Sub-Badge 3: Design instructional interventions

Challenge 1: Identify instructional strategies that align with instructional goals and anticipated learning outcomes

Criteria for successful completion of this challenge: Evidence of utilizing the best instructional strategies (scaffolding, modeling, cooperative learning, case studies, service learning, etc.) based on the instructional goals and learning outcomes of a project. Reflection must address: How you determined the instructional strategies based on the instructional goals for the project.

 Example: Learning Design Activities (EDCI 575), Lesson/Training Plans (EDCI 568), Design Documents (EDCI 572), eLearning Proposal (EDCI 569 if taken prior to Spring 2021), Individual Game Document (EDCI 556), Deliverables from Practicum (EDCI 573), case studies demonstrating learning theories for different situations (EDCI 513, EDCI 672), Design Document (EDCI 569 if taken in Spring 2021 or later), other artifacts (work related or other) matching best instructional practices/strategies to learning goals and outcomes.

Reflection

The proof of competency resides in the ability to identify instructional strategies that align with instructional goals and anticipated learning outcomes. I have chosen to include my final paper from EDCI 531 entitled, Choosing the Right Learning Theory for the College Writing Classroom, and its accompanying job aid which provides an easy-to-follow approach to choosing the right learning theory for various possible assignments in a first-year writing classroom. The purpose of the paper was to provide insight for adjunct faculty in English who may not know how to design course outcomes and assignments around learning theories due to their limited awareness of, and training in, utilizing learning theories in course design. This project was born from my own experience as an adjunct in English for over 15 years and my observations as the director of a university writing center. Within the paper and job aid, methods for identifying the best instructional strategies to accomplish instructional goals and learning outcomes are showcased around the six learning theories to take some of the guesswork out for adjunct faculty who might need a bird’s eye view of these theories before they begin: Behaviorism, Social Cognitive Theory, Cognitive Information Processing, Gagné’s Theory of Instruction, Cognitive Learning Processes, and Constructivism.

The artifacts showcase the competency because the paper gives a high-level overview of the basics of each learning theory and the job aid provides practical examples for each of the six theories that can be applied in the following types of first-year writing assignments: grammar and punctuation; critical thinking and reading comprehension; and essay skills. It is very important for adjunct faculty in English who are teaching first-year writing courses to work to improve transference from their writing classrooms because some of the courses they teach are typically prerequisites for other courses across the curriculum.  Being able to diversify one’s approach to designing quality instructional strategies to accomplish course goals and outcomes is of the utmost importance, especially considering the first-year writing classroom is considered one of the most “boring” classes for freshmen. If adjunct faculty intentionally diversify their use of learning theories and learn to scaffold assignments, engage metacognition, and incorporate more social-cognitive approaches, for example, they are more likely to keep the attention of their students and improve overall engagement in the subject matter. Therefore, learning how to use these learning theories in the first-year writing classroom will help them to help their students more. The job aid provides practical examples that show how these learning theories can be employed, and it serves as a good high-level overview from which the adjunct faculty can then continue exploring and developing on his/her/their own.

My prior knowledge as an adjunct faculty in English and as a former director of a university writing center greatly informed the creation of these artifacts. Throughout my 20+ years in higher education, I have seen very little training and professional development for adjuncts on topics surrounding pedagogy and learning theories in the classroom. Because I have seen thousands of assignments that were written and graded by adjunct faculty at multiple institutions, I have a really good idea about the minimalist approach that adjuncts take when designing their assignments. Most design and develop their assignments based on standard, and potentially un-interesting, essay prompts and they also fail to adequately teach and grade grammar and punctuation. The artifacts demonstrate approaches to begin to improve teaching in these areas, as well as with critical thinking and reading comprehension. When I was in the thick of teaching at the college and university level, I wish I had actively known about these learning theories because I would have done a much better job at gaining attention and sustaining engagement by diversifying my instructional strategies. In creating the job aid, I realized I organically designed assignments using aspects of each of these theories, but not usually with an active realization of what I was doing. Therefore, I chose this topic and designed the job aid to validate that these learning theories can be paired with instructional strategies and learning outcomes with a little intellectual effort on the part of the adjunct faculty member.

These two artifacts work well for this challenge because they showcase practical ways of actually applying the theories in the first-year writing classroom. The biggest challenge in utilizing complex learning theories is finding practical ways of applying them. This job aid helps show three main categories that are relevant within a first-year writing classroom and how to use the six theories to design quality learning engagements around them. I learned a lot through this experience, most especially that I have practiced various aspects of these learning theories throughout my career but without realizing it. Had I known more back then, I could have certainly done a much better job of designing assignments and teaching. That prompted me to write this paper and create this job aid—to help others where they are now and as they move forward in their roles as first-year writing instructors. Because of my extensive experience teaching first-year writing, and the complementary experience of working in academic support services for 20+ years, one way I am going to continue improving these skills is by more fully fleshing out some of these types of assignments and theories to further to develop quality learning materials. For instance, for a local community college, I designed and developed 40 writing success tutorial videos, which were designed to be used for students' self-study, but that was also before I really understood Constructivism as a theoretical approach. Now, with the knowledge I have about all of these learning theories, I can go back and revise some of those materials with the knowledge I have about Constructivism. The good thing is that instructional design is centered around the concept of iterations, and now I can move into my next iterations of these course materials with the newfound knowledge I have about using learning theories to improve instructional strategies and to meet course or co-curricular outcomes. 

