Learning Reflections - e-bites · Web viewThis is an important consideration and Caffarella built...

Can a program design model ensure quality and consistency across training packages developed within my team?

Does the perfect program design model exist? If it does, can I apply it in my work

place to solve the quality issues we have with designing training packages?

The aim of my learning contract is to deepen my understanding of program

design and develop or adapt a suitable model to use as a reference in my work

place. This will allow my training and development team to maintain an

acceptable level of quality throughout all our training offerings.

To be able to assess my learning at the end of this project it is important that I

measure where I am starting from and ask myself what I believe a “program

design model” looks like and what I hope this will achieve for me.

I believe a program design model should be a set of steps or guiding questions

that ensures my program development is not haphazard but instead a planned

and thought through process, with an overall aim of promoting, enhancing and

achieving learning.

My need for a program design model arises from a current workplace issue. I

work for a financial services company in the training and development unit. My

team is geographically dispersed, made up of 8 corporate trainers (2 in Sydney

and 6 in Melbourne) of varying experiences and academic backgrounds. Our

roles consist of designing and delivering training to the business. Our current

problem is the disparate quality of the training packages we produce. We do not

have any program design guidelines, review or quality assurance procedures for

our design process, which means that training packages are designed according

to the designer’s personal preference with no evident underlying framework. This

results in fundamental flaws in the following areas:

Learning objectives: there are no standards in how objectives should be

written; objectives are inconsistent with content, objectives are created as

an afterthought and in some instances appear disjointed from the rest of

the package etc.

Debora Gallo – Student No. 01018302 1

Content: lack of logic in how content is structured (pc application training

is mostly designed around what the system can do not what tasks the

participant will do with the help of the system in their role), no clear flow of

topics within a training course etc.

Transfer of learning: no clear links between what the learners do

throughout the training session and what they do back on the job,

activities don’t always mirror work environment etc.

Creativity: no diversity in terms of types of activities (all packages have

the same core activities such as brainstorm on flipchart paper and discuss

in groups), no risks taken in terms of trying new instructional strategies.

Instructional design: lack of appropriate activities, little or no thought put

into the underlying philosophical assumptions that guide the design and

how this impacts the training package.

My aim is that through researching the different views and theories of program

development I can adapt a suitable model to my work environment that will allow

us to have a common ground from which we all start our design process. This

will help us to achieve consistent levels of quality in all our training packages.

What is a program design model?

In order to find the perfect model we must first understand what is meant by a

program design model. There are a plethora of terms and definitions used for

program design. Amongst the alternatives Caffarella (2002) defines program

planning models as ideas of one or more persons about how programs should

be put together and what ingredients are necessary to ensure successful

outcomes.

Gagne et al (1992) on the other hand has a more systematic approach, defining

an instructional system as an arrangement of resources and procedures used to

promote learning. He then adds that instructional systems design is the

systematic process of planning instructional systems.


Sork and Caffarella (1990) state that program planning refers to the process of

determining the ends to be pursued and the means employed to achieve them.

They believe that planning is a decision-making process and a set of related

activities that produce educational program design specifications for one or more

adult learners. They also believe that a planning model is a tool used to help

understand and to bring order to a complex decision-making process. A typical

planning model consists of a set of steps or elements that suggest decisions that

must be made. Models make the underlying logic of a planning process explicit

and provide verbal or graphic cues to help practitioners systematize their work.

Newman (1995) has a different view; he says that program development is an

art, not a science. Designing and then conducting a program of learning for a

group of adults requires imagination, flexibility and willingness to take risks.

Newman states that there are accepted and proven ways of doing things but

very few absolute rules. He believes educators must approach the design of

learning as a creative endeavour.

My view of a program design model encompasses the systematic approach of

steps or questions that guide the decision making process together with a

degree of creativity and flexibility. Above all I believe it is important that the

designer is aware of the underlying adult education assumptions and beliefs that

in some way are guiding and influencing the design process.

What program design models can I use as reference?

