The three-week introduction to instructional design (changed from two weeks) for the four department heads can be produced and taught in three months at a proposed cost of $40340 (or approximately 50808 less 20%). The technology includes the in-house learning management system along with audio/video (a/v) design beginning with a prototype. Based on this examination, this project can expand the effectiveness and efficiency of instruction at Seed’s World. In General: The goals examine the practical benefits and their effect on the stakeholders.
The strategies described are intended to advance the expectations of everyone concerned. The entire project will cover April 22- July though the design phase and prototype will be complete by June 14, 2013, and full production can begin. Sponsored by: D. Whitehorse Part l: Design Proposal The purpose of this instructional design course will be to examine some of the solutions and advantages in establishing an in-house study program intended to preempt problems with instructional inconsistency between departments and instructors.
The course will be disseminated throughout the teaching personnel by ACH department head. This project postulates the possibility of usable, web-based learning for instructors that can create a vehicle into primary, cooperative and interrelated planning of instruction for a virtual school (in this case, our MORPH called Seed’s World). This initial course will allow the department heads to act as mentors for the special circumstances or special needs of their instructors. Goals With the vision and mission of Seed’s world in mind, these initial goals (broad ideas) and objectives (accomplished tasks) are suggested.
Goal 1 This instructional design course seeks to provide an exceptional opportunity for mastery-level learners (department heads) through the use of computerized interaction and narrative. The objective is to implement a course that offers an attractive setting with both online support, and a personal resource for educators in our organization. Goal 2 This instruction seeks to develop a high quality course that advances the department heads toward a deeper understanding of instructional design (ID).
Toward this goal, the course in ID intends to implement assessments that are realistic and skill appropriate. Also, “the development of any complete quality assurance model for web-based learning needs to incorporate perceptions from academic staff” (as cited in Double, 2003, Para. 2); therefore, course evaluations will be used to promote service excellence. Goal 3 In providing support for these faculty members, this ID course seeks to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of all participants and remain cost effective in the process.
Implementing this course requires the ability and enthusiasm of everyone involved. Therefore, initial course work, including help categories and interactions, quire the fullest possible instruction in the use of ID for everyone. Audience Instructional design is an expanding area that requires a variety of options, and though Shale (1988) proposes that it is time for distance education to become Just education, special strategies for implementation need to be examined.
For instance, the D-P-A (Design, Plan, Act) was a system strategy advocated by Lever-Duffy and McDonald (2011) to insure that no element of the design process was omitted. Also, Robber’s (1996) flow theory, which intended to support the concepts in gaming as options for instruction, delineated the comparative concepts between the intense concentration and focus needed to interpret and respond in a given scenario and the same type of performance in an immerse learning environment.
However, this course is intended to be a guide toward these types of ultimate outcomes, and with department heads as the audience, a certain enthusiasm for personal excellence and subject mastery can be assumed. Finally, the number of professionals requesting online education is growing, and as Valentine (2002) concludes, “the future of distance learning seems bright” (p. 53). The desire for knowledge and personal advancement opens opportunities because without differences in presentation and options for various platforms, some of our fine educators might fail.
Course Design The course would involve ten units with the intention of completing one unit every one or two days depending on the depth of the topic (as opposed to one per day). The content (below) would follow the general pattern developed by Smith and Reagan (2005) for their “Instructional Design” textbook. However, it will be structured in the Unit-Module-Topic model (below) from which a clear and effective pattern emerges. Wherein, day one would cover an introduction and foundational information.
Days two and three would cover learner context and analysis, etc. Each topic would be followed by exercises, and each unit would have a required assessment that must be successfully completed before the next unit can be accessed. Course Content (revision to” several weeks”=3) Unit One: Day One Module One Introduction to Instructional Design (ID) TOPIC one: What ID? Topic Two: The ID Process Module Two: Foundations of ID Topic One: What is ID Theory Topic Two: Major Theories Unit Two: Days Two and Three Module One: Learning Context
Topic One: Introduction to Analysis Topic Two: Instructional Needs Topic Three: Learning Environment Module Two: Learner Analysis Topic One: Formative Evaluation (Using TABLE scores) Topic Two: Adult Learners Topic Three: Learning styles Unit Three: Days Four and Five Module One: Learning Task Topic One: Learning-task Analysis Topic Two: Goal Analysis Topic Three: Learning Models (Bloom to Webb) Module Two: Assessing Learning Topic One: Assessments Topic Two: Evaluation Topic Three: Achievement Unit Four: Days Six and Seven Module One: Strategy Design Topic One: Instructional Strategies Topic Two: Organizational Strategies
Topic Three: Alternative Strategies Module Two: Declarative Knowledge Topic One: What is declarative knowledge? Topic Two: Learning Strategies Topic Three: Assessment Unit Five: Day Eight Module One: Concept Learning Topic One: What is concept learning? Module Two: Procedure Learning Topic One: Learning to apply a procedure Unit Six: Day Nine Module One: Principle Learning Topic One: Learning Principles Module Two: Problem Solving Topic One: What is problem solving? Topic Three: Rubric Development Unit Seven: Day Ten Module One: Cognitive Strategy Topic One: What is cognitive strategy learning?
