Merrill’s 5 Star Instructional Design Rating presents a simple method for evaluating instructional products based on five questions:
- Is the courseware presented in the context of read world problems?
- Does the courseware attempt to activate relevant prior knowledge or experience?
- Does the courseware demonstrate (show examples) of what is to be learned rather than merely tell information about what is to be learned?
- Do learners have an opportunity to practice and apply their newly acquired knowledge or skill?
- Does the courseware provide techniques that encourage learners to integrate (transfer) the new knowledge or skill into their everyday life? (Merrill, 2007)
Each of these questions includes sub-questions that can be asked in order to make the correct assessment.
Critique:
I like the simplicity of Merrill’s 5 Star Instructional Design Rating and that it’s presented in a manner that should be easy to use when I evaluate the two e-learning courses. Merrill could have created this rating system using a series of checklists with statements such as “All demonstrations (examples) are consistent with the content being taught.” Instead, he poses questions, which caused me to pause and reflect for a moment. I think I would have been more likely to skim over statements.
My main critique with this reading is that Merrill uses unfamiliar terms in the beginning that are also vague at times. For example, he doesn’t explain what he means by “kinds-of,” “how-to,” and “what-happens.” It’s assumed that the reader knows what he means, but this wasn’t the case for me. In addition, he recommends using his rating system for tutorial or experiential courseware but never explains how he would define these types of courseware; he only explains what they aren’t: receptive or exploratory courseware.
Ratings for Instructional Products:
1. E-learning course on how to give core messages
- I gave this course a silver star for presenting content in the context of real world problems. It addresses the first two sub-points but involves a single problem, not a progression of problems.
- I gave this course no stars for activation of prior knowledge. There is no pre-test and the learner is never asked to recall prior knowledge.
- I gave the course a gold star for demonstration of concepts to be learned. It does this very well and provides multiple examples and non-examples. It uses short videos for these examples, which is the right choice of media for this content.
- I gave the course a silver star for application because the practice activity is realistic, effective, and provides helpful feedback; however, the learner cannot access help if necessary.
- I gave the course a silver star for integration. The main objective is to deliver core messages related to abstinence and safe sex in a clear and unbiased manner. There is a question and answer section that provides integration guidance; however, since this is an e-learning course, there is no realistic way for the student to demonstrate the new skill because that would require public speaking.
2. E-learning course on how to give core messages
- I gave this course a gold star for presenting content in the context of real world problems. It addresses all three sub-points and is especially effective at presenting the problem in a series of steps.
- As with the first course I reviewed, I gave this course no stars for activation of prior knowledge. There is no pre-test and the learner is never asked to recall prior knowledge.
- I gave the course a silver star for demonstration of concepts to be learned. I didn’t think the media used was always relevant to the content and it didn’t always enhance the training.
- I gave the course a gold star for application because there are many practice activities in the course that allow learners to reflect on and apply what they’ve learned. Good feedback is always provided.
- I gave the course a gold star for integration. The final assignment is a clever way to get the learner to reflect on what they’ve learned and take the first step of transferring their new knowledge to the real world in a realistic situation.
Merrill, M. D. (2007). 5 Star Instructional Design Rating. © M. David Merrill Retrieved 13 May 2011: http://id2.usu.edu/5Star/FiveStarRating.PDF
Hey Nicole,
ReplyDeleteI think it is weird how he doesn't define terms either. What also puzzles me is that it can only be used in the two types of courses. But how do we grade this with introductory courses? At some point there needs to be a foundation.
But I forgot to say I give mine a gold star for application. I find that the activation might come from a learner analysis. Perhaps someone maybe interested in it and be activated but others may not. Do you agree?
Your rating system is interesting, Nicole. My approach was "all or nothing" in the star department. I gave one gold star for each of the 5 questions (no stars to 5 gold stars). Did you like all the dimensions to the entepeuneur tutorial? I found all the tabs and dropdown lists overwhelming.
ReplyDeleteRe the core messages course: agree that it's a very effective course. The skill-demonstration-your turn-tips & summary structure is pretty much a textbook example of First Principles. Using role-play video to which learners respond by rating the speaker's delivery are perfectly tuned to the real-world task the learner faces.
ReplyDeleteRe your point about integration: we have a real challenge as designers of stand-alone courses to put that follow up/integration piece in place. There are some good ideas like providing a social media component for follow up team or partner collaboration, pre-learning agreements especially those involving the learner's manager, learner-generated action plans, or simply some self-reporting mechanism like follow up email. I think this aspect of learning design is so important and is frequently ignored: learning is an on-going process and not a single event.
Brittany - I think I see what you mean by activation in the Tulane course. By providing several specific business examples, the learner can choose the scenario that best fits his/her needs. They will likely choose one that they have prior knowledge in, hence the activation?
ReplyDeleteMary Jane - When evaluating the courses, I noticed that Merrill included three parts to each criteria. So my approach was to award a bronze star if they addressed at least one part, a silver star for two parts, and a gold star for all three. If I felt the criteria wasn't addressed at all, they received no stars. So that was my logic for rating.
ReplyDeleteI agree. The course was a bit overwhelming with all the tabs and drop downs. But it didn't turn me off completely because I assumed they were just trying to provide options in order to tailor the instruction to specific audiences. I decided to complete the pig farm module and ignored the rest.
MediaSage - I agree that integration can be challenging when developing e-learning. If the core message course were my course, I would have it be one part of a blended learning approach. The e-learning would be a good pre-requisite for a group classroom session where teachers could practice giving core messages in front of their peers as well as evaluating each other.
ReplyDelete