Newman (1995) states that one of the most influential program development

models devised was Ralph Tyler’s (1949) 4 stage model published in “Basic

Principles in Curriculum and Instruction”. Tyler’s ideas are still current and are

used as a guide for many of today’s curriculum design models. This model

comprises the following stages:

1. Deciding on educational purposes (identify needs)

2. Selecting learning experiences to achieve those purposes


3. Organising the learning experiences for effective instruction (scope and

sequence of instruction)

4. Evaluating the effectiveness of the learning experiences

Brookfield (1987) coincides with Newman and states that Tyler’s model has

retained a conceptual pre-eminence in adult education. An example of this can

be seen in the more recent generalized ADDIE model of instructional design as

described by Carliner (2002). The ADDIE model defines 5 basic phases:

1. Analysis – purpose and audience are defined

2. Design – instructional plans are created

3. Development

4. Implementation – the training is finalized and made available to

learners

5. Evaluation – the course’s effectiveness is assessed

There are clear similarities between the ADDIE model and Tyler’s model, both

have three clear functions: identifying the outcomes of the instruction, developing

the instruction and evaluating the effectiveness of the instruction. But there is a

lack of consideration for the context and underlying philosophies involved in the

design process.

Sork and Caffarella’s (1990) model fills some of the gaps mentioned above in

their 6 step model. They take a slightly broader approach and amongst other

things recommend:

Analyses of the context and client system: The purpose of this phase is to

identify internal and external factors or forces that should be taken into

account such as history of the organization, structures within the

organization that govern the flow of communication, resource limits etc. It

also involves an analysis of the client group, establishing boundaries and


determining characteristics that may have an impact in the planning

process.

Formulate administrative plan: The purpose of this phase is to pay

attention to the administrative details such as financials, participation,

scheduling, facilities etc.

There are various other models that have similar fundamental structures as the

above (based on Tyler’s model) the main differences being additional phases

that take the designer into deeper levels of detail.

An example of the deeper level of detail can be seen in Dick and Carey’s (1990)

9 stage model which explicitly presents phases relating to:

Instructional Strategy: Described as an outline of how instructional

activities will relate to the accomplishment of the objectives. Dick and

Carey (1990) state that it is at this point that the designer must be able to

combine knowledge of learning and design theory with his or her

experience of learners and objectives.

Instructional materials: This phase highlights the importance of selecting

and/or developing appropriate materials and the link between objectives

and the availability of materials as an impact to the overall design and

planning process.

Buckley and Caple’s (2004) systematic approach also goes into detail, outlining

a phases such as:

Consider principles of learning and motivation: They mention that

consideration must be given to the principles of learning and motivation

such as reinforcement and practice etc that may need to be embedded in

the training environment.

Design and pilot traning: This involves testing all aspects of a training

program before delivering it to the desired client base.


Saul Carliner (2002) takes a much more holistic view of program design in his

instructional design framework for the 21st century. He starts off by differentiating

between the terms model and methodology, stating that a model provides a

scheme for organizing phenomena that people observe in the world around them

whereas a methodology recommends a process for approaching a particular

challenge. What I am in need of is a methodology that guides my team’s

program design.

Carliner presents an updated model that addresses not only the basic process of

designing instruction, but also encompassing the underlying design philosophies

and techniques. This is something that has not had much emphasis, or been

stated clearly in previous models.

Carliner’s model has three parts:

Design philosophies and theories: this part of the framework addresses

the science and philosophy of how humans learn, the theories underlying

the approach to the instructional problem and other learning theories.

General design methodology: this part covers the standard ADDIE

methodology seen in other models (analysis, design, development,

implementation and evaluation).

Instructional considerations: this part points the designer to issues to

consider (business, context etc), techniques and strategies.

In Planning programs for adult learners, Caffarella (2002) presents the

Interactive model of program planning. She describes this model as

12component model that provides a map or guide of the planning process. This

model is different from the others presented in that it has no beginning or end;

program planners are encouraged to use the relevant parts of the model in any

order and combination based on the planning situation. This is an important

consideration and Caffarella built this model with the notion that planning

programs is rarely, if ever, a linear, step-by-step process.


My adapted model

Based on my research of instructional design models I have come to the

conclusion that no one model will meet all my needs. Each model discussed has

it’s strong points and my best option is to collate the strengths of each model into

a customized adapted model. I have used Saul Carliner’s model as a baseline

and customized it based on the needs of my workplace.

The key requirements for my model are:

It needs to be a flexible guide that allows my team members to choose

which part of the model they want to work with based on the project they

have at hand. A rigid step by step approach won’t fit our environment due

to the diversity of projects, business requirements and experience within

the team. If I want team members to embrace this model I have to

acknowledge that an imposed step by step approach will create

resentment instead of approval.

