Abby Beach

Martin Mullan

Case Comparison and Contrast

Case #11 and Case #18

 

Introduction

For all instruction, the learner’s needs dictate the strategies and tools used. Larson and Lockee (Streamlined ID, 2013, p. 151) caution on the use of trendy, historically successful, or quickly and cheaply implemented strategies when deciding how to meet the learner’s needs. A thorough learner analysis must to be carried out and an effort to remove designer bias should be made when making decisions that will affect the outcomes of instruction.

Cases 11 and 18 from The ID CaseBook both display elements of these cautions that instructional designers (ID) need to avoid to produce the best results in their learners. In Case 11, an organization called the Informational Technology Consortium (ITC) wants to increase the number of technology professionals in the workforce; they intend to fund selected programs that will help achieve this goal. Craiger University hires an instructional designer, Malcolm Gibson, who faces the challenge of a faculty that wants to repurpose their current face-to-face instruction as it is historically successful and quick to do. In Case 18, Frank Tawl and Semra Senbetto are charged by the Singaporean Government to implement a strategy for designing instruction that works well in the United States but has cultural and age based constraints; what works well in one scenario does not necessarily work in others.

A thorough needs analysis of all the stakeholders involved in the project is important in order to identify all the possible constraints. Gibson is brought in late to the project and does not get enough time to complete a thorough analysis; he focuses on the learners and how to best enhance their experience based on the PTTP requirements at the expense of the faculty member’s concerns and risks alienating them. Tawl & Senbetto have the time to complete their analysis and are very thorough, identifying the needs of the trainers and their learners in the cultural context of Singapore.

Refining the Learning Context Design

In Case 11, the faculty want to recreate their classrooms online using their face-to-face materials. During their meetings with Gibson, they express concerns relating to how their classrooms can be simulated online referring to issues such as being able to see the students faces or knowing if they are on-task or not.

Gibson chooses to create an asynchronous, self-paced, online model that is expansible beyond the number of faculty members available to administer the course. This is in accordance with the requirements of the PTTP initiative as more students will be able to take part. Gibson designs interactive activities and opportunities for communication with other students in the course to enable problem solving and to enhance reflective/critical thinking.

Tawl & Senbetto aim to create a face-to-face delivery model for small and large group audiences. There is no mention in the case that the instruction would be delivered online or in a blended learning environment; in this regard, Case 18 is different to Case 11 as a stipulation by the client has not been made. Tawl & Senbetto (The ID CaseBook, 2013, p.183) want to design interaction between the learners but are constrained by the cultural issues surrounding the “loss of face” among Asian people when they are put on the spot or don’t know the answer to a question. The synchronous nature of the interactions Tawl & Senbetto wish to design are in contrast to the asynchronous, self-paced designs of Gibson; students in asynchronous courses have time to reflect and answer in online environments when they typically would not risk speaking in a face-to-face environment. In this regard, a blended learning environment would be a useful strategy in which Tawl & Senbetto could incorporate an anonymous forum to scaffold the risk taking associated with speaking up in a group. As students post more valuable comments and receive positive feedback, their confidence will improve allowing them to enter a forum and identifying themselves.

Identifying assumptions and pedagogical approaches

In both case studies there are two groups of key stakeholders; in Case 11 there is the staff at Craiger University and the Information Technology Consortium and in Case 18 there are the employees conducting the training and the government officials. In both cases the instructional design professionals are given the task of trying to unite the two groups to accomplish the defined task.

The strategies used by the designers are based very much on the the outcomes of their learner analysis, or lack of analysis in Case 11, and the learning context. Gibson has little learner analysis but knows that the project must be delivered online and respect the requirements of the PTTP. He designs certificate structures that are relevant to the learners based on appropriate career paths and proceeds to “chunk” instruction based on what he believes to be the best approach to the project. Using Larson and Lockee’s general examples (Streamlined ID, 2013, p. 154), Gibson uses a Behaviourist/Cognitivist approach for efficient and effective conveyance of knowledge i.e. an Instructivist approach. He also gives the students problems to solve indicating a Constructivist approach. Gibson tasks the students to be reflective in their thinking and to describe how they solved their problems and where they looked. This strategy has elements of a Connectivist approach where knowledge and learning are social and distributed; communities of practice e.g. Google Communities and Stackoverflow.com would be appropriate here. Based on Gibson’s expansible design, this strategy is wise as it takes the pressure off the faculty team to support every student in a 1-to-1 fashion and stimulates problem solving skills in the students. The faculty can become facilitators and guides to solutions as opposed to sources of knowledge; this approach is similar to the current Coursera.com courses on Gamification and PHP Programming.

