Designing a Learning Solution Course · Final Portfolio EDUC 603 Fall 2015 Stacy Anderson Product Owners, stakeholders, and Development Team members feel more committed to artifacts

Final Portfolio EDUC 603 Fall 2015 Stacy Anderson

Designing a Learning Solution Course

Final Portfolio EDUC 603 Fall 2015

Stacy Anderson


Performance Gap Analysis

Client XYZ Institute helps address acquisition workforce challenges facing Government Agency 123 and the federal government overall through training. The institute is divided into schools that concentrate on focal areas. ABC School is the client for this analysis.

Background In ABC School, government employees (Training Specialists) and contractors (Curriculum Developers) work together to create program/project management training courses. The team creates synchronous and asynchronous training using online and face‐to‐face delivery. The school follows the ADDIE model to develop training courses and uses the Agile model to manage the development. Training Specialists act as Product Owners, and Curriculum Developers act as the Development Team members and ScrumMasters. Curriculum Developers work in three development teams: Teams A, B, and C.

The ABC School has used a version of the Agile model for over three years. In the past 6 months, changes have been made to follow the Agile model more closely and make improvements to an already award‐winning team.

Methods An explanation of the current state and desired future state was provided through a face‐to‐face interview with the ABC School's Director of Curriculum. Current performance data is based on a review of course materials created over the past 6 months.

Problem Statement ABC School team does not use formal learning objectives to develop a significant number of courses, resulting in increased development time and courses that do not meet acceptable quality levels as defined by the client.

Current State 75% of courses created within a 6‐month timeframe include formal learning objectives.

Future State 100% of courses created within a 6‐month timeframe include formal learning objectives.

Delta 25% of courses created within a 6‐month timeframe include formal learning objectives.


Root Cause Analysis Problem Statement ABC School team does not use formal learning objectives to develop a significant number of courses, resulting in increased development time and courses that do not meet acceptable quality levels as defined by the client.

Methods Interviews were conducted to obtain root cause information. Interview participants include the Director of Curriculum, the Development Team Project Manager, a Curriculum Developer, and a Training Specialist.

Findings Knowledge

Training Specialists/Product Owners lack knowledge of instructional design practices, making them unable to create, communicate, and stick to a product vision for the course, interpret analyses and designs by others, and write and review learning objectives. Because they are not able to perform these tasks, much of the Product Owner's input and feedback happens during development after the Development Team creates materials, leading to significant amounts of rework. Without education in the process, there is also less buy‐in that ADDIE is a sound approach, leading to even less focus in analysis and design. Less focus on these phases also leads to poor acceptance criteria during sprint planning, which leads to more rework.

Training Specialists/Product Owners misinterpret the roles and responsibilities of Agile. Since Agile encourages feedback and change to enhance courses, Product Owners do not focus on having a thorough plan/vision before development. For example, if learning objectives can change at any time, there is no reason to focus on creating good learning objectives before development. The current expectation is for Development Teams to make any change necessary to make the end product the best it can be while also meeting the same scope, schedule, and quality expectations. However, in Agile, Product Owners must include changes or enhancements in the backlog and prioritize them. Development Teams only take on the amount of work they can commit to completing to achieve a shippable product. It is the Product Owner who is responsible for managing the constraints of the project.

Motives Some Development Team members shy away from formal learning objectives because they are

afraid of being constrained. They want to use creative freedom during development.


Product Owners, stakeholders, and Development Team members feel more committed to artifacts that they helped create, even if those artifacts need work. When there is no collaboration on learning objectives, many edit requests arise.

If Product Owners do not meet stakeholder expectations, there are few consequences. Therefore, there is very little motivation to manage constraints or learn new skills.

If individual Development Team members do not perform to their expected abilities, there are few consequences.

Product Owners are less motivated to correct errors in Agile processes that were established for over 3 years.

Those who do not understand ADDIE best practices are not inclined to learn because they feel that they are already experts after working with the process for several years. This may include Product Owners and Development Team members.

