Cormier’s 2017 post explores how grade schools in PEI are changing learning experiences to match the technology age. He also highlights the danger of one-size-fixes-everything solutions and proposes activities that help build momentum, tackle projects with adequate resources, and achieve successful change.
Although the post did not articulate the change plan, it acknowledged how recent infrastructure and capital expenditures in PEI had created an environment conducive to change. These expenditures include a critical ‘brainstorming’ phase in the project’s first year, creating an opportunity to brainstorm comprehensive solutions before implementing the solution. This well-rounded approach to change indicates that the ‘tide’ was already in Cormier’s favour, and his project was receiving adequate support from higher-level decision-makers. Social cognition theory may explain how the project reached this level of support. When the interconnectedness of decision-makers helped them realize an opportune moment for change (Weiner, 2009) or when the chosen change type matches the method and outcomes desired (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015), social cognition theory helps build momentum for change.
The post also illustrates the importance of short-term wins. Creating online social spaces helped Cormier reduce teacher admin time in the short run and build momentum for other technology apps in the future. Short-term wins are essential, especially when working with organizations that want to see results on the balance sheet. Beer & Nohria’s (2000) Theory E, a change management method that illustrates changes in shareholder value helps us understand the importance of cost-savings measures.
Most interesting, creating communal online spaces fostered innovation, helping stakeholders see tangible results from tech tools and build further momentum. Wiener (2009) explains that Momentum Theory indicates that when stakeholders are more social, they may go beyond the minimum expectations and exceed job requirements in a work setting. The shift from “need to” to “want to” parallels Cormier’s reflection that parents started engaging with online spaces and go above and beyond to help their children learn.
So, it would appear at the time of Cormier’s post in 2017 this educational organization in PEI is fulfilling its change mandate in alignment with the needs of the stakeholders and is “doing the right thing, the right way with the right people at the right time” (Kotnour et al.,1998, p. 19).
Welcome back, readers! Our cohort has started our 5th course, Leading Change in Digital Learning. We’ve started with a two-week 10,000-foot view of leadership practices across all domains. This is a topic I am excited to explore in greater detail. In fact, one of the readings discussed Lance Secretan, an author and supporter of transformational leadership I’ve been reading since 2005. His CASTLE principles: courage, authenticity, service, truthfulness, love, and effectiveness helped me formulate an ethos in my twenties that propelled the development of leadership traits I employed as a community leader across multiple sports teams and university groups. This post explores how recent readings have bolstered my understanding of leadership traits that support and propel a community towards its potential. Most interestingly, when crafting these traits into actions, I discovered an overlap with the National Coach Certification Program’s (NCCP) making ethical decisions framework. Leaders with awareness, understanding, and the courage to act, when necessary, align with my view and is supported by the literature.
Our cohort started this course with a word scramble exercise that tasked groups of four to define, and rank leadership traits by importance. This activity followed the 1-2-4-All liberating structure I use as a National Coaches Certification Program (NCCP) coach developer, welcoming participants to reflect individually, then in pairs and small groups, before sharing with the entire cohort (Lipmanowicz & McCandless, 2014). And if role-modelling is a key aspect of effective leadership (Schwartz & Castelli, 2014), this activity reminds us to bring groups together by defining language. As a result of this exercise, our group established communication standards in both the way we use words and how we listen and contribute. By contributing to the exercise to the best of our ability, each participant earned the status of the in-group member, a concept introduced by Tafjel’s (1970) Social Identity Theory and refined by Self-Categorization Theory later in the decade (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Therefore, I’m reminded that awareness of the factors in play, not necessarily mastery of said factors, remains the foundational element of effective leadership because awareness can inform the use of activities that guide group development.
Acknowledging conflict as natural and healthy (Kudonoo et al., 2012), and fostering an appreciation for the potential of an individual’s ability to grow and transform, builds upon a leader’s sense of awareness. Acknowledging our strengths and vulnerabilities as leaders remain paramount. Without this “homework,” little can be said about our abilities to judge others and posit corrective or guiding measures. Values-based leadership consolidates this concept and reminds us that effective leaders embody the ability to reflect, balance introspection and the courage to act, self-confidence in previous experience, and humility in error (Castelli, 2016).
