Okay, so here's the deal...(I know, for writing on intellectual research, that's not very esoteric, but hey, it's just a blog!). I've been making some pretty broad assumptions. First, I've only very broadly defined my independent variables, i.e. the use of craft, mass, and lean production techniques in the development of instructional products. My definition for Craft production is simply "the most efficient and effective production of limited run items or items with great variance..." usually involving "...a master producer who is highly skilled in many areas and who creates products, one at a time and by hand, that are individually unique (Womack, Jones, & Roos, 1990, p. 22)." Well, that can be said about almost any instructional intervention, if you begin with a needs assessment, because every situation will have it's own unique set of variables, sometimes even indicating the lack of a need for training. Instead, a job aid might be the least intrusive, least expensive, and most effective approach. But my point is that nowhere do I stipulate what characteristics are manifested in Craft production vis-a-vis instructional design.
The same can be said of my other two definitions for Mass production and Lean production. The former is defined in my proposal as "the most efficient and effective production of large quantities of identical or very similar items. It usually involves narrowly skilled workers creating identical iterations of a product in great volume from large stockpiles of raw materials and parts (Womack, Jones, Roos, 1990, pp. 22-33)." The latter is defined similarly as having "emerged from and [using] the advantages of both Craft production and Mass production (Womack, Jones, & Roos, 1990, p. 13), using broadly skilled workers performing several jobs in the creation of the product in response to need for the production with just-in-time (JIT) supplies of raw materials and parts." Yet nowhere do I identify what I'm really looking for.
At first, I thought I needed to identify a taxonomy of production, somewhat like Bloom's taxonomy of cognitive learning. But then I remembered that Bloom's taxonomy is hierarchical. I'm not looking at a hierarchy of development here; I'm looking for specific, individual characteristics that can be used to identify what actions used by instructional developers in the Development phase of ADDIE* can be recognized and categorized in each of the three production types, quantified, and then qualified via production metrics as most efficient and effective. That may be a stretch, given that my population has been initially defined as Defense contractors building courseware for the military and my sample as one office comprising one prime contractor and three sub-contractors working on four separate tracks of training for a single aircraft platform. Additionally, the development was subject matter expert-driven, both by the customer and the production shop. My sense was that most of them had little background in instruction, let alone instructional design or even development.
Some ideas I've been batting around in my mind include the following: stepping away from the mixed-method approach I've been pursuing (to what, I'm not sure); stepping away from the case study and broadening both my population and my sample; or focusing on the classification scheme (if a taxonomy can be non-hierarchical, then it's a taxonomy). This is where I seem to be stuck at the moment. If anyone is out there reading this, I'd sure appreciate some feedback.
*ADDIE--the acronym for "Analyze-Design-Develop-Implement-Evaluate," the process most commonly used in the development of military and other training.
Reference:
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., and Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world: The story of lean production. New York: Rawson Associates.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Errata...
Mea culpa. I erroneously stated in my previous post that a case study would not satisfy a qualitative study. Actually, the opposite is true: a case study will satisfy only a qualitative study. Thanks to Traici Sexton for sending me a message with helpful information.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Transmogrification is imminent.
Yes! Change is coming! Just wait a little while and it will get here. Once again, nothing was broken, so Capella decided to fix it. We have new forms and new ways of doing things. However, the clarification will help (I think!).
It appears that I have erroneously combined a mixed method approach (quantitative and qualitative data) with a Case Study. According to the new parameters established by someone in the IT department, Case Studies will not satisfy a qualitative study. So, what I plan to do is remove references to my former office (I no longer work there and that was always the main contention anyway) and make the population industry-wide. My former connections may provide links to the sample, but to use them exclusively would not provide the randomness necessary to do bona fide research nor pass the IRB.
Anyway, I gotta get on it.
It appears that I have erroneously combined a mixed method approach (quantitative and qualitative data) with a Case Study. According to the new parameters established by someone in the IT department, Case Studies will not satisfy a qualitative study. So, what I plan to do is remove references to my former office (I no longer work there and that was always the main contention anyway) and make the population industry-wide. My former connections may provide links to the sample, but to use them exclusively would not provide the randomness necessary to do bona fide research nor pass the IRB.
