 |
| img src |
As I approach the initial phases of instructional design this week, I have begun to think a lot about the amount of preparation involved in the analysis stage. In Smith & Ragan’s (2005) Instructional Design, learner analysis is given a great deal of emphasis, so it’s no surprise that my take away from the reading is the complexity involved in understanding the learning audience. Smith & Ragan provide many useful, real-world scenarios that made it easy to see the complexity of a learning situation and the various nuances that must be considered in order to create an effective instructional design project.
For example, in the “example of learner analysis” (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 71), the authors present the training scenario of computer hardware Service Professionals (SPs) working at MetaCom Corporation. In the example, the authors present the employees’ learning preferences (web based or instructor based training), how they trust others, how they work with others, and their skills and deficiencies. I found it useful to see how a designer can work with the preferences and pre-existing knowledge of the target audience to make learning more engaging and effective. For example, when the designer finds out that the SPs have “difficulty in establishing interpersonal relationships” (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 71), the response is to incorporate into the training role-playing scenarios so that SPs can work on “the human interactions required in training a customer to use the new system” (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 72).
My main take away: So much goes into preparing a successful learning program, especially one that is “learner centered.”
While working on my own project, I quickly found that as one question develops, more quickly follow. To illustrate, during my preliminary audience assessment I attempted to profile the target audience. I began thinking first about who would be engaging with this instructional material. To answer that question, I would have to know their age, job title, years in the program, and other occupational and personal data. Also, I’d need to know their level of technical ability, which video/audio capturing devices they are currently familiar with, which computer environment they are use to, and other technical details. It was as though no matter how many questions I developed, more followed.
At first I was a bit frustrated - how was I ever going to begin if I had so many questions? However, after looking over the questions and considering approaches to information gathering, I accepted that this all just part of the process, and that having too many questions is far better than not enough. With the right approach, nothing is impossible.
I have also learned a lot from my peers in our asynchronous discussion forums. They have helped me consider, for example, the consequences of limiting or expanding the learner audience. Could I scale my design project to meet the needs of Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs) in other departments, or is this instructional content designed specifically for GTAs in the College of Education? Could the audience change to incorporate other instructors as well?
When I begin work with an organization, be it higher education or the health care industry, I’m sure I will be building on the instructional design skills I’m developing in this course. As I develop a framework for the ID process, I am creating an approach to ID, or “paving a path” that I will walk on every day. For that reason, I can see the importance of spending a great deal of time thinking critically about the process and analyzing various approaches to discover what will work best moving forward.
References
Smith, P., & Ragan, T. (2005). Instructional design. (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Jossey-Bass
Education.
No comments:
Post a Comment