Archives: IDT

IDT Reflections – ID’s are the SME of the delivery of the content

I truly believe IDT is still an emerging field despite its lengthy history.  This is evident to me because most of the literature on IDT surrounds only three industries, military, healthcare, and higher education despite its ability to benefit nearly any field – once they learn about it.

In fact, one of the most humbling experiences happened when my mom asked me to describe what I do so she could explain it to her friends.  She didn’t want to say “well she is finishing her Master’s next May in Instructional Design & Technology. No, she’s not a computer designer, no, she’s not a teacher, no, I did not mean Industrial (for context, I have a B.S. in Industrial Engineering).  She, well, she, she …” I can appreciate that, and at the same time take note that clearly, our field has not broken into the main stream quite yet.  Given this, I helped her understand that our field is growing and what I am really interested in doing is 1) working with instructors to build more interactive, learner driven classes and 2) developing online learning modules both focusing on adult learners.  An example I gave her to use is that often time instructors are the SME on the content while ID’s are the SME of the delivery of the content. BAM! I saw the light bulb go off!

After which mom, dad, and I had a great conversation on how IDs could be used in trials to help lawyers educate the jury on specific key points they want the members to takeaway from the arguments and how IDs could be used in advertising.  Both ideas highly divergent from the roots of ID, but after a lengthy debate/conversation, I could see how IDs could use their skills in both of these fields.  Food for further thought I guess…

 

No commentsAdd a comment

Formative Feedback vs Formative Evaluation

It appears that this is a reoccurring theme in my evaluation exploration…

What is the difference between formative feedback and formative evaluation?

And to me it is clear: the difference is who is receiving the attention and when you give it.

I’ll elaborate. As I am a student and because all of my formal studies have suggested I do so, I will explain this from the perspective of the learner.

Formative Feedback – represents information communicated to the learner by the instructor while applying new information that is intended to modify the learner’s thinking or behavior for the purpose of improving his/her understanding.

Conversely….

Formative Evaluation- represents information communicated to the instructor by the learner after a lesson ends that is intended to modify the instructor’s approach of teaching the material.

So while sounding very similar these terms apply to separate audiences for very different purposes.  Hopefully this helps to cement your understanding – but if it doesn’t please provide me with some (choose one: FEEDBACK or EVALUATION) to help me modify my explanation. 🙂

No commentsAdd a comment

From 3rd Person to 1st Person

Providing formative feedback during first hand experiences, especially for processes, may be easier than you think with the introduction of Google Glass.

Google Glass can be used to record instructors demonstrating a process and learners can then replay the video while attempting the new process first hand – thus making the transition to a first hand experience smoother.

For example, watch this video on how to intubate a patient using Google Glass.

It would be interesting assess students who are learning a new procedure (be it intubating a patient, operating a piece of lab equipment, or changing a tire) via an interactive video shot from a 1st person perspective using Glass. Ideally, this would assist users form a more concrete understanding of how to proceed before an actual hands-on experience

No commentsAdd a comment

Evaluating Video Clips

This week I read an interesting article: “Do medical students watch video clips in eLearning and do these facilitate learning?” by KALLE ROMANOV & ANNE NEVGI.

The article found that:

Almost 20% of third year medical students neglected video clips as a multimedia learning tool.

Female medical students more actively used multimedia content in eLearning.

Video-watchers more frequently used the collaborative discussion tools.

Students who watched video clips were more active in using collaborative eLearning tools and achieved higher course grades.

I can say from personal experience that I actively participate in all my online courses and discussion boards which I think contributes greatly to my overall comprehension of the material presented.  It is sad to me that even though those who watched the video clips did in fact show greater learning (through evaluation of course) 20% of the students did not even attempt to watch the clips. I wonder if the study was conducted again if there would be 1) increased collaboration and multimedia interactions and 2) decreased gender differences as I would anticipate the general audience who participates in eLearning modules may have changed even in just 7 years.

Additionally, given the reading material this week on Problem Based Learning (PBL) I was excited to see it referenced in the article:

A recent study showed that medical students regarded online discussion as useless when integrated with face-to-face contact in tutorial problem-based learning (PBL) groups (de Leng et al. 2006).