Both the Product Owner and the Development Teams are more motivated when they are involved in the analysis and design phases of the ADDIE model. Each party has more buy‐in when they have contributed to these phases.

Structure and Processes Hiring process for Training Specialists/Product Owners does not require Instructional Design

education and/or experience.

The existing process does not require the Product Owner to document a product vision and does not establish a point to gain approval on and commit to learning objectives.

There is no version control process in place, even after many attempts by Development Team and Product Owners to put one in place. This leads to misplaced work and motivation issues.

There are mixed understandings about the need for, the ideal structure of, and the use of learning objectives from higher management, Product Owners, and Development Team members, leading to an overall team confusion about how to form and use formal learning objectives.

Product Owners do not have a consistent way to manage triple constraints and the changes to them in order to put a $ value to the time it takes to make a change or the impact to the schedule.

Resources Product Owners do not have a software resource to use to manage the value of their triple

constraints.


Capacity Stakeholders are not available to participate in sprint reviews. This means stakeholders provide

feedback on the product and the process, such as learning objectives and the triple constraints, later in the process than needed, leading to disconnects in what is desired and what is actually happening.

.


Front End Analysis

Problem Statement ABC School team does not use formal learning objectives to develop a significant number of courses, resulting in increased development time and courses that do not meet acceptable quality levels as defined by the client.

Findings and Recommendations

Factor Finding Recommendation

Knowledge Training Specialists/Product Owners lack knowledge of instructional design practices.

Create and provide Instructional Design training to existing Training Specialists/Product Owners.

Knowledge Training Specialists/Product Owners misinterpret the roles and responsibilities of Agile.

Create and provide Agile Product Owner training to Product Owners, as well as how Agile works with Instructional Design.

Motives Some Development Team members shy away from formal learning objectives because they are afraid of being constrained. They want to use creative freedom during development.

Establish processes that require formal learning objectives and checkpoints for others to ensure formal learning objectives are in place.

Motives Product Owners, stakeholders, and Development Team members feel more committed to artifacts that they helped create, even if those artifacts need work. When there is no collaboration on learning objectives, many edit requests arise.

Build collaboration between Development Team members, Product Owners, and stakeholders earlier in the course creation process, especially in the design phase.



Motives If Product Owners do not meet stakeholder expectations, there are few consequences. Therefore, there is very little motivation to manage constraints or learn new skills.

Add incentives for Product Owners to meet and exceed expectations, such as submitting quality courses for awards, sending email announcements to the ABC School when a job is well done, displaying announcements of jobs well done on the tv outside the Director of Curriculum’s office.

Contrarily, add consequences for poor performance, such as less telecommuting privileges.

Motives If individual Development Team members do not perform to their expected abilities, there are few consequences.

Involve those who work with the Development Team in providing feedback for individual performance reviews, such as 360 reviews. Make email announcements when an individual performs well.

Motives Product Owners are less motivated to correct errors in Agile processes that were established for over 3 years.

Have biweekly meetings with Director of Curriculum, Product Owners, and ScrumMasters to emphasize the importance of following the refined Agile process and have team members discuss issues and questions.

Create and provide Agile Product Owner training to Product Owners in order to establish awareness of the correct processes and reasons why they are important.



Motives Those who do not understand ADDIE best practices are not inclined to learn because they feel that they are already experts after working with the process for several years. This may include Product Owners and Development Team members.

Make recommended Instructional Design training mandatory for Product Owners.

Have periodic mini trainings for Product Owners after taking the mandatory Instructional Design training to keep knowledge current and emphasize the importance of understanding ISD best practices.

During weekly Development Team all‐hands meetings, conduct short mini training sessions on ISD best practices to keep the team current and informed on best practices.

Offer resources for Development Team members and Training Specialists to access to learn more about ISD topics, such as creating a “course” in Blackboard for the ABC School to access and add ISD resources. Create discussion threads in Blackboard to discuss ISD topics. Perhaps send out a new topic every sprint or every month.

Structure and Processes

Hiring process for Training Specialists/Product Owners does not require Instructional Design education and/or experience.