Gibson also faces the challenge that the two stakeholders do not share the same assumptions and pedagogical approaches for using online resources for instruction. The staff at Craiger University is trying to get funding from the Information Technology Consortium (ITC). The ITC’s purpose for the funding is to increase the number of technology professionals, therefore the University must attract more students than they already have. In the case study it seems that the staff at Craiger University are just trying to get funding to repurpose an existing program to make it accessible online. There is a discrepancy between ITC wanting to train more adult learners in a new innovative and sustainable way that will revolutionize the work force and Craiger University wanting to give the same skills they have been in a different format. Also the ITC specified that online certificate programs in addition to degree programs would be ideal. Instead of truly trying to embody the idea of giving professionals training in certain areas, Craiger University broke their current curriculum into 4 sequential certificates that limit the students’ ability to complete a certain course of study that will best serve them in their career.

Case 18 also struggles with different assumptions about learning. The government wants to change how it is conducting training programs. They hired two ID professionals to assist in this transition. The ID professionals identify that while the government wants to change, the trainers are resistant to the change of approaches. The trainers believe that the instruction is better through a direct instruction situation with limited use of media and interactive materials. They also prefer assessment measures that provide quick feedback on what was learned. However, the government is in favor of the more modern approaches that involve group collaboration, simulations, role plays and case studies (Streamlined ID, 2013, p. 183).

Tawl & Senbetto arrive with their own assumptions about how their instruction should be best delivered and are pleased that the Singaporean government agrees with their strategies. As Larson and Lockee recommend however (Streamlined ID, 2013, p. 153), they “take a step back” after they complete their learner analysis. Since they are not designing an expansible online delivery mode like Gibson in Case 11, they need to be more concerned as to how the instruction will be used by the trainers and ultimately, accessed by the learners the trainers will deliver to. Tawl & Senbetto want to use interactive delivery strategies and alternative assessment measures. These techniques indicate that they believe in Constructivist and Situated strategies and want to apply the learners knowledge to solving problems in authentic scenarios. Unfortunately, their learner analysis indicates that these strategies do not suit the didactic, Instructivist style of the trainers and their learners. Tawl & Senbetto identify that motivating their learners to use their Constructivist techniques is an important objective but they realise that these techniques should only be used “if and when appropriate” (The ID CaseBook, 2013, p. 183).

Identify appropriate interactions and strategies

                In Case 11, Gibson takes the key stakeholder’s views into consideration while determining an instructional strategy. The ITC would like to fund a program that will allow more people to get degrees as well as online certificates. Although Craiger has technically developed online certificates, the certificates are so dependent on one another that it is very limiting to the learners. Gibson creates a different version of the proposed certificate program that allows the certificates to be completed independently or together to earn a degree; choice is incorporated along with challenge within each certificate. He also tries to keep that proposed online modules similar to the existing classes to maintain consistency for the faculty members.

                Tawl & Senbetto’s strategies are supported by the Singaporean government including simulations, role plays and case studies. These strategies are appropriate for instruction, however are not being supported by the trainers.

The instructional designers in both cases keep the learners at the center of their processes. Gibson, focuses on the learners by creating a system of online certificates that can be customizable to several different career paths. Tawl & Senbetto work to implement interactive learning strategies to best serve the learners ability to transfer their knowledge into the workplace.

The five types of interaction Larson and Lockee (Streamlined ID, 2013, p. 157-161) refer to are used to different degrees by the instructional designers; this is due to the nature of their delivery modes. Gibson and Tawl & Senbetto must design different Learner-to-Content interactions; Gibson’s content needs to be delivered in a format that is appropriate for the online learner to access (webpage based) whereas the face-to-face/blended environment of the Singaporean project can use other media. The assessment strategies bring about different Learner-to-Content interactions as the designers have chosen different pedagogical approaches to the tasks.

        Gibson’s Constructivist and Connectivist approaches require him to design more specifically for Learner-to-Context, Learner-to-Learner and Learner-to-Self interactions. Students need to be able to transfer their learning to the performance context and so having an authentic testing server for the PHP programming language is necessary; this will also provide instant feedback on whether or not the learner’s code is correct. Students must also be aided in their ability to connect and communicate with knowledge and learners in the community and have the ability to record their thoughts on their own progression through the course. Gibson should aim to use Gagné’s Nine Events of Instruction as it models a pathway through the designed activities that the learners can follow and is familiar to them from school; Gibson’s example module loosely follows Gagné’s Nine Events and seems to be blended with the BSCS Five Es Instructional Model to stimulate self reflection. Based on the sample module Gibson provides, he needs more time to fully incorporate the frameworks and scaffolding needed to allow learners to consume and contribute to distributed knowledge associated with a Connectivist approach to learning.

