Embedded Files
Challenge 1: Select or create an instructional design process based the nature of the project
Criteria for successful completion of this challenge: Evidence of using an instructional design model (ADDIE, Dick and Carey, Assure, Arcs, etc.) that aligns with a project. Reflection must address: How you determined which instructional design model to use and why – list specific examples (state of development, using learning objectives as a reference point, resources available, input from your company, etc.).
Examples: Demonstration of walking through an ID Model (ADDIE, Kirkpatrick, Backwards Design, etc.) on a project, The Evaluation Plan (EDCI 577), Case study (EDCI 672), Final Project (EDCI 572), Final Project (EDCI 569 if taken in Spring 2021 or later), work-related examples of using an ID model as a standard, starting point, or other projects, etc.
Reflection
I submit an artifact that demonstrates my ability to select and implement an instructional design process based on the requirements of the project. This artifact is an evaluation plan that I developed with the help of my classmates and partner, Nikki Page. After a careful analysis of the project requirements, we selected to use the Kirkpatrick Model for the evaluation of a training intervention for a fictitious company. I attest to the relevancy of the artifact for this challenge as it demonstrates the selection and implementation of an instructional design process to solve a case-based problem.
The evaluation plan aims to determine the effectiveness of a LinkedIn course for employees of Triangle Training. Our two main goals were to measure the return on investment of training for staff and to identify areas for improvement in subsequent employee training courses. We determined that the Kirkpatrick Model was the best fit for this project since it considered the initial reaction of the learners, the degree to which the learners acquired knowledge, the level of measurable change in the learner’s behavior post-training, and the observable impact the training had on the success of the business strategy. The thoroughness of the Kirkpatrick model was a major factor in our decision to move forward with the project. We considered the stakeholder’s needs and the budget of the project before finalizing our decision. The amount of data that we were able to bring back to Triangle Training through the implementation of the Kirkpatrick-based evaluation, both during and upon completion of the evaluation process, was highly beneficial to the organization and satisfied the requirements of the project.
Before beginning this evaluation, I had no formal training or experience performing an evaluation plan on an existing training program. My knowledge of the evaluation process gained through reading the Kirkpatrick text, interacting with my classmates, and working with Nikki on this project led to a significant broadening of my understanding and appreciation for the use of an ID model, such as Kirkpatrick, to formally evaluate a training intervention. Previous to this experience, my evaluation toolkit consisted of end-of-course surveys and evaluating the learner’s performance on exams.
I intend to use my newly developed skillsets in the area of selecting an ID model based on the requirements for a project. The number of ID models available is a great resource for an ID professional who has the ability to select the proper model for a specific set of project requirements. I am actively using the Kirkpatrick model of evaluation in a newly developed virtual instruct-led training curriculum I have created for electrical apprentices at my school. I realize I have significant room for growth in the area of ID model selection. I intend to continue building this skill set as I learn additional theories, techniques, and instructional design models.
Challenge 2: Modify the instructional design process as project parameters change
Criteria for successful completion of this challenge: Evidence of adjusting steps in the instructional design process (ADDIE, Dick and Carey, Assure, Arcs, etc.) as projects change (rearranging steps, changing scope, deliverables, budget, goals, etc.). Reflection must address: Which steps in an instructional design model you modified or adjusted and why.
Examples: Case studies (Project Management Course, EDCI 672), deliverables from Practicum (EDCI 573), discussions or conversations related to modifying an instructional design process, work-related examples demonstrating steps/actions of change in the ID process.
Reflection
I present a case study analysis I completed in Fall of 2022 as coursework for EDCI 672 (Advanced Practice in Learning System Design). The case study “Designing an Interactive Kiosk to Celebrate World Wetlands Day” required that I assume the role of Lynn Dixon, an instructional designer who works for Telopea Learning. The project was to develop an informational kiosk for The Aquarium in Cairns. Lynn was tasked with making recommendations to change the trajectory of a design project that was not meeting the stakeholder’s needs. The initial project management plan required careful analysis to identify areas to improve the likelihood of success. This artifact demonstrates my competency in evaluating the present state of an instructional design project and suggests modifications to the original design plan to satisfy the stakeholder requirements. The ability to make changes as a project shows signs of distress is a vital skill of an experienced instructional design professional.