The most interesting component of our group 1-2-4-All activity occurred during our group discussion. Our group dramatically increased their ranking of the word “broad-minded.” The ability to place oneself in another’s shoes and see the world from their point of view is challenging. It is arguably impossible when these other people are associated with an in-group that the leader is not a member. In our case, due to the nature of our group’s dynamic, broad and sweeping changes in perception occurred quickly. Why did this take place? Perhaps because the member proposing the new idea did so with an appreciation for the audience and conducted the conversation by role-modelling the thought process of truth-finding, rather than stating their perspective as an outright and definitive claim. Therefore, leaders can aim to clarify language, listen, and contribute only the minimal necessary feedback.
Broad-mindedness also requires a certain degree of trait openness to experience, under the Five Factor Model of personality, and trait agreeableness, especially the sub-trait compassion. With appreciation for the academic discussion taking place between psychologists like Freud and Dweck as to whether personality traits can be altered, or if perhaps behaviours can instead be patterned to optimize one’s personality disposition, I wish to acknowledgement the challenge of exhibiting an effective mix of leadership traits (Cherry, 2021).
Finally, leadership requires the ability to act and manage the consequences. Under the ten leadership styles explored by O’Toole (2008), this matches Contingency leadership, whereby leaders can do what is necessary for moments of action. I would argue that patterns of this behaviour also manifest trust between leaders and followers, and a history that fosters a culture where the knowns are clear, and the actions in the face of unknowns, are agreed upon.
To avoid this post turning into a paper, I wish to briefly relate the above tenets: awareness, self-reflection, broad-mindedness, and courage to act, with the NCCP’s making ethical decisions framework. Coaches often face challenging situations. This required module helps coaches understand how to gather the facts and decide if a scenario is indeed ethical or legal. From here, coaches are challenged to brainstorm as many possible courses of action as possible, including non-action, and the benefits and costs of each option. And finally, coaches learn to make the best decision with the information available to them at the time and manage the consequences to the best of their ability.
As a sports leader in a position of influence, I aim to role model actions stakeholders can use to effectively lead groups. Defining language, listening for the purposes of understanding and crafting recommendations with an appreciation for and if possible, contributions from all stakeholders, provides leaders with the confidence to act in the moment and help achieve the goals of the community.
As we shift our focus to leadership in digital learning environments over the coming month, an example may include a strong appreciation for the place our learners are joining us from. What are their challenges? How can we help maximize the learning experience? This exploration undoubtedly requires us to put on new shoes! And humbly enter conversations we didn’t even know existed to effectively expand our domain of knowledge. Onwards into the unknown!
This week our cohort used peer-review feedback and an individual reflective process to consolidate our understandings of instructional design and design thinking.
This post explores eight guiding principles stakeholders can use to help revise cycling coach education in British Columbia.
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
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.
Arshavskiy, M. (2013). Instructional design for eLearning: an essential guide to creating successful eLearning courses. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
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.
Fabac, J.N. (2006). Project management for systematic training. Advances in Development Human Resources, 8(4), 540–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422306293010
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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
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.
If you can’t play, at least don’t take the ball away.
A good playground game is fun. It allows us to try something new. If we are successful in the game’s challenge, we can change our position in the game itself. We can transform into a member of another team, from the have nots to the haves. But cheating our way to that moment is self-serving at best, and at worst, ruins the game for everyone.
Teaching and learning are the same. Our playground games are all grown up and moved inside to the pages and pens of our adult selves. Teaching and learning is a tug-of-war between the keepers of knowledge and those wishing to grow. And like the sand and slide outside, in this playground, cheating is not acceptable.
What are the ways to cheat on the playground? We can change the rules midway by fiat, we can disregard the rules and win through force, or we can undermine the community’s etiquette and take advantage of our shared reliance on goodwill.
