Regrouping on creative-side-of instructional-design agenda

I have purposely put IT 5130 aside for a couple of months, to allow for the necessary space and time for new ideas to bubble up and take shape. Although I think that the course worked for many people, it didn't work for all of the students. And, although I was able to attend to my creative-side-of-instructional-design agenda a bit, I was/am dissatisfied. I just don't think I did enough to promote the creative disposition learning objective. So, all of my thinking about changing the course has been around this learning objective (and trying to reduce the workload, and any sense of an activity being "busy work"). To this end, here are a few ideas I am playing with.

Course Title:

I would like to change the title of the course to something like "Creative Designs for Self-paced Instructional Materials" or "Aesthetics of Self-paced Instructional Materials Design" (could get rid of the "self-paced" part, although that really is part of the context)... I want the title to be a better description of the course, and to get people interested in the course content. And, to be clear about how this course is different from other courses (e.g., the eLearning certificate courses are focused on the design and delivery of instructor-facilitated eLearning opportunities).


Books:

I still like Duarte's slide:ology text, and want to continue to use it next time. But, I will not use Mayer's book again. I believe I can provide a handout that distills the principles shared in his Multimedia Learning book, and mix them with Medina's brain rules and Tufte's lessons. Instead, I want to use books that help us think about the product of our design process -- and the design process itself -- in a different way. For example --

• Scott McCloud's Making Comics. It is really a great book about storytelling, presented as a comic book. I really like the sections on writing with pictures and the power of words.
• Carol Vernallis' Experiencing Music Video. Not sure this is the one to go with, but the detailed analysis of three well-known videos really helps illustrate some "universal" design guidelines that translate to eLearning and instructional message design.
• Matthew Frederick's 101 Things I Learned in Architecture School. I really like this little book. (Related, I also like Hall Box's Think Like an Architect)
• Babak Ebrahimian's Sculpting Space in the Theater. This may be too far off track, but it has to do with how to make "real" what is written/storyboarded...using space, lighting, costumes, etc. I like the idea of working with all of these elements to create a unique and powerful whole.

I wouldn't require all of them...costs too much for students, and I want to be realistic about how much they can read and process. It may be fine for students to pick and choose -- everyone buys Duarte's text, and two others from the list based on their interests (I could make the first chapter of each text available to help them make the decision).


Activities/Projects:

I am thinking about scraping the existing projects and going with a set of "what if" assignments such as:

• What if instruction was like a music video
• What if instruction was like a movie poster
• What if instruction was like a comic book
• What if instruction was like a documentary
• What if instruction was like a radio show
  
• And so on (but not too many more...I'll group them and let students pick one from each list...but, no more than three).
  

I want to spend the first 5 weeks critiquing existing instructional messages (those I bring forward and those the students bring forward), and getting exposed to these other design perspectives. To this end, I am going to:

• Invite guest speakers from the film industry, architecture, game design, music industry, etc. We will use Adobe Connect to spend an hour with each guest. (Note: This means I will need to require participation in synchronous sessions...which is different than what I do in online courses. My thinking is to require 2 hours one evening a week for the first half of the semester. These synchronous sessions will be time for us to work together on critiques and work with guest speakers. Then, for the second half of the semester, I will have synchronous "office hours" where participation is voluntary, on a as-needed basis.)
  
  
• Conduct video interviews with a handful of creative professionals. I want to collect several stories (3-5 minutes in length, at the most), using the following questions (note: these are rough draft questions, and they may not speak to each person interviewed):
  
  • Where do you get your inspiration (insights) for your work?
    
  • When you decide to embark on a new project, what process do you go through from start to finish?
    
  • How do you know when a project is done?
    
  • What is the most important step in your design (creation) process, and why?
    
  • What one piece of advice would you give designers (regardless of domain) about the creative/design process?
    
  • How do you describe the difference between your creative/design process and the product of that process?
    
  • Are there guiding ideas that you’ve learned through experience – that you apply to new projects? If so, can you tell me about one – where it came from and how you find it useful?
    
  • There’s a visioning or imagining part of the creative process that’s really critical. What techniques do you have to stimulate your ability to see problems and solutions better? How do you open yourself up to possibilities?
    
  • Can you think of a case or example that illustrates a particularly satisfying breakthrough or solution to a creative/design problem?
  
  I then want students to deconstruct what they learn from these creative professionals, and determine how it applies to their work as instructional designers, eLearning specialists, and K-12 teachers.