No commentsAdd a comment

Other Timelines

I love seeing everyone’s work and learning from it. In case you do too, I have included some other people’s timelines (no guarantees the links will work forever).

No commentsAdd a comment

Evaluating my Evaluation Discussion

As I associate most with Kirkpatrick’s 4 levels of evaluation I will reflect on last’s weeks discussion.

LEVEL 1 – REACTION

I believed the class enjoyed the discussion, particularly my example case study where I tried to give an example of each evaluation model discuss in the book using how we evaluate instructors and courses here at GSU.  I base this off the positive comments given at the end of the presentation and participation throughout.

LEVEL 2 – LEARNING

While I did not implement an assessment at the end of the discussion, I did ask the class to jot down the key points they took away from the reading and the discussion.  Although, very few people participated in the exercise – an indication that I may have lost some of them – the ones who did answer the question touched on the main points we discussed as a group (norm vs. criterion-reference testing, formative vs. summative evaluation, the 5 presented evaluation models).

LEVEL 3 – BEHAVIOR & LEVEL 4 – RESULTS

Cannot and will not be measured – as with most studies I will not cover these most crucial aspects due to cost and time constraints.

All that said, I did enjoy the discussion and look forward to two discussions tonight from my classmates!

No commentsAdd a comment

Expanding the Definition

In addition to taking LT-8000 this semester, I am also taking LT-7100 with Dr. Mary Shoffner.  On a side note, I find that taking both of these course simultaneously very helpful as they seem to build off of each other.

In one of her lectures she presents Curtis L. Broderick’s definition of Instructional Design that I very much agree with:

Instructional Design is the art and science of creating an instructional environment and materials that will bring the learner from the state of not  knowing, not feeling or not being able to accomplish certain tasks to the state of knowing, feeling and being able to accomplish those tasks. Instructional Design is based on theoretical and practical research in the areas of cognition, educational psychology, and problem solving.

For me this combines the art and science behind instructional design and really plays to assisting learners accomplish tasks based on a comprehensive approach.  It seems that I am not alone in this stand point as similar sentiments are shared below:

What, if any, upgrades would you make to this definition?

No commentsAdd a comment

Defining Instructional Design & Technology

I am now entering my third semester of my Master’s program in Instructional Design and Technology at Georgia State and I think I have been asked to define it each of my courses.  Given that I have completed 9 of my 12 required courses and am taking 2 currently – this assignment seems to be rather popular.  And I guess it should be as I see it as an emerging field that has not quite cemented itself in the minds of its participants.

The program itself, Instructional Design and Technology has in fact changed divisions within the college of education and its program name (now known as Learning Technologies) since I joined the program in Fall of 2013.  A sure sign that things are changing.

So I fully expect my definition to morph and refine itself as I finish up my course work and begin to submerge myself in the field.

Definition

I see Instructional Design and Technology professionals as logical artists who solve user-interface-engagement problems.

Whoa! User-interface-engagement? Am I making up words? – Yes I am!

You see to me, the kernel of all IDT problems is the loosing the attention of participants – aka they are no longer engaged or they never work.  So let’s just test a couple of scenarios:

1) non-adoption of an idea due to an improper name – can be solved by interviewing participants for what comes to mind instead

2) chemical lab accident because assistant did not fully understand the machine – can be solved by developing interactive videos and quizzes that guide users

3) lost productivity at work because workers are not clear on roles/duties – can be solved by creating explicit job descriptions including roles and responsibilites

All of which, an IDT professional can assist design and develop.

It might sound interesting to describe something logical as artistic, but I think more times than not that is exactly what Instructional Designer are doing.  Instructional Designers take materials that were simply pragmatic and transform them to tools and resources that people connect with and better understand.  They take 500 page technical manuals that no one reads and develop interactive simulations that can help professionals troubleshoot problems in no time flat. They transform the all too known “death by PowerPoint” slide decks into online learn-as-you-need modules where users can pick and choose the items they need to learn.

Future

I see myself continuing to work as an eLearning consultant and hopefully working part-time as an instructor at a local Technical College.

Other Resources

I am not a huge blog reader, however, I did find this one to be interesting:

http://www.upsidelearning.com/blog/index.php/tag/instructional-design/

I also want to include a resource that I have found very helpful:

http://www.elearningguild.com/

 

No commentsAdd a comment