< back to Christopher's profile
Instructional Design and Development Process

Instructional Design and Development Process

Christopher Christopher Hernandez earned this badge on Nov 18, 2019

Use of instructional design and development process appropriate for a given project

Challenges

  • Select or create an instructional design process based the nature of the project

    Submit evidence of using an instructional design model (ADDIE, Dick and Carey, Assure, Arcs, etc.) that aligns with a project.

    • Examples: Demonstration of walking through an ID Model (ADDIE, Kirkpatrick, Backwards Design, etc.) on a project, The Evaluation Plan (EDCI 577), Case study (EDCI 672), Final Project (EDCI 572), work-related examples of using an ID model as a standard, starting point, or other project, etc.

    Learning Outcomes


    For the challenge “Select or create an instructional design process based the nature of the project,” I have selected to submit my Design Document paper from EDCI 572 along with its intended learning module. For this challenge, the most notable portions (Design Doc part 3 & Learning module access) have been highlighted within the paper.

    EDCI 572’s final project tasked students with developing a learning module using the Dick and Carey instructional design model. The design document walks ID’ers through the exact design process for my online training module. This artifact is a strong case for using an instructional design model that aligns with a project.

    This was the first design document I have ever written. In its early stages, I had yet to grasp the overall goal of the D&C model. However, I managed to pull through and write a sound design document for the class project. This paper and its future re-writes helped me to become a better IDer by understanding how to utilize a design model to create educational materials. Furthermore, it helped me to appreciate feedback from my peers. It was a very daunting assignment and without them, I would not have been able to finish it.

    Finally, when reflecting on this artifact and challenge, I am happy that I can develop a learning module using an instructional model. Understanding models and utilizing them to develop learning programs is a future goal of mine. One day, the work I do within this program will help me to build stronger trainings for both students and employees.

    Chris_EDCI 572 Final (1).pdf Chris_EDCI 572 Final (1).pdf
  • Modify the instructional design process as project parameters change

    Submit evidence of adjusting steps in the instructional design process (ADDIE, Dick and Carey, Assure, Arcs, etc.) as projects change (rearranging steps, changing scope, deliverables, budget, goals, etc.). 

    • Examples: Case studies (Project Management Course, EDCI 672), deliverables from Practicum (EDCI 573), discussions or conversations related to modifying an instructional design process, work-related examples demonstrating steps/actions of change in the ID process. 

    For the challenge “Modify the instructional design process as project parameters change,” I am submitting my first developed Design Document from EDCI 572 along with my revised Design Document.

    When developing a learning module, the scope of the project may change over time. My original design document shows a large scope of developing a single learning module to fit two different learner groups. As the project progressed, I changed steps within the design process to fit one specific learner group. The learning context was adapted from video instruction to print instruction. The learner diagram was changed to focus solely on the goals of the course and, because of the diagram, performance objectives were changed. Lastly, the practice tests and post-test were updated to test learner retention.

    When developing a learning module and using an instructional design model, projects are bound to change. From the performance objectives to the way that the module is delivered, instructional designers must adapt their projects in order to meet certain parameters. I think realizing that the scope of a project is beginning to wane is an important part of being a designer.

    In the future, I hope to improve on recognizing when the scope of my projects is beginning to become too large. Recognizing this would have saved me many re-edits. I feel like this artifact has helped me to realize how to better structure a learning module. I hope to continue improving my skills within the instructional design process.

    Chris EDCI 572 - Revised Design Doc 1 & 2.pdf Chris EDCI 572 - Revised Design Doc 1 & 2.pdf
    EDCI 572 - Design Doc p. 2 _original_.pdf EDCI 572 - Design Doc p. 2 _original_.pdf
  • Describe a rationale for the selected, created or modified instructional design process

    Submit evidence of a justification for an instructional design process (ADDIE, Dick and Carey, Assure, Arcs, etc.) as projects change (rearranging steps, changing scope, deliverables, budget, goals, etc.). 

    • Examples: Case studies (Project Management Course, EDCI 672), deliverables from Practicum (EDCI 573), discussions or conversations related to justification for modifying changing steps in an instructional design process, project reflections from courses based on feedback from instructors, work-related examples demonstrating reasons of change in the ID process.  

    For the challenge “Describe a rationale for the selected, created, or modified instructional design process,” I have decided to submit my final reflection for my EDCI 572 design document which utilizes the Dick and Carey instructional design model as well as additional feedback provided by my peers. 

     

    Whether it’s the design document or a training module, a learning product changes over time. The challenge asks for project reflections based on feedback from instructors, and this reflection covers exactly that. Within the reflection, I touch upon several instances where my design document and learning module changed based on feedback. First, I touch on how the second part of the design document had major flaws and I changed the learning objectives to be simpler and focus on a single group of learners. This is because my original instruction focused on teaching two different audiences, Parents and Faculty. I adjusted the design to focus training solely on parents. This changed the design significantly as the number of performance objectives changed from over 7 to 5. 

     

    Then, regarding my training module, I talked about how feedback led me to add extra functions to my learning module. The module was only able to play forwards, so if a learner missed a piece of information, they were unable to rewind the module. This specific feedback can be seen in my “EDCI 572 – Feedback Week 6” artifact. Peer driven feedback helped to change a lot within my artifact. In my Week 5 artifact, my peers suggested additional features such as a contact button so learners could get help from an administrator and a “FAQs” button so learners could learn important points about the module. Another great connection between feedback and changes can be found in the Week 2 artifact. My peers suggested developing handouts, rather than video instruction, which came to fruition in Week 5 of the course. I had no intention of developing handout instructions until my peers suggested that every learner is different and how many would benefit from text-based instruction rather than video instruction.

     

    The artifact meets the challenge as the final reflection is a discussion based on modifying and changing steps within an instructional design process. Another important piece of the reflection is that this was a reflection that was also based on instructor feedback. 

     

    Feedback and modification within the instructional design process are instrumental for a designer’s success. I hope to improve on accepting feedback as time goes on. It’s never easy to accept criticism, even if it’s meant to help us. So, I hope to get better at asking for feedback and accepting the criticism. 

     

    Chris_EDCI 572 Final _1_.pdf Chris_EDCI 572 Final _1_.pdf
    EDCI 572 - Feedback Week 1.pdf EDCI 572 - Feedback Week 1.pdf
    EDCI 572 - Feedback Week 2.pdf EDCI 572 - Feedback Week 2.pdf
    EDCI 572 - Feedback Week 3.pdf EDCI 572 - Feedback Week 3.pdf
    EDCI 572 - Feedback Week 4.pdf EDCI 572 - Feedback Week 4.pdf
    EDCI 572 - Feedback Week 5.pdf EDCI 572 - Feedback Week 5.pdf
    EDCI 572 - Feedback Week 6.pdf EDCI 572 - Feedback Week 6.pdf