature that encourages curiosity and engagement by sharing works-in-progress with end-users every two weeks (Minaya, 2020). Furthermore, it incorporates this curiosity and focuses on end-product quality through a robust revision process using explicit project management attributes, expanding the second phase, get-set, into 4 sub-categories (Neibert, 2014).

Indeed, AGILE works best when designing products to be sold to another organization (Dousey, 2017), so long as critical criteria are met. When the costs associated with revisions are consistent, and at least 80% of the design is incorporated into the next version, Cocomo-based effort estimations indicate that even complex projects can benefit from numerous iterations (Benediktsson et al., 2003). Motivation must also be optimized by using self-organizing teams (Kakar, 2017) high in emotional intelligence (Luong et al., 2021) and the challenge associated with the revisions match each staff member’s needs and desires (Conbey et al., 2011; Javdani Gandomani & Ziaei Nafchi, 2016; Lalsing et al., 2012). Supervision by the end-user must also match their capacity (Minaya, 2020); otherwise, delivery times may be compromised. For example, Budzier & Flyvbjerg (2013) showed agile methods decrease project delivery times, but Serrador (2015) did not verify this. Conversely, Serrador (2015) discovered the AGILE methods improve both efficiency and overall satisfaction, despite project complexity and staff experience. However, Serrador (2015) also found that AGILE projects report high upfront planning costs, like traditional ADDIE projects, and if substantial planning is done during each revision (Dybå and Dingsøyr, 2008; Coram & Bohner, 2005; Smits, 2006), then total planning time and costs may exceed that of traditional projects. Therefore, planning is key. Not only do plan-driven methods positively impact self-organization, staff motivation and innovation (Kakar, 2017), “by combining agile and traditional approaches, organizations can take advantage of some benefits of agile development without abandoning the stability provided by a traditional approach” (Ciric et al., 2021, p. 111). Indeed, where AGILE methods admit that information learned through the creative process changes the time and cost of the project (Software Engineering Institute, 2017), the fixed cost model associated with pop culture’s definition of ADDIE does help more risk-averse organizations tackle content revisions on time (Minaya, 2020). When compared to our historical definition of ADDIE as a set of guiding principles, AGILE methods manifest explicit actions and processes that match the current digital climate, such as tight and clearly defined revision cycle timelines and staff and client communication standards and an appreciation for planning costs.

Therefore, the comparison between competing ISD models relies on the viewpoint each stakeholder brings to the conversation. Curiosity at every level is essential to maximizing the available resources and creating educational experiences that meet the needs of the student or end-user. Both models emphasize the planning phase, the needs of the stakeholders, and the understanding that our world’s most helpful tools are created over time and through numerous iterative processes.

To view references, download the attached PDF due to unforeseen formatting errors with WordPress: 524 Assignment 1. Ben Chaddock. ADDIE AGILE