learning need · title: learning need author: szb-gb created date: 10/3/2013 8:37:04 am

Instructional Design Plan 1

Instructional Design Plan: Writer Self-Checks

Sara Bryan


Abstract

Writers for the MiracleLearn Corporation use company-proprietary authoring software to

write content for web-based interactive multimedia instruction (IMI). Writers script

lesson content and then enter the information into lesson storyboards stored on a secure

server. The data entry process is not difficult, but it is labor-intensive because of the

attention to detail required. MiracleLearn follows an established quality control (QC)

process that requires writers to conduct self-checks of their work before submitting

storyboards for editorial review. This paper describes the design elements for the

development of a training program that will teach writers to conduct comprehensive,

effective self-checks. The training program is intended to replicate the writers’ work

environment through an e-learning medium with self-paced and branched programmed

learning.


Table of Contents

I. Learning Need.............................................................................................................. 4

II. Proposed Solution ....................................................................................................... 4 Needs Analysis ............................................................................................................ 4

Client and Background ............................................................................................ 4 Purpose of Instructional Intervention ....................................................................... 5

Implications ............................................................................................................. 6 Key questions ........................................................................................................... 6

Processes ................................................................................................................. 7 Target population .................................................................................................... 7

Hypothetical Results ................................................................................................ 7 Recommendations .................................................................................................... 9

Task Analysis ............................................................................................................ 10 Process .................................................................................................................. 10

Techniques for Data Gathering .............................................................................. 10 Lesson Content ...................................................................................................... 12

Writer Self-Check Content Outline ......................................................................... 12 Flowchart .............................................................................................................. 14

Learner Contextual Analysis...................................................................................... 16 General Characteristics ......................................................................................... 16

Specific Characteristics ......................................................................................... 16 Impact of Learner Characteristics on the Design of the Instruction ........................ 17

Orienting Context .................................................................................................. 18 Instructional Context ............................................................................................. 20

Application Context ............................................................................................... 20 Learning Objectives .................................................................................................. 21

First Objective ....................................................................................................... 21 Second Objective ................................................................................................... 22

Third Objective ...................................................................................................... 22 Assessment Plan ........................................................................................................ 23

Objective Measures ............................................................................................... 23 Validity .................................................................................................................. 24

Learning Strategies .................................................................................................... 25 Learner Analysis .................................................................................................... 25

Learning Theories.................................................................................................. 26 Learning Strategies ................................................................................................ 26

Delivery Strategies .................................................................................................... 29 Delivery Medium ................................................................................................... 29

Delivery Strategy for Learning Objectives ............................................................. 30 Delivery Strategy for Assessments .......................................................................... 30

Delivery Strategy for Instructional Context ............................................................ 31 III. Insights .................................................................................................................... 32

IV. References ............................................................................................................... 34


I. Learning Need

Writers for the MiracleLearn Corporation use company-proprietary authoring

software to write content for web-based interactive multimedia instruction (IMI). Writers

script lesson content and then enter the information into lesson storyboards stored on a

secure server. The data entry process is not difficult, but it is labor-intensive because of

the attention to detail required.

Writers are required to proof their work before submitting it for quality control

(QC) review. The problem is that seemingly insignificant errors are often overlooked,

particularly in the fields that affect courseware navigation. An incomplete field or one

extra space, for example, will prevent one screen from advancing to the next. Such

oversights prolong the QC process and risk delays in project completion. A further

concern is the potential loss of business resulting from project delays or faulty

courseware.

II. Proposed Solution

Needs Analysis

Client and Background

The clients for this project are writers employed by the MiracleLearn Corporation.

In the past decade, MiracleLearn has secured and completed contracts encompassing

hundreds of hours of web-based IMI for military specialties. Using MiracleLearn’s

proprietary software, called InterAct, writers script lesson content and enter the

information into storyboards stored on a secure server. Lesson content is entered one

screen at a time. In addition to task headings, each screen requires detailed navigational

and content information, and scoring information for screens that contain questions to


check student learning. If any of the information is incorrect or missing, the courseware is

subject to quality defects or performance failure.

When the storyboards are complete, writers submit them to an editor who checks

storyboards for narration and text concerns, such as conversational flow, sentence

structure, spelling, and punctuation. Before submitting, it is the writer’s responsibility to

look for these and other errors that might affect courseware functionality once the lesson

is produced. Unless the writer himself detects functionality flaws at the beginning, the

errors can remain unnoticed until the lesson reaches the production stage.

The inadequacy of writer self-checks may be attributable to two factors. The first

is a lack of understanding about the QC process, in particular each writer’s own

importance as a preliminary step in the process. The second factor is a lack of writer

knowledge about how to check their work or what to look for.

