Embedded Files
Challenge 1: Determine subordinate and prerequisite skills and knowledge
Criteria for successful completion of this challenge: Evidence of determining subordinate and prerequisite skills and knowledge. Reflection must address: How you determined subordinate and pre-req skills/knowledge for an audience (goal analysis, instructional analysis, etc.).
Examples: Demonstration of identifying all of the steps a learner needs in order to achieve the learner goal, organizing learning objectives in a hierarchical order, identifying the steps needed in order to meet a goal, EDCI 572 Design Documents, EDCI 577 Content/Audience analysis (Jet Blue, Instructional Product Evaluations), artifacts focused on determining pre-req skills and knowledge (design, performance, workplace, educational, other).
Reflection
I submit an artifact that shows my ability to “Determine subordinate and prerequisite skills and knowledge” during the front-end analysis of an instructional design project. I performed this analysis while creating a design document for EDCI 572. The project culminated in a learning module hosted on our Moodle-based LMS and is used in apprenticeship training courses at the Electrical Training Institute of Indianapolis (ETI).
The artifact satisfies this challenge by detailing the desired learning outcome in a goal analysis diagram. I determined the gap between the actual status and desired status by completing a gap analysis. The need is defined as “A workshop with job aids that enables students to properly install and accurately configure the Fluke 437-II Energy Analyzer to collect data for analysis following IEEE 1159”. Once this step was complete, I diagrammed the goal analysis into five distinct steps. Next, I listed the subordinate steps required to satisfy each step. Finally, I identified entry-level (prerequisite) skills the learner must possess before beginning each step.
I determined the entry-level skills and subordinate steps by sitting down with a colleague and performing the procedure using a Fluke 437-II Energy Analyzer. Since I am an SME in this subject matter, I used a colleague that was unfamiliar with the procedure as a sample learner and walked him through each step. I wrote down the steps he must follow to complete the task. We also discussed the entry-level skills he believed would be necessary to accomplish the task.
Before this project, I had little experience performing a formal front-end analysis. I mentally conceived the subordinate steps when creating a training project, but never wrote them down or diagrammed them. Following the Dick and Carey systematic framework during EDCI 572 opened my eyes t the value of taking time to break a complex training program down into subordinate steps. This process creates a guiding structure for later stages of development. For example, when writing assessment times, I directly tied each question or hands-on activity to a specific subordinate skill to ensure my materials were congruent with the overall mission of the curriculum. This process ensured the final product was logically sequenced and the learners were evaluated based on the training that is provided.
I am naturally drawn to diagramming processes to visualize a complex topic. I used Microsoft Visio for this specific project, but I would like to try other software options in eh future to develop a nuanced perspective of when technologies are the best fit for specific tasks. I look forward to growing my skillset by continuing to perform detailed front-end analyses, including by identifying subordinate and entry-level skills.
Challenge 2: Use appropriate techniques to analyze various types and sources to validate content.
Criteria for successful completion of this challenge: Evidence of utilizing validation techniques (checking the source, researching the author - education, experience, reputation, how many times cited, etc.). Reflection must address: The specific techniques you used to validate your sources and content.
Examples: Any research paper (EDCI 513 Final Literature Review, EDCI 531 Final Paper), peer-reviews focusing on checking other’s sources, annotated bibliography (EDCI 660), work-related documentation (design, performance, workplace, educational, other) focused on use of or creation of validation techniques.
Reflection
I present an artifact, a literature review paper I wrote as coursework in EDCI 513 during the summer of 2022. The topic of the paper is “Design Implications for Online Video Lectures” and sought to review various scholarly sources of information related to the use of video lectures as a viable learning modality. Critically, the paper relied on the research of expert practitioners and researchers in the field of instructional design. My artifact satisfies the intent of this challenge by demonstrating the ability to synthesize multiple sources and verify the validity of each source.
I began the literature review by collecting journal articles using Google Scholar. My search criteria included keyword phrases to first locate articles to review. Next, I selected articles that were published in distinguished educational journals. I reviewed the number of citations to help guide my selection of the articles. I also sampled the journal article’s citation in an attempt to locate a primary citation source. Articles that were associated with organizations that sold or marketed specific solutions were eliminated from my selection. In addition to journal articles, I used the textbook listed on our class syllabus as a reference. I felt confident this source would be valid, especially considering some of the authors are professors at Purdue University. Since the topic of my literature review was technology-based, I focused on citing sources that were published within the last decade. In total, I used textbooks, journal articles, a TED talk, and proceedings from an educator’s conference for my literature review.
As I reflect on my prior experience in selecting valid, reputable sources, I rank my entry skills as intermediate. I am cognizant of the increasing number of questionable sources of information available online. I tend to be skeptical of an article until it proves itself to be valid through provenance or citations from another respected member of the educational research community. When I evaluate an online source, I always review the host website and attempt to identify if any conflicts of interest exist. If an article or text makes a claim that conflicts with the de facto belief of the mainstream ID literature, I scrutinize the sample size and methodology of the research to determine if the claim is plausible. I have found several studies in the past with small sample sizes or narrow demographic representation. I expect to see a high degree of evidence to reject the null hypothesis while simultaneously recognizing that progress in the ID field is ongoing.
The process of vetting a source is foundational for ID professionals as they review the literature. Considering my role in the ID space is heavily based on technology, I find myself frequently reviewing the latest research to keep up to date on what is coming next. In terms of growth, I would like to spend some time at the university library reviewing physical articles to supplement my online reviews. I do occasionally find an article that is behind a paywall that I am not able to access. Another benefit of the in-person review is that some source material may be difficult to find in online repositories. This introduces another area for my growth: enlisting the help of a library professional that trained in the art of locating scholarly resources. By performing more in-person searching for articles, I hope to continually grow in the domain of evaluating and validating sources to ensure any ID decision I make is based on scientifically rigorous research.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse