During the Townhall meeting, we were tasked with presenting a mid-progress report to update everyone with the status of our projects. I was proud to present that my instructional design project is already moving into the implementation and evaluation phase. I shared everything that I went through, beginning with the needs analysis where I conducted an interview with the library director, followed by the design phase where I created an alignment matrix and an initial iteration of the instructional product, and finally the development phase where I created the map and the online course anchored in learning theories.
After presenting my project, my evaluator provided comments and suggestions. First, he recommended including a Dewey Decimal System table in the map. I appreciated this suggestion, as it was actually part of my initial proposal. However, my gatekeeper pointed out that due to limited space in the brochure, they preferred to allocate that space to information about different areas of the library since, based on the needs analysis, these are the questions most frequently asked by patrons. Another reason why this suggestion might not be feasible is that books are frequently relocated within the library. If we include Dewey Decimal labels for each shelf and in the map legend, the map could become outdated quickly. Nonetheless, as found in the context analysis, this need for a Dewey Decimal Table is already attended by existing resources within the library. The library already has shelf signage that details the Dewey Decimal System, and they also have an online library catalog where patrons can locate books by call number.
Another suggestion from my evaluator was to add auxiliary hazard symbols to the map for areas under renovation. However, at the time of writing, there are no active renovations in the library. Aside from that, as emphasized by my gatekeeper, our current priority is to future-proof the map, and that if we include such symbols, the map would need to be frequently updated. Nevertheless, this suggestion may be considered should any long-term renovations occur in the future.
From this chance to receive feedback on the project, I gained a couple of valuable insights.
First, I realized that my abandoned idea of adding a Dewey Decimal table may still be a valid idea. Perhaps in the future, another project could be considered that focuses on this idea. A needs analysis related to patrons’ knowledge of the Dewey Decimal System may be conducted, and if a need is identified, it could lead to the creation of a dedicated instructional product (e.g., a handout) focused on the Dewey Decimal System.
Second, I realized that while these suggestions are great and I would love to have them as additions to the map, there are limitations that prevent us from including all the features we want. We must decide what to prioritize, and in this case, we prioritized the needs of the target learners and the future-proofing of the map.
Third, I realized that when considering whether to incorporate suggestions, we must always return to the results of the needs analysis to determine if the suggestions align with the identified needs. As the project owners, we are the ones with an in-depth understanding of the learners' needs, their characteristics, and the context in which the materials will be used, so we are the only ones who have the capacity to judge and decide whether a suggestion is suitable for the project or not.
In this phase, the only problem, as evident in the narration of events, is that I am unable to act on the suggestions provided by my evaluator because they do not align with the results of the needs analysis, and they may undermine the map’s ability to remain durable amid changes within the library, which is one of the concerns raised by the gatekeeper during the early phases of the project.
As a solution, I still communicated these suggestions to my gatekeeper so that, even though these suggestions won’t be incorporated as of the moment, they could serve as considerations for the future.
Focusing on my presentation during the townhall, I'd say that my strength is that I was able to show a clear picture of how my instructional design project went through the help of the ADDIE model. I showed how I conducted each stage and presented plans on how I plan to conduct the last two stages. Aside from that, I was able to showcase that my project is very well-documented with pictures, videos, snapshots, which is very important in my role as an educational researcher. I was also able to show that all the design decisions I made were guided by the results of the needs analysis and the learning theories, which I believe shows my character as a BES student.
My weakness, on the other hand, is that I wasn't able to highlight the challenges I faced as I worked on my special project. I could've shared stories about how many iterations and revisions were done before the map and the course got to where it is now. However, due to the need to jam-pack months of progress into a 10-minute video, this is something that I neglected. Nevertheless, during the presentation, I shared a link to this eJournal so that those who may be interested in learning more about the journey I went through, those who want to know both the good and the bad, can dig deeper.
Based on the learnings I gained through this experience, I would recommend to my future self to always look back to the results of the analysis phase. The analysis is the foundation where any instructional design project is built, so it is very important that when any change is made in the instructional product, careful consideration is given to whether it is aligned with the identified needs and goals.