Main Narrative and Synthesis

Analysis

In this phase, I visited my project locale four times to finish the following tasks: secure consent from the parents, conduct observations, interview teachers, and gather survey responses from the parents. These were necessary before I was able to come up with a thorough needs, context, and learner analysis (see Appendix C). My personal reflections from said visits can be found in eJournal 4, eJournal 5, eJournal 6, and eJournal 7. After which, I analyzed the results that I have  gathered from various observations, surveys, and interviews.

This needs assessment served as the basis for the next phases of my project, i.e., design, development, implementation, and evaluation.

Designing and Developing Instructional Materials

These two phases consumed most of my time in doing the instructional design project, which took me a little over a month to accomplish. Before I started with my design blueprint, I first drafted my project proposal wherein my content expert, Program Chair Dr. Celeste Laurel Tayzon, helped me with my project goals and sub-goals. The initial design I made was only good for five days, which consisted of a combination of play-based and multi-sensory activities for cognitive and language development (eJournal 9). However, after consulting with Dr. Tayzon, she advised me that the design that I will come up with must be good for eight weeks. Hence, I immediately did necessary revisions to my design blueprint (eJournal 10).

I aligned the instructional plan I designed with Early Childhood Care and Development (ECCD) Council's Required List of Lessons for Quarter 2 with the theme My Family, which is what my partner institution is following. Although they align their lessons with the ECCD Council, they do not have a definite day-to-day guide of learning activities because according to my gatekeeper, Ms. Diana Marie Cruz, they give the teachers the freedom to make or implement their own activities based on their learners' needs as long as these are aligned with the lesson they have to tackle. 

As an instructional designer who has identified the existing instructional gap in my project locale (lack of variation in the instructional materials that can help develop learners' cognitive and language skills), I designed specific learning activities that address the said instructional problem and align with the project goals and sub-goals. These activities include but not are limited to various games, arts & crafts, sing & dance, storytelling, etc. while ensuring that they are also aligned with the theme of My Family and at the same time include language-related lessons for language development. I also chose instructional materials that were feasible, sustainable, and can be easily sourced for the learning activities.

In the development phase, I adhered to the visual principles by Smaldino et al. (2005) for the print materials (worksheets) and non-projected visual aids to ensure legibility, reduce effort and extraneous noise, increase active engagement, and focus attention (eJournal 11 & eJournal 12). My originally developed instructional materials can be found in Appendix G. As for the learning activities that involved audiovisual presentations and songs, I sourced them on YouTube by personally picking videos that were appropriate for the target learners, the lessons, and the learning objectives. All the learning activities I designed promote either play-based learning or multi-sensory learning. After developing the instructional materials per se, I then proceeded to the development of the teachers' manual (see Appendix H).

Sample Instructional Materials

Pilot Implementation

Among the many lessons included in my design, the one that was used for the pilot testing was the Module 5 Day 2 lesson entitled Prutas Pampalusog at Pampalakas (GLOW Food) (eJournal 13). The specific learning activities for said lesson are a game (Bring Me) and an arts & crafts worksheet activity that makes use of tactile materials. For the Bring Me Game, the instructional materials used were toys as manipulatives, thereby promoting play-based learning as well as experiential learning. Meanwhile, the tactile materials used for the worksheet activity promote multi-sensory learning. Thus, both activities of the lesson cover my special project's main educational approaches, making it ideal for pilot-testing. The lesson was pilot-tested to PS2 learners which is the afternoon session. However, only seven learners were present due to various reasons for absences.

Pilot Implementation Highlights

Evaluation

While the teachers were conducting the pilot implementation, my gatekeeper and I observed at the back of the classroom and evaluated the lesson. For this phase, I adhered to Kirkpatrick's model of evaluation as framework in the assessment of the effectiveness of the instructional design because of its clear and easy-to-follow process that divides evaluation into manageable levels. The four levels of evaluation under said model, i.e., reaction, learning, behavior, and results (Calhoun et al., 2021), were used as basis for the questions in the evaluation instrument I developed.