Anyway, I gotta get on it.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
SMR v1.0 Personal Review
The following are notes that I wrote down as I was reviewing my own SMR form.
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.
SMR v1.0
Personal Review – Milton Bulian
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.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
SWTng 13: Team-Based Peer Review
This will be the last article for now. It is by Lavy and Yadin (2010) in the Journal of Information Systems Education and is titled "Team-Based Peer Review as a Form of Formative Assessment--The Case of a Systems Analysis and Design Workshop." It has 37 references and the following keywords: peer review, team-based peer review, formative assessment, SOLO taxonomy, and systems analysis and design. Here is the abstract:
"The SOLO taxonomy is a hierarchical model suitable for measuring learning outcomes of different subjects, levels, and for assignments of various lengths (Biggs and Collis, 1982)" (p 87). It encompasses five levels: Pre-structural, Uni-structural, Multi-structural, Rational, and Extended abstract. At the pre-structural level, the student lacks the ability to perform the task; there is insufficient understanding. At the uni-structural level, one of a few aspects of the task to be performed is taken into account. There is some understanding. At the multi-structural level, more aspects of the task are taken into account; however, the student still lacks the "full picture." At the rational level, all aspects are understood and integrated as a "whole." The student exhibits understanding of the parts, as well as the relationships between them. In the extended abstract level, the whole derived at the previous level is conceptualized at a higher abstract level so that it can now be used in different settings.
As applied to the workshop, at the first level the student lacks the understanding required for the task. Either the "story" is not clear or many of the principles of analysis are still missing. At the second level, The student understands some aspects of the process principles (gathering requirements, analysis, design, programming, testing), but w/he still lacks understanding of the business situation expressed by the "story." In level 3, the principles are clear and the student has started to implement these principles in designing a suitable solution for the customer. At level 4, All aspects of the solution are clear and were used for preparing the third and fourth documents. The last level allows the student to understand the solution concept and provide proper feedback for her/his fellow students' solutions. The student develops an abstract understanding of the steps and procedures required for designing a useful and complete solution.
With respect to my study, level one is when the developers walk in. They may have never used authoring software before, let alone ours. They are domain specialists (subject matter experts, SMEs) who are being asked to put their knowledge in an online instructional artifact. At this point they are unable to perform the task. At level two, the developers have begun to understand some of the process principles. They should know what the major components are though they may not understand how they interact at the program level. They require frequent to constant supervision to ensure successful development. They are not able to create at the concrete or abstract level. At level 3 they clearly understand the basic principles of how data is input into the authoring tool. They can follow the basic steps to build a frame. However, they still lack the "full picture" and probably don't understand how branching works or the finer points of why and how interaction happens among the main components of the instructional software they are developing. They still require some supervision and assistance in putting major blocks of the puzzle together but can be trusted to complete discrete components with minimal oversight. At level four (the ideal target level for successful training), the learner understands both the parts and the relationships between them. They can successfully create instructional software with minimal supervision and rework. Level 5 allows the student to understand the overall concept of instructional software development and provide proper feedback for his/her fellow developers' courseware. The student at this level develops an abstract understanding of the steps and procedures required for designing and useful and complete course and should be a supervisor.
Back to the confines of this article, in the workshop the students' evaluations of each other were initially very different from those of the instructor; however, with practice and experience, they soon came to resemble those of the instructor, minus the instructor's advanced experience in the field.
The present study was carried out within a systems analysis and design workshop. In addition to the standard analysis and design tasks, this workshop included practices designed to enhance student capabilities related to non-technical knowledge areas, such as critical thinking, interpersonal and team skills, and business understanding. Each task was reviewed and assessed by both the students and the instructor. The main research study objective was to examine the effect of team-based peer-review on the students' learning process in an information systems workshop. What is presented is data referring to the grading process, to students' enhanced learning reflected in the narrowing gap between the instructor's and the students' grading, as well as the students' reflections demonstrating their perception of the workshop's components.The relevance of this article to my study lies in the peer review part. It is the non-technical aspects mentioned in the abstract that I am interested in promoting, the demonstration and augmentation of the learners' understanding of the ways that the use of technology can develop new organizational processes and achieve organizational goals. After all, technology will be an essential tool in their work. The problem is that in many team-based exercises, either the team descends to the level of the least capable person on the team or one or a few really sharp people carry the load while everyone else watches. Control of the team effort is essential, even if it means identifying a project manager. The television program The Apprentice, where a group of people vie for one spot on Donald Trump's staff as his personal apprentice, often demonstrates this principle where one person on the team is the project manager and the project literally sinks or swims based on their force of personality to get the others to do what is necessary to successfully complete the task. Enter the "team-based peer review" or "TBPR," a form of evaluation where the students engage in reviewing and evaluating their fellow students' projects. Something similar happens in Donald Trump's "board meetings" where the different team members evaluate each other's contribution to the project both before and after the winner is announced. It can sometimes get pretty "bloody." In this case, the evaluation happened in the context of a workshop based on the "SOLO (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes) taxonomy (Biggs and Collis, 1982)" which "elevated students' overall understanding of the processes to a higher level of abstraction" (p. 85).
"The SOLO taxonomy is a hierarchical model suitable for measuring learning outcomes of different subjects, levels, and for assignments of various lengths (Biggs and Collis, 1982)" (p 87). It encompasses five levels: Pre-structural, Uni-structural, Multi-structural, Rational, and Extended abstract. At the pre-structural level, the student lacks the ability to perform the task; there is insufficient understanding. At the uni-structural level, one of a few aspects of the task to be performed is taken into account. There is some understanding. At the multi-structural level, more aspects of the task are taken into account; however, the student still lacks the "full picture." At the rational level, all aspects are understood and integrated as a "whole." The student exhibits understanding of the parts, as well as the relationships between them. In the extended abstract level, the whole derived at the previous level is conceptualized at a higher abstract level so that it can now be used in different settings.
As applied to the workshop, at the first level the student lacks the understanding required for the task. Either the "story" is not clear or many of the principles of analysis are still missing. At the second level, The student understands some aspects of the process principles (gathering requirements, analysis, design, programming, testing), but w/he still lacks understanding of the business situation expressed by the "story." In level 3, the principles are clear and the student has started to implement these principles in designing a suitable solution for the customer. At level 4, All aspects of the solution are clear and were used for preparing the third and fourth documents. The last level allows the student to understand the solution concept and provide proper feedback for her/his fellow students' solutions. The student develops an abstract understanding of the steps and procedures required for designing a useful and complete solution.
With respect to my study, level one is when the developers walk in. They may have never used authoring software before, let alone ours. They are domain specialists (subject matter experts, SMEs) who are being asked to put their knowledge in an online instructional artifact. At this point they are unable to perform the task. At level two, the developers have begun to understand some of the process principles. They should know what the major components are though they may not understand how they interact at the program level. They require frequent to constant supervision to ensure successful development. They are not able to create at the concrete or abstract level. At level 3 they clearly understand the basic principles of how data is input into the authoring tool. They can follow the basic steps to build a frame. However, they still lack the "full picture" and probably don't understand how branching works or the finer points of why and how interaction happens among the main components of the instructional software they are developing. They still require some supervision and assistance in putting major blocks of the puzzle together but can be trusted to complete discrete components with minimal oversight. At level four (the ideal target level for successful training), the learner understands both the parts and the relationships between them. They can successfully create instructional software with minimal supervision and rework. Level 5 allows the student to understand the overall concept of instructional software development and provide proper feedback for his/her fellow developers' courseware. The student at this level develops an abstract understanding of the steps and procedures required for designing and useful and complete course and should be a supervisor.
Back to the confines of this article, in the workshop the students' evaluations of each other were initially very different from those of the instructor; however, with practice and experience, they soon came to resemble those of the instructor, minus the instructor's advanced experience in the field.
REFERENCES
Biggs, J. B., and Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). New York: Academic Press.
Lavy, I., and 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), pp. 85-98.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)