Make stricter requirements for Instructional Design education and experience in the Training Specialist/Product Owner hiring process.




The existing process does not require the Product Owner to document a product vision and does not establish a point to gain approval on and commit to learning objectives.

Revise course creation process to involve the Product Owner and Development Team in creating a product vision and learning objectives. Establish milestones for stakeholder approval. Establish the need to seek approval on changes to approved visions and learning objectives.


There is no version control process in place, even after many attempts by Development Team and Product Owners to put one in place. This leads to misplaced work and motivation issues.

Create and implement a version control process.


There are mixed understandings about the need for, the ideal structure of, and the use of learning objectives from higher management, Product Owners, and Development Team members, leading to an overall team confusion about how to form and use formal learning objectives.

Revise the current process to explain the ideal structure of, and how to use, learning objectives.

Have meeting with Director of Curriculum, Product Owners, and Development team for Director of Curriculum to explain expectations for use of formal learning objectives and explain the process for idea structure and use of learning objectives.


Product Owners do not have a consistent way to manage triple constraints and the changes to them in order to put a $ value to the time it takes to make a change or the impact to the schedule.

Create a process for Product Owners to manage triple constraints and provide a training on how to value changes. This can be part of the Product Owner training recommended previously.



Resources Product Owners do not have a software resource to use to manage the value of their triple constraints.

Provide Product Owners with a project management software, such as MS Project, and provide training on how to use the software and how to use it for managing training products.

Capacity Stakeholders are not available to participate in sprint reviews. This means stakeholders provide feedback on the product and the process, such as learning objectives and the triple constraints, later in the process than needed, leading to disconnects in what is desired and what is actually happening.

Add more stakeholder touchpoints to the process with required approvals earlier in the design process. In addition, prior to the beginning of projects, Product Owners should establish the expectations with their stakeholders of the necessity to be at sprint reviews every two weeks. As part of the Product Owner training, provide techniques for getting stakeholders involved in sprint reviews.

Establish dedicated SME resources during the analysis phase. Explain to SMEs that by committing to the role, in addition to providing information input, they must be present at all sprint reviews every two weeks.


Training Needs Analysis

Introduction The results determined in the Front End Analysis were presented to the client. The client intends to pursue implementing recommended approaches to resolve certain gaps presented therein. This Training Needs Analysis further explores the gaps in knowledge and skills covered in the Front End Analysis.

The Front End Analysis showed that Training Specialists/Product Owners lack knowledge of instructional design practices, making them unable to create, communicate, and stick to a product vision for the course, interpret analyses and designs by others, and write and review learning objectives. Because they are not able to perform these tasks, much of the Product Owner's input and feedback happens during development after the Development Team creates materials, leading to significant amounts of rework. Without education in the process, there is also less buy‐in that ADDIE is a sound approach, leading to even less focus in analysis and design. Less focus on these phases also leads to poor acceptance criteria during sprint planning, which leads to more rework.

A Training Needs Analysis was conducted to determine the instructional design knowledge Training Specialists/Product Owners need to know and the impact and priority of that knowledge in order to decrease development time and meet client quality standards.

Analysis Plan

Input Purpose Method

Interview with Director of Curriculum

Identify what instructional design knowledge gaps, if closed, would make the most impact to improve quality and decrease development time.

Prioritize those knowledge gaps.

Understand the priorities and availability of the Training Specialists/Product Owners.

Identify the goals of the training

Interview


Input Purpose Method

Training Specialist Survey Gather information about:

Training Specialists’ feelings towards Instructional Design within their role and as a training topic.

Training Specialists’ preferred learning environment

Survey

Instruments and Data Collection Summary Interview with Director of Curriculum A face‐to‐face interview was conducted with the Director of Curriculum who oversees all Training Specialists and Product Owners in the ABC School. The Director of Curriculum is also responsible for the quality of the school's curriculum and determining course development deadlines. Questions covered during this interview include:

What Instructional Design knowledge gaps do the Training Specialists/Product Owners exhibit?

What instructional design knowledge gaps, if closed, would make the most impact to improve course quality and decrease development time?

