Instructional Design Project Reflection
On one hand, some elements were exciting,
and I felt caught up in them – for instance, breaking down the task analysis
was an interesting process once I felt like I had a grasp on the materials we
were outlining. The process of developing that grasp was arduous, though, as
from the beginning I did not feel that we had received useful information from
our SMEs. Once I began to branch out and search for information about the
subject of podcasting on my own, I felt better equipped to create the task analysis.
This approach, however, did not feel like a sustainable tactic for learning
design in general.
What if the subject matter were higher
level – a subject best broken down by someone with a degree in a specialized field,
rather than by a podcaster on YouTube or through a software instructions manual? At some point, I would like to experience being provided with subject
matter from an attentive SME, and being tasked with breaking it down into a
comprehensive content analysis. The lesson
we designed – and in turn, the targeted learners – would have benefitted from
that expertise, as I personally have no experience with professional microphones,
script writing, or production software. The lesson’s foundation would have been
more solid, had an experienced authority on podcasting actually provided input –
instead, we were left to emulate the role of a subject matter expert, which overshadowed
our chance to act as learning designers.
That said, I would like to believe
that our process was aligned with our target learners. We sought to incorporate
the information we were provided, such as the type of microphone purchased for
the faculty, as well as the production software selected for them. Working
within those constraints, we provided the faculty with specific and detailed guidance,
supplemented with outside materials that offered more insight into the subject
of podcast production than we could offer in our instructional text alone. For the
most part, I was satisfied with our learning outcome and instructional
objectives. Designing the elements of the lesson’s mockup course space – such as
the job aid on the landing page and the rubrics for each deliverable – was the
most interesting and engaging aspect of the process for me.
Would this lesson have met the needs
of its target learners – the faculty at our hypothetical university? I think it would have
at least been a start. With more time, I would have increased the assessment
requirements to ensure our provided instruction could successfully transfer into the learners’ everyday lives as
faculty members routinely creating lecture podcasts. To think about the success
of this lesson in terms of Kirkpatrick’s Model of Training Evaluation, I can
envision how we would have carried out the assessments to evaluate our learners
during the course [Level 2], and perhaps what we could have asked them at the
conclusion of the course to garner feedback [Level 1]. Still though, our lesson
would need to result in an actual behavior change by the faculty in their
delivery of lecture content [Level 3], to eventually lead to improved learning experiences
and outcomes for their learners through this new method of content delivery via
podcasting [Level 4] (Kirkpatrick, 2016).
However, I may not be giving the
faculty enough credit. We knew from the Design Case that they were highly
motivated and well-educated individuals, and our lesson on podcast production would be meeting a specific need identified in the case – that the delivery
of instruction needed to be streamlined in a way that could provide offline
flexibility to learners. Perhaps our choice to have the faculty create a 10-minute
segment of one of their lectures as their main deliverable for the lesson would
have been sufficient for them to absorb the podcast production process. Either
way, I would hope the instructional materials we created could at least serve as
a viable launching point for shifting how faculty deliver their lesson
content, and working through this process exposed me to a plethora of new ways to think about learning design.
References
Kirkpatrick, J.D., & Kirkpatrick, W.K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation. ATD Press.
Comments
Post a Comment