I Can See the Finish Line

Three days to go and the finish line is definitely in sight. Somehow, this course has come together and I am putting the final touches on the deliverables. All the key components are in Canvas (minus an assignment or two) and the facilitator guide (job aid) is basically in the can. I have to say, I wasn’t sure if I would finish on time.

What I discovered is that many of the early elements take the longest to build. Once I had each of the weekly lessons built, all the resources located and embedded, and the overall layout of the course in place, I was able to pick up the pace. For the first iteration of this course, I am pleased with the way it turned out. At the same time, I think there is definitely room for improvement; especially as it relates to creating a more interactive online environment.

If I were going to be developing in Canvas on an ongoing basis, I would want to know how to embed animation, how to use third-party widgets to create interactive elements for practice and knowledge checks. I recently viewed some online training created by Niki Case (2017), So that in some ways looks pretty basic, but in actuality it is very engaging and informative. You can check it out here if you like. I would love to be able to include something like this in future content.

So as it stands now, the course is ready to launch to the first pilot group. I could teach the course easily and I believe a brief train-the-trainer session with another instructor to evaluate the course content and to determine what additional information needs to be added to the facilitation guide is all that’s required to take the course into full production.

The biggest awareness I got out of completing this project is that I miss teaching college-level courses and I look forward to the day when I can once again adjunct a class or two at the local community college. In the mean time, I will continue building my development skills in my current job as a corporate training developer.

References

Case, N. (2017). The evolution of trust [animation]. Retrieved from http://ncase.me/trust/

Lessons Learned

The end of the course is fast approaching and as I reflect on lessons learned, I realize that I have a lot of opportunity for growth. My biggest challenge by far is time management; especially when I am actually developing content. I am very particular about how I want the course to look and thy type and quality of information I put in the course. This means that would should take one hour to complete, might take me four. In addition, if I am working on an element of the course development and I think about another way of presenting the information, I stop, do some research and often find myself recreating or redesigning. This is time consuming and slows down the development process significantly.

So what have I done to overcome this challenge? Well, I have tried to input lots of data and tell myself to go back and edit and refine after all the content is in the course. This has helped some, but I am not consistent in doing this. I have a tendency to correct and refine as I go. This is something I will have to continue working on. The same is true on the job. Try as I may to create a draft that is just a draft, I find that I am always trying to deliver final draft quality work the first time out. Amazingly enough, I somehow find a way to get all school and work projects complete on time, but it is with a lot of hard work as I get closer and closer to the deadline. Thankfully, I have had no technical or people difficulties for this project other than a period of time when I was without internet access. It is amazing how dependent we are on the internet to get things done these days.

As I review the content I have completed thus far, I am very pleased with the outcome and I truly believe that students and future instructors will find the course engaging, easy to navigate, informative, and full of tools they can use to create success in all areas of their life. My strengths are in creating quality content using HTML and other software tools. This week I am going to continue trying to work smarter and more efficiently to complete this project on time and at the highest quality level possible.

Time is Not My Friend

It’s week ten and the weeks, hours, and days are passing by much quicker than I like. My goal for this project is to create a 16-week, online course that teaches new and returning college students skills that can help them better succeed in a collegiate environment. The learning theory driving course development is social constructivism. Given this, I want to develop a course that calls for the students to collaborate with one another and also helps students increase their social presence.

While I was working on this course, I soon discovered that Time is not my friend. First of all it’s summertime and while you would think summer Time is fun and friendly with all the social interactions (family reunion, family vacation, weekend excursions, etc.), it turns out that when I engage in summer Time activities, I loose time I would otherwise spend working on course development. The fact that some of the locations I traveled to have no Internet access (even in this day and time) didn’t help either.

In addition to summer Time being unfriendly, work Time is also not a friend of mine.  I work 40+ hours a week managing the development of training content for a large technical company. Since this course started, I have had multiple training projects that I have on-boarded, designed, and developed training for. All this while attending 6-9 meetings a day. As you can imagine, work Time takes up a lot of my time.

