SMR v1.0 Personal Review

The following are notes that I wrote down as I was reviewing my own SMR form.

SMR v1.0
Personal Review – Milton Bulian

     There is a disconnect in the SMR. I keep slipping into teaching and learning because I’m still thinking like a practitioner and leaning toward Training and Performance Improvement (T&PI).
     My Title is a good one – “Impact of a Constructivist Approach to Software Training Design.” I’m focused on the design of training for software and asking how a constructivist approach will affect that design.
     My Research Topic shifts a little in that it says I will study the effect that results/is created when constructivist design elements are applied to training for productivity software. This could be approached in three ways: (1) the impact on the process, (2) the impact on the product, and (3) the impact on the learner. The last one again could lead to getting off design issues, but mostly if it is the only focus.
     My Research Problem continues the slide into T&PI. Although I am comparing current design using behavior modeling to my proposed design using constructivist techniques, the focus is on the learner’s proficiency. Not gooder!
     Research Purpose – More with the learner’s proficiency! Reigeluth (1999) says that instructional-design theory identifies methods of instruction and the situations in which those methods should and should not be used. Further, in all instructional-design theories, the methods of instruction can be broken down into more detailed component methods which provide more guidance to educators.
     The Research Question is totally bogus. The focus should be “design,” not “user proficiency.”
     The Literature Review seems less focused on user proficiency and more toward design.
     The Need for the study is again borderline. As long as I am using a descriptive approach to research and not actually testing learners, I should be okay.
     The Methodology again needs to be cleaned up a little with regard to how much of a product will be developed. Rather than willy-nilly applying a whole plethora of constructivist techniques to the whole training system simultaneously to see if the students become more proficient (T&PI), it would be more design-oriented to break the various techniques up and apply them separately to the whole lesson (a mammoth undertaking), different sections of the lesson (still elephantine), different parts of the same section of a lesson (now we’re getting somewhere) or even as different approaches to the same frame of information from a section (now we’re down to bite-sized!). Comparison could be made within the construction process, the appearance of the product, and/or Kirkpatrick Level 1 reviews by potential users of the training or those familiar with the topic.

REFERENCE

     Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.) Instructional-design theories and models, vol. II. (pp. 5-29). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

SMR v1.0 References

These are the references that accompanied my Scientific Merit Review form for the first review. While the indentation normally required is not possible in this format, the information is listed in APA 6th edition format.

REFERENCES

     Aldrich, C. (2005). Learning by doing. San Francisco: Pfeiffer

     Alonso, F., Lopez, G., Manrique, D., & Vines, J. M. (2008). Learning objects, learning objectives and learning design. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), 389-400. DOI: 10.1080/14703290802377265

     Armson, G., & Whiteley, A. (2010). Employees' and managers' accounts of interactive workplace learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(7), 409-427. DOI: 10.1108/13665621011071091

     Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1248-1289. DOI: 10.3102/0034654309333844

     Boot, E., Merrienboer, J., & Veerman, A. (2007, December). Novice and experienced instructional software developers: Effects on materials created with instructional software templates. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55(6), 647-666. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-006-9002-9

     Bradley, J. (2010). Promoting and supporting authentic online conversations - Which comes first - The tools or instructional design? International Journal of Pedagogies & learning, 5(3), 20-31.

     Choi, I. & Lee, K. (2009). Designing and implementing a case-based learning environment for enhancing ill-structured problem solving: Classroom management problems for prospective teachers. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 57(1), 99-129. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-008-9089-2

     Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

     Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2000). Engaging minds: Learning and teaching in a complex world. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

     Ehlers, U. F. (2009). Web 2.0 - e-learning 2.0 - quality 2.0? Quality for new learning cultures. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(3), 296-314. DOI: 10.1108/09684880910970687

     Figl, K. (2010). A systematic review of developing team competencies in information systems education. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(3), 323-337.

     Gregoriades, A., Pampaka, M., & Michail, H. (2009). Assessing students' learning in MIS using concept mapping. Journal of Information Systems education, 20(4), 419-430.

