EDCI 672 Reflection on Developing Expertise

Danielle Moffat EDCI 672

Reflection on Developing Expertise

I. Case 1 – Lynn Dixon

Problem Finding

• Summarize vs Synthesize

I thoroughly identified the key stakeholders and their interests. I used words such as

“concerns” and “interested in” when describing their aims. I was pleased with this section because

I went beyond simply restating the facts in the case but rather analyzed the given information to

anticipate the underlying motivations of the respective stakeholders, which I felt I articulated well.

However, within the paragraph in my case analysis entitled Instructional Design

Challenges I summarized rather than synthesized the case information. For example, I set out the

main instructional goals in a list form, using wording borrowed from the case study as follows:

"Laura and Ben have also outlined to Lynn the main instructional goals which are to provide the

target learners with an understanding of (1) the different types of wetlands; (2) the impacts that

urban development is having on the wetlands and the effect of the same on its wildlife populations,

and (3) the role the wetlands play in Aboriginal culture and heritage.” As Ertmer & Stepich (2005)

point out summarizing, particularly in list form, is an ID novice approach.

• Principles vs Features

My approach to the first case analysis was somewhat confused. I found it a real challenge

to formulate a coherent format in which to present my case analysis. I decided correlate the ID

issues and case-specific constraints with the ADDIE stages. At the time, I felt that this approach

would be effective because it would serve to highlight the underlying principles relating to each

ID issue and case-specific constraint I identified but it didn’t work particularly well for reasons I

will explain in greater detail in following sections.

Due perhaps to my practical inexperience in the ID field, I incorrectly identified some of

the ID challenges as falling in to the Development phase of the ADDIE model. I found it

challenging to differentiate between design and development tasks in some instances because I

naturally tended to think of pen-to-paper tasks such as drafting instructional plans as falling at the

beginning of the development phase because something physical, i.e. a document, is being created

in that process. I also misunderstood the difference between ID challenges and case-specific

constraints. Rather than describing case-specific constraints specifically in terms of project

management concerns, such as restrictions to time and budget, my case-specific constraints

analyses in this case represented expanded discussions of the ID challenges in relation to each

ADDIE phase. As such, I failed to adequately articulate the underlying principles relevant to

understanding the situation presented in the case study as an ID expert would have (Ertmer &

Stepich, 2005).


• Relationships among Issues

My decision to correlate the ID issues and case specific constraints with the ADDIE stages,

as described above, actually worked to prevent me from effectively organizing my case study

analysis in a way that linked the key issues together coherently in terms of relationships and/or

operational priorities because my chosen approach required me to deal with each individually.

However, the aforementioned notwithstanding, I think I successfully identified many of the key

ID issues in the case.

• Reflective vs Reflexive

I effectively made inferences based on the information set out in the case study. For

example, I inferred that the literature provided to Lynn by Ben was unlikely to yield an adequate

relevant information for use in the instructional content in relation to Aboriginal heritage and

culture because it did not appear specifically deal with connections between the Aboriginal people

and the wetlands.

Ertmer & Stepich (2005) point out that experts tend to consider the specific value or

purpose of further information that may be required rather than recommending a search for a broad

range of information based on simply fulfilling procedural requirements. I satisfactorily made

suggestions for obtaining relevant, outstanding information based on the issues I had identified

and in consideration of the case-specific constraints. For example, in relation to the lack of

adequate information relating to the connections between the Aboriginal people and the wetlands

I recommended that Lynn might seek out the advice of an appropriate SME who could provide

guidance as to content or, alternatively if this was not possible due to limited budget, she could

conduct her own research in to the topic area.

Problem Solving

• Relationships among Solutions

Ertmer & Stepich (2005) suggest that ID experts develop solution plans in which

recommended solutions are coherently woven together while ID novices tend to present solutions

in list-form, dealing with each identified issue as a separate, unrelated item. For the reasons set out

above with regards to my chosen case analysis format, I did not adequately represent the

relationships amongst the solutions but rather compartmentalized each issue to its own individual

recommended solution.

• Consideration of Implications

I effectively considered the implications of the various recommendations I made for each

solution as well as considering how they might be implemented. For each recommendation, I

identified, in broad terms, potential advantages and disadvantages as well as considering

alternative approaches in the event that one solution could not be pursued due to the case-specific

constraints.


For example, in order to cater the display of the instructional content to the needs of the

international visitors, some of whom have a low level of English, and children visitors at the same

time I suggested that Lynn might choose to present the display in a highly audio visual manner

with only the use of simple text cues. I suggested that advantages to this approach would include,

“arous[ing] positive emotions and therefore a positive impact on the learner, increasing their

willingness to engage in the learning process… [which] may result in the positive learner response

and kiosk attendance time that Laura is concerned with achieving. Selecting instructive graphics

relevant to the educational goal will help to facilitate learning of the target instructional

information.” I then considered the potential disadvantages, stating that, “the resources available

may not provide sufficient appropriate material to create such a highly audio visual display.

Furthermore, wetlands experts may be dissatisfied that content matter is not being put across in

sufficient detail.” I then went on to consider the respective advantages and disadvantages of an

alternative solution involving designing different pathways in presentation of the kiosk’s

instructional content aimed at satisfying different learning levels and interests.

Ertmer & Stepich (2005) suggest that ID experts express solutions at a level of detail which

shows that the same have been thought out in some depth, as well as making reference to

considerations that are not immediately apparent. I think my first case analysis falls down in these

aspects as my recommended solutions were relatively simplistic in nature and only made reference

to considerations that were plainly apparent from the case information such as a lack of adequate

content information.

• Rigid vs Flexible

In my reasonable solutions, including “could”, “might” and “may” because I recognized

that we had not been provided with full information in the case study details and the

appropriateness of the recommended solutions would very much depend on further considerations

that we could not know, but rather only anticipate. Ertmer & Stepich (2005) draw attention to the

fact that ID experts recognize the importance of flexibility in setting out potential solutions as, in

the real-world, things do not always go as anticipated. I made a reasonable attempt at providing

for certain amount of plasticity in my recommendations by providing an alternative to each

solution that I proposed.

Overall Rating – LOW to MEDIUM

II. Case 2 – Sandra Sanchez and Vincent Peters

Problem Finding


Ertmer & Stepich (2005) suggest that ID novices approach case study analyses by simply

restating relevant information in the form of a summary of key facts during the problem finding

stage. On the other hand, they indicate that ID experts combine the fact with their existing

knowledge and experience to start forming a view regarding the underlying ID issues. On


reflection, my approach to the issues in the second case study aligned much more with that of the

former than the latter.

The discussion of relevant case study background within first paragraphs of my case

analysis, entitled Key Stakeholders and Their Primary Concerns and ADDIE Model Phase and

Key Instructional Design Challenges, largely represent a chronological summary of the key facts

rather. For example, in the first paragraph listed above I again set out the key instructional goals

in a list-form, mirroring the case study wording. Rather than describing the relevant facts in

conjunction with the ID challenges and case-specific constraints giving rise to the same as an

expert would, my approach was to set down a summary of the circumstances relating to the ID

challenge or case- specific constraint I had initially identified. I then checked to see that the

relevant facts accorded with my assessment of the ID challenge or case-specific constraint before

stating my preliminary thoughts on the action that would need to be taken in order to address this

same. I felt much more comfortable working through the case study once I had decided upon a

structured approach to responding to the problem identification aspects of the case analysis

exercise. As a novice IDer, I found this approach helped me to think through the issues and

constraints in a logical way.


ID experts go beyond simply describing the ID problems in terms of their face value

features, as ID novices would – they interpret the information available with reference to

underlying principles in order to understand the problems at a deep level (Ertmer & Stepich, 2005).

In places within the problem finding aspects of my case analysis I did refer to underlying

abstract principles and theories. However, such indications were limited to a discussion of the

relevant ADDIE model phase and a reference to, “studies [that] have found that teachers are

particularly resistant to confronting their deeply held beliefs regarding teaching practice and

therefore are highly likely to be reluctant to implement changes relating to the adoption of reform-

based curriculum,” in the sub-paragraph of my case analysis entitled Gaining program buy-in from

the target audience. As such, my performance in this area was more akin to that of a novice than

an expert, although I was starting to recognize the need to explain the rationale, or theoretical basis,

upon which I had formed my views regarding the ID challenges and case-specific constraints.


According to Ertmer & Stepich (2005), ID novices tend to present a list of ID problems

with little consideration as to how the issues might be related while experts, on the other hand,

connect the issues together in terms of cause/effect relationships or operational priorities. On

reflection, I approached the ID problem finding analysis in the novice way described, presenting

the ID issues and case-specific constraints as a bullet point list of standalone issues to be considered

separately rather than in conjunction with one another. As such, my analysis failed to describe the

different ID issues in a way that drew attention to the interconnectedness of the ID issues.