So as we draw closer and closer to the end of the semester, I wonder what I can do to get summer Time and work Time to give me a break and allow me to shift my primary focus to completing this project. I have submitted a plan to Time and I am just hoping that Time decides to be my friend for the next couple of weeks as I work to get this project done.

What have I learned from this experience? Don’t go to SUMMER school.

=) donna

 

Development Timelines: Are They Real?

You ask how it feels to work on a professional timeline given that many corporate ID projects last three weeks. My first response was that I am glad I don’t work for a company that only gives me three weeks to complete a project. In my current role, a design project usually last six to eight weeks, which is consistent with the timeline of this course; however, the biggest difference is I don’t have to work alone, learn a new LMS, review other people’s work, and write blog post during the development process.  All of this takes extra time, which is making this project very stressful and I feel pressed for time.

Add to this pressure the that fact that I have to go to work everyday and write content for my employer and it is summer and there are lots of summertime distractions, like holidays and vacations, I would say that working to complete this project in the time allotted is very difficult. But difficult and impossible are two different things. I believe that this can be done and I anticipate delivering a quality final product. And the reality is, I already know that this does not exactly mirror the real world.

In many corporate jobs, there are teams of developers who work together to create training projects. For example, on my development team, we have a project manager who onboards the project, sets the timeline, estimates the level of effort, coordinates and tracks the activities, and reports progress to the stakeholders. We have a lead developer who conducts the needs analysis, develops the design blueprint, creates a design storyboard, and works closely with subject-matter experts. We have a multimedia developer who creates the images and interactive activities for the online content. And, we have supporting content developers who write content based on the lead developer’s design documents. There are editors who edit the content, and operations specialists who upload the content into the LSM and assign the training it to the learners. Even on the smallest project there will be a content developer, multimedia developer, editor, and operations specialists. So I am wondering if working independently on an all-inclusive project like the one for this course is typical in the real world, or do most instructional design developers work collaboratively.  Am I just lucky to work for a company with lots of resources?

As for this week’s revisions, I have not made many.  I am still creating the first draft of the content, much of it outside the LMS. I find it is easier to create content without the distraction of the LMS challenges. That way when I go to build each assignment in Canvas, all the content is complete I just have to figure out the logistics.

How Rough is Rough?

This week I continued to work on inputting course content in Canvas. Progress is slow, but I can already see that the effort put into the design document is paying off. The document keeps me honest and helps me ensure that I have adequately addressed the goals, objectives, purpose, problem, and assessment in the design. As for the learning theory, I naturally design content that follows the social constructivist learning theory and this should be evident to anyone familiar with this learning theory as they review the assignments in the course.

One of the challenges with this course is the fact that it is a pass/fail course. This makes assessment of learning using traditional methods like graded assignments challenging. There will be quizzes for each of the reading assignments for learners to self-assess their understanding; however, there are no rubrics for any of the other assignments. The way I plan to address this is through the use of confidence surveys. A pre-survey and a post-survey will be administered to the learners. This course is designed to be an enrichment course and the goal is for student to feel more prepared for college after taking the course than before.

What continues to make development slow is learning the LMS itself. I am not a fan of text-only content. I like to include images and other multimedia to make the training more engaging. I also like pages that are visually appealing so I tend to spend a lot of time trying to make sure things look good on the page. When I want to add a design element, I have to take time to learn how to do so in Canvas. This is time consuming and slows down the development process. What I need to do is learn to just put all the information in, and then go back and refine my draft. This is not only a challenge for this course, but for how I work in general.

So far, I have created the course, began entering information in the syllabus, created 16 weekly assignment pages. Outside of Canvas I have created most of the lessons ad handouts. My plan is to copy and paste the text into the assignments and attach documents, videos, and other supplemental material for each lesson. I have also started documenting information that I believe should be included in a facilitators guide so that instructors teaching the course for the first time will know how to navigate Canvas and what the expectations are for each assignment.

After reviewing the peer feedback, I can answer the question, “How rough is rough?” I would say very. I have a lot of work left to do with the biggest change being to continue working on the syllabus and making sure the it informs the students why this course is valuable, what they can expect to gain from taking the course, and what the expectations are to pass the course.

Lessons Learned During Design

Developing a course is of course the course of action I wish to take. But just like reading this sentence, even when each individual component is easy, putting the entire process together can be challenging; especially when there is a very tight timeline. I began the process by working on a design document that details the purpose and goals of the course and outlines how the course should be structured.

I have written several course design blueprints for my current employer and other courses. What I have learned is that each client has different expectations, so writing a design document can be different depending on who you are writing for. This can be frustrating at times because there is no “right” way or standard way to developing a design document. Based on the feedback I received in this course, my first draft of the design document was overkill in some areas and under developed in others.  Specific feedback included the following:

  • I outlined the course twice.
  • I used a confusing layout that made it difficult to clearly identify the goals and objectives,
  • My use of titles was confusing at times.
  • The assessment section was deficient.
  • There were spelling errors within the document.

In addition to learning how to improve my own design document, I was able to review a peer’s design document and learn from her as well. What I observed is that when creating content for oneself to deliver, there can be a tendency to provide less details about the purpose of the course because the developer knows what they intend and knows how to carry it out.

After completing the design document, I began developing my course in Canvas. This process is not easy. For me the first challenge is conceptualizing how to take the theory, goals, and intentions of the design document and create a visually engaging product that actually meets the learning objectives inside an LMS.

Why is developing in an LMS so difficult? There are many reasons. One of the primary reasons is that the developer has to first learn how to navigate and use the LMS tool itself. In my current role, I develop online course content in DreamWeaver and use a basic HTML editor to make modifications. I SCORM my content using a tool call Reload Jar and then I upload my content to a CMS. From there a training operations specialists adds it to our company’s LMS. I have very little knowledge of how to use the LMS other than to locate and review a course once it is published.

In this course, I have been tasked with using Canvas to develop and publish course content. I would rate my Canvas skills as basic at best. Therefore, as I add content, I often have to stop and locate how-to information for the feature I am trying to use. Thus far, I have learned how to create a new course, import content, update my file structure, add others to the course, create links, and add pages. The components that I have added so far are working and in the end I believe they will look good and function properly. I am looking forward to delivering the finished product.

What would I do differently next time? I would make sure to allow plenty of time to learn the LMS tool. I would create a sandbox and explore different features and functions within the tool. In Canvas, I am interested in learning how to incorporate the use of third-party tools to add some variety to future courses I may develop.  As far as difficulty creating future courses, I know that it will get easier and easier with each subsequent course I develop in Canvas. I can already see how understanding the LMS can influence the design document by  making it easier to visualize the course in the LMS as you write the design document.

Backward Design: A Novel Way to Design Training

Instructional design is the process of analyzing performance problems, then developing instructional products aimed at resolving the problem through skills development and knowledge transfer (Reiser, 2001a). Strategies to accomplish this goal are known as instructional design models. While there are several popular models, to chose from, I believe most developers have a favored model that the follow. Beginning in the 1960’s, a framework for thinking about instructional design began to germinate (Rieser, 2001b). One of the earliest, and most common models is ADDIE, even though Michael Molenda (2003) reported that he could not find an originating source for ADDIE, and believes it is simply a generic framework for the instructional design process in general. Since then, several other models have evolved. One of these is the backward design model.

The Backward design method was introduced by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe (2005) in their book Understanding by Design. This model has been used in the education, manufacturing, and medical fields (Bruce & Doherty, 2011), and is a three-step approach for planning instruction. During the first stage, the goal is to identify the desired outcomes. During the second stage, it is important to determine how you will know the students have achieved the desired results. Then, and only then, during the third stage, do you think about how the content will be delivered and plan instruction. According to Fox & Doherty (2011), the reason to use backward design is to shift the focus from a a specific instructional method to the learning objectives and to increase intentionality. They reason that traditional methods often fall short of solving performance problems because of the their tendency to focus on how the content can be delivered. Backward design overcomes the shortcoming by shifting the focus to the desired result and forcing the developer to be more intentional about the instructional methods used in a backward designed course.