Purpose of Instructional Intervention

Writers must understand the company QC process and their impact on the success

or failure of that process. Although writers are given training to use the InterAct software,

the detail required for accurate data entry leaves the door open for errors that are easily

overlooked. Compounding the problem is the iterative nature of project development. As

soon as a writer submits one lesson to an editor, he begins scripting another. When

storyboards are returned for correction, the writer must interrupt the lesson he is currently

scripting to make corrections and submit an amended storyboard for the next phase of

QC. Storyboards requiring extensive correction at any point in the process will slow

progress of both the lesson undergoing QC and the lesson currently being scripted. It is


therefore imperative to ensure writers have the skills to identify and correct common

errors that occur during the data entry process.

Implications

A continued cycle of submissions, corrections, and interruptions has a

compounded negative effect on the production schedule. Of particular concern are errors

or deficiencies that affect courseware functionality or the accuracy of narration. Once a

lesson has begun the production phase, narration is one of the most expensive errors to

fix because of the additional scheduling and man hours required to re-record and re-

digitize audio.

Key questions

Morrison, Ross, & Kemp (2007) provide guidelines for conducting needs and goal

analyses. Among the guidelines is the recommendation to conduct interviews to establish

a broad perspective of a performance gap in order to best determine whether a training

intervention is appropriate. With this guideline in mind, the following questions were

asked:

Are writers aware of the entire project QC process?

Is there an established procedure for conducting and tracking self-checks? If so,

what is that procedure?

How much time is allotted for writer scripting, including self-checks?

What is the review process within the QC department?

How much time is allotted for storyboard review by the QC department?

How much time is actually spent per lesson conducting storyboard QC?

What is the average number of errors detected during storyboard review?


What types of errors will cause product functionality failure if not corrected?

Processes

MiracleLearn is a geographically dispersed corporation, and many employees work

from home or a location other than headquarters. Writers and editors work independently

of one another and support staff. Because of the geographic spread, an informal approach

consisting of telephone conversations, instant messaging (IM) and email will be used to

assess training needs. The rationale for this approach is that it is expedient. Writers, QC,

and other project personnel work autonomously and are already comfortable responding

to direct communication from a variety of sources. The company also has an unofficial

policy endorsing the use of IM for daily communication. Project management has

historically been very supportive and non-judgmental of writers’ work; therefore, it is

anticipated that no threat will be perceived by a direct approach and employees

questioned will respond in a spirit of cooperation.

Target population

The primary target population consists of technical writers charged with two principle

tasks: first, to develop IMI lessons from outlines provided, and second to use the

company-proprietary authoring tool to create the lesson storyboard. A secondary

population is the project editors, who are tasked to check storyboards for appropriate

writing style and mechanics. Editors are not required to check for software technicalities

but would benefit from an awareness of the requirements.

Hypothetical Results

Writers are aware of and generally familiar with the steps in the project QC

process. Recent emphasis (i.e., within the past six months) by project management has


stressed the importance of “looking over” storyboards before submitting them for the

initial storyboard review by editors. However, there is no training or consistent guidance

available for new writers.

No current procedure has been established for self-checks. There is an example

online document for troubleshooting production reports, but it is of minimal value. The

document is extremely out of date, having been created at the inception of the authoring

tool, which has since undergone several revisions. The document is also stored in an area

so obscure that most writers – indeed, most project personnel – are unaware of its

existence.

Time allotted for scripting storyboards varies from five days to two weeks. The

variance is dependent upon the estimated size of the lesson, writer workload, and

scheduled delivery date. Writers felt that, for the most part, they were given adequate

time to complete first lessons within a project. Subsequent lessons, however, sometimes

proved problematic when work was interrupted to attend to corrections and revisions

from previous lessons. On occasion, writers found themselves alternating between two,

and as many as four, lessons in various stages of development or quality control. At such

times, writers tended to correct only the comments identified on a particular screen

without checking to see whether changes impacted other screens within the lesson.

The entire QC process for a project encompasses six levels. The first three levels

are pre-production reviews; the next three levels are technical and post-production

reviews. Training for this needs assessment is geared only to pre-production reviews,

levels 1 through 3. At level 1, the writer submits the storyboard for editorial review. At

level 2, the writer submits the amended storyboard for SME review. At level 3, the writer


submits an updated report for narration review and first-stage production. QC personnel

are given one to four days from the day of receipt to review and return lessons to writers.

Time allocated is determined by the number of lessons scheduled in the reviewer’s queue.

While the writers are working on only one project at a time, reviewers are typically

evaluating documents from two or three different projects simultaneously. For this

reason, reviewers require a moderately flexible window for reviewing time rather than a

specific schedule. Time actually spent reviewing each lesson is one to two hours, with an

average detection rate of approximately eight errors per each ten pages. Of that number,

approximately 20% are critical errors.

Recommendations

Training on self-checks is needed for new writers as a follow-up to their initial

training on using InterAct. Experienced writers would also benefit from the training as a

refresher and a way to learn more efficient methods of checking their own work. A six-

hour seminar is recommended that includes the following components:

QC process overview, with emphasis on the writer’s impact on the process

Running (generating) a production report, which creates a competed Word

document to review

Reviewing a production report

Distinguishing between critical and quality errors

Comparing reports to the online storyboard

Tracking corrections


Task Analysis

Process

Morrison, Ross, & Kemp (2007) explain that the topic and procedural analysis

methods are suitable for concrete and highly structured tasks, while critical incident

analysis is appropriate for observing and defining interpersonal skills and attitudes.

