Despite shifts in the economy, businesses and industries still have a need for instructional design. Companies might not have permanent instructional designers on staff, but through outsourcing and consulting, companies are still investing in good instructional design models for their business. With the negative shift in the economy in recent years, the pressure on reducing the cycle time and budget for instructional designers has increased. Thus, enabling the need for rapid prototyping. Basically, rapid prototyping “involves the development of a working model of an instructional product that is used early in a project to assist in the analysis, design, development, and production of an instructional innovation” (Reiser and Dempsey, 2007).[i] Honestly, rapid prototyping is a great idea. This enables one to work with the model as it is going through the design processes. It is one thing to see an idea on paper, but to have a working tangible product is better. A designer can test and evaluate the prototype as the designer is going through the design cycle to ensure the final products will have the desired outcome. In other words, modify and adapt during the design process instead of after. Rapid prototypes can range from CAD or casting machines, etc. However, in education rapid prototyping is more on testing and analyzing software.
As Joe Hoffman and Jon Margerum-Leys of the University of Michigan stated that one should “start with the model that allows you to develop a course within a time and budget.”[ii] One needs to develop as they go through the course development. When implementing new training software for students in a course, the designers can test and modify the model. In this author’s school, just this week the sixth graders were selected to participate as a testing group for new math software (similar to ISIP as explained in the previous blog post). Without knowledge of where this model is in the instructional design process, it could be considered a prototype that the students will test out for the company before it is finished and mass produced. A designer can make changes and get the feedback it needs before the finished product is sent to schools. Often the best feedback comes from its potential users, in this case the students. Below is a graphic representation of a rapid prototype design model in education from Hoff and Margerum-Leyes.
The men and women who join the military make sacrifices for the good of their country. The military has been known for their intense and thorough training of the people who enlist. Often, the military has the most advance technology (simulators) for training. After basic training, military members still need up to date access to information and training in certain environments. These environments could be abroad, in hostile regions, and even at sea. If hired as a consultant for the military, one would have to take into consideration using their advance technology and limits to electronic access in some environments. The full spectrum diagram could be a solution for the instructional designer. The model varies from skill levels ranging from low to high and ranks ranging from low to high. The design needs to be flexible enough to have access from the classroom, base, or deployment in order to reach its training target (Reiser and Dempsey, 2007).
As the consultant, a number of alternatives could be put into place. When members have access to the base and classroom, training could be used more with the latest technology. Members could practice with an instructor and with a simulator to gain experience they need. However, before being deployed, they need to be taught how to access wireless electronic sources for update training as needed. The instructional design needs to be flexible enough that members can achieve the skill regardless of the environment. The best case scenario would be some kind of training software that all members could participate using even in remote locations. Another option is to train the trainees’ scenario. Train the officers using the software, and then in turn, they can teach lower ranking members information when needed. A good software training program could be utilized in the classroom, base, and deployments.
A good example is when the Marines established the Deployable Learning Resource Centers in providing continuing training (Reiser and Dempsey, 2007). Another idea is to have training focused on individual skills as needed for members. For instance, if suddenly members were deployed in a desert region, they could pull up online training software that has information on survival in the desert and the culture of the region. They would not have to participate in an entire training simulation on surviving in the arctic region to get to the part about the desert. Training can be focused on individual skills, which members can access as needed. Also, if members are in a hostile environment, or have limited electronic access, the term short and sweet needs to be utilized to give them much information as possible, in the shortest amount of time. Regardless of the environment, the software could be utilized anywhere using the latest technology that they have available in that environment.
School districts are increasingly under pressure to perform at certain standards, especially since the introduction of the No Child Left Behind Act. With this pressure, sometimes school districts need to implement a systematic change in order to improve and give students what they need. Two methodologies that would be useful to introduce during a staff development activity are the Step-Up-To-Excellence (SUTE) and Guidance System for Transforming Education (GSTE). If conducting a staff development over these, this author would introduce both separately then have educators determine the pros and cons of each. For instance, first, the teachers on staff would be divided into four groups for the introduction to GSTE. Each group will represent one of the four phases and receive information on that phase. For example, the Phase 1: Initiate Systemic Change Effort group would receive information on getting faculties to form support teams, assess the need for change, etc. The Phase 2: Develop Starter team would get information on forming a starter team and developing standards for the systems and design. Phase III: Develop District-wide Framework and Capacity for Change group would receive information on developing a leadership team and participating in the community. Phase IV: Create Ideal Designs for a New Educational System group would get information about design terms and creating ideal administrative systems (Reiser and Dempsey, 2007). After each group of teachers read their information, they will present their findings to the rest of the group. After the presentation, this author would compile their key facts they presented on an electronic t-chart for later use. Having the educators interact with the information is better than reading a power point bullet for bullet.