I found this case study particularly challenging in terms of identifying the key ID

challenges, perhaps in part due to my total lack of familiarity with the kind of scenario that was


presented. Indeed, I incorrectly identified “designing a formal procedure for reporting that

preparation for the standardized tests is being undertaken by teachers” as one of these challenges

when a more appropriate response would have been for Vincent to design an assessment related to

the level of alignment of teaching with the requirements of the Common Core.


I made appropriate inferences in relation to the information provided within the second

case study, treating information gathering as a means to an end rather than as the primary problem.

For example, I inferred that uncertified teachers and instructional support staff were unlikely to

have received training in relation to ELLs or EIPs from the fact that Vincent had been advised that

certified content teachers had received minimal training in that regard, with most of them only

having undertaken one special education class as undergraduates. However, I tended to make

assumptions of a similar nature throughout my case analysis rather than making specific

recommendations for gathering further relevant information that might serve to clarify the

outstanding issues as an ID expert would likely have done (Ertmer & Stepich, 2005).

Problem Solving


The recommended reasonable solutions table structure provided by Dr. Lopez following

submission of the first case analysis helped me because previously I had great difficulty in deciding

the best format for setting out my proposed reasonable solutions. The table helped me to set down

my proposed solutions in a much more coherent way than I had in my first case analysis. I chose

to use the table to set out my solutions in the form of a roughly chronological implementation plan

showing how the various ID issues would be addressed over time. While this new approach

displayed more expertise in terms of devising logical solutions, on reflection I failed to make the

links between the different elements within the chronological implementation plan explicit. Each

step in the implementation plan tended to relate its own specific ID issue rather than demonstrating

the interconnected relationships between the different elements within the solutions.


I am of the view that I effectively considered the implications I made for each proposed

solution within the Pros and Cons columns within the table referred to above. The columns set out

the potential advantages and disadvantages of each proposed solution as a whole. Ertmer &

Stepich (2005) suggest that ID experts carefully consider how solutions might be implemented

together with the potential effects arising from the same. I feel my descriptions of the relative

advantages and disadvantages of each solution could have been set out in greater detail. In

particular, I think it would have been useful to tie the pros and cons to the facts of the case. For

example, I stated the following as a con for my first proposed solution: “Vincent may lack

credibility with target audience and therefore his faculty meeting presentation may not be

persuasive as to the benefits of the program.” I have failed to explain why Vincent lacks credibility

which would have served to highlight the reasons that he would not be persuasive to the teaching

staff.


Furthermore, I note on review that my final recommendations paragraph did not

specifically set out a reasoned solution to the ID issues and therefore represented a series of

unrelated suggestions for assisting with smooth implementation of any solution selected. With

hindsight, I think it would have been helpful to structure the discussion around specific

recommendations aimed at addressing the potential negative implications (cons) identified.

Accordingly, I would suggest that my performance in relation to this aspect of the case analysis

aligned with that of an ID novice as described by Ertmer & Stepich (2005).


Ertmer & Stepich (2005) indicate that ID experts tend to suggest that solutions are trialed

in order to provide sufficient flexibility to account for unanticipated issues that might arise. On the

other hand, they say, ID novices tend to be inflexible, committing to one particular solution

regardless of any additional information that may come to light. I accounted for flexibility within

my proposed solutions and recommendations by suggesting a partial trial period of some of the

solution elements. Furthermore, the two proposed solutions provided multiple ways to address the

potential ID problems that were identified.

Overall Rating – MEDIUM

III. Case 3 (facilitated by Team 1) – Dianne King

Problem Finding


As stated above, I developed an approach to analyzing the issues in the cases which

involved summarizing the relevant facts relating to each identified ID problem and then stating

my rationale behind identifying the particular ID challenge or case-specific constraint in light of

the facts of the case. My procedural approach falls in line with Ertmer & Stepich’s (2005)

description of an ID novice’s tendency to summarize, albeit accurately, rather than synthesize

available information with their existing knowledge formed through experience to provide an

analysis of the situation in light of one or two central issues at an early stage. That being said I felt

the most comfortable taking this approach as, having had limited practical real-world ID

experience, the key issues tended not to be immediately apparent to me. I usually had to read each

case study several times before ideas in that regard started to take form. Setting out a chronological

summary of the relevant facts actually helped me to crystalize my thoughts regarding the ID

challenges and case-specific constraints.


I found this case study relatively straightforward in terms of identifying underlying

principles because it largely revolved around project management issues rather than theoretical

instructional design considerations. As such, the main discussion of principles relevant to

understanding the situation in the case centered on application of the ADDIE model. In this case,


however, I incorrectly identified the main ID challenge as falling in the ADDIE Analysis phase

because I interpreted the process of laying down the project plan as an analysis task rather than

design and development issues.


