In this map expert review, I held a meeting with Ms. Melissa, during which we synchronously co-developed the necessary improvements for both the printed and digital versions of the map.
First, I presented the printed map, which was in brochure format. Ms. Melissa gave positive feedback, particularly on the user-friendliness of the layout. One of the key suggestions was to add icons for emergency exits, along with a few other minor revisions. Since Ms. Melissa is more familiar with the ins and outs of the library, especially the landmarks commonly referenced by patrons, she served as the subject matter expert in this context. For this reason, she led the development of the answers for the Frequently Asked Questions section.
Next, I presented the digital map and offered two options: one developed in Storyline and another created in PowerPoint. We discussed the trade-offs of each. For example, with Storyline, we would lose certain features like hover effects and screen-locking functionality, while the PowerPoint version, though more limited in interactivity, would be easier to update and maintain in the future. We both agreed that a practical compromise would be to move forward with the PowerPoint version to prioritize long-term sustainability and ease of editing.
Afterward, I presented the design blueprint for the support course we plan to create to help users navigate the library map. I asked Ms. Melissa several questions related to the target learners, such as their backgrounds and prior knowledge of tools like PowerPoint and AWS. I also showed her a sample Rise course that aligns with our vision. She was impressed and remarked that it would suitable for our target audience.
From the map revision sub-phase, I have gained two (2) important insights:
First, instructional design is a team effort. While I brought instructional design skills to the table, Ms. Melissa brought subject matter expertise and audience familiarity to the table. Her deep understanding of the library’s layout and the needs of their patrons ensured that the instructional product was both accurate and user-centered. This experience reminded me that it’s not only okay to ask for help, it’s necessary.
Second, the first iteration of an instructional product is never the final iteration. Instructional design is an iterative process, and feedback is the spark that propels the process forward. Therefore, feedback should not be viewed as a criticism that aims to nitpick flaws, but rather as helpful advice meant to improve the instructional product.
In this subphase, I had to face one major problem. I realized that I needed to do another round of the analysis and design phases to better structure the development of the short course intended for library employees, since the data gathered in the analysis phase previously done wouldn’t fully apply to this second instructional product due to the different target learners. However, there may not be enough time to conduct another round of analysis and design the traditional way.
To resolve this problem, I used the backward design approach (design before analysis). Before this meeting, I had already begun working on the design. I created a planning matrix that outlined the course objectives, learning materials, learning activities, and both formative and summative assessments. I also compiled sample courses and Minimum Viable Products (MVPs) to concretely illustrate what the course could look like. Then, I used the meeting as an opportunity to conduct the analysis phase. I shared the goals I had in mind for the short course and asked Ms. Melissa to confirm whether these aligned with the library’s goals. I also briefly asked some important questions about our target learners and their needs. Now, I am able to use this data to refine the design and guide the development phase moving forward.
The strength of this subphase is that the feedback round was conducted systematically, first with the printed map, then with the digital map second. This ensured that all aspects in both formats were addressed thoroughly and nothing was overlooked.
The weakness, on the other hand, lies in the initial planning of the short course. Since the need for the short course only came up later on the project, there was limited time to conduct a traditional analysis and design phase. Fortunately, I was able to adopt an approach similar to the Successive Approximation Model (SAM), wherein I started with the design and then refine it based on the insights gathered during the meeting.
Based on my experience in this subphase, my recommendation for future action would be the following:
Be more meticulous and inquisitive during the needs analysis phase. Consider whether there might be secondary needs that could emerge as a result of the instructional solution being proposed. For example, in this case, the introduction of a new library map, an instructional solution, led to another instructional need: how it can be edited by staff and volunteers. Perhaps with more forward-sightedness during the analysis phase, I could have planned better for the short course that eventually became necessary.
Additionally, be flexible and ready to adopt a different approach if needed, just like what happened here. Don’t limit yourself to the linearity of the traditional ADDIE model . Always remember that instructional design is not a rigid, one-way process. You may revisit prior phases or even carry out a later phase (e.g., the design phase) before completing an earlier one (e.g., the analysis phase), and that’s totally okay. What matters most is that each phase informs the others in a way that leads to an effective and learner-centered solution.