I will base my flexible approach on Caffarella’s (2002) interactive model,

following her idea that the model has no beginning or end and can be

used in any order based on the planning situation.

It needs to be holistic and cover not only the ADDIE (analysis, design,

development, implementation and evaluation) elements but also the

design philosophies and theories involved in planning a program. For this

I will borrow the ideas from Saul Carliner’s (2002) model where he states

that most practising instructional designers are aware only of the design

process, not the belief system that guides it and the assumptions about

learning inherent in those belief systems. I agree with his notion that a

more complete framework should inform designers about the belief

systems that underlie their decisions, and how those beliefs influence the

design of instruction.


It needs to provide a guiding framework and also practical questions or

checklists that trainers can use if they need a structured approach or that

they can use if they are new to instructional design.

Instructional Design Model

Design Philosophies and Theories

General Design

Instuctional Considerations* Philosophy of learning* Science of learning* Theory of learning

COREQuestions

* ADDIE Analysis Design Development Implementation Evaluation

* Context* Politics* Schedules* Organization* Buddy* Experience

For the purpose of this project I will present an overview of my adapted model.

As it is something that my whole team will use I will design the backbone or

general framework and then present it to them for feedback, once we have gone

over it as a team I will continue with the second stage of adding checklists and

detailed information for each stage of the model.


The model is made up of three areas: Design Philosophies and Theories,

General Design and Instructional Considerations. These three areas each have

a “Core” sector that contain key questions considered to be important or

instrumental to that section of the model.

The model is flexible, which means that designers can come in at any stage and

refer to the section that most applies to their situation. There is no start or end.

This is particularly important in our work context as some decisions about the

program are already made by other stakeholders so we need a model that allows

us the flexibility to bypass certain stages without compromising the quality of the

final product.

The model has been designed to be used as a guide when planning and

designing programs, specifically within my workplace. It takes into account the

context, needs and considerations we deal with on a daily basis within the

company.

Each section will have an accompanying set of checklists and guiding questions

that expand and help the designer through the creation process with the aim of

creating consistency and a common framework within the team.

Overview of the different sections of the model:

Design Philosophies and Theories sectionThis section covers a range of learning theories and philosophies. It is important

that the designer review and ask him or herself what assumptions and

philosophies are underpinning the ideas behind the design and whether this has

an impact on the final product or whether they should be considering other

positions. As a program planner or designer you need to have an idea of what

learning is and what it means to you. It is also important for a designer to answer

questions such as why am I making these design decisions? What is my value


position? The only way that we can answer these questions is by looking at our

underlying philosophies and identifying our own foundations.

This stage has 2 components:

Philosophy of learning : This section focuses on the philosophies

underpinning our work, helping to uncover the notion that everything we

do is informed by some kind of theory, even if we don’t know it.

I have decided to incorporate Zinn’s (1990) Philosophy of Adult Education

Inventory into my adapted model as a tool to help my team start reflecting

on their personal philosophies of education. This is a good starting point in

the reflection process and ensures we are starting to think about more

than just how the content should be structured and what new activities

can be devised. This inventory will introduce the team to the Liberal,

Behaviourist, Progressive, Humanistic and Radical philosophies.

Science and theory of learning: This section focuses on the scientific and

theoretical side of learning. I will provide information on a few different

theories so that we can acknowledge the influences and diversity that

exists when it comes to instruction. I’ll cover the following topics:

Knowles’ (1990) Adult learning assumptions - I’ll introduce

Knowles’ assumptions as a checklist for trainers to review and use

as a guide. The assumptions will help root our training packages

within a true adult learning framework.

Gagne’s Hierarchy of Intellectual skills – I’ll introduce Gagne’s

theory in a visual form (laid out in pyramid format). This theory

proposes that learning is like a building process which utilizes a

hierarchy of skills that increase in complexity. This theory will aid

when thinking about content and explaining why we structure it in a

certain way.


The concept of Gagné's knowledge hierarchy leads to the

assumption that it is important to present all the necessary lower-

level facts before proceeding to teach at higher levels. Related to

this is the concept that people can reason with higher-level

concepts if they have learned all of the prerequisite lower-level

information.

Bloom’s (1956) Taxonomy – This theory will help us question

what domains of knowledge we are aiming to affect with our

training and what ways are there to do it effectively.