The creation of a storyboard is a highly detailed cognitive process; consequently, self-

checks must be equally detailed. At the same time, specific procedures are necessary to

formulate a systematic method for self-checks. Additionally, the development of a

proactive attitude toward self-checks is desirable in order to foster the necessary attention

to detail. Tasks that lead to the mastery of successful self-checks encompass all areas

review; therefore, any of the recommended analysis methods might have been

appropriate. However, the primary emphasis was on cognitive domain. Accordingly, a

topic analysis was conducted to determine instructional content for the writer self-check

training.

Techniques for Data Gathering

Data for the project was gathered from a survey of existing materials and through

subject matter expert (SME) interviews. Information from both sources was recorded as

Microsoft TM Word documents and stored in the instructional designer’s project file. A

synopsis of the findings follows for existing materials and SME interviews.

Existing materials include a guide for developing interactive courseware (ICW), a

writer’s handbook, and a project style guide (PSG). The ICW guide details the production

process and is oriented primarily for management; however, it is a useful context

resource for all multimedia team members because it also lists roles, responsibilities,


typical timelines, and best practices. All of these points of information serve to orient the

writer to the significance of his role in the courseware development process. The writer’s

handbook provides general information about writing for web-based training, writing for

instruction; and specific information related to scripting for narration, graphics, and text.

Information in the writer’s handbook provides the foundation for the knowledge base

writers must have in order to develop lessons in InterAct. The PSG is a document created

at the inception of each project to establish conventions for lesson development such as

structure, jargon, and rules for scripting narration and text, such as the use of acronyms in

narration, pronunciation and written form of military terminology, equipment

nomenclature, and approved abbreviations. It is a key document for prescribing the

format of information entered in the storyboards.

SMEs are the editors, who serve both as first-line QC personnel and the primary

content resource for project. Two editors review storyboard content for quality in

separate general areas: writing style and data entry accuracy. The style editor critiques

numerous items such as sentence structure, syntax, and word choice and order. At the

same time, storyboards are evaluated for adherence to the PSG. The data entry editor

monitors the presence and correct application of software features such as templates,

branching, and scoring information for questions related to learning checks and practice

exercises. Interviews with SMEs determined that common style errors include writing

acronyms in a way that the narrator knows how to pronounce them, punctuation or

spelling errors, and adding double instead of single spaces between sentences. Common

data entry errors include missing, incorrect, or incomplete coding information such as

branching and template designations. An additional problem cited by the SMEs was an


apparent reluctance by the writers to take the time to conduct comprehensive self-checks,

ostensibly from the belief that “QC would find the mistakes.”

Lesson Content

The proposed content will consist of three phases of online multimedia

instruction. The first and third phases are synchronous, consisting of web-ex

presentations by project managers to introduce and summarize the training. The second

phase constitutes the bulk of the training in the form of two or more asynchronous

lessons that detail procedures and techniques for conducting self-checks. Information

listed in Section IIB, Self-check solutions, will be developed in detail to show writers

exactly where and how to identify storyboard errors. Content for this section may be

expanded pending ongoing SME reviews, and will be submitted for approval by the

corporate project coordinator before beginning course development. A preliminary

outline of lesson content follows.

Writer Self-Check Content Outline

I. Lesson Introduction (synchronous training)

A. Why conduct self-checks

1. Eliminate negatives

a. Resistance to conducting self-checks

(1) Too much bother

(2) QC will catch errors anyway

b. Consequences for not checking

(1) Causes a domino effect of corrections and changes

(2) Creates even more compressed writing schedule


2. Accentuate positives

a. Smoother QC process

b. Less time used to correct QC comments = More time available

for completing subsequent assignments

B. When to conduct self-checks

1. Periodically while entering storyboard

2. At storyboard completion

3. Between QC phases

II. Self-Check Procedures (asynchronous training)

A. Commonly identified QC problems

1. Writing

a. Mechanics

(1) Abbreviations and acronyms

(2) Parallel construction

(3) Numbers: figures versus words

b. Project style guide non-compliance

(1) Narration scripted incorrectly

(2) Text does not match narration

2. Data entry

a. Missing, incomplete, or incorrect information

(1) Templates

(2) Branching

(3) Narration or matching text


(4) Question scoring

b. Extra spaces

B. Self-check solutions

1. Run spell check

a. Run Production Reports (PR)

b. Differentiate between spelling errors versus software coding

c. Use (Ctrl+F) to find extra spaces

2. Review section by section

a. Source file section

b. Navigation section

c. Content section

d. Question section

3. Read what you wrote

a. Scan entire lesson

b. Read narration aloud

III. Summary (Synchronous training)

A. Content review

B. Question/answer session between writers and QC personnel

Flowchart

A representative segment of the proposed training is provided in the flowchart

that follows. During SME interviews, it was determined that the first step for conducting

effective self-checks is to conduct a spell check exercise on a storyboard Production

Report (PR). PRs are Word documents that can be generated from InterAct once the


storyboard has been completed. The flowchart in Figure 1 details the sequence of events

for conducting the spell check.