Tawl & Senbetto identify that Instructor-to-Learner interactions must be included as a cultural consideration so using Gagné’s Nine Events of Instruction as a basis for their instruction model seems logical as a core strategy; like in Gibson’s model, following a framework that is familiar to the learners will lower the cognitive load they experience. To enhance the motivation of the trainees to use their Constructivist strategies of role-playing and simulating scenarios, Tawl & Senbetto may use Keller’s ARCS Motivation Model. Relevance and Satisfaction both relate to the Why question of learning; if the trainers are not given a real reason to change their delivery style, they won’t. Tawl & Senbetto need to move their learners beyond the Patron-Client meritocratic nature of institutions and businesses in Singapore and Asia, or take advantage of the inherently individual and competitive nature of this culture. The learner must be intrinsically or extrinsically motivated to use the techniques they are being shown as they have proven to be advantageous. Case 18 outlines the concerns of the learners with regards to a lack of job advancement, lack of salary compensation, lack of rewards and a lack of confidence that their clients will allow them to use the new techniques. Tawl & Senbetto need to provide evidence that business leaders in Singapore desire their staff to have communication, collaboration, critical thinking and creativity/innovation skills. Without this motivation to improve these skills, it is understandable that the learners would choose the style of learning they feel fits their needs and has served them well in the past; this is most applicable to the elder learners who may be more senior in age and/or status to the trainers.

Gibson includes elements of Keller’s ARCS as he provides the learners with varying degrees of choice and challenge in the tasks he designs. Students who are intrinsically motivated to learn will do so; those that are extrinsically motivated by concepts such as “extra credit” may choose the more challenging tasks.

 

Select technologies to support the strategies

                Larson and Lockee use a Notable Non-Example (Streamlined ID, 2013, p. 182-183) to caution on not considering the media and technologies early in a project. The Non-Example is very similar to the scenario outlined in Case 11 where the faculty members want to replicate face-to-face interactions on a course that could have more students than they are capable of effectively teaching. Due to the lack of a thorough analysis and the short timeframe given to Gibson to produce a prototype, he is unable to design a prototype that addresses all the concerns of the faculty.

At the end of Case 11, the staff asks Gibson a list of questions that all deal with how to effectively facilitate online learning. Although they are pursuing implementation of an online program, the staff is not confident about how they will transfer their face-to-face teaching to the online environment; they don’t understand the scope and requirements of the project they are seeking funding for. As they move forward with implementing the online coursework they will need to identify different technologies that they can use to support knowledge construction (Streamlined ID, 2013, p. 184). Gibson is likely to have answered each of the faculty member’s concerns by suggesting technologies that would accomplish what they express concern about:

                In Case 18 Tawl & Senbetto discuss some more specific forms of technology that the government supports them using e.g. the use of simulations is mentioned. The instructional designers have suggested this as a technological resource because it supports learning through doing and problem solving (Streamlined ID, 2013, p. 184). This creates a learning context that is better aligned to the performance context which can allow for a greater transfer of knowledge.

        Tawl & Senbetto are in a much better position than Gibson to choose the technology they wish to use because of their thorough needs analysis. Based on the constraints of the cultural context it would be logical for the designers to choose technologies that allow the learners to access content and knowledge provided by respected members in the field they are studying; this content could be text based and be presented as a textbook. The desire of Singaporean learners to measure their knowledge would be built in using self-marking quizzes that many Virtual Learning Environments accomplish. To begin to embed the kind of interaction the designers wish to see they could design simple branching MS PowerPoint presentations with interactive buttons or incorporate video case studies with commenting features that permit anonymous commenting. As this is a government funded project it can be assumed that the budget for the project is large so employing a local TV producer to create the movies may be possible. Having the scenarios recorded with branching outcomes based on the input of the learners could be a way to increase interaction and assess the learner’s awareness of how a scenario should be played out; an interactive movie like this would also allow students to see how their choices might have negative consequences that should be avoided. This kind of interactive movie could be considered a game and have gamified elements with Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of “Flow” (Ted Talks, 2013) incorporated to enhance motivation.

        Tawl & Senbetto have a difficult task in designing for motivation while Gibson’s end users will have chosen to be on the course and are already intrinsically motivated to learn.

Summary

The choice of pedagogical approach, strategy and technology chosen for a project depends on a full analysis of all stakeholders. Case 11 highlights the effects of not completing a thorough analysis as stakeholder buy-in has not been achieved. Both cases and the Notable Non-Example from Streamlined ID (2013, p. 182) highlight that the needs of the learner are paramount and if they are ignored the result will be less than satisfactory outcomes for the learners.

        Clients must be given the opportunity to see the effects of the constraints they impose by providing evidence in the form of case studies or they risk becoming a notable non-example themselves.

        The type of learners involved plays an important role in the strategies and approaches taken to provide appropriate learning experiences and correctly aligned assessments. The type of technology and activities used rely on the decisions about the learners and strategies and ideally all will be in alignment. While this appears to be a linear process, keeping the end in mind and referring to our iterative ADDIE model should avoid the surprises Gibson faces in Case 11.

References

Ertmer, P. A., Quinn, J., & Glazewski, K. D. (2013). The ID CaseBook: Case Studies in Instructional Design. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson.

Larson, M.B. & Lockee, B.B. (2013). Streamlined ID: A Practical Guide to Instructional Design.  Oxon, UK:Routledge.

Ted Talks (2013). Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi: Flow, the secret to happiness. (Retrieved from:
http://www.ted.com/talks/mihaly_csikszentmihalyi_on_flow.html)