I will include a table with Bloom’s Taxonomy for reference.

Kolb’s Experiential Learning: Kolb’s theory will provide another

perspective focusing on learning from experience. I will include

Kolb’s model with a brief explanation of each stage.

On the science side of things the model will include information about:

Memory, Retention and Transfer: The literature on these topics is

quite extensive and impossible to include it all in the model but to

simplify this I will include tips on how to improve memory and

retention based on existing theories.

Motivation: It is important to have an idea about Maslow’s

Hierarchy of Needs and Bandura’s Self Efficacy theory. These two

theories will explain what we need to keep in mind if we want our

training packages to be successful and it will also help clarify

issues that are occurring in terms of lack of motivation and how we

can address these. I will include a graph with Maslow’s hierarchy

and an accompanying excerpt that explains the theory.

Skill Learning: A lot of the training packages we develop are skill

based; therefore it is very important that we are aware of theories


such as Fitts Skill Learning theory. This theory presents us with 3

phases that we can use to guide our development of skill based

training packages. I will include a table that outlines the 3 phases

and how it is relevant to the type of training we develop.

Core Questions: A sample of the core questions for this section

would include: Have you considered adult learning principles?,

Have you taken into account memory, retention and transfer

strategies to improve learning? etc.

General Design sectionThis section of the model focuses on the design challenges. I have borrowed

from the ADDIE model and structured this as a guide with the following stages:

Analysis: The outcome of this stage is the development of a

Scope Document. The Scope document guides the designer in

considering issues such as clarifying the need for the training,

identifying the audience, analysing the context and constraints of

the learning project. The Scope Document will have a set of

guiding questions and checklists to make this stage easier and

consistent across the team. A Scope Document template will be

designed by the team.

Design: This stage should include tasks such as developing a

project brief with schedules, timelines and milestones for the

development of the learning package, choosing instructional

strategies, and structuring the learning program.

The project brief information can be added to the existing Scope

Document. I will provide a matrix to guide the selection of

instructional strategies. It is important that the team uses a variety

of strategies so that our learners do not become accustomed and


bored with the same strategies in all our programs, this matrix will

provide alternatives and ideas for the team.

Development: The outcome of this stage is the development of a

lesson plan and accompanying materials for the training program.

I will incorporate a lesson plan template and guidelines for its use

that have been developed by the team. I will also provide activity

handout templates to standardize the look and feel of all our

materials.

In order to guide and assist with the actual development of the

lesson plan I will provide tips on how to write learning objectives,

and links back to the design philosophies and theories section that

may assist with clearer content structure and organization.

I will also include the team’s guidelines on naming files and folders

for our training packages.

Implementation: At the moment we do not have any formal

strategies in place in regards to implementation of our training

packages. The normal process is to develop the package and then

deliver it to our intended audience. Unfortunately we do not have

the opportunity to pilot every program we develop. I will include a

checklist of things to look out for if we have the chance to pilot

programs and a set of guiding questions that the trainer may ask

him or herself after the program has been run for the first time.

This stage also introduces the concept of a Buddy system. As a

team we have decided that to ensure quality across our packages

we will buddy up with another team member to review our finished

work. To aid this review process I will supply a list of questions that

can be used in the Buddy review process to ensure consistency

and accuracy across our packages.


Evaluation: At the moment we are using a web based system to

evaluate our training packages once they have been delivered. We

have also developed a 3 stage evaluation model based on

Kirkpatrick’s theory which unfortunately hasn’t been used very

often within the team. To facilitate the completion of this stage I will

include instructions on how to setup our web based evaluations,

guidelines on what we should be evaluating and suggestions for

what to so with the collected data. I will also include the 3 step

evaluation model that has already been created so that we can

start looking at this again and make a plan to start using it.

Core Questions: A sample of the core questions for this section

would include: Does your content suit all our lines of business?,

Have you used a range of instructional strategies?, Have you setup

a Sharepoint evaluation? Etc.

Instructional Considerations sectionThis section deals with the tasks that are involved after the training program has

been developed, things such as scheduling, administration, marketing, reviewing

and updating packages.

We have an existing set of guidelines for the administration side of things (using

Peoplesoft, the learner management system), tasks that should be carried out

after delivering a training session (updates to training packages based on what

occurred during the delivery) and guidelines for periodical reviews of training

packages.