Another thing I am thinking about is resurrecting a classic message design assignment: the ear. I have a couple of old ear illustrations used to help students learn the parts of the ear. One is a simple line drawing, the other is a complex line drawing. As a transition assignment between critiquing existing instructional messages and creating their own (one visual presentation, one audio presentation, one print piece...at least that is what I am thinking at the moment), my thought is to have them select a design perspective (e.g., instruction as comic book), and design a piece that students could use to learn the parts of the ear. (So, if a student decided to create a print-based comic book, then she or he would count this assignment for the print requirement and only have to create two more self-paced instructional pieces: a visual presentation and an audio presentation.)


Misc.:

A concern I still have is the value of this course for K-12 educators (not in the eLearning MA program). I can clearly see the relevance of a course like this for instructional designers and eLearning specialists, regardless of educational setting. But, if someone is a K-12 classroom teacher and intends to continue in that role, then this course may not be appropriate. Still thinking about this, especially in light of the fact that we (ILT program faculty) are thinking about making it required for all ILT students.

Multi-week projects...do students use the extra time well?

One of the design decisions I made early on was to try to reduce the number of things students had to turn in. I didn't want to have things due every week. Instead, I wanted to require just three significant projects (significant in terms of authenticity and relevance...projects that could have a life outside of the course), and give students adequate time to work on them. I wanted students to have 3-5 weeks to work on each project, and I worked hard to match the project requirements and scope to the number of weeks I assigned for each one. I wanted to make sure students had enough time to let their creativity percolate, and enough time to actually creatively accomplish what they wanted to. And, allowing for more time per project also recognizes that adult students have things that come up in their lives that require their immediate attention...and academics must be set aside temporarily. With multi-week projects, students can still get projects done even if they have to take some time away from the coursework. Or, if they are taking more than one course and have to juggle deadlines.

But, I'm not sure that all of the students used the available time well. I have a sense that there is still a fair amount of last-minute scrambling going on for some. Some people work better that way, which is fine. But, for those who don't, the work -- and the learning -- suffers. So, is there anything I can do differently next time to avoid this potential issue, sort of having smaller project deliverables throughout (and then I'm back to what I wanted to avoid in the first place...lots of due dates for students to track)?

The idea I have is to require that each student post one question about their project each week that I would then respond to. This would help us stay connected, and hopefully at least encourage students to think about their projects from the get-go. I could even be a bit more specific then "post a question" by guiding the type of questions they should be asking at different phases of the project. For example, at the beginning of the project, I could ask, "Who is the audience, and what are the learning objectives for this instructional message?" During the middle of the project I could ask, "What challenge are you facing at this point in the design of your instructional message?"

I am going to keep thinking about this issue, but am thinking now that this sort of guided prompting on my part could help students use the weeks available to them for each project in a more productive way.

Reflecting on my processing of the Zoomerang results

I received some very useful feedback from the Zoomerang survey…I really appreciate when people take the time to share their thoughts and ideas. I haven’t posted to this blog for awhile as I have been focused on the course (grading the second Culiminating Project), and making appropriate adjustments to the course based on the feedback.

Only about ½ the group responded to the Zoomerang survey. Right or wrong, my positive spin on it is that those who did not respond are satisfied with the direction of the course. At least I can’t think of a time when I provided an opportunity to share feedback and those who were unhappy about a particular aspect of the course didn’t take advantage of the opportunity. [Note: It also has a lot to do with how you ask for feedback, the questions you use. I learned from Marty Tessmer – formative evaluation expert – that you have to ask questions in a way that invites a response and assumes that there is always something that can be improved. So, questions that ask, “What three things would you change and why?” indicates that there are at least three things that one should be able to suggest for improvement. The invitation, and structure of questions, can definitely change the response rate and the quality of the responses received.]

Of the responds I received, there were several positive comments, which is good. It is helpful to have reinforcement for what I am doing and what I have designed. Positive comments included things about my attentiveness, quality and quantity of feedback on projects, nature of projects, flexibility to resubmit projects for more points, and the Duarte and Reynolds readings.

I also received several constructively critical comments. Some of the issues shared I immediately addressed. For example, because of comments about the workload being too heavy, I eliminated a Hands-on/Minds-on project to make more space and time for folks working on the final Culminating Project. There were also comments about wishing there were more discussions, so I added a discussion as a way to help the group process Marty Tessmer’s book on designing online tutorials.

Some comments I could respond to now. For example, I received negative comments about the Mayer text. Although I couldn’t fix it for this term, I will find another way to expose students to Mayer’s principles without using his text next year.
Some of the critical comments presented challenges for me because:

• They were inconsistent (some folks liking a particular aspect, and others not)
  
• They were about aspects of the course to which I am committed from an educational perspective (in this case, I just haven’t made the case well enough, I am assuming)
  
• They are about structural issues with the eCollege shell that are out of my control, or – for me to design around – requires a fairly cluegy approach to the design
  
• They are more related to the individuals than the course. At least I think they are…

Let me say a bit more about that last one… Honestly, as an instructional designer, I point my finger at myself as much as possible. It gives me comfort to think that there are things I can do – or do differently – to improve the chances that students’ motivation to learn will be enhanced. But, sometimes, I receive a few comments to a survey like this one that feel more like an abdication of student responsibility than something I can directly address.