Challenge 2: Apply appropriate interaction design and interactive learning principles

Criteria for successful completion of this challenge: Evidence of implementing interactional pieces of design (user experience, design and balance, efficiency, understanding the interface) in the development of instructional materials.  Reflection must address: Specific examples of interactional pieces in your evidence and how these specific examples work well in the design.

 Example: Proposal of adding interactive instructional materials into a design, supplementing learning activities by including interactive pieces, Individual Game Document (EDCI 556), Solutions & Change Management (EDCI 528), Digital Job Aid (EDCI 566), Final Digital Prototype (EDCI 569 if taken prior to Spring 2021), Deliverables from Practicum (EDCI 573), Technology Integrated Project (EDCI 564), Final Project (EDCI 569 if taken in Spring 2021 or later), other artifacts (design, performance, workplace, educational, other) demonstrating interactive pieces added into design. 

Reflection  

The competency is designing instructional interventions and the challenge is to apply appropriate interaction design and interactive learning principles. The artifact I have chosen to showcase this competency is the e-learning module I designed for EDCI 569. This e-learning module was created in Adobe Captivate and uses a variety of interactions and assets to accomplish learning outcomes and to attract and keep the user’s attention using the ARCS model. The e-learning module is titled, “Preparing Yourself for Breast Cancer Surgery: A Survivor’s Perspective.”

This competency is very important because with the widespread use of e-learning modules, both in corporate and educational settings, the ability to properly design interactions that bring value and efficiency to the learning experience is at the top of an instructional designer’s priorities. We have all taken e-learning modules that were seriously boring and that we wondered, with every click, what was the purpose of that interaction, so the ability to actually design and develop effective and appropriate interactions should be where we are headed as IDs. In some cases, a click-to-reveal that is presented in an attractive way might be more effective than a formative assessment in a “knowledge check” type quiz.  In my e-learning module, I reflected on Slade’s (2020) assertion that “not all interactivity is created equally” and employed three of his four suggested types of interactions: passive, limited, and moderate (p. 172).  Passive interactions in my module included clicking the navigation buttons to go to the next slide as well as verbal prompting for learner reflection; limited interactions included click to reveal cards with overlay text, flip cards, hotspots, and videos; moderate interactions included two formative assessments that were 3-question quizzes.

Because I have been in higher education for over 15 years, I have a lot of experience designing learning experience, but I am new to e-learning experiences. I have taught online classes but never designed an actual e-learning module before. This is the second time I have designed an e-learning module using Adobe Captivate, and I am still learning, but I definitely was able to explore making the interactions more succinct and diverse in this module due to the nature of my learning outcomes and my assets. Because I knew I would have three videos, I built interactions that would complement those videos so that the learner was not bored with just videos produced by me. I also used Canva Pro to help me create more visually appealing assets, which would attract and keep attention. In this way, choosing the ARCS learning theory helped me stay focused on attracting attention, providing only relevant content that was aligned with the learning outcomes, encouraging learner confidence through manageable and succinct content that did not exceed scope, and ensuring satisfaction through the Pro-Survivor Tips that the learners were walking away with after completing the module. My history in higher education helped me design a module that stayed in scope and accomplished its ultimate goal, which was to present supplemental, non-clinical information that would help a breast cancer patient before and after surgery. My growing knowledge as an ID helped me see and appreciate why a diversity of interactions would be best to attract and keep attention. For example, late last year I started a new job at a hospital system and had to do quite a few e-learning modules as part of my onboarding. They were brutally boring and I am unsure what I learned from them, if anything. I brought that with me into the experience of designing this e-learning module, and with this personal perspective, I am feeling confident that I created an engaging and appropriately interactive e-learning module.

This artifact works well for the challenge because I have diversified my interactions as much as possible in order to facilitate the learner’s engagement with the material. The learner is able to find new interactions on each slide, which helps motivate him/her/them to complete the module. It is designed to not be boring, but to be engaging, and within reason given the options in Adobe Captivate and this module’s learning outcomes and assets, I believe I created a successfully interactive e-learning module. During this experience, I learned the importance of not allowing scope creep to invade the design and development plan, as it is very easy to go off on a tangent, but I was able to keep my scope in mind as I created and I stayed within the parameters of the assignment, which also helped in keeping the module in a space of hopefully avoiding the dreaded “boring” moniker! I will continue developing this competency as I explore using Adobe Captivate, and other programs that I have access to in the future, like Articulate and Rise. I feel confident with the creation of my second e-learning module here because I used as many interactions as I could without going overboard, underboard, or into bored!

References

Slade, T. (2020). The eLearning Designer’s Handbook: A Practical Guide to the eLearning Development Process for New eLearning   Designers. 2nd Edition. Self-Published.