Figure 1

Flowchart of the procedure for running a production report and conducting a spell check


Learner Contextual Analysis

General Characteristics

Target learners are multimedia content writers. Their primary task is to create

scripts for web-based lessons, most of which are created for military clients. With the

exception of age and possibly cultural differences (unknown), the learners are a generally

homogenous group for the writer self-check project. All are adults with an approximate

age range of 25 – 60 years. Most are at the lower end of the range. Experience levels with

technical/content writing range from six months to ten years. Writers at the upper end of

the age range have experience in other areas such as military service, management, and

education. Most writers have at least a baccalaureate degree; some have master’s degrees.

Project team members work in an online environment and are geographically dispersed.

As a result, many are in contact with one another only via electronic media. Demographic

characteristics other than education and experience are therefore considered to be of

minimal significance.

Specific Characteristics

Entry Competencies. Writers must have familiarity with the InterAct authoring

tool. While entry level writers can benefit, they would do better to have completed at

least one storyboard prior to beginning self-check training. Additional required skills are

presumed, given the nature of the work conducted. These skills include typing skills;

facility with computers; ability to access and work within several programs such as

InterAct, Word, and an Internet browser.

Social/Motivational Characteristics. Most writers are geographically distant from

one another, which may impact the social aspect of the learning environment. The


capability to collaborate, if desired, is somewhat inhibited by the absence of face-to-face

contact with other writers.

Writer motivation to conduct self-checks or to learn how is manifested in the

project work schedule. Writing assignments are deadline-driven. The more aggressive the

project schedule, the more pressured writers are to complete tasks in a timely manner.

SME observations have noted variance in motivation to conduct self-checks, ostensibly

as a result of project timelines. SME assumption is that less experienced writers are

focused on meeting deadlines and will expend efforts to do so at the expense of quality.

The presumed attitude is that QC personnel will find and report errors anyway, making

the writers’ own efforts unnecessary. More experienced writers, on the other hand, are

willing to take time to review their work but tend to demonstrate impatience with the

perceived imposition of additional training or job aids. Whether resistance comes from

meeting deadlines or rejecting training, the common theme throughout the experience

spectrum is a mindset that expresses the idea “I don’t have time for this; I’ve got work to

do.”

Impact of Learner Characteristics on the Design of the Instruction

Social and motivational considerations are paramount during the design of the

instruction. Conducting successful self-checks requires both metacognitive skills and a

willingness to comply. Identifying and correcting errors are cognitive processes, but

applying a strategy to those processes incorporates metacognition. Dobrovolny (2006)

conducted a study to assess how adults learn with instructional technology. Each learner

participated in self-paced, technology-based course of his or her own choosing. Results

indicated that learners relied on techniques such as metacognition, which involves


self-assessment and self-correction; reflection; and prior and authentic experiences. All

such techniques are relevant to the process of conducting self-checks of finished work.

Metacognition is seldom addressed without a corresponding mention of

motivation. In his study of self-regulated learning, Wolters (2003) stated “The specific

characteristics most often attributed to self-regulated learners concern their motivational

beliefs or attitudes, their cognitive strategy use, and their metacognitive abilities”

(Wolters, 2003, p. 189). Motivation is a prerequisite of attention to detail, which is a key

element for successful self-checks. Willingness to commit to the time and attention

required is a concern. While the aforementioned motivation to meet deadlines is laudable,

it is important to stress the value of doing the job right the first time. Consideration must

be given to promoting a more efficient and more effective method to conduct self-checks.

Given the focus on efficient techniques for conducting self-checks, focus must also be

placed on efficient techniques for delivering the training. One technique is to afford

writers the flexibility to access training at will within a specified time period.

Orienting Context

Familiarity, experience, and time are key factors of the self-check project.

Interviews with SMEs and management personnel have indicated writers are generally

well equipped with the first two factors but continually in need of the third. Specifically,

writers have familiarity with InterAct and experience writing storyboards. Time to

complete assignments is a variable factor that can be adversely affected when numerous

storyboard corrections are required after a QC check.

Meeting deadlines is an ongoing concern for an entire project team. A shortfall is

most likely to begin with the writer, whose work is the first phase of the courseware


development process. In the interest of keeping the schedule current, writers have

expressed disinclination to take time for self-checks, thereby demonstrating a preference

for submitting storyboards as soon as they are complete in order to keep things moving

forward. If a storyboard is incomplete or is returned repeatedly for corrections the writer

loses rather than gains time. The writers’ collective goal, therefore, should be finding a

way to maximize time allotments for task completion. Accordingly, the initial portion of

the training should describe value received (gained time for follow-on assignments) in

exchange for value given (conducting the checks).

One way to maximize time is to practice efficient methodology. Self-check

training is intended to establish a system that will enable writers to meet the requirement

for conducting self-checks without an added time burden. Utility of the training is

twofold: first, the opportunity to learn an efficient system for conducting self-checks; and

second, an occasion to refresh storyboard development skills. Improved storyboards will

further reduce the time needed to check and correct them.