For example, a specific comment I received had to do with being consistently confused about due dates. Because it is so easy to lose track of due dates in an online course, I standardized on a single weekly due date – end of day on Sundays. There are three times during the course where there are differing due dates, and those are related to three sets of peer reviews due on Thursdays. The calendar of graded activities (in the Syllabus) and Weekly Agendas – both including information regarding due dates – has been available since the start of the course. My assumption was that people would rely on whatever method they use to track course due dates. For example, I mapped all the due dates to my daytimer so they would be included in my overall view of my week. I also printed out the syllabus and weekly agendas so I could check items off as we went (in fact, I designed the weekly agendas to function as a checklist).

Was my assumption faulty? Yes, or I wouldn’t have received the comments. Was my assumption unreasonable? No. This is a graduate level course, with students who are midway through their programs. Online courses require a proficient level of self-directedness…folks have to be able to manage time, resources, and energy for themselves. Is there something I could do to make things easier to track? I guess so, I’m just surprised I need to.

Where does this leave me? I’ve made some positive adjustments for the remainder of the semester, and have a list of things – like the Mayer text – to reconsider for next time. The feedback – as always – was very useful to my thinking. I always appreciate it when folks take the time to share their thoughts and ideas, even when it isn’t what I hoped or wanted to hear. If you ask for feedback, you have to be prepared for what you receive, and be willing to take appropriate actions based on what you receive. I think I accomplished this.

Is “no required discussions on readings” working? (I keep asking!)

Yes and no. I have had several comments from students that it is a relief to not have the typically required weekly discussions on readings. And, I understand that. It is a relief because they are actively working on projects…and the discussions could feel like a disruption to that work. However, I have found two things that are problematic for me:

• I miss the opportunity to process the readings with students. It is also another way that I establish my credibility, share my expertise. So, the lack of that weekly connection has left me feeling disconnected from the students. Just like an on-campus course, I relish the time I am with the students in discussion, working on an in-clas activity, and being together. I have certainly enjoyed the interactions with students and among and between students in the optional Self-select Study Groups discussion, but it isn’t frequent enough for my liking…and although there are a few enthusiastic participants, it isn’t the whole group so not all perspectives are shared.
  
  
• The quality of the students’ application of the readings to their projects is quite variable. There could be a lot of reasons for this – such as lack of clear directions from me, students who have competing demands and therefore only put in the minimum, not enough points assigned to that component of the projects, and so on – but I think that part of the reason may be that students aren’t completing the readings, or if they are they are not processing them in a way that helps them with application later. Maybe if we were having required weekly – or biweekly – discussions about the readings students would keep up with readings (not to say that they aren’t) and would have a chance to test their understanding of the concepts before being asked to apply them.

This is something I still need to work out, for myself and the students. I may send out a quick survey about this issue if the results of the second Culminating Project (Presentation Prowess) are the same on this issue as they were for the first Culminating Project (Instructional Message in Print). If students don’t have the application-of-readings-to-instructional-message-design-decisions component well addressed in their Design Scripts, then the Design Scripts (and overall Project) lose their effectiveness as portfolio (academic and professional) products. Plus, if the students cannot defend their instructional message design decisions with the literature, I will most certainly feel that the course failed.

Culminating Projects and assessment

There are three Culminating Projects for the course. One is focused on print, one on stand-alone presentation, and one on multi-modal presentation. I am pleased with the projects, and think that they will lead to quality products that are relevant to the students' workplace or community, and relevant as professional portfolio examples.

But, here's my problem. I don't like creating assessment tools for projects. I'm not good at it. It is really time-consuming to do it well. And, I have to do it because people need to know how they are being assessed. So, my next task is to get those finalized. I have drafts for all three projects, but once I post them to the course they are real...and we all have to live with them.

I'm not sure why I struggle so much with this part of teaching. I always have. I just want to provide the directions and assume that everyone will simply follow the directions and do their best. Grade = A. But, that isn't very realistic. And, again, adult learners are simply too busy -- have too many demands on their time -- to live in that much ambiguity about assessment. A little ambiguity is fine. In fact, it is the way of the world, of living in the world. But, too much ambiguity in this context leads to frustration and disconnection. So, I will get it done.

