Artefact 3

Within MDDE 604 there are a series of assignments, each building on the previous one. In Assignment One, I had described a fictitious engineering company facing business issues and creating a company-wide project to re-engineer the business to be more innovative, flexible, and responsive to fast-changing customer needs. This initiative identified training needs for company personnel based on the company refocusing its efforts in new areas, using skills not evident in the historical activities of the company (e.g., team-based design projects, rapid prototyping, and “creative cross-functional teams”).

In the assignments that followed, I created design specifications for a module in Moodle entitled "Developing and Using Idea Maps” – an introductory, one hour online course that would form part of the planned “Developing the Creativity habit” training suite (approximately 30 hours in total).

This reflection is focused on the final assignment and, more importantly, on the feedback that I received and my learnings from that feedback.

“The final assignment involves submitting your unit of instruction or learning object, and answering questions about its design and development.”

I chose this artefact because it was a core learning for me. It demonstrated that, at this point in the program, I lacked insight into the differences that distance education brings to the learning process. I still regress into habits based on teaching technical workshops in the face-to-face environment.

Despite my readings, and the feeling that I understood the differences, my attempt at implementing a learning object that could be reused in both DE and a face-to-face context led to complications and compromise solutions. My professor pointed out areas in which I had chosen solutions better suited to classroom learning than DE. She provided pointers to better techniques to consider when teaching at a distance. This was invaluable information that I am now very grateful for. When I reread the feedback, I am amazed at how much guidance I was given on how to refine my initial and rather clumsy effort into a more effective and better structured unit. I am not sure that I realized at the time what a gift I was receiving!

Although this course was very challenging to me, it represents an important point of re-examination (I was not performing the activities as well as I thought I was) and I had to realize just how much subsequent learning I still had to do.

https://www.biggerplate.com/mayeahpImages/xl/ulIqZp3B_Project-benefit-Analysis-mind-map.png

Created using: MindManager

Evidence of building skills, knowledge, and competence

My assumption that formed the basis for developing this unit of instruction was that professional engineers with many years of experience would be faced with new challenges which, they would likely feel, needed new tools and techniques that they did not currently possess. For the purposes of this assignment in MDDE 604, I used the example of the idea map – something that they may not have been familiar with. I planned that the resulting training materials would form part of a larger “enhancing creativity” curriculum to be developed later. This enabled me to present a problem that I could define, and ultimately address through developing a learning object (1.1, 1.2).

During the design phase, I was involved in research into the uses of an idea map (when it is useful), the components within it, and the process involved in developing an idea map (1.4, 1.5).

I had to determine what the learning outcomes would be for the students (how they would be able to demonstrate their acquired knowledge and skill set).

“Your instructional unit or learning object should be designed using the instructional strategies outlined in the Smith & Ragan text or other suitable instructional design resource.”

As indicated above, I had to ensure that my proposed learning object was designed according to one of the instructional strategies we had been exposed to in the assigned text (or a recognized approach from other readings). I chose to use the linear design model of Leshin, Pollock, & Reigeluth (1992) – “compare alternatives using critical analysis” (1.6) and “Critically analyze and discuss the common criticisms and controversies relating to the use of traditional and emerging instructional design models in distance education” (2.6).

As I was also considering using the same instructional strategy for developing learning objects for my company, I had to “Apply instructional design principles and models in distance education, in your workplace, or in other instructional contexts.” (2.7). When I had chosen the model from Leshin, et al. (1992), I still had to “Appropriately apply systems theory and systems analysis techniques to instructional design situations in distance education” (2.2) in order to develop the learning object.

The core activity for this artifact was to “Develop instructional products or learning objects in distance education” (2.5). However, there was also a follow-up activity – a reflection on the process, after receiving feedback from the professor and the class. I believe that this reflection did require me to “Describe the activities of the instructional design process and the advantages and disadvantages of using them in distance education contexts” (2.6).

In developing that learning object, I also had to “Make reasoned arguments using critical reflection, leading to rational solutions.” and justify those solutions (1.7, 1.8). I also had to “Use a variety of communication and document-sharing tools to create, reflect, and communicate with others” (3.1) and justify their use. In choosing to use Moodle as the development platform for my learning object, I was also planning to use my experience with it to determine whether to use Moodle for all company instructional products, or consider using Joomla! (3.2).

As this was an exercise in clear communication, I had to create appropriate scripts for the various parts in the learning exercise (4.1).  I am confident that I created well-formed scripts, about which I was able to “construct coherent arguments and articulate ideas clearly to arrange audiences…” (4.2). Whether I made the best choices in terms of components I selected for my learning activities is discussed later in my reflection (with extensive feedback from my professor!)

I remember MDDE 604 as a challenging course. One in which I did not do as well as I expected. When rereading the feedback from my professor, I see a number of difficulties I created for myself. Firstly, I thought that the learning object would be used by staff of the engineering company either as a group activity, or as independent study. The characteristics of the two different applications require different approaches. Thus, I should have defined this as a stand-alone unit to be taken by an individual rather than compromising it through trying to building group activities within the same unit.