     Hetzner, S., Gartmeier, M., Heid, H., & Gruber, H. (2009). The interplay between change and learning at the workplace: A qualitative study from retail banking. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(5), 398-415. DOI: 10.1108/13665620910966802

     Kay, R. H. & Knaack, L. (2009). Assessing learning, quality and engagement in learning objects: The Learning Object Evaluation Scale for Students (LOESS). Educational Technology, Research and Development, 57(2), 147-168. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-008-9094-5

     Keirns, J. L. (1999). Designs for self-instruction: Principles, processes and issues in developing self-directed learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

     Lavy, I. & Yadin, A. (2010). Team-based peer review as a form of formative assessment - The case of a systems analysis and design workshop. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(1), 85-98.

     Mager, R. F. (1997). Making instruction work or skillbloomers: A step-by-step guide to designing and developing instruction that works, 2nd ed. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.

     Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2007). Designing effective instruction, 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

     Palvia, S. & Palvia, P. (2007). The effectiveness of using computers for software training: An exploratory study. Journal of Information Systems Education, 18(4), 479-489.

     Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models, vol. II (pp. 5-29). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

     Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and development research: Methods, strategies, and issues. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

     Rosenberg, M. J. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. New York: McGraw-Hill.

     Vaughan, T. (2008). Multimedia: Making it work, 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Scientific Merit Review, v1.0

This was my first attempt at the new Scientific Merit Review form for my PhD dissertation in IDOL with Capella University. It's a new format that hopefully will help me to expedite the process. I'm posting my first attempt here. In a later post, I'm going to share some of my own analysis. The form has been submitted by my mentor and committee chairperson to the Chair of the Instructional Design for Online Learning specialization for approval. This first approval is primarily for the topic. The next submission is to the SMR board for approval of the research. Here's what I have so far:

1.2 Proprosed Dissertation Title:  Impact of a Constructivist Approach to Software Training Design

1.3 Research Topic:  This study will explore the effect of the application of constructivist design elements to productivity software training.

1.4 Research Problem:  Behavior modeling is the most common pedagogical approach to software training; however, it is inefficient and ineffective in a business environment where the user must become proficient in a relatively short amount of time.

1.5 Research Purpose:  The intent of this study is to provide data showing whether a constructivist approach incorporating several tools such as interactive online learning, concept mapping, learning objects, instructional software templates, case-based learning, team competencies, and peer review can help the user become more proficient with productivity software use in a shorter amount of time.

1.6 Research Question(s):  To what extent does a constructivist approach to software training impact user proficiency?

1.7 Literature Review Section:  Constructivist theory fosters problem solving and conceptual development and is intended for ill-defined or ill-structured situations where the learner assumes ownership for the problem. Instruction designed from this theory often consists of experiences that promote or facilitate knowledge construction and is active and authentic. It uses related cases or worked examples toenable case-based reasoning and provides learner selectable information. It often incorporates cognitive tools that provide scaffolding for the required skills and also provides social/contextual support for the learning environment, including conversation and collaboration tools.
     Constructivism has its roots in the cognitive and developmental perspectives of Piaget, the interactional and cultural emphases of Bruner and Vygotsky, and the contextual nature of learning found in Jonassen, among others.
     The literature review for this study will be primarily directed to adult learning and software training, especially in a corporate environment, although key principles will be culled as well from higher education and even secondary education environments. Key topics and themes will include collaborative learning, ill-structured problem solving, authentic instruction, and workplace learning as applied to software training.

1.8 Need for the Study: One commonality in may studies about the effectiveness of different instructional design approaches is the tendency on the part of the learner to engage in "surface" learning. Learners tend to assimilate just enough "factual" data in order to pass whatever "test" is used to verify their successful achievement of the learning objectives or goals. Especially in business or corporate settings, they experience a general introduction to the topic, which is usually their job and more often than not involves the use of computer software with which t hey are usually unfamiliar. They are expected to become more proficient with time and experience. In cases where a more seasoned worker is required to mentor or peer-coach them, this creates a further drain on productivity until the "new" person is able to function on their own. This study will explore ways in which instructional design of software training based on constructivist theory instead of behavior modeling can enhance the learner's proficiency expeditiously.

2.0 Methodology:  This study will employ a descriptive approach. It will begin with the design, development, and implementation of a tutorial for productivity software using constructivist principles and techniques for presentation. The training will be placed in an online venue for interaction with a volunteer sample. Following completion of the tutorial, or a portion thereof, the learner will be asked to complete a Level 1 survey on the merits of the training or lack thereof. The results will be analyzed using descriptive statistics with SPSS.

In my next post, I will list the references for the current state of my literature view.