This section would bring those guidelines together and organize them in an

accessible format. Having these documents included in the model brings the

training function full circle and allows for the flexibility we require. For example

some members of the team may need to update a section of the lesson plan and

then deliver the training, he or she can use the model to guide the design task


and then refer to the Instructional Considerations section for the other tasks

involved once the training has been delivered.

Core Questions: A sample of the core questions for this section would include:

Has your Buddy reviewed the package? Do you need to add information to the

package based on your delivery? And Have you completed Peoplesoft

administration?

ConclusionThroughout the course of this learning contract I have learned a great deal about

program design and about my own expectations towards my team.

I found that there isn’t one single program design model that can cater for our

needs, I was hoping to find a model that brought together all the theories I have

learnt throughout my undergraduate and post graduate adult learning courses. I

have realized this is impossible.

The models I have looked at each have their strengths and weaknesses, what I

have done is pulled the parts that I consider important from each one into an

adapted model of instructional design and coupled this with context specific

considerations particular to my work environment .

I know this model will not solve all my team’s weaknesses but it can bring us one

step closer to understanding what needs to be considered when designing

training packages and ensure a higher degree of consistency across our

instructional design.

The next step in the development of this model is the creation of checklists,

questions and guidelines for each sections and consolidate these into an

“Instructional Design Model” document. Once I have this finished I will present

the draft to my team for feedback. This team based development and

enhancement approach will help in the early adoption from all team members.


Bibliography

Bloom, B. 1956 ‘Bloom's Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain’,

http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/bloom.html, visited October 2006

Briggs L., Gustafson K., Tillman M. 1991, Instructional Design Principles and

Applications, 2nd Edition, Educational Technology Publications, New Jersey,

Chapters 7, 12 and 13.

Brookfield, S 1987, ‘Program development for adults: challenging the institutional

approach’, in Understanding and facilitating adult learning, Jossey Bass, San

Francisco, pp. 201-232.

Buckley R., Caple J. 2004, The Theory and Practice of Training, 5th Edition,

Kogan Page, London, Chapters 2 and 7.

Caffarella R. 2002, Planning Programs for Adult Learners, 2nd Edition, Jossey-

Bass, San Francisco.

Carliner, S. 2002, An Instructional Design Framework for the Twenty-First

Century, Published at http://education.concordia.ca/~scarliner/idmodel.pdf,

visited October 2006.

Cornford, I 1999, ‘Skill learning and the development of expertise’, in, J

Athanasou, (ed), Adult Educational Psychology, Social Science Press,

Katoomba, pp. 237-262

Driscoll, M. 1991 Psychology of Learning for Instruction: Allyn and Bacon.


http://education.concordia.ca/~scarliner/idmodel.pdf

http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/bloom.html

Gagne R., Briggs L., Wager W. 1992, Principles of Instructional Design, 4th

Edition, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, Florida. Chapters 1 and

2.

Knowles, M 1990, ‘An andragogical theory of adult learning’, in The adult learner:

a neglected species, Gulf Publishing, Houston, pp. 54-65

Leshin C., Pollock J., Reigeluth C. 1992, Instructional Design Strategies and

Tactics, Educational Technology Publications, New Jersey, Chapter 3.

Merriam S & Caffarella R 1999, ‘Andragogy and other models of adult learning’,

in Learning and adulthood, a comprehensive guide, Jossey bass, San Francisco.

Pp.271-287

Newman, M 1995, ‘Program development in adult education and training’ in G

Foley, (ed), Understanding adult education and training, Allen and Unwin,

Sydney, pp.54-74.

Pithers, R.T 1999, ‘Memory and Retrieval: Implications for teaching and

learning’, in, J Athanasou, (ed), Adult Educational Psychology, Social Science

Press, Katoomba, pp. 237-262

Sork, TJ & Caffarella, RS 1990, ‘Planning programs for adult learners’, in

Handbook of adult and continuing education, Jossey Bass, San Francisco,

pp.233-245.

Zinn, L 1990, ‘Identifying your philosophical orientation’, in MW Galbraith (ed),

Adult Learning Methods, RE Kreiger, Florida, pp. 39-77.


Learning Reflections - e-bites · Web viewThis is an important consideration and Caffarella built...

Documents

Transcript of Learning Reflections - e-bites · Web viewThis is an important consideration and Caffarella built...