Most corporate training initiatives are offered as enhancements to, rather than

requirements of, job performance. Writers will not be held accountable but will be

encouraged to complete the training. A generally positive response is anticipated for three

reasons. First, the training offers a solution to individual time needs. Second, the

asynchronous element offers writers some capability to control their own schedules.

Third, efforts expended individually by writers promote the success of an entire project

team.


Instructional Context

Training will be designed for and presented with the InterAct authoring system.

Writers will require access to a computer, the Internet, and InterAct. Because the writers

will train under the same conditions that they work, no orientation to the learning

environment will be necessary prior to beginning the training. Scheduling concerns are

minimal because the instruction will be designed for online access. Most of the training

will be asynchronous, allowing writers to log in at their convenience any time. To ensure

the instruction is completed within a reasonable time frame, writers will be given a two-

week period to complete the training. Two synchronous sessions, approximately one hour

each, will require coordination and scheduling. Project team members normally

participate in weekly teleconferences conducted by the project manager to share

information about progress and process updates. The synchronous instructions sessions

could be scheduled as part of, or in lieu of, two weekly meetings.

Given the flexible online environment, factors such as lighting, noise,

temperature, seating, accommodations, and transportation are non-issues for this project.

No disabilities have been identified; therefore, no provision is currently required for

adaptive access or technologies.

Application Context

Given that writers will train and work in the same online environment, work

application is inherent to the training. They will be able apply learned skills during the

process of and immediately following training.


Learning Objectives

Morrison, Ross, & Kemp (2007) describe two general types of instructional

objectives, cognitive and behavioral. Cognitive objectives state, in general terms, what an

intended learning outcome should be and to what standard it should be accomplished.

Behavioral objectives are more specific and include a third element, the condition under

which learning is demonstrated. Gebrewold & Sigwart (1997) present the requirements

succinctly by stating that useful objectives include a performance, a condition, and a

criterion. Both types of objectives, cognitive and behavioral, provide a framework for

teachers upon which instructional content is built and learning assessment is made. For

learners, objectives are signposts to follow through the instructional content to the

intended outcome. For the purpose of the Writer Self-Checks project, objectives are

presented in behavioral terms. Three objectives follow for the Writer Self-Checks project.

The first is in the affective domain; the last two are within the cognitive domain.

First Objective

After completing a course of instruction on how to conduct them, appreciate the

value of self-checks. The objective is achieved when the writer exhibits any combination

two or more of the following behaviors:

• Speaks positively about the value of self-checks.

• Acknowledges time saved in the course of the QC process as a result of conducting self-

checks.

• Runs a production report upon completion of each storyboard.

• Runs a spell check of each storyboard.

• Takes the time to review all sections of the storyboard.


• Takes the time to review produced lessons.

• Checks continuity to ensure that corrections made on one screen are made on all related

screens.

Enabling objectives:

Describe the company QC process.

Explain the writer’s impact on the QC process.

Second Objective

Upon completing a lesson storyboard, perform a comprehensive self-check prior

to submitting the script for editorial review. A margin of error is permissible such that the

submitted script will be found to contain no more than one quality deficiency per page

and no critical errors within the storyboard.


Run a production report.

Run a spell check.

Survey all areas of the production report.

Distinguish between critical errors and quality deficiencies.

Third Objective

Given a produced lesson with graphics and audio included, troubleshoot problems

with InterAct functionality. A successful review will resolve all writer-related findings.


Identify errors in Title, General, Branching, and Content fields.

Correct errors in Title, General, Branching, and Content fields.


Check continuity to ensure that corrections made on one screen are made on

all related screens.

Assessment Plan

Morrison, Ross & Kemp (2007) suggest measures for instructional outcomes

based on the areas of knowledge, skills and behavior, and attitudes. The first objective is

within the affective domain and will be evaluated with attitude assessments. The

remaining two objectives for the Writer Self-Checks project are at the analysis level of

the cognitive domain and would be measured appropriately by skill/behavior

assessments.

Objective Measures

The first objective is manifested primarily in the affective domain and is intended

to elicit an attitudinal change. Post-training interviews will be conducted to assess

writers’ opinions about the training and the value of conducting self-checks. Subsequent

assessments will include observation of writers’ actions in regard to conducting self-

checks. Observations will be made by project managers and editors. Interviews offer the

capability of immediate assessment while observations will evaluate change over an

extended period.

Some of the behaviors listed for assessment of the objective within the affective

domain also serve as measures of cognitive achievement. As an alternative to Mager-

style behavioral objectives, Gronlund (as cited by Morrison, Ross, & Kemp, 2007)

suggested cognitive objectives. The difference is that cognitive objectives describe

learning outcomes in more general terms than do behavioral objectives. The resulting

outcome allows for sample performances to indicate behaviors “…that allow the teacher


or instructor to infer that the learner has achieved the higher-level intent” (Morrison,

Ross, & Kemp, 2007, p. 115). Sample behaviors for the first objective that also serve as

cognitive assessment measures include running a production report and running a spell

check.