I believe that I went into the “Development and Implementation” part of this course (Unit 5) with a strong feeling that I knew what was required and confident that I could create a compelling learning object in Moodle that would be well received by the professor and my classmates. I learned a few lessons from this early overconfidence:

• Although I have good writing skills, I did not know how to “chunk” materials into small units easily absorbed that learners could then build on to achieve a more sophisticated understanding of the topic.
• I took a teacher-centric approach based on my understanding of the subject rather than looking at it from point of view of the learner:
  • What am I here to learn?
  • Why is this of value to me?
  • How will this aid me in doing my work?
  • Is this similar to something I already do?
  • How will I get help if I am uncertain of my understanding of what is being presented?
  • Will I get penalized in some way if I do not achieve success with this course?
• I still favoured techniques better suited to face-to-face learning than a learning model in which the learner is working through the learning object independently with no support immediately available except the course itself.
• I assumed that the learner understood the context in which the learning was designed to occur – I did not adequately explain it.
• I lacked knowledge of many of the “production techniques” required to develop a robust learning object.

Feedback received on my lack of adequate context:

“Your introduction to the course was good, the graphic caught my interest and made me want to learn more about this potentially useful tool (but it would be a good idea to give more reason for the idea map than to say it’s about caffeine. What was the problem the map was intended to solve?). The introduction would have been improved with more contextualization, i.e., if the learner audience had some particular requirements or characteristics, these could be integrated into the introduction as well, making it even more relevant.”

Comments from Dr. Moisey, used with permission.

This is not the first time (probably not the last either) when I have assumed that my audience is operating from the same context that I am without attempting to verify that that is the case. I need to watch this more carefully. In face-to-face teaching, I can see from the expression on the students face when I am failing to connect with them, and I can take immediate action to address the problem. When it is an online learning object, such failures may not be apparent (except when pointed out by somebody more familiar with the problem, or when explicitly described in student feedback – probably a relatively rare occurrence).

I want to tell everybody everything about the subject at hand (a carryover from my heavy content technical courses). As Dr. Moisey pointed out “The additional introductory material seemed very long – I suggest you put all the extra information into separate web pages (so they sit above accessibility considerations – an excellent addition). This would help avoid the long scrolling every time the student comes to the home page.”

By comparison, there were other areas in which I did not provide enough material to support the learner and engage their interest. I also did not ensure that the information was always at the right level (introductory at the beginning of the learning exercise, becoming more developed as the learner became familiar with the idea map concepts and creation process).

Limitations in my understanding of the importance of appropriate sequencing were also identified by Dr. Moisey “The hierarchical sequence of content presentation you are using in Unit 1 is appropriate and will likely elicit the learning outcomes stated in the Checkpoint. However, once you get to the point in the lesson where students are learning to put together an idea map, you will need to switch to a procedural sequencing strategy.”

In relating to the organization, and use of headings, Dr. Moisey again had many specific suggestions for me, including making better use of subheadings “… Sub-headings on these pages would be helpful to set out content areas better (remember schema theory) and to indicate the instructional activities. For example, you often use a single sentence to direct students to view a video. This activity deserves a sub-title, an introduction and perhaps some context, and a set of questions.”

In commenting on the presentation of content and use of examples, Dr. Moisey made the following observation “Although you have made a great start, I think you should provide a more detailed presentation of content and additional examples.  This is a very complex topic. In addition to better formatting, more elaboration and more examples are needed; the amount depends on learner characteristics and educational level.”

With hindsight I totally agree with this observation! This was a start made, but much less than a completed and polished online learning object. It reflects my understanding of the time and lack of experience. I have captured Dr. Moisey’s feedback here because I think it will be of great value in my next development (and I promise to revisit it more frequently in the future). Before doing any further development, I would plan on revisiting all my work in MDDE 604 and also doing some kind of environmental scan to determine what has occurred in the intervening years that will impact the way in which I design and develop learning objects in the future.

In 2009, it seemed almost certain that I would be doing a significant amount of course development in distance education. The initiative intended at that time did not proceed. At this point, it is uncertain whether I will be undertaking any similar development for my new target learners. It appears more likely that I will be doing one on one mentoring/facilitating. However, nothing is set in stone and new opportunities may appear.

Regardless, I feel that MDDE 604 has provided me with a starting point for developing educational materials and I now know much more about the context in which this work occurs. I feel that I will need to build a “personal learning project” involving considerable research to identify current best practices in ISD. I think it would also take significant further learning (specialist courses) if this is to be an area of operation for me.

From revisiting this artefact (and reading about the work of others in this area), I am comfortable that I have re-established a base of knowledge and now understand much better the extent of the knowledge and skills required to be an effective developer of online learning activities that are strongly learner-focused.