Course Syllabus

Learning Outcomes

At the conclusion of this course, you should be able to:

1. identify and locate relevant research on effective learning and instruction;
2. identify and choose an appropriate instructional design model for a particular instructional design problem;
3. approach design with increased enthusiasm and without inhibition;
4. create good, nay awesome, instructional designs on purpose (as opposed to doing so simply by intuition);
5. work effectively with a real client to create an instructional solution to his/her problem; and
6. create, deliver, and write about an effective instructional design.

Course Readings:

You will read ONE of the following (as determined on the first day of class):

1. Anchored Instruction and Its Relationship to Situated Cognition. (1990). Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2-10.
2. Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5-11. doi:10.3102/0013189X025004005
3. Bahrick, H. P., Bahrick, L. E., Bahrick, A. S., & Bahrick, P. E. (1993). Maintenance of foreign language vocabulary and the spacing effect. Psychological Science, 4(5), 316-321. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00571.x
4. Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4-16. doi:10.2307/1175554
5. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated learning and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
6. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363
7. Hintzman, D. L. (1974). Theoretical implications of the spacing effect. Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2010). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
9. Pichert, J. W., & Anderson, R. C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(4), 309-315.
10. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24, 113-142.
11. Shiffrin, R. M., & Nosofsky, R. M. (1994). Seven plus or minus two: A commentary on capacity limitations American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.2.357
12. Karpicke, J. D., & Grimaldi, P. J. (2012). Retrieval-Based learning: A perspective for enhancing meaningful learning. Educational Psychology Review. doi:10.1007/s10648-012-9202-2
13. Carpenter, S. K., Cepeda, N. J., Rohrer, D., Kang, S. H. K., & Pashler, H. (2012). Using spacing to enhance diverse forms of learning: Review of recent research and implications for instruction. Educational Psychology Review. doi:10.1007/s10648-012-9205-z

And ALL of the following (which I'll make available in course reserve):

1. Gibbons, A. G., & Rogers, P. C. (2008).  The architecture of instructional theory.  In C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman, Instructional-Design Theories and Models, Volume III, Summer 2008. pp. 305-326.
2. Merrill, M. D. (2009). First Principles of Instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr (Eds.), Instructional Design Theories and Models: Building a Common Knowledge Base (Vol. III). New York: Routledge Publishers., pp. 41-56.
3. Reigeluth, C.M. (1999). The elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequence decisions. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory. (Volume II). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., pp. 425-454.
4. Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992).  The events of Instruction.  In R. M. Gagné, L.J. Briggs, & W.W. Wager, Principles of Instructional Design, pp. 185-204.  Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Belmont: CA.
5. Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992).  Analysis of the learning task.  In R. M. Gagné, L.J. Briggs, & W.W. Wager, Principles of Instructional Design, pp. 145-164.  Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Belmont: CA.

Assignments

Analysis of e-learning product:

2-3 page paper detailing:

1. features you like about the product,
2. features you think could be improved upon,
3. features you think are missing, and
4. instructional design principles you feel the product emphasizes (e.g., objectives, assessment) and why you think these are principles that need to be present in instruction in general.

Review of Research

1. 1-2 page paper explaining the research you read.  You should consider this to be an instructional product meant to be a quick reference for someone in the future who needs to quickly get the low-down on this research.
2. 5-7 Minute Presentation detailing the research you read.

Needs Analysis

1. Description of the problem
2. Description of the constraints
3. Learner Analysis
4. Current Resource and Training Analysis
5. Competing Product Analysis

Evaluation Plan

1. Identify the Evaluand (what is the thing to be evaluated?)
2. Identify stakeholders
3. Set evaluative criteria
4. Define a purpose
5. Select an evaluation type (remember CIPP)
6. Develop evaluation questions
7. Plan for collecting and analyzing data
8. Plan for reporting findings and implications
9. Meta-evaluation

Design Document

1. Description of the design model to be used (1-2 pages)
2. Description of the topic area and how it is approached (1-2 pages) (e.g., what do we know about how aviation is currently taught online?)
3. Task analysis or other appropriate analysis method (e.g., concept map) for mapping out the component parts of the to-be-learned skill(s).
4. Design Blueprints:
1. Written overview of the to-be-design product (1 paragraph)
2. Mocked-up blueprints that show the structure of the design.
3. With the mock-up (either separately or in the same blueprints), describe the
1. flow (e.g., linear, non-linear)
2. function of individual elements
3. purpose of the individual elements (e.g., callouts used to highlight specific examples of real-life application of the content)
5. Assessments: Describe assessment approach and rationale.  Provide template for the different types of assessments to be used throughout the design.

Annotated Review of Development Tool

identify and research a development tool and deliver a 1-2 page overview of the tool.  Each person will need to choose his own tool to research.  In the annotated overview, please provide:

1. The name of the tool
2. How the tool can be accessed
1. e.g., is it a web-based tool or a desktop software package?
2. e.g., is it free, or paid?  How much, if paid?
3. The type of tool it is (e.g., is it a planning tool, a production tool, etc.)
4. How to use the tool
1. e.g., screenshots or screencast of using the tool
2. e.g., provide brief overview of how the tool functions and how to interact with it
5. How the tool might be/has been used in instructional design.

Implementation Plan

1. Preparing the trainer
2. Preparing the learner
3. Preparing the space

 Final Project

1. 15-20 minute presentation of your final prototype.  Make this professional.  It is for your client, myself, your peers, and the members of the corporate advisory board.
2. Full Design brief
1. Needs analysis (updated)
2. Design blueprints (updated)
3. Development
1. Prototype(s)
2. Narrative that describes the design process, including:
1. tools used
2. how you incorporated (or failed to) your design model into the actual product
3. unexpected "bumps" and how you dealt with them.
4. Evaluation report: 2-3 page report detailing:
1. Data collection methods
2. Executive summary of the results
3. Brief evaluation of the overall evaluation and how the project experience could be improved in the future

Assignment Resubmission:

You may revise an assignment and resubmit it for re-scoring as many times as you want, given the following restrictions:

• You may only resubmit an assignment that was submitted on time;

• The assignment must be resubmitted no more than seven days after the scored assignment is returned to you. The purpose of the one-week resubmission time limit is to prevent an unpleasant end-of-semester situation for both of us where you are hurrying to revise and resubmit your assignments and I am being inundated with numerous resubmissions to score.

  I will score your resubmission out of 100% and then average your new score with your original score. For example, if you earned a 100% on a resubmitted assignment in which you originally received an 80%, your new score would be 90%. This would be the highest grade you could score on that assignment. You may resubmit as many times as you wish (with the above restrictions) and I will always average it with your initial score. This is to encourage you to do your best you can on your original submission, but to also give you the opportunity to improve your score, should you wish to do so.