This artifact focused on identifying a performance problem and thinking of ways to address it. For this I conducted a needs assessment related to the ongoing communication and collaboration issues between two offices. I gathered information from staff members who are directly affected by the problem to better understand the root causes and how it impacts daily work and student service. This project demonstrates my approach to instructional design as an investigative process focused on identifying root causes before proposing solutions.
1.3 – Apply interdisciplinary research findings to the solution of performance problems
2.1 – Seek multiple data and information points when conducting analysis
2.2 – Apply tools of analysis including task and needs analysis.
2.3 – Analyze performance gaps.
2.4 – Identify causes of performance gaps.
2.5 – Use analysis to recommend instructional and non-instructional solutions.
6.2 – Use learner assessment data to improve instructional solutions
6.3 – Accurately measure targeted performance outcomes identified by stakeholders.
7.6 – Consider connections between instructional design and other disciplines to inform the instructional design process.
This at first was easy because I am an insider to this situation and identifying the performance problem was not difficult (Briscoe, 2005). I already knew what the issue was, how it impacts our workflow, and how it affects students. But , once I moved into the needs assessment phase, the process became more challenging. Even though I am an insider to the problem, I had to step back and become an outsider in my role as an instructional designer (Briscoe, 2005). I could not assume I knew the full story, I needed to collect information in a structured and unbiased way. Just as in my IDD for my 601 course I could not just go based off what I know. I remember in this course we had this mini assignment where we had to review a case study ‘Declining sales for Woodward Manufacturing', my partner and I talked about how to approach Jim (the CEO) with the needs assessment. .As we compared ideas, we realized we were thinking along the same lines. We thought about what it would be like if Jim was resistant (since he already seemed confident in what his team needed) -- and felt the assessment was unnecessary or a waste of time. So this is the other thing I had to think about with my own project. In that case, we agreed the consultant (us) should explain how the assessment could save money and prevent wasted effort by finding the real issues instead of just guessing.
We also thought about the opposite, if Jim was more curious or open (my partner and I had to view this in different lenses). In that situation, we as the consultant could explain what the process might look like, how long it would take, and the benefits of including perspectives. That way, Jim would feel like he had options. We both focused on showing the value of the assessment, keeping it practical, and connecting it back to saving time and money. What stood out to us was how helpful it was to look at the situation from different angles. Thinking about Jim being either skeptical or open showed us the importance of being ready with more than one approach. Consulting often means being flexible, doing some “detective work,” and not just accepting a client’s first thoughts at face value.
One of the biggest challenges was shifting my mindset. As someone who works in the front facing office, I see only part of the situation. I do not fully see what happens in the financial aid processing office. That made me realize that I am both an insider and an outsider. So I collected data from my direct peers as well as from staff in the financial aid office. This helped me understand multiple perspectives. Through the needs assessment, It was important to note that part of the issue may be related to motivation and workload. Some financial aid counselors are handling complex student cases while also dealing with staffing shortages due to employees leaving or retiring. It is unclear whether the communication breakdown is caused by stress, unclear roles, burnout, or feeling disconnected from the overall student experience.
Overall, the process was not hard in terms of identifying the problem, but it was challenging in terms of stepping back, collecting data properly, and viewing the situation objectively.
For this project, I used the ADDIE model to guide the process from beginning to end. This was important in all aspects of analysis, design and evaluation. For evaluation, I applied the Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model (Cady et al., 2018). This framework helped me think about how the training would be measured at different levels:
● Reaction – How staff feel about the training
● Learning – What knowledge or skills they gain
● Behavior – Whether communication and collaboration improve
● Results – Whether student confusion and delays decrease
What this project helped me understand about my own design thinking was how easy it is to build training and never ask whether it actually worked. When I applied the Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model, it forced me to think backwards starting with the real organizational problem and asking what success would actually look like before I designed anything. That shift mattered. For example, when I thought through Level 3, whether staff would actually change their communication behavior on the job, I realized that a one-time training alone would not be enough. That insight is what pushed me to recommend monthly cross-office check-ins and a shared tracking system alongside the training, rather than treating the training as the whole solution. Without Kirkpatrick prompting me to think about transfer and results, I might have stopped at designing content that felt complete on paper but would not have addressed the root disconnect between the two offices. Level 4 also grounded my design in what the organization actually needed fewer student complaints, faster resolution times, and less staff frustration which kept me from drifting toward activities that were engaging but not tied to real outcomes. This project taught me that evaluation is not something you add at the end. It is a design decision that shapes everything that comes before it.
To complete this project, I used:
● Google Forms to create and distribute an online survey
● Conversations and informal interviews with peers and financial aid staff
● Google Docs to organize the needs assessment and design plan
One major “AHA!” moment for me was realizing that instructional designers are basically detectives. I can not just assume I know the problem, even if I work inside the organization. We have to dig deeper, ask questions and gather evidence. Another realization was understanding how limited my perspective was. Collecting data showed me there were layers I had not fully considered, especially related to stress, staffing shortages, and unclear expectations. So If I could I would gather more data. I would conduct additional interviews. As an insider I can only see so much. And because the financial aid office operates in a different space with different pressures, I am also an outsider for them. More data would allow me to dig deeper into the underlying causes rather than focusing mainly on surface level communication issues.
This project helped me grow in separating my work identity from my instructional designer role. My ability to think critically and gather data objectively was improved. Something else I think about is performance problems are rarely simple. They often stem from systems, communication structures and company factors. So, the designing part of this is not just about creating training. It is about understanding people, processes, and the environment.