This case study analysis represented by best performance in terms of making connections

among the key ID issues. In particular, I identified the interplay between the case-specific

constraints and the ID challenge at an early stage of the analysis by stating within the paragraph

entitled Key Instructional Design Challenge: “The main instructional design challenge that Diane

faces at this stage of the project is in the crafting of a project plan for the team lead design project

which revises IDEAL’s existing instructional design process in such a way as to reduce labor time

and cost without compromising quality of the process itself and the resulting deliverables.” In line

with Ertmer & Stepich’s (2005) description of ID expert performance, I felt that in this sentence I

set out a coherent picture of the situation by linking together the issues.


Ertmer & Stepich (2005) suggest that ID experts use the information available to make

recommendations for reasonable possible solutions. Conversely, they are of the view that ID

novices often fall in to the trap of focusing on the gaps in the information as a primary problem.

In this instance, I am of the opinion that I made reasonable assumptions, for example relating to

the availability of SMEs, and my analysis did not unnecessarily focus on irrelevant considerations

in relation to outstanding information. Again, as with the second case study, I did not explicitly

identify further information that would have been helpful for further clarification which, on

reflection, would have usefully contributed to my analysis of the situation and proposed solutions.

Problem Solving


My performance in this regard was greatly improved from the second case study. In

particular, I explicitly linked the recommended solutions to the issues identified within the final

Recommendations paragraph of my case analysis, explaining the how the recommended

approaches would address the identified problems. When I was undertaking this case analysis I

really felt that I turned a corner in terms of ‘seeing’ how the issues in the case were interrelated

and acted in conjunction with, and upon, each other. Ertmer & Stepich (2005) suggest that ID

experts are able to develop coherent solutions plans in which suggested solutions to the various ID

issues are interlinked. I was pleased with my proposed solutions, which formed detailed staged

implementation plans, because I felt that they were much more integrated than my previous

attempts.


As stated above, my proposed solutions represented detailed implementation plans which

I spent a great deal of time thinking through carefully, particularly with regards to ensuring that


they represented a realistic and achievable timeline. On reflection, I can see quite a lot of

improvement between my analysis here and in respect of the second case study, especially in terms

of a higher level of explanatory detail of the relative pros and cons of each solution. However, I

think that I could have yet provided further clarification within the Recommendations paragraph

of my case analysis of the implications associated with the final recommended solution. I failed to

provide specific details about how the identified con would be addressed by each element of the

final recommended solution as well as to anticipate any further important considerations that might

arise at the point of, or following, implementation.


On reflection, I am of the opinion that my proposed solutions provided for a reasonable

level of flexibility. My solutions provided open ended recommendations such as that in relation to

technological considerations where I provided for contact between key stakeholders to be

“conducted predominantly in virtual spaces such as e-mail, or company intranet if available.” I

also provided for alternative approaches in order that elements of the recommended solutions could

be altered on receipt of further information such as suggesting that existing instructional material

from the existing customers reps course could be reused and leveraged either by integrating the

same in to the new course or otherwise modifying the materials to suit the needs of the project

prototype. “If necessary” steps were included within the solutions that could be eliminated in the

event they were to prove extraneous later in the process. I’m of the view that providing various

options for implementation served to provide multiple ways in which to address the ID issues, as

an ID expert as described by Ertmer & Stepich (2005) would.

Overall Rating – MEDIUM to HIGH

IV. Case 4 (facilitated by Team 2) – Lindsey Jenkins

Problem Finding


Please see my comments in relation to my third case analysis above as they equally apply

to my performance in relation to this aspect of the case analysis here.


I was pleased that I finally (!) managed to correctly apply the ADDIE model to the facts of

this case. The other underlying principle that was relevant to this case related to Case Based

Learning and corresponding constructivist learning theory. On reflection, while I correctly

identified “designing and developing an interactive CBL framework” as a key instructional design

challenge in the case I failed to fully articulate the abstract principles relating to CBL and

constructivism that formed important considerations in relation to the situation, which Ertmer &

Stepich (2005) suggest would have signaled ID expert performance.