When we speak with our grandparents, a socialized person listens and maps the experiences of our ancestors upon the challenges we face today. This ability to listen allows us to place ourselves in their shoes and undercover how much we are the same before exploring, together, how we may consider making careful improvements in the future. Speaking with others is the key to this process. Social etiquette reminds us to award those we are listening to the benefit of the doubt. It allows each party in the conversation to see past the emotional load we each bear from our experiences and craft common ground.
However, removing this social element and interacting with the past through just the written word makes it so easy to cheat in this game of knowledge.
This blog post explores how the current academic discussion has lost its way and works too hard to undermine one another instead of role-modelling the pedagogical methods we write about and wish to see. For this assignment, let’s examine just one example for our recent readings on instructional design methods.
The Pebble in the Pond instructional design method has been discounted as a culturally insensitive and behaviourist method and is irrelevant in the post-war era (1945-present) (Heaster-Ekholm, 2020). This is similar to the ADDIE model that Heaster-Ekholm (2020) argues fails to articulate an operational failsafe that satisfies the need of the post-modern left and acknowledges the student’s lived experiences and how that may impact their learning experience. When post-modern authors attempt to discredit generic language like analyze, design, and evaluate, stating that they feel that these words do not meet the needs of today’s society, they need to offer equally succinct guiding principles.
Applying this concept to the Pebble in the Pond (PITP) method, whereby instructional designers create learning experiences that match their teaching capacity at the time, does not represent a method so poorly crafted it should be wiped from the records book. Instead, it is a valuable learning tool that, if used appropriately, can provide transformative learning experiences for students. The PITP model uses behaviourism and cognitivist learning theory to suggest educational designers articulate a central problem and create content that helps learners create knowledge (Merrell, 2002; Thomas, 2019). When Heaster-Ekholm (2020) claims that the PITP model falters because the “content rather than learner need or preference determines instructional strategies,” it begs the question of what words Merrell should have used to accommodate the author’s worldview (p. 56). How does the problem-based approach directly propagate systemic culturally insensitive modes of educational practices?
In the hopes of reframing the discussion and proposing a helpful way forward, I suggest exploring how educational designers can best match various methods with specific scenarios.
The PITP model encourages stakeholders to craft a response to a problem and share it with the world, like dropping a pebble in the pond. The resulting ripples represent the effectiveness of the intervention. For example, we know that inviting students into ‘the game’ of teaching and learning is one of the most effective ways to create lasting knowledge. We also know that role-modelling is a powerful way to encourage new behaviours. I suggest that the PITP model is a very effective learning process when the student is crafting and dropping the pebble!
When teachers create environments that help students ‘just start’ and try their best, they can participate in the game. When teachers encourage students to develop resources based on their current understanding, it role-models a growth mindset and the patience involved in life-long learning. As students grow and mature, their ability to accommodate the needs of others may expand, and the effectiveness of their creations, and the ripples they create, may travel further than before. Framing the PITP’s program-based approach as a student-led project activates elements of all four learning theories (behaviourism, cognitivism, social constructivism, connectivism). Creating open education resources and using evaluative schema to refine their constructions allows students to learn at their optimal rate of cognition. This is encouraging. This is inspiring. This is role-modelling.
How is this mode of being reflected in the current academic dialogue? Dron (2014) and Dousay (2017) both suggest a more ‘holistic’ learning method. Instead of using just one of the four prominent learning theories as a lens that guides the thoughts and actions of educators, we must see the benefits of each theory equally, like tools in a toolbox, and understand when and how to match these tools to our unique learning environments. I rest assured that this new ‘holism’ lets us step out of the intellectual playground and see the learning theories not as competitors to cheer for but as participants to encourage. As supervisors of the knowledge game, we must now encourage participation, reward excellence, and facilitate fair play.
Because after all, if you aren’t able to play the game, at least don’t take the ball away.
To conclude our look at the history of education technology, and what technologies work best in specific scenarios, we created narrative futures essays.
I found this assignment challenging as it was a new way of writing for us. To help maximize my engagement with the assignment, I wrote the narrative in the context of my work in sports coach development. As a result, the word count is higher than expected to accommodate for the necessary world-building.
I hope you enjoy the essay and appreciate your audience.