What is the availability of the team of Training Specialists/Product Owners to take a training course, or courses, on Instructional Design?

What is the priority of ISD training in relation to other Training Specialist/Product Owner tasks?

If ISD training is provided to Training Specialists/Product Owners, what would you want them to be able to accomplish at the end of the training?

Interview Summary

What Instructional Design knowledge gaps do the Training Specialists/Product Owners exhibit?

The following list of Instructional Design tasks was given as Training Specialist/Product Owner knowledge and skill gaps:


Instructional Design

o Conducting a needs assessment

o Identifying appropriate learning approaches

o Applying learning theories

o Collaborating with others

o Designing a curriculum, program, or learning solutions

o Designing instructional materials

o Analyzing and selecting technologies

o Integrating technology options

o Developing instructional materials

o Evaluating learning design

Evaluating Training

o Identifying customer expectations

o Selecting appropriate strategies, research design, and measures

o Communicating and gaining support for the evaluation plan

o Managing data collections

o Analyzing and interpreting data

o Applying learning analytics

o Making recommendations to aid decision‐making

In addition, Training Specialists do not know how to create formal learning objectives or use learning objectives to design learning. For example, Training Specialists do not know how to create activities using learning objectives.

What instructional design knowledge gaps, if closed, would make the most impact to improve course quality and decrease development time?

If Training Specialists knew how to create and use learning objectives to design learning, they could better know how to draw learning events from learning objectives and comprehend design documents. By understanding design, there would be a reduction in time spent redeveloping developed course materials and there would be meaningful input given during design, leading to higher course quality.


What is the availability of the team of Training Specialists to take a training course, or courses, on Instructional Design?

Training Specialists have somewhat busy schedules, but they could be available for a series of 1‐hour WBTs spread out over time (perhaps 3‐6 months) and potentially an 8‐hour face‐to‐face course if necessary.

What is the priority of ISD training in relation to other Training Specialist tasks?

Training is important and would be supported. Meeting course completion deadlines is the highest priority. However, training is a top priority if it will decrease development time and improve quality.

If ISD training is provided to Training Specialists, what would you want them to be able to accomplish at the end of the training?

The Training Specialists should be able to create formal learning objectives and use those formal learning objectives to create activities that are appropriate for the learners' needs.

Training Specialist/Product Owner Survey Questions for the Training Specialist/Product Owner Survey were developed after interviewing the Director of Curriculum. Questions were written to understand the Training Specialists'/Product Owners' view of their own experience, Instructional Design within their role, and feelings toward training and training topics. The survey was sent out electronically using Survey Monkey. Below are the questions included in the survey:

1. How important is knowing instructional design principles to fulfilling your role (1 = not important, 5 = very important)

2. Select the answer that most closely applies to you:

a. I am confident in my level of instructional design knowledge, but would like to refresh my knowledge base

b. I am confident in my level of instructional design knowledge and don’t want additional education on the topic

c. I am not confident in my instructional design knowledge and want to learn more about instructional design principles

3. Rank the following potential training topics in Instructional Design by usefulness in relation to your knowledge, your experience, and fulfilling your role: (I would find training on this topic very useful, I would find training on this topic somewhat useful, I would find training on this topic useful, I would not find training on this topic useful)

o Conducting a needs assessment

o Identifying appropriate learning approaches


o Applying learning theories

o Collaborating with others

o Designing a curriculum, program, or learning solution

o Designing instructional materials

o Analyzing and selecting technologies

o Integrating technology options

o Developing instructional materials

o Evaluating learning design

4. Rank the following potential training topics in Evaluating Learning by usefulness in relation to your knowledge, your experience, and fulfilling your role: (I would find training on this topic very useful, I would find training on this topic somewhat useful, I would find training on this topic useful, I would not find training on this topic useful)

o Identifying customer expectations

o Selecting appropriate strategies, research design, and measures

o Communicating and gaining support for the evaluation plan

o Managing data collections

o Analyzing and interpreting data

o Applying learning analytics

o Making recommendations to aid decision‐making

5. What type of environment do you find most beneficial for your learning style? a) WBT b) Virtual Instructor‐Led c) Face‐to‐face

