Instructional Design Project Reflection

 

The stated objective of the LDT 502 course was that students would be able to “use the systemic process of instructional design to design and develop an instructional module.”  Although the course included many informal assessment strategies (such as discussion posts), the primary method of assessing this objective was a materials mockup—a hypothetical module created for a hypothetical course with the intent of effectively instructing hypothetical students.  My group’s final product can be found at this link for reference as I discuss aspects of this assignment.

Immediately after hearing the explanation of the course’s end goal (during the first live session), my team created the website as a blank canvas.  Although we were seven weeks away from needing to submit this as a product, having the beginnings of what would eventually be our “Big Grade” already started helped me, at least, to feel as if there was more structure.  Then, during the following smaller steps (the Task and Content Analysis, the Instructional Objectives, and the Detailed Design Document) we occasionally went back to that blank site to discuss how our ideas would eventually be used in context.

Of these smaller steps, I believe that the Detailed Design Document (DDD) provided the most benefit overall.  We certainly used information from the previous steps to create this.  However, this was the crucial moment when everything really came together, particularly when building out the “Instructional Content” section.  This part of the assignment put us to the test to determine if we really were prepared to create something essentially from scratch.  It also allowed us, as a group, to spot issues such as miscommunication over the preferred teaching/learning style, consistency with styles and formats, and to also analyze how many steps our learners would need to know to be able to meet their objective easily.  The great thing about having all of these conversations while preparing the DDD was that, once we submitted this item (and received such amazing feedback on it—thank you so much, Dr. Spicer!), we were able to cut and paste large swathes of text directly into the website that was waiting for our “paint”.  It left us with a very clear direction for what still needed to be created before finalizing the product.

Our target learners for this mockup were hypothetical faculty at a postsecondary educational institution.  We designed with them in mind—a variety of adults who have access to technology and almost certainly can understand English via written or spoken word.  These adults, we anticipated, would need a course that was flexible, easy to navigate, and could be completed on their own schedule and with their own resources.  Considering this audience, I feel strongly that our product was indeed aligned with the needs of our target learners.

After reviewing the goals outlined in the Design Case, I feel that my team successfully met all of the objectives.  These are:

• Conduct a needs assessment to establish an instructional, training or performance need.  My team did this both within a discussion prompt and when reviewing the hypothetical scenario presented by the Design Case, which included a description of learner needs.
• Develop a learner and content analysis.  My team completed and submitted this item, including all parts of the stated rubric.
• Develop learning goals and/or terminal objectives for an instructional module.  My team submitted this individually and compared our work during the development of our DDD. 
• Develop well-written instructional objectives.  This was also submitted individually and used for the DDD.
• Develop a learning assessment aligned with instructional objectives.  My team discussed this and chose an assessment while developing our DDD.
• Select instructional strategies to be applied in the instructional module.  My team discussed this and chose strategies while developing our DDD.
•  Design and sequence learning activities to be applied in the learning module.  My team discussed this and created a learning sequence while developing the DDD.
• Develop instructional materials for learners and instructors or facilitators.  My team collaborated to create these materials while developing the DDD and also later while finishing the mockup website.
•  Develop an evaluation plan for an instructional module.  We referred to our design and planned assessment when deciding this item.

I am incredibly happy with and proud of the great work that my team created.  If I had to make changes to our process, however, I would address some of the communication issues.  We originally began with four members.  After nearly all work was complete (we were in the sixth week, making changes to the actual mockup site at the time), one of our members said she had decided to drop the course because it was too demanding and stressful.  I feel that this is because she felt the workload was overwhelming.  Prior to this, while developing the DDD, I had spoken to this team member about how her work was not very well aligned with the overall style and design of the rest of the team and may be confusing for learners.  Because of this, she may have felt that she was doing additional work or struggling to understand the expectations.  I feel that if we had communicated more effectively earlier in that step (developing the DDD) we may have avoided that pitfall.

 

As a whole, this course, this project, and this product were all incredibly enriching for me.  I had the opportunity to explore new technology, to implement theories in new ways and determine if they were effective or not (with the help of great feedback) and I had a chance to work with a team of unique individuals who offered thoughtful insight at every stage of our collaboration. I appreciate the effort that the instructors have put into creating this experience.