My gatekeeper and I used the same evaluation instrument to evaluate the pilot implementation, but my gatekeeper's instrument included another page for the evaluation of my project plan, instructional design blueprint & materials, and areas for improvement. Aside from this, I developed a pre- and post-assessment material specifically for the pilot implementation lesson to gauge learners' improvements, if any. Five out of seven learners were able to distinguish healthy food from unhealthy food based on their post-assessment result which can be found in Appendix I, along with mine and my gatekeeper's evaluation.

Pre- and Post-Assessment Materials

The pre- and post-assessment materials were designed similarly, but different in terms of their supposed delivery, wherein the pre-assessment (laminated) was designed to be conducted one-on-one, while the post-assessment as a summative activity in the form of an individual worksheet.

Departures from the Project Plan/ Challenges Encountered

📌 Instructional plan duration: The initial design was only for five days, but I was advised by my content expert, Dr. Tayzon, that the instructional design must be good for eight weeks. Hence, I had to revise the design blueprint accordingly, wherein I spent a week or more in doing so.

📌 Deviation from the instructions in the Teachers' Manual during the pilot implementation: The teachers did not exactly follow the step-by-step instructions in implementing the lesson based on the teachers' manual. Thus, there was slight deviation from my expected lesson implementation. For instance in the Bring Me game, instead of asking the learners to bring the fruits/healthy food one at a time (i.e., the specific fruit that they will ask to find), the teachers just asked all the learners to find any toy of healthy food they can find anywhere inside the classroom and bring it in front of the class. Although there was deviation from the specific instructions I intended, the learning objective was still fulfilled so that's what's important. The challenge for me, however, is with evaluating the design exactly as it is, since the instructions were not strictly followed. Nonetheless, I continued with my evaluation of the lesson based on Kirkpatrick's model of evaluation using the instrument I created.

📌 Failure to conduct individual pre-assessment: Days prior to the pilot implementation, I already handed the instructional materials needed to the teachers along with the teacher's manual so they can prepare for it. I also gave them the pre-assessment tool to be used to the learners individually (see photo above). However, they were not able to conduct it and instead, at the start of the lesson, the teacher just collectively asked the class to identify which ones are healthy food. Some learners answered incorrectly though, which served as my basis instead for the pre-assessment results.

📌 Deviation from the specific topic of the lesson: The lesson was supposed to be about glow food, but the teachers taught the learners about healthy food vs. unhealthy food in general. For example in the pre- and post-assessment, there were photos of an egg and bread which are not from the glow food group, but since the teachers did not introduce the topic on glow food and instead discussed about healthy food, egg and bread were considered correct for their assessment. According to my gatekeeper, the topic on food groups may be too complicated for young learners aged 3-4.11 years old, but the reason behind its inclusion in the instructional plan is because it is based on ECCD Council's required list of lessons wherein identifying food groups is part of Quarter 2 (see Appendix J).

Photo documentation gallery of the special project highlights and important events can be found in Appendix F.

Self-Evaluation

While doing the processes of my special project, I made sure that my decisions were backed by theoretical underpinnings as solid basis and foundation, and not just for whatever reason. Before I came up with my design, I carefully thought of my whys and made sure that there were principles and theories that can support my choices which I deem appropriate for my target learners. The theories and principles guided me in terms of coming up with learning activities appropriate for my target learners, such that even prior to the pilot implementation, there is already a perceived and assumed effectiveness because of previous studies and literature.

It was difficult, however, to ensure that what I exactly envisioned as the instructional designer would be the same in actual implementation. Of course, because I was not the implementer, the teachers also had their own techniques and teaching styles in terms of how they delivered the learning activities. Such circumstances are inevitable despite having a teachers' manual because of the varying learning and teaching styles of learners and teachers respectively. Nevertheless, having different teaching techniques and styles is not that of an issue as long as the implementers do not deviate from the designed learning activities and the developed instructional materials.

Personally, having solid theoretical foundations as my basis is one my strengths as the instructional designer. I also made sure that my raw data and analysis were thorough enough for me to come up with the appropriate solutions to the identified existing instructional gap. What I believe that I can improve on is in terms of broadening my ideas in coming up with unique and engaging learning activities. At the same time, I know there is still room for me to polish my choices of verbs for the learning objectives according to Bloom's taxonomy that would cover knowledge, skills, and attitudes of learners, as well as improve on developing SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-based) objectives.