The second objective is intended to elicit a behavioral outcome that is best

measured by the direct testing approach. Writers will be given a sample storyboard

containing both quality and critical errors for the learner to identify. Writers will not only

identify all errors, but will also classify them as quality or critical.

As with the second objective, a behavioral outcome is expected for the third

objective that is best measured by direct testing. Writers will be shown a series of

example screens containing flaws caused by writer error. Associated storyboard pages

will accompany the screens. Writers will identify the flaws on the screen and then review

the storyboard page to determine the cause of the malfunction.

Validity

Guidance for measurement validity is that “A test is considered valid when it

specifically measures what was learned, as specified by the instructional objectives for a

unit or topic” (Morrison, Ross, & Kemp, 2007, p. 244). The concept is echoed on a

broader scale by Clarke, Stow, Ruebling, & Kayona (2006), who discuss considerations

for curriculum assessment. Among the considerations for developing curriculum for

school organizations, Clarke, et al. state that curriculum must be aligned with what is

taught and tested. The same principle applies to training developed for a work

environment.


The measures prescribed for all three objectives of the Writer Self-Checks Project

match the action specified and closely represent the actual behaviors expected from

writers in the performance of their jobs. The first objective describes the desired attitude

shift after completion of the training. While a questionnaire or Likert-type scale could be

used as an assessment tool, it is anticipated that interviews and observations will generate

more useful data. The behavioral objectives specified for the project prescribe learning at

the analysis level of the cognitive domain. Writers are expected to review their work for

quality and functionality. The review of sample storyboards and developed screens

emulates activities that writers will conduct after completing the training. Errors placed in

the storyboards and screens will be similar to errors commonly found during editorial

reviews.

Learning Strategies

Learner Analysis

Learners for the Writer Self-Checks Project are educated, competent, and

conscientious workers who are accustomed to operating under minimal supervision. The

writers’ education, experience, and online environment are key factors in the decision for

learning strategies. Kelly (2006) relates that important elements for successful learning

include an understanding of learners’ backgrounds and expectations, and setting an

environment conducive to learning. The writers have in common an ability to

communicate well both orally and in writing, which enables them to work autonomously

in an online environment and which offers a degree of control about when and how the

writers work. Consequently, there is an expectation among the writers to control what,


when, and how they learn. Strategies developed for this project are therefore oriented

toward replicating the work environment in a training scenario.

Learning Theories

Strategies for writer self-check objectives will be founded primarily on

constructivist theory, underscored by cognitive theory. Writer self-check skills are

procedural in nature but are founded on existing knowledge. The ability to build on

existing knowledge is inherently a metacognitive skill requiring learner self-awareness.

Similarly, a writer’s ability to understand and draw upon his or her own methods for self-

check requires self-awareness.

Underhill (2006) describes constructivist theory as largely student-centered.

Writers are charged with checking their own work prior to submitting it for quality

review; therefore a student-centered approach appears to be the most appropriate for

promoting an environment writer-centered initiative after the training.

Writer self-check training incorporates an affective domain element in concert

with cognitive procedure, metacognitive awareness, and constructivist experience. To be

fully successful, writers must exhibit a willingness to apply themselves to a self-check

effort. Dabbagh (2006) presents learning strategies for both cognitive and affective

domains, which align with both cognitive and constructivist learning theories.

Learning Strategies

Course content will be based upon recommendations presented from the project

needs analysis. Based upon this content, plans follow for the initial presentation,

generative strategies, and learning strategies for each of the three objectives.


First Objective

Initial presentation. Project managers and QC personnel will facilitate a

discussion of writer impact on successful versus marginal self-check efforts. Writers will

be encouraged to participate in the discussion to voice concerns, questions, and

reflections.

Generative strategy. Generative strategies are organization and elaboration.

Emphasis is on elaboration, because it is at this point the writers are encouraged to

present their own ideas and recommendations.

Learning strategy. Modeling and prior learning are key strategies for eliciting

affective change. Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia (as cited by Milller, 2005) established a

taxonomy for learning classifications in the affective domain. The high end of the

taxonomy describes an orientation toward or identification with the change. It is this

outcome toward which self-check training is directed. Miller also cites several learning

theories for aptitude formation and change. Among them are social learning, which

suggests a powerful model as a learning intervention; and Krathwohl’s taxonomy, which

indicates that affective learning at any level is dependent on learning at lower levels.

Presentations and reinforcement by managers along with the writers’ own testimonials is

intended to establish the requisite modeling and learning strata.

Second Objective

Initial presentation. A guided tutorial will be presented on the importance of

conducting self-checks and the procedure for running a production report. A sample

report will be displayed that highlights each section in turn and specifies where errors

commonly occur.


Generative strategy. Generative strategies range from integration to elaboration.