6. How comfortable are you writing formal learning objectives (1 = not comfortable, 5 = very comfortable)

7. How comfortable are you using formal learning objectives to create course content and activities (1 = not comfortable, 5 = very comfortable)

Survey Results Summary The survey was sent to six Training Specialists/Product Owners. Five of the six Training Specialists/Product Owners responded to the survey. Below are the results of the survey:


1. How important is knowing instructional design principles to fulfilling your role (1 = not important, 5 = very important)

1 ‐ 0%

2 ‐ 0%

3 ‐ 0%

4 ‐ 20%

5 ‐ 80%

2. Select the answer that most closely applies to you:

a. I am confident in my level of instructional design knowledge, but would like to refresh my knowledge base ‐ 80%

b. I am confident in my level of instructional design knowledge and don’t want additional education on the topic ‐ 0%

c. I am not confident in my instructional design knowledge and want to learn more about instructional design principles ‐ 20%

3. Rank the following potential training topics in Instructional Design by usefulness in relation to your knowledge, your experience, and fulfilling your role: (I would find training on this topic very useful, I would find training on this topic somewhat useful, I would find training on this topic useful, I would not find training on this topic useful)

Would be very useful

Would be useful

Not applicable to my role

Would be somewhat useful

Would not be useful

Conducting a needs assessment

60% 40% 0% 0% 0%

Identifying appropriate learning approaches

60% 40% 0% 0% 0%

Applying learning theories 40% 40% 0% 20% 0%

Collaborating with others 50% 25% 25% 0% 0%

Designing a curriculum, program, or learning solution

80% 20% 0% 0% 0%



Would be useful



Would not be useful

Designing instructional materials

60% 40% 0% 0% 0%

Analyzing and selecting technologies

40% 60% 0% 0% 0%

Integrating technology options

80% 20% 0% 0% 0%

Developing instructional materials

60% 40% 0% 0% 0%

Evaluating learning design 60% 40% 0% 0% 0%

4. Rank the following potential training topics in Evaluating Learning by usefulness in relation to

your knowledge, your experience, and fulfilling your role: (I would find training on this topic very useful, I would find training on this topic somewhat useful, I would find training on this topic useful, I would not find training on this topic useful)


Would be useful



Would not be useful

Identifying customer expectations 80% 20% 0% 0% 0%

Selecting appropriate strategies, research design, and measures

40% 40% 0% 20% 0%

Communicating and gaining support for the evaluation plan

60% 40% 0% 0% 0%

Managing data collections 60% 40% 0% 0% 0%

Analyzing and interpreting data 40% 60% 0% 0% 0%

Applying learning analytics 40% 40% 0% 20% 0%

Making recommendations to aid decision‐making

40% 60% 0% 0% 0%


5. What type of environment do you find most beneficial for your learning style?

a. WBT ‐ 0%

b. Virtual Instructor‐Led ‐ 0%

c. Face‐to‐face ‐ 100%

6. How comfortable are you writing formal learning objectives (1 = not comfortable, 5 = very comfortable)

1 ‐ 0%

2 ‐ 0%

3 ‐ 25%

4 ‐ 25%

5 ‐ 50%

Skipped ‐ 25%

7. How comfortable are you using formal learning objectives to create course content and activities (1 = not comfortable, 5 = very comfortable)

1 ‐ 0%

2 ‐ 0%

3 ‐ 20%

4 ‐ 40%

5 ‐ 40%

Findings All Training Specialists/Product Owners recognized the value of Instructional Design in their roles and felt they could use some kind of training on Instructional Design. This shows that they would be willing participants if offered Instructional Design training. Overall, Training Specialists/Product Owners indicated that almost all of the tasks identified by the Director of Curriculum as Training Specialist/Product Owner knowledge gaps would be useful training topics. This was indicated by a score of "useful" or "very useful" for almost all topics by the Training Specialists/Product Owners. The three items that scored the highest in usefulness in the survey were:

Designing a curriculum, program, or learning solution

Integrating technology options

Identifying customer expectations


Other items that received high scores were:

Conducting a needs assessment

Identifying appropriate learning approaches

Designing instructional materials

Developing instructional materials

Evaluating learning design

Communicating and gaining support for the evaluation plan

Managing data collections

Training Specialists/Product Owners generally felt comfortable writing and using learning objectives. However, not all felt very comfortable. Based on tasks that scored high in the survey, insight from the Director of Curriculum, and Instructional Design practices, Training Specialists/Product Owners could benefit from training on applying learning objectives.