Next, this author would introduce the Step-Up-To- Excellence (SUTE) model. Each table of teachers would receive the five steps of a district improvement plan. They will discuss the importance of the pre-launch preparation, then moving to the Step 1: redesign entire school system. Next, the teachers would discuss steps 2-4 on school and team performances. Last, step 5 would be introduced about evaluation (Reiser and Dempsey, 2007). After their group discussions, more information would be added to the electronic t-chart for comparison. To get the staff more involved in their learning, each group would get a list of the teams and players needed to initiate the SUTE model. They will also receive a description of each. Then they would proceed to try and match the description to the correct team/person. For instance, for the Strategic Leadership Team they would get information on who is on the team and what they are responsible for working on. After the groups feel they have successful matched the roles to the correct tile, this author would give them the correct answers. Then, discuss why each role is important.
After all the information was presented the teachers would engage in an argumentative discussion over the pros and cons of SUTE and GSTE systematic changes for school districts. Also, they need to discuss why these changes can benefit the students. Below is a diagram of the SUTE model.[iii]
Educators in P-12 settings are not the only ones who can benefit from continuing education and staff development. Professors and educators in higher education can also learn and develop from development opportunities. While studying Texas A&M University-Commerce website under “About US”. There was information involving the implantation and opportunities for faculty development. Starting with the staff in general at TAMU under the Vice President for Business and Administration is Training and Development. Training and Development focuses on training supervisors to have better communication, team building, and motivation, etc. They constantly offer courses over items such as: developing a better website, new employee orientation, and even teaching prezi instead of using PowerPoint. Also, the Faculty Senate role is slightly different. The Senate is made up of faulty members from each academic department. To quote their description they are the “voice of faculty and make recommendations...to the President.” While the Faculty Senate appears not to directly dictate the staff development, it does have some role in approving some aspects of it. For instance, while researching their meeting notes, this author found something interesting from the meeting on Dec 6, 2011. The notes mentioned a discussion of approving Faculty Development Committees decision to try and create a “center for faculty excellence” and create a central website for training faculty. Also, they to approve the orientation proceedings to new faculty. In other words, they may decide to approve this measure and bring it to the President’s attention.[iv]
The Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Planning can also initiate faulty development needs. The office focuses on learning outcome, research, and planning. Also, the office analyzes data to determine instructional effectiveness. Basically, the office is “data-driven” when making decisions. They use data to make decisions on the needs to the university and improve its effectiveness. They give out knowledge for leadership, improve performance, and follow strategic planning (TAMU-website).
The Faculty Development Committee is an Administrative Committee under Faculty Development and Grants to approve of TAMU faculty development workshops. These workshops range from improving in instructional strategies. Also, in engaging in different assessment strategies are some of the roles they have. Members intend to encourage a learning community that communicates and collaborates with each other. From the website, it appears that in the fall semester there was an opportunity to participate in a development workshop at least once per month. Each workshop specialized in something. For instance, the latest workshop was “Reading and Teaching the Millennial Generation-developing an Authentic Assessment Toolkit.” Members of the committee represent each school in the college. The following is the model for Instutional Effectiveness for Texas A&M University-Commerce (TAMU-Website).
[i] Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2007). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
[ii] http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jmargeru/prototyping/ Hoffman, J., & Margerum-Leys, J. (n.d.). Rapid prototyping as an instructional design. Retrieved from http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jmargeru/prototyping/
[iii] Duffy, F. (2006, June 9). Step-Up-To-Excellence:A Change Navigation Protocol for Transforming School Systems. Retrieved from the Connexions Web site: http://cnx.org/content/m13656/1.1/
No comments:
Post a Comment