The main purpose of this meeting was to seek user feedback on the "How to Update the Library Map" course. However, prior to that, I first presented the second iteration of the printed and digital library map, which had been revised based on the expert review phase. These revisions included the addition of emergency exits, minor corrections to certain labels, photos for the digital map, and answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs).
During the presentation, they identified a few additional minor revisions, particularly regarding the phrasing of some FAQ answers. We made those changes immediately during the session. After incorporating their input, we were able to finalize the second iteration of the map that will be used in the upcoming map usability testing.
Following this, we proceeded to our actual agenda: reviewing the course. I presented the course and its major components, then allowed the participants to explore it independently. I also sent a copy of the course to their emails for their reference and continued use.
Once they had reviewed the material, I asked them to complete a feedback form. Their responses were highly positive. The component they particularly appreciated was the scenario-based assessment, which allowed them to interact with a simulated library employee in a realistic situation.
After this, we discussed plans for the implementation and evaluation of both the map and the course. For the map, I shared my plan to conduct a navigation task among patrons. They approved this plan and encouraged me to proceed with recruiting participants.
As for the course, they suggested piloting it among library employees whose job responsibilities align with the course objectives. They identified three (3) employees who could participate in the pilot implementation and connected me to them for coordination.
They also invited me to attend their upcoming monthly staff meeting to present the instructional materials I developed. They were impressed and pleased with the quality of the output and expressed their gratitude for the work and effort put into the project.
From this experience, I realized the importance of obtaining feedback not just from experts, but also from the target users of the course. This helped ensure that the course is not only sound in the eyes of subject matter experts but also effective and relevant for learners. Through this process, I was able to verify that the course content is aligned with their actual needs and expectations.
One minor issue encountered during this subphase was slow data connectivity. As a result, the scenario-based assessment took a bit longer to load which caused slight delays. This made me realize that I need to consider technical constraints such as connectivity in the course’s delivery or implementation.
To resolve this issue, I plan to modify the implementation strategy by assigning the course to users and allowing them to decide where and how to access it. This suggestion came from the library’s assistant director, who noted that staff members have different learning preferences. By offering flexibility, users can complete the course at home, where they may have better internet access. Additionally, I also plan to send a downloadable PDF version of the course materials as a backup in case online access becomes an issue.
A key strength of how I conducted this phase is the use of a standardized instrument for feedback collection. This helped give structure to users’ responses and made it easier to analyze their input.
On the other hand, a weakness was that the participants did not have sufficient time during the session to fully explore the course. To address this, I emailed them a copy of the course and informed them that if they identified any additional areas for improvement before implementation, they are welcome to share their feedback with me.
Since this user feedback session felt like a practice for the actual implementation, I was able to come up with a few valuable recommendations for future implementation. First, allow users flexible access to the course to accommodate various learning preferences and technical limitations. Second, provide both online and offline (e.g., PDF) versions of instructional materials to make sure that users can still access the content even if they experience connectivity issues.
On the other hand, for my future projects as an instructional designer, what I can learn from this is to allocate more time for user review, perhaps by sending the course ahead of time if possible, or just allocating more time for the meeting so that every aspect of the course can be scrutinized by the users. More importantly, always find a way to involve both experts and end-users in the review and revision process to ensure the content remains both pedagogically sound and practically relevant. Both groups can have valuable contributions in the development of the instructional materials, and overlooking one or the other may result in a course that is either theoretically strong but not practical, or practical but lacking in sound instructional design.