Topic Two: General Approaches Module Two: Attitude Learning Topic One: What is attitude Learning? Topic Two: Objectives Unit Eight: Day Eleven Module One: Psychosomatic Learning Topic One: What is Psychosomatic Learning Topic Two: General Procedures Module Two: Integrated Learning Topic One: Curriculum Structures Topic Two: Curriculum Tools Topic Three: Curriculum Design Unit Nine: Day Twelve Module One: Evaluations Topic One: Formative Evaluations Topic Two: Summarize Evaluations Topic Three: Unit Adjustments (for instructor) Unit Ten: Days Thirteen, Fourteen, and Fifteen Module One: Interface Topic One: Interface Design
Topic Two: Interface Evaluation Module Two: Design Tools Topic One: Understanding the design tools Topic Two: Using the design tools Having completed the analysis, and planned meetings with the team to determine the budget and other resources available, the course design will begin by determining the goals for each topic and preparing appropriate instruction for disseminating the information (lesson structures and materials needed) in a format that allows the learners to apply the knowledge (review) and complete the assessment (rubric).
Specifically, coupling the Unit-Module-Topic (U-M-T, above) with he EDDIE (Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate) model in the web presentations installs another layer of best practices to the instructional design. “The goals, objectives, assessment, instructional strategies and delivery strategies are the heart of the resources. This is where the design becomes specific and instructional” (Smith & Organ, 2005, p. 356). By addressing the learning units in this fashion, each becomes a mint-classroom, and each selection is independent.
This choice is also supported by Airlock, Says, Jones, and Sims (2006): “The rapid changes n our understanding of learning have positioned KIDS to accommodate new ideas, with the EDDIE model providing the foundation from which more recent instructional design models have been built” (p. 172). Therefore, the selection of the EDDIE model is a good choice based on the flexibility of the structure that allows the evaluation process to continually evolve the project at need while presenting a recognizable base. Once the team and sponsor agree upon the final design, development of the materials will begin immediately.
Prototype Specifically, the unit would cover Unit Ten/Module One (Interface). This has been selected because of the ease and attractiveness of this presentation. The Prototype will include: slides that give an overview of interface design (topic One) followed by activities and/or questions. This will continue to topic two (interface evaluation) that will use slides from the GEED Academy ALMS to exemplify the instructional points. At the completion of the module, an essay on the interface (assessed through the grading rubric) will be required.
Obviously, the IS-M-T model will display a necessary part of this course, and it will set a consistent and repeatable standard for every unit. Also, this prototype will be a positive addition to the course development because it will indicate potential problems, allow for alternate execution strategies, and extend our knowledge of handling both the subject matter and the working interface. The rapid prototype, a theory supported by Trip and Bicycler (1990), is indicated to “solve efficiency problems associated with traditional software design” (Para. 1).
They continued by advocating this use because it saves money and has proven to be successful for design efficiency and effectiveness. In this case, the retype will be a single unit that demonstrates best practices. It can be offered as a stand-alone example for the ID course and examined in detail through a Powering or video presentation. Delivery Some of the best practices for instruction can be utilized through the website class. The article from Cinnamon’s (2004) paper and chapter six of Simonton, Smallish, Albright, and Spaces (2012) text book (p. 98) present the U-M-T as a good guide for general use in instructional design, and the website presentation (broken into units of study with two to three modules and two to four topics in each module) utilizes this practice efficiently, and this is also compatible with the in-house “GEED Academy Accelerated Learning Program” learning management system (ALMS) which can be expand in the instructors and administrators area to present this course. Timeline The small calendars (below) represent the design plan dates and milestones (in red).
Risks Project Assumptions In general, we can assume that participants will have access to the Internet, an active email account, plus capable computers, and they will be constrained by our choice of Internet applications, servers, and programs. However, when a course of action is dependent on human interaction, certain unintended consequences need to be considered. First, in preparing instruction intended to improve organizational conditions and operations, the assumption that intelligent, educated leaders will become enthusiasts in participation could cause an initial stumbling point for the project.
These instructors need to be included in preparatory communication. As experts in their fields, they should be: incorporated into discussions during the prototype development, invited to the prototype’s initial showings, assured that they will be compensated during the course, and shown how this course can improve the efficiency of each department. Also, the department heads could be asked to volunteer as members of the controlled, expert group during the evaluation of the interface; thus, they would have an even larger stake in the project.
Next, in using this course to create solutions for cooperative, coordinated instruction, cooperation between D. J. Worth, Robin Forth, and Beet Rider is essential. Therefore, either a group meeting or private meetings with each are indicated in order to establish lines of communication during design and development. This meeting (or meetings) will also facilitate the initial approvals for the course. In getting the budget allowance from Ms. Rider and the technology allotments from Ms.
Forth, the optional assessments in budget and computer space can be finalized for Mr.. Worth. In these ways the possible consequences of human interaction can be minimized. Scope Creep Keeping the instructions focused on the intended track and not allowing the course to be diverted toward other instructor and school concerns is important. As the SEEM on the course development, part of my responsibility will be to work with the project manager to create a systematic and continual line of communication between