Morrison, Ross, & Kemp (2007) explain that integration helps change information to a

form that is more easily remembered. Organizational strategy is a connective approach

that enables learners to relate existing ideas to new ones. Elaboration pushes learners to

create or add new ideas through such techniques as mental imagery or creating diagrams.

Learning strategy. Modeling and explaining will be given heavy emphasis for this

objective. Showing writers how to create a production report is the first element of the

integration strategy. The learning element will be reinforced by having writers create

production reports themselves. Guiding writers through the report is an organizational

element that reinforces information writers already have about what goes into the report

when lesson data is being entered into the InterAct authoring system. Mental imagery

will be promoted by highlighting each section of the production report as a visual cue of

where to focus when conducting self-checks.

Third Objective

Initial presentation. Writers will be given a review of information from the first

objective. They will then be shown a sample lesson that contains embedded errors.

Generative strategy. Generative strategies include will evolve to a closer focus on

organization and elaboration. Writers will build on skills learned or refreshed from

creating and reviewing a production report by reviewing a sample lesson that has been

produced from a storyboard. They will elaborate on their skills by identifying errors

implanted in the sample lesson, discussing additional pitfalls, and posing solutions.

Learning strategy. Training for the second objective will include comprehension

monitoring strategies. Weinstein (as cited in Dabbagh, 2006) explains that


comprehension monitoring encourages students to create and monitor their own goals.

The intent for the self-check training is to foster both metacognition and an appreciation

for the effort to conduct effective checks. Comprehension monitoring activity will begin

with at the inception of training by explaining and encouraging the value of self-checks.

Authentic learning activity and self-directed learning are key strategies for this objective.

The training environment and tools are the same ones utilized when writers develop

actual storyboards. Writers will be expected to review, identify, correct, and explain

errors and malfunctions in the sample lesson.

Delivery Strategies

Delivery Medium

All training will be delivered in an e-learning environment. Writers are

accustomed to working and conferencing via distance media, and it is not economically

feasible to gather all employees at one location. Scheduling on-site training would be

difficult for two reasons. First, the writers and QC personnel are geographically

dispersed. Second, project deadlines invariably become compressed as each project

progresses. The corporation usually has several active projects in varying stages, so the

number of writers available is often small for training at a particular time.

Given that most employees are accustomed to online working and

communicating, an online training session is also recommended that incorporates both

synchronous and asynchronous segments. The synchronous segments would be a one-

hour kickoff meeting and a one-hour summation conducted via web conferencing. The

asynchronous training would occur between the scheduled web conferences. A one-week

time frame would be established for the completion of all training components.


Clark (1999) indicated that two advantages of self-paced instruction are that it

allows learners to proceed at their own pace and it is often less costly than classroom

instruction. Therefore, the training will be primarily self-paced but bracketed with

synchronous web-ex conferences to allow monitoring, reflection, and opportunities for coaching.

Delivery Strategy for Learning Objectives

In support of the first objective to appreciate the value of self-checks, an introductory

web-ex will be conducted by project managers and quality control personnel. The

purpose is to provide preliminary information about the importance and impact of

successful self-checks. Conferencing software will be used to enable writers to see

example storyboards while points of information about them are discussed. Also during

the conference, writers will be given information about when and how to access self-

paced IMI lessons covering the second and third objectives.

All job performance tasks are completed at the writers’ workstations. Learning

objectives leading to self-check competence are directly related to job tasks and will also

be performed at writers’ workstations.

Delivery Strategy for Assessments

Assessment for the objectives consists of interviews and direct testing. After the self-

paced lessons have been completed, interviews will be conducted during a second web-ex

to assess writers’ opinions about the training and the value of conducting self-checks.

To evaluate the second and third objectives, direct testing will be used as described

by Morrison, Ross, & Kemp (2007). Writers will be given a sample storyboard

containing both quality and critical errors to identify. Writers will not only identify all

errors, but will also classify them as quality or critical. After identifying storyboard

errors, writers will be shown a series of example screens containing flaws caused by


writer error. Associated storyboard pages will accompany the screens. Writers will

identify the flaws on the screen and then review the storyboard page to determine the

cause of the malfunction.

Because this is an online interactive environment, writers will identify errors by

clicking the place where they appear in the storyboards. Prompts and follow-on activities

will be generated depending on the writer’s inputs. Writer responses will be

electronically scored and displayed immediately upon completing each activity. The

scores will be stored on the server where the IMI is accessed. Project managers will have

access to the writers’ data to determine lesson completion status and final scores.

Delivery Strategy for Instructional Context

Training will be designed for and presented with the InterAct authoring system.

Writers will require access to a computer, the Internet, and InterAct. Writers will train

under the same conditions that they work; therefore, no orientation to the learning

environment will be necessary prior to beginning the training. Scheduling concerns are

minimal because the instruction will be designed for online access. Most of the training

will be asynchronous, allowing writers to log in at their convenience any time. To ensure

the instruction is completed within a reasonable time frame, writers will be given a two-

week period to complete the training. Two synchronous sessions, approximately one hour

each, will require coordination and scheduling. Project team members normally

participate in weekly teleconferences conducted by the Project Manager to share

information about progress and process updates. The synchronous instructions sessions

could be scheduled as part of, or in lieu of, two weekly meetings.


Logging in to InterAct and accessing the topics constitutes the self-paced portion of

the training. Although writers will be working at their own pace, the training is not

without specific direction. Branched programmed learning will be developed as described by

Clark (1999). Although essentially a linear approach, branched programmed learning is

more complex in that it will direct the learner to different parts of a lesson according to

the way he responds to prompts. Writers are familiar with branched programming

because it is the same method used for most of MiracleLearn’s IMI projects.

Modeling and prior learning will be emphasized to elicit the attitude change

needed to achieve the first objective. The second and third objectives will employ

modeling and explaining; and comprehension and monitoring, respectively.

Training lessons will be presented online in the same format that writers use to

develop product lessons for clients. Writers will log in to the InterAct program just as

they do when they are working. Instead of accessing a lesson for scripting, however,

writers will access the training lessons and follow all prompts in the same way that a

client user would. Writers are effectively “trading places” with a MiracleLearn client and

experiencing an example of the kind of work the writers themselves create. From the

perspective of a user rather than a writer, the writers will see a model of what they should

be creating, and have a hands-on example for conducting self-checks.

III. Insights

Morrison, Ross, & Kemp (2007) tell us that not every performance problem needs

to be solved by instruction. In the case of writer self-checks, for example, one solution

might have been to alter project schedules to allow more time for lesson development and

self-checks. Another solution might have been simply to create a job aid in the form of a


checklist or annotated storyboard for writers to follow. A reward and punishment system

is yet another possibility.

I’m confident that training is the right solution for the need I’ve identified. As I

completed the process, I reflected on the many elements of instructional design that we

have learned or reviewed over that past ten weeks. Developing each part of this project

entailed an enormous amount of work and research, as my list of references will attest.

Far more time was spent developing each phase of a design plan than was spent

identifying the reason for the plan. That’s appropriate; learning the steps of instructional

design was the point of the course. But even so, a thought occurred to me: What if the

learning need initially identified were not the problem at all? What if, for example, the

editors needed to learn more about how InterAct works before evaluating the writers’

storyboards? Or that project managers needed to exercise more careful oversight? Or that

clearer skill standards needed to be established before hiring writers?

A thorough needs analysis would answer most such questions – if they arose. I’m

not sure they would. In the future, I think I’ll give some attention to what I now believe is

an overlooked area: need identification, the point before a front end analysis even begins.

What’s important is to ensure a problem or need is correctly identified. If that first step

hasn’t been done completely or accurately, then any design procedure that follows is

suspect and potentially a huge waste of time and resources. Solving the problem right is

point of instructional design. But first, be sure you’re solving the right problem.


IV. References

Advanced Distributed Learning. (2007). History of ADL. Retrieved September 3, 2007

from http://www.adlnet.gov/about/history.aspx

American Society for Training and Development. (2006). Professional continuing

education, knowledge management, and the workplace: A growing industry

[Electronic copy]. ASHE Higher Education Report, 2006, 32(2), 17-25. Retrieved

September 3, 2007 from the EBSCOhost database.

Clark, D. (1999). Training media dictionary. Retrieved August 27, 2007 from

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/media.html

Clarke, N., Stow, S., Ruebling, C., & Kayona, F. (2006) Developing standards-based

curricula and assessments. Clearing House, 79(6), 258-261. Retrieved August 14,

2007 from the EBSCOhost database.

Dabbagh, N. (2006). The instructional design knowledge base. Retrieved August 25, 2007

from Nada Dabbagh's Homepage, George Mason University, Instructional

Technology Program:

http://classweb.gmu.edu/ndabbagh/Resources/IDKB/index.htm

Dobrovolny, J. (2006). How adults learn from self-paced, technology-based corporate

training: New focus for learners, new focus for designers. Distance Education,

(27)2, 155–170. Retrieved August 10, 2007 from the EBSCOhost database.

Gebrewold, F. & Sigwart, D. F. (1997). Performance objectives: Key to better safety

instruction. Professional Safety, 42(8). Retrieved August 18, 2007 from the

Ebscohost database.


Kelly, M. (2006). Teach an old dog new tricks: Training techniques for the adult learner.

Professional Safety, 51(8), 44-48. Retrieved September 1, 2007 from the

EBSCOhost database.

Mason, R. (2006). Learning technologies for adult continuing education. Studies in

Continuing Education, 28(2), 121-133. Retrieved September 3, 2007 from the

EBSCOhost database.

Miller, M. (2005). Teaching and Learning in Affective Domain. In M. Orey (Ed.),

Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved August

25, 2007 from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2007). Designing effective instruction

(5th

ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Underhill, A.F. (2006). Theories of learning and their implications for on-line

assessment. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 7(1), 165-174.

Retrieved August 25, 2007 from the ERIC database.

Wolters, C.A. (2003). Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an underemphasized aspect

of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 189–205.

learning need · title: learning need author: szb-gb created date: 10/3/2013 8:37:04 am

Documents