I effectively linked the ID issues together in terms of cause/effect relationships and

operational priorities within the Prioritization of ID Challenges and Case Specific Constraints

paragraph of my case analysis in which I effectively explained the interrelationship between the

different ID problems, as follows: “Given that the assessments will be built in to the CBL

framework it is suggested that both of the design challenges should be dealt with together. The

case specific challenges are integral to the development of the CBL framework as they will both

inform its overall structure as well as the form of the learning activities, exercises and assessments

it incorporates.” This goes beyond ID novice performance, defined by Ertmer & Stepich (2005) as

simply presenting a list of issues with minimal consideration of how they are related.


I made appropriate inferences in relation to the information provided within the fourth case

study, a fact which Ertmer & Stepich (2005) might consider signifies ID expert performance in

this area. For example, I inferred from the volume of trivial IT support requests and David’s lack

of technological know-how that there were likely to be a number of other instructors on campus

that would require training in how to properly use online teaching tools. As in previous cases, I

failed to make specific recommendations for gathering further relevant information that might

serve to clarify the outstanding issues. In the future, I think it will be helpful to consider this aspect

in greater detail.

Problem Solving


The solutions I devised in respect of this case study represented the most detailed solutions

of all four analyses I undertook. Again, I chose to present them in the form of detailed plans for

implementation of the respective solutions. I was pleased with my proposed solutions as I felt that

I had been thorough in my thought processes in order to address the ID challenges and case-specific

constraints effectively, and taking a concerted approach to dealing with the various issues

identified.


Following on from my third case study analysis, I felt I continued to provide more detailed

explanation of the pros and cons by giving specific details regarding implications. I think that in

this case analysis I effectively addressed the implications of the various elements of the final

recommended solutions by setting out in detail how the same would specifically overcome the

identified cons, which is something I had failed to do in the previous case analyses. As such, I

went beyond novice performance in respect of this aspect, identified by Ertmer & Stepich (2005)

as presenting solutions without consideration for how they might be implemented or what effects

they may have. However, I consider that there is still a great deal of room for me to improve here

– I am of the view that I am still failing to identify considerations that are not immediately apparent

on face value. For example, I might have considered wider issues such as who would provide


technical training on using educational tools to instructors and how that might have been achieved

as well as potential cost and time considerations in that regard.


The solutions I proposed in respect of this case analysis were actually expressed in the most

rigid terms of all those presented in the case analyses I undertook, which Ertmer & Stepich (2005)

would suggest reflects ID novice performance in this area. On reflection, my solutions could have

been improved by providing more flexibility by providing for implementation trials or options to

modify or eliminate steps as necessary.

Overall Rating – MEDIUM to HIGH

V. Plan of Action for Continued Development

As I have discovered from evaluating my performance over the four case study analyses,

there is still considerable room for me to improve in both areas of ID problem finding and problem

solving. I have limited practical, real-world ID experience, which I am working hard to build upon

at the moment. I believe that I will naturally develop expertise in ID analysis skills as I continue

to gain more and more experience dealing with a variety of ID problems.

As I move forward with gaining practical experience, I have learned through this exercise

that I have a number of key areas for improvement to focus on as follows:

I have incorrectly identified the ADDIE stage in which the ID challenges fall in most of

the case analyses that I have undertaken. I think I will become more familiar with doing so

as I gain more experience and come to get a general feel for the order of events in ID

projects. For the moment, it will be helpful for me to revisit the ADDIE model and practice

correctly identifying the ID process stage by analyzing a selection of the other case studies

in our core textbook (Ertmer, Quinn & Glazewski, 2014). I intend to practice using the

ADDIE model in a real-world context by relying on it during my practicum project.

Taking time to consider the abstract underlying principles relating to any ID problem at an

early stage will be an important consideration going forwards. Doing so is essential to

forming a complete understanding of the situation and crafting appropriate and effective

solutions.

It will assist me to undertake some further reading in my own time regarding general

project management principles and concerns as this is clearly a very important aspect of

the ID process. The gaps in my knowledge in that regard led me to confuse ID challenges

with case-specific constraints in several instances.

Rather than summarizing factual information relating to an ID problem, I should practice

integrating what I already know with my analysis of the situation at an early stage.

Informally, this might include jotting down notes when taking initial client instructions


with my thoughts on relevant ID theory or educational models, or recalling past solutions

to similar situations that worked well.

References

Ertmer, P. A., Quinn. J. & Glazewski, K. D. (Eds.). (2014). The ID casebook: case studies in

instructional design (242 – 246). Boston: Pearson.

Ertmer, P. A. & Stepich, D. A. (2005). Instructional design expertise: How will we know it when

we see it? Educational Technology, 45(6), 38-43.

Documents

EDCI 672 Reflection on Developing Expertise