Summary:
Frick and Boling (2002) present an inquiry-based, iterative instructional design and development process in order to avoid common instructional pitfalls such as:
- No user input
- Little or no testing
- “No record of decision-making”
- No justification for design decisions (p.2-3)
In their process, objectives are created upfront and the assessments are built before work on the content begins. The process includes iterative reviews first of a paper prototype, then a computer prototype, and finally the site itself. The results of each iteration are analyzed and the site is improved based on this analysis. (p.4)
The instructional goals are developed with all stakeholders, recognizing that some perspectives are more valuable than others. The reading recommends thinking about how you’ll assess the instructional goals while you’re developing the instruction, which is in line with Mager’s guidelines for writing instructional objectives. (p.12)
The learner analysis section discusses the importance of knowing your learners and contends that the best way to do this is to try teaching the content to them, at least once. The final section, context analysis advises that you shouldn’t pursue a Web solution for no reason. You should ask yourself: “What can we do with information technology that could not be done without it to help students learn?”
Critique:
I didn’t find the learner analysis section particularly helpful or practical. Yes, it’s great to teach the subject matter at least once in order to better understand your learner needs, but I’ve never had this opportunity as an e-learning developer. So if you can’t teach the subject matter beforehand, how does one uncover learner needs?
I found the paper prototype recommendation interesting and am looking forward to that section of the reading and better understanding such an approach. My clients tend to request computer prototypes, so I’m not sure how the paper prototype would actually be implemented.
I didn’t find the learner analysis section great either. I feel it is too little of the information. Sometime when a learning product is being designed, we might often assumes that the student learns the way the 'design' person does. For learning to be effective, during the analysis phase it must be stimulated to target audience - be realistic. In the mean time, I like Gary Morrison's book (Design Effective Instruction) much better! (used in R521) Its framework is not difficult to follow and the detailed explanation, including Analysis, helps new instructional designers like us to learn about design processes and current issues.
ReplyDeleteyi
With the paper protoype to computer prototype, I wonder if we can just scan them for the time being...then move forward as we find more pieces and ways to implement. Like the prototype we recieved for the sustainable development...it was definitely a hand sketch of hte site, but it was still digital.
ReplyDeleteLike Yi, I also have hte Designing Effective Instruction by Morrison and found it very useful--one of few books I have kept past the semester I needed it for.
Kristen
I agree as well! Designing Effective Instruction is a great reference.
ReplyDelete