Prior to this assignment, I had not heard of the backward design instructional method. What I like about the model is that it places the focus on what is most important, outcomes. Working in a business environment, I know how important it is to be able to show that training has made an impact toward improving performance and resolving problems. By starting with the objectives and outcomes in mind, I believe it is easier to backwards engineer a viable solution and to gain stakeholder buy-in for innovative ways to deliver training. The development team I work on recently began moving away from using ADDIE toward using SAM due to it SAM’s iterative nature. So these two models are the ones I am most familiar with. I do spend most of my time in the analysis phase trying to understand exactly what the stakeholders want and identify learning objectives, so in many ways I am primed to move toward the backward design approach. I have several training projects in my pipeline for the rest of the fiscal year and I am going to experiment with using the backward design approach on one of them. I am curious to discover how this differs from what I am already doing by heavily focusing on the A in ADDIE.

Although I plan to experiment with the Backward design approach, my intention is to still apply social constructivism theories to the actual design of the instructional methods and learning activities. The difference between an instructional design method and the learning theory is that the instructional design method provides you with a framework by which to approach the development of the training content, while a learning theory provides you with research-based concepts and methods for developing specific learning activities. In my experience, I have found that the focus of the instructional design method is the course developer and the focus of the learning theory is the learner. It is important to differentiate between the two only in terms of developer understanding. Stakeholders do not need to know, and in most cases that I have been involved with, don’t care about the instructional design method or learning theories. What they care about is what is included in the training, how will it be delivered, and how will the learning be evaluated.

Resources

Fox, B. E., & Doherty, J. J. (2011). Design to learn, learn to design: Using backward design for information literacy instruction. Communications in Information Literacy, 5(2), 144-155. Retrieved from https://libproxy.library.unt.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/

Molenda, M. (n.d.). In search of the elusive ADDIE model – molenda_03.pdf. Retrieved April 23, 2016, from http://iptde.boisestate.edu/filedepository.nsf/bf25ab0f47ba5dd785256499006b15a4/693b43c6386707fc872578150059c1f3/$file/molenda_03.pdf

Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: part I: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research & Development, 49(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504506

Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: part II: A history of instructional design. Educational Technology Research & Development, 49(2), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504928

 

The Art of Documenting Design

An important part of the instructional design process is to document your design plan. However, documenting the vision you have in your mind is not always easy. Your client, stakeholders, funders, and other interested parties need to see the vision in writing in order to determine if the proposed training meets their needs and addresses the specific problem being presented.  Additionally, the completed design document becomes the road map you use during development and keeps you honest throughout the process. It may also be used by other developers who may be contributing to the development of the course.

This week I set out to create a design document for a course designed to teach new college students success skills. My first thought was, “I got this. I am really familiar with the course content and I have designed online courses before so completing this assignment should be easy.”  The reality turned out much different. One of the first things I realized is that the design document format itself may need to change depending on your audience. As a graduate student in learning technologies, I have taken several courses that required me to create a design document. Each instructor has a slightly different expectation of what the design document should look like. Additionally, I work as a content developer and my employer has a different design document expectation than my instructors.  In this course, the instructor did not specify a specific format. He provided requirements for the document and left it to me to decide how to present the information. Without a specific guide, I struggled to determine which layout to use and which sections to include (beyond the stated requirements). As a result, I over delivered in some areas and under delivered in others.

My design document had some sections that were redundant. I was trying to hard and ended up saying the same thing in more than one way.  This is a waste of time and does not help others understand what you are trying to accomplish. I also used labels for some of the sections that were not explicit enough. For example instead of labeling the goals sections as Goals, I labeled it as Learning Outcomes. This was confusing for both the instructor and the peer reviewer. My take-a-way from this mistake is to just call a thing what it is and keep it simple.