All of the Training Specialists/Product Owners felt that face‐to‐face instruction was the best mode of instruction for them.

Recommendations Training Specialists/Product Owners should receive training on all tasks listed in the survey. The tasks should be divided into separate face‐to‐face courses, which the Training Specialists/Product Owners will take every two weeks. Generally, the courses should be two to four hours in length so as not to disrupt Training Specialists'/Product Owners' ability to complete work and meet deadlines.

However, the first course in the series should be an eight‐hour face‐to‐face course on Designing a Learning Solution, which would include an introduction to ADDIE and lessons on writing formal learning objectives and using those objectives to identify appropriate learning approaches. These topics will address the Director of Curriculum's highest priority concerns, some of the top concerns of the Training Specialists/Product Owners, and act as a kick‐off to the Training Specialist/Product Owner curriculum as a whole.

In addition, Training Specialists/Product Owners should receive one to two‐hour tutorials on available technology. These tutorials should be created by the Training Specialists/Product Owners in order for them to research what is available in the world of instructional technology and also for them to practice their instructional design skills. These tutorials should be created using available instructional technologies. These tutorials should be produced by each Training Specialist/Product Owner once per quarter.


Design Plan

Rationale XYZ Institute helps address acquisition workforce challenges facing Government Agency 123 and the federal government overall through training. The institute is divided into schools that concentrate on focal areas. In the ABC School, government employees (Training Specialists) and contractors (Curriculum Developers) work together to create program/project management training courses.

Analysis revealed that current Training Specialists working in the ABC School lack knowledge of Instructional Design practices, making them unable to create, communicate, and stick to a product vision for a course, interpret analyses and designs by others, and write and review learning objectives. Because they are not able to perform these tasks, much of the Training Specialists' input and feedback happens during development after the Curriculum Developers create materials, leading to significant amounts of rework. Without education in the process, there is also less buy‐in that ADDIE is a sound approach, leading to even less focus in analysis and design. Less focus on these phases also leads to poor acceptance criteria during sprint planning, which leads to more rework.

The highest priorities of information to include in Training Specialist Instructional Design training were designing a learning solution and writing and using learning objectives.

In order to improve course quality and development time, Training Specialists will receive a series of training courses in Instructional Design best practices. The first course in the series, Designing a Learning Solution, the elements of course design and writing and using learning objectives during course creation. The course will also include an introduction to ADDIE. Education on these topics serves as an introduction to the series, while tackling main issues identified during analysis.

Target Population The target audience members for the Designing a Learning Solution course are the six current Training Specialists who work in the ABC School. Training Specialists all have a military background, and most have experience implementing training in a military setting. Otherwise, Training Specialists' experience vary from project management to serving on the Board of Education. None of the Training Specialists have experience working as Instructional Designers.

All Training Specialists recognize the value of Instructional Design in their roles and feel they can use some kind of training on Instructional Design. Many Training Specialists indicated that they feel comfortable writing and using learning objectives. However, not all feel comfortable. Those who indicated they do feel comfortable writing and using learning objectives, may be surprised to find they feel challenged by some of the activities used in this course.