My analysis began by identifying the stakeholders and determining the roles of each participant in this project. I determined who acted as the instructional designer, project sponsor, SME, project manager, and audience. Next, I carefully considered each stakeholder’s primary interest in the project. The case study provided details of the kickoff meeting and the first progress update meeting, where issues in expectations began to arise. At this point, the project was in jeopardy of not satisfying the stakeholder interests. As I developed a plan to modify the instructional design process, I listed the challenges and ordered them from most critical to least critical. I also listed the project’s constraints, including time, budget, and a poorly defined statement of work (SOW). My final proposed solution involved addressing the poorly defined SOW by modifying the initial design model. My solution suggested revisiting the “A” in the ADDIE model and developing a new set of deliverables with an updated scope.
My background in the construction industry has provided a substantial amount of experience in project management. I have completed coursework based on the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) and have been the lead project manager on numerous projects. Project management is a cross-disciplinary role that requires knowledge of the project, interpersonal skills, and the flexibility to adapt to project changes. After completing EDCI 672, I feel better prepared to work with a team in an instructional design role to ensure future projects stay on schedule while meeting stakeholder needs and staying within budget.
When I think about my future self in project management, I see that room for continuous improvement. I aim to obtain the Project Management Professional (PMP) certification that the Project Management Institute offers. I appreciate the importance of constantly reviewing the progress of a project and, if necessary, adapting the planned initial design process as project parameters change.
Challenge 3: Describe a rationale for the selected, created or modified instructional design process
Criteria for successful completion of this challenge: Demonstrating a justification for an instructional design process (ADDIE, Dick and Carey, Assure, Arcs, etc.) as projects change (rearranging steps, changing scope, deliverables, budget, goals, etc.). Reflection must address: Why you selected, created, or modified an instructional design process while working on a project. Reasoning cannot be “because the course focused on using ADDIE or other model;” reflection must explain why you selected the ID model.
Examples: Case studies (Project Management Course, EDCI 672), deliverables from Practicum (EDCI 573), discussions or conversations related to justification for modifying changing steps in an instructional design process, project reflections from courses based on feedback from instructors, work-related examples demonstrating reasons of change in the ID process.
Reflection
I submit an artifact demonstrating my ability to modify an instructional design process based on assessing a project's current status and trajectory. For my coursework in EDCI 672, “Advanced Practices in Learning Systems Design,” I analyzed the case study titled “Lynn Dixon: Designing an Interactive Kiosk to Celebrate World Wetlands Day.” The case study presents a troubling situation for Lynn Dixon, the instructional designer at Telopea Learning. Lynn faces an ongoing project experiencing scope creep and a poorly defined statement of work. I suggest in my analysis that Lynn abandon the iterative design that allows the project to expand and revert back to an ADDIE framework that fully defines the analysis and design stages before the beginning of content development.
As I analyzed this case, I was reminded of the systematic approach to instructional design described by Dick and Carey. Too often, instructional design projects begin with a brief front-end analysis and progress rapidly to the development phase. In Lynn’s case, poor communication and unmanaged stakeholder expectations resulted from an incomplete front-end analysis and statement of work. While an iterative design such as SAM is valuable for specific contexts, such as developing software that facilitates frequent updates, many project structures struggle with significant changes late in the timeline. The Lynn Dixon project required voice actors, drone footage, and integration with outside vendors for the kiosk hardware. These factors were incompatible with frequent changes and led me to conclude that the best solution to salvage this project would be to work in a timeline with documented expectations from all stakeholders involved. Therefore, I felt compelled that the evidence supported modifying the existing instructional design process.
In my professional experience, I have worked on projects ranging from excruciatingly detailed and planned to begin with a vague concept of the final project. Budget and timeline significantly affect how many iterations can be tolerated on a project. For example, I built a virtual instructor-led training (VILT) studio last year for our instructors to deliver synchronous online instruction. After pouring over lighting and camera specifications, I developed a budget. Since this project was a novel design, I left a 30% cushion in my budget and added four weeks to my anticipated completion timeline for the construction and development of the instructional job aids to train instructors to use the systems. The project stakeholders agreed to these terms. I ultimately finished the project with minimal scope creep but still managed to keep within budgetary constraints.
As I continue to develop my professional instructional design portfolio, I see the value in balancing the needs of the stakeholder and project sponsors with the budget and time constraints of a project. I plan to look for ways to optimize instructional design processes and suggest alternatives when projects show signs of distress. I am excited to be challenged to solve the ill-defined problems ID professionals face.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse