Reflections on Analysis, Design, and R/Eolution Video

To begin the instructional design process, Leidner and Jarvenpaa (1995) suggest that taking time to conduct an in-depth analysis of the problem at hand will improve the quality of the final product. They provide a quick six step approach of assessment to determine the performance gap. First, the problem must be identified. Then, the tasks and conditions of the job must be analyzed. Next, the designer must analyze the current performance levels of the students/trainees. The designer must then identify what the causes of the problem may be and then identify the desired performance outcomes. The designer completes this six step analysis process by identifying the expectations of the training outcomes. At the completion of these six steps, the blueprint is laid out for the development of the planned instruction.

For my first project, I learned several things as I completed this six step process in determining the performance gap and the training that needed to be developed. First, in the client interview, I discovered that our teaching styles are different and that I will need to make sure to embrace her teaching style in the design of this training course. In doing so, I will be concentrating on including blended learning activities in the training course. Second, I realized how important it is to look at the specific needs of the learner and the instructor. In previous trainings that I have designed, this is a step that I have overlooked. Through this process, I see that this can help drive what the training activities might look like. Third, I have written goals for different plans in our school district but I have never includes goals in the development of my training sessions. I found that by developing these goals, I now have that blueprint to move into the design phase of the instructional design for this project.

So now I need to start thinking about the type of activities that I will include that directly tie in to the learning objectives I have generated in the analysis. In the timeline portion of the analysis, I determined that I should look into three separate activities. In the first activity, teachers will collaborate to find resources that explain the difference between blended learning and technology integration. Each group will present their finding in a shared Google Presentation. Once the groups have completed their entry in the Google Slide presentation, we will take time for each group to share to the whole group their definitions of blended learning and technology integration. In the second activity, groups will be given a list of three TEKS targeting different levels of Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy along with a specific web app. In this activity, teachers will work together to differentiate how the same web app can be used to teach each of the three TEKS while addressing the different levels of Bloom’s. For this activity, I am thinking about using a shared OneNote notebook where each group has a different page. The TEKS and Web app would already be listed and the groups would then list the level of Bloom’s and the activities that they could come up with for each TEK. In the third activity, teachers will share on an online collaboration board. I am thinking about using either Padlet or Realtime Board for this activity. In this activity, each teacher will post how they can change one of their upcoming lesson activities to a blended learning activity. With the Padlet being shared, teachers will be able to review what other class members posted for additional blended learning options.

In looking at analysis and design, there is a definite relation between the two, especially when following the six step approach suggested by Leidner and Jarvenpaa (1995). In order to be able to design a training, one must first determine a problem to address in the analysis phase. If there is not a problem, then designing instruction is not needed. If a problem is identified in the analysis, then the next step is to list the needs for the learner and the instructor. This list of needs will directly influence the design of the training. From the needs, the goals and objectives can be derived which will help in the designing of the lesson components. Finally, with the development of a timeline in the analysis, there is a roadmap for the design phase. In my experience through this process, the analysis directly influences the design of the instruction.

In the R/Evolution video, the notion that information finds us as opposed to us finding the information seems to be the main idea. How users access this information has changed with the use of technology. In the analysis phase, I was able to access data from reports generated through an online source to see what the teachers were including in technology infused lessons. From this, I was able to substantiate the problem that my client discussed in our initial interview. As far as the design of the training, the video showed me that an instructional design that allows the user to access online resources in a number of ways such as RSS feeds, tags, or curating the information. Knowing this will help me as I now move into the design phase of my project.

References

Leidner, D. E., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1995). The use of information technology to enhance management school education: A theoretical view. MIS quarterly, 265-291.