I find that searching the Internet for examples of how others have assessed this, that, or the other thing, to be very helpful. That is what I did this time too. It makes a difference because it gives me ideas, shows me alternative approaches and structures, pushes me to be better.

Need to do a front-end analysis

I realized, a bit too late, that I have been making a number of assumptions about the technical skills of the audience as I designed the assignments. I think most of the assignments have reasonable technical requirements (e.g., Word, PowerPoint), so it should be fine. But, for the three Culminating Projects in particular, I was planning on requiring the integration of Web 2.0, podcasting, digital storytelling, and the like. Since this is not a learn-how-to-use-tools course, I need to make sure my expectations of tool proficiency are realistic. So, my plan is to add a technical skill survey (just a couple of questions) to the individual "welcome" emails I will send out to everyone during the first week of the course. This will help me determine how to modify the assignments so that everyone can achieve the learning objectives. I suspect I will be able to modify the projects, if need be, for flexible tool use...allowing each learner to choose from a selection.

Doing a tools double-take

I was plugging in Web 2.0 tools everywhere, into every assignment. I am still committed to making a go with Twitter, and to asking folks to use Web 2.0 tools creatively in support of the instructional messages they are designing. But, I have just gone through the course, and pulled out the instances of tools-because-they-are-cool. For example, for the In My Life activity, I originally asked folks to post their photos to a group Flickr account I had set up for the course. And in doing so I violated an instructional message design principle related to proximity. The photos need to be where the text is that describes the photo. Duh.

The added realization is that I was creating unnecessary complexity for each assignment by involving external tools...when the same result could be achieved by using the structure and tools provided within eCollege. Crazy.

Choosing books

I always have trouble selecting books. There is never one book that does it all, and I am reluctant to ask students to purchase a ton of books knowing we will only read a chapter here and there. For awhile, I was convinced that I would ask the group to purchase three books: Tufte's Beautiful Evidence, Medina's Brain Rules, and Reynolds' Presentation Zen. I like all three of these books. But, the problem was that I really needed a book that would get at design principles for instructional messages. That left me with two obvious options: Mayer's Multimedia Learning and Lohr's Creating Graphics for Learning and Performance (there are others too, such as Williams' The Non-Designers Design Book...a good one, for sure, but fairly narrow for the context). And, for a let's-get-inspired-by-just-looking-at-the-pages perspective, neither book is very good. Although I like Lohr's book (except the images are a bit too cartoony for my liking), I went with Mayer. It makes sense for a graduate level course because it presents theory and empirical evidence in support of principles we can apply to the design of instructional messages. It is an easy read, although he is SO repetitive (the book could use with a thorough edit...cut it in half). That's OK, I will instruct the group to keep this in mind as they read the book and use their best judgment for scanning, skimming and moving on. Mayer is an important person in our field, and it is absolutely appropriate for them to get to know his work.

After settling on Mayer, I REALLY wanted a visually inspiring book, one that not only presented good content on the instructional message design topic (even in the author didn't use that term), but one that actually put the content into practice with a great book design. Tufte's books all meet this criteria. Presentation Zen does as well (but, the content is thin, and Reynolds has most of the content on his blog). I had been keeping an eye on Nancy Duarte's book -- slide:ology -- for awhile. It was getting great press (Garr Reynolds was really talking it up on his blog, for example), but it wasn't due to release until September. Suddenly, the date changed to early August...and I knew I had to check it out for the course. I'm glad I held off on making the book decision until seeing her book, it was exactly what I was looking for to compliment Mayer. She's great!

I am also happy that I have selected a few readings from Tufte and Medina, and one from Reynolds. I think the group will enjoy the reading. (And, Tufte should do a good job at ruffling some feathers...he's always good at that.)

Is it all challenging enough?

When I started layout out activities, assignments, and projects, I had about 25 things. Yikes! So much for simplicity and balance. It has been very effortful to get the workload under control. My concern -- one of many, I guess -- is that the learners feel they have read, practiced, and discussed enough in advance of completing a "Culminating Project" (which is a project I assess against a rubric and provide more detailed feedback, as opposed to simply check-off as completed which is what I will do with the Minds-on/Hands-on and React and Respond activities). I am trying to not overwhelm with discussions every week. I am trying to ask for a reasonable amount of reading to be accomplished. And so on. I wonder if I will get it right this time -- the balance between workload, engagement, efficacy-strenthening...

Will they do the reading?

Without required weekly discussions, I am worried that folks won't read. And the readings are really critical to getting this stuff... I am making an effort to require annotations and citations with Culminating Projects, but that isn't necessarily an immediate application of the reading to something. Yet, I don't want to add back in required weekly discussions...I just think it is an overload. I wonder what will happen, and how the learners will react.

Requiring participation in weekly discussions

My thinking about requiