Instructional Design

The LeaPS ID model, a model in the ADDIE family, was created by Boise State University OPWL faculty to place instructional design within multiple contexts in an organization and link workplace learning to performance support. The model includes project alignment with organizational goals, collaboration with clients as partners, and it draws from the Stanford Design Thinking Model. 

With a strong focus on project management, and taking the organizational and wider culture into account, this model allows for the practitioner to:

1. Empathize with the client through a through analysis of the task, learner and environment

2. Design and develop materials and assets

3. Implement and Evaluate the training for performance

If you want to read more about this model,  this blog post by Boise State University Grad Jeff Dalto, includes interviews and graphics.

Our team had the advantage of having a SME as part of our group. This provided a perspective of their perceived need - a lack of brand adherence amongst content creators that were not part of the LDX team. That, paired with the access we had to interview a senior LDX ID within the company, gave us a jumpstart, but we wanted to investigate other issues that might be contributing to the performance gap. 

Background

A software company (XYZ) that helps their customers manage, connect and protect mobile devices and services. As a company that helps a wide variety of clients globally, it needs to maintain and assure brand consistency to meet industry standards of accessibility and visual appeal, as well as to promote trustworthiness and brand recognition across users and platforms. About 1 - 2% of employees create training and content. However, many have not necessarily had any training on how to account for visual design guidelines or accessibility. Our team got together with the goal of creating a short and effective training module that would shrink the current gap.

Needs analysis

We conducted a systematic analysis using templates adapted from Rothwell (2016) and Smith & Reagan (2005)  that helped us uncover training needs, as well as decipher tasks and steps to reach our goals. We also zoomed into the learner and environment needs to be able to have a systemic view of the performance gap. 

In order to answer some of the questions in our templates and further understand the full picture of the organization and our specific audience/learners, we interviewed a learning experience designer at XYZ, and used tools like the Gilbert BEM Model. We were also cognizant of the taxonomies of learning to create our objectives and tasks in order to target foundational to complex levels of understanding.

Development of Instructional Materials

For this portion of the project we created a deliverable sign up sheet and started tackling the different areas. Since our client uses Keynote at their organization, we created a collaborative Keynote presentation that included presenter notes as well as templates for virtual whiteboards.

Based on the Keynote presentation we created:

• instructional guide for the presenter. 

• job aid, along with an explanation of it. 

• survey questions that the organization can import to Survey Monkey (their preferred delivery method).

The creation of materials seemed to fly after all the previous work. Virtual collaborative documents were the key to the success of our team at this level. It was easy to work asynchronously and check-in weekly to make sure we were aligned. 

The process was iterative, meaning we worked as a group to come up with a draft and brainstorm ideas, then we worked asynchronously to keep adding and editing, while also having formative reviews by our SMEs. By having this iterative process, our lesson plan was not only polished, but also kept aligned with the client’s needs and requests. 

It is important to note that our team did a wonderful job of using this creative process (lesson plan and development of instructional materials) as a virtual whiteboard of sorts, where nothing was out of limits and all ideas were welcomed. This allowed us to have a lot of material to then distill and hone. 

The beauty of staying focused on the outcomes, and the commitment we all had to continuous improvement, meant that everybody felt safe to collaborate and express their ideas when something was and wasn’t working. Just like there were no bad ideas, there were also no bad judgment calls. There was an underlying feeling of mutual respect - any ideas, edits, changes and improvements were truly welcomed.

One thing that was a challenge in this project was that it ran the risk of over focusing on outputs or deliverables since the class structure asks for those as assets throughout the week. Our team was brilliant at pivoting and adapting, always going back to that north star, and continuously asking the question is this useful? It took us all a few weeks to find our rhythm and to calibrate our priorities - deliverables vs outcomes, in vs out of scope, speaking up vs listening, but I think that we quickly were running smoothly.

To the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will repeat that focusing on outcomes and impact, while being flexible and adaptable was crucial for this project. The LeaPS ID model is excellent in that respect. The ID spends a lot of time empathizing with the client and their needs, and that creates a sense of buy-in. Managing different working styles, time zones and comfort levels with instructional design within our team, would have been very difficult if we all didn’t have the organizational needs at heart. 

Christopher, A. (2011), Model Resource, The Smith and Ragan Model. http://www.angelachristopher.net/uploads/8/3/2/4/832462/model_resourceassignment.pdf

Rothwell, W., Benscoter, B., King, M., & King, S. B. (2016). Mastering the instructional design process: A systematic approach (5th ed.). John Wiley and Sons.

OPWL 537 Course Instructors (2021). Instructional design course handbook (4th ed.). Department of Organizational Performance and Workplace Learning, Boise State University.