Course Description The Designing a Learning Solution course is an 8‐hour face‐to‐face course to be delivered over one day. All Training Specialists in the ABC School are required to attend. This course is the first in a series of


courses intended to boost Training Specialists' Instructional Design knowledge. Being the first in the series, the course will cover an introduction to ADDIE and its importance. The course will focus on discussion and hands‐on activities to help Training Specialists understand how to use a Training Needs Analysis to both interpret and create a course design, with particular focus on writing and using learning objectives. By the end of the course, Training Specialists will create a Design Plan and peer review the Design Plan. The instructor will collect the Design Plans at the end of the course and provide feedback to the participant within one week. This provides the Training Specialist participant enough time to assess their feedback and develop questions to ask at the next course in the series.

Objectives T1 ‐ Given a discussion opportunity, the Designing a Learning Solution participant should be able to explain the importance of each of the ADDIE phases as it relates to their role.

E1A ‐ Given an ADDIE phase, the Designing a Learning Solution participant should be able to identify the inputs, processes, and outputs of that ADDIE phase without failure within 3 attempts.

E1B ‐ Given scenarios, the Designing a Learning Solution participant should be able to describe at least one potential outcome of omitting at least one element of each of the ADDIE phases.

T2 ‐ Given a Training Needs Analysis, the Designing a Learning Solution participant should be able to create a Design Plan that includes all elements needed to move into the Development phase.

E2A ‐ Given a scenario, the Designing a Learning Solution participant should be able to identify at least 3 pieces of information that should go into a corresponding Training Needs Analysis.

E2B ‐ Given a knowledge check question, the Designing a Learning Solution participant should be able to name all of the Design Plan elements within three attempts.

E2C ‐ Given a Design Plan element and a whiteboard or flipchart, the Designing a Learning Solution participant should be able to present at least 3 pieces of information that element will tell them.

E2D ‐ Given a lecture on formal learning objectives and a sample training goal, the Designing a Learning Solution participant should be able to write a set formal learning objective using the A‐B‐C‐D format.

E2E ‐ Given a set of learning objectives, the Designing a Learning Solution participant should be able to analyze whether the objectives are written correctly with 90% accuracy.

E2F ‐ Given a Training Needs Analysis and a Design Plan, the Designing a Learning Solution participant should be able to indicate whether the Design Plan elements are sufficient for six of the seven elements included.

E2G ‐ Given a discussion opportunity, the Designing a Learning Solution participant should be able to identify at least one best practice to keep in mind when transitioning from the Analysis phase to the Design phase.


T3 ‐ Given a Design Plan, the Designing a Learning Solution participant should be able to describe one way to take one learning objective from the Design phase to the Development phase.

Evaluation Strategy The following strategies will be used to evaluate participants using Kirkpatrick's Levels of Evaluation levels 1‐4:

Level 1 ‐ The instructor will distribute a survey at the end of the course to capture participants' initial reactions to the course experience and content.

Level 2 ‐ The instructor will review the Design Plans created by the participants during the course using a provided rubric and give feedback on each Design Plan within one week of the course's completion.

Level 3 ‐ Six months after the completion of the Designing a Learning Solution course, participants will receive a survey/knowledge check to evaluate how much knowledge they retained from the course.

Level 4 ‐ A document review of ABC School course materials will be conducted one year after the completion of Designing a Learning Solution to assess how many courses use formal learning objectives and follow sound design principles covered during the course. The assessor will use the document review guidelines to conduct the document review.

Instructor Pre‐Requisites The instructor must have a master's degree in Instructional Design and at least five years of experience as an instructor. The instructor must also have a background knowledge of ABC School's work. This can be through experience working with the school, or through a brief 1‐hour consultation with the Director of Curriculum.

Participant Pre‐Requisites Participants for this course should be all the current Training Specialists working in the ABC School. New Training Specialists within the school may attend the course as well. However, they are not the primary audience since new Training Specialists may have more Instructional Design knowledge and skills than current Training Specialists.

Deliverables Slide show

2 Training Needs Analyses for activities

1 Design Plan for activity

Instructor Guide


Participant Guide

Level 1 survey

Level 2 rubric

Level 3 survey/knowledge check

Level 4 document review guidelines

Documents

Designing a Learning Solution Course · Final Portfolio EDUC 603 Fall 2015 Stacy Anderson Product Owners, stakeholders, and Development Team members feel more committed to artifacts