Another area I under delivered on was the assessment and evaluation sections. I included a summary statement and after reviewing the feedback I received, I realized that I could have done a better job of providing more details. A real client or stakeholder want to know how they are going to be able to assess the return on investment. In other words, how are they going to know if the training does what it says it is going to do, and how are they going to know if the way it is presented to the learners is engaging and enhances learning or distracts from learning.

My final product was definitely better than my original draft. I would feel confident sending this design document to a paying client and I believe that they would be able to positively, and enthusiastically sign-off on the project. But, I can’t take full credit alone. The most important lesson I learned is that it is best to share often and share early.  Feedback from others helps identify gaps, mistakes, and opportunities for improvement that the original developer would otherwise not be aware of.

This Week’s Reflections on Instructional Design Articles

There is a lot of literature on various elements of instructional design, especially related to online learning. This week I reviewed three articles that each looked at instructional design from a different perspective. Regardless of how many times I design and develop training content, I always learn ways to improve the process and the product after reading what researchers have to say.

In their article, Lim, Morris, and Kupritz (2007), discuss the outcomes of a study conducted to see if learner perceptions and learning outcomes differed between blended and online courses. They found that there is a significant difference in the learner’s perception of the experience, with blended courses having higher favorability outcomes; however, there were no significant differences noted in learning outcomes. I have been promoting the idea of blended learning in the corporate environment I currently work in with little success. In some ways this article provided me with ammunition to further promote the idea by highlighting some of the pitfalls associated with 100% online learning. It also provided statistical data that shows an increase in learner satisfaction in blended courses. In other ways, this article left me feeling worried that since the ultimate goal of improving performance is not significantly impacted when training is delivered using blended methods, I will continue to have difficulty selling the idea to the decision makers in my organization. Given that this article was written a decade ago, I hope to discover that additional research has been done that shows a positive, quantifiable correlation between blended courses and job performance.

After reviewing an article by Savory and Duffy (1995), I was reminded of some basic principals of instructional design that quite frankly I don’t always follow. The principles provided in the article work well when creating content based on constructivist theories and values. One specific principle that stood out to me this time was the concept of giving the learner ownership of the process used to develop a solution.  According to the researchers, when you provide the solution, you are dictating or proceduralizing thinking. Currently, I am part of a development team tasked with teaching managers in a technical call center how to conduct root cause analysis to determine the underlying behaviors driving performance. The development team has developed a specific model and the goal is to teach managers how to use the model to accomplish the goal. After reading this article, it occurred to me that we are dictating how to conduct root cause analysis and expect all managers to mimic what is being taught in the course. Ultimately, this may negatively impact adoption and on-the-job-performance since managers motivation and sense of ownership in the process may be low. I sent my thoughts and concerns to the development team and I am looking forward to their responses. I don’t anticipate a change in direction, but I do hope that they will at least challenge their own thinking and keep this in mind for future trainings.

Student perceptions of the learning experience is another instructional design area I took at look at this week as part of my literature review. Picciano (2002), conducted a study where he attempted to understand issues that arise around presence, interaction, and performance in online learning. What he found is that the more interaction and sense of presence students perceive, the more favorable the students rate the learning experience. While there is not always a direct correlation to performance, there is evidence that students’ perceptions and students’ outcomes are linked in some ways. This  study focusses on a specific graduate course and the outcomes and details provided in this article will assist me as I look to convert a classroom-based course to a 100% online course for this class. I am going to remain very aware of how I am creating presence, belonging, and interactions within the course. I am going to be on the hunt for additional studies and resources that help me identify specific ways to accomplish this goal.

Resources

Lim, D. H., Morris, M. L., & Kupritz, V. W. (2007). Online vs. blended learning: Differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Journal of       Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 27-42.

Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous learning networks, 6(1), 21-40.

Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational technology, 35(5), 31-38.

Technology-Based Learning Environments

As I continue my journey towards a Master’s degree in Learning Technology, I look forward to creating a training product that demonstrates my ability to integrate everything I have learned in the program thus far. This blog will be used to provide reflections and insights on readings, assignments, and lessons learned throughout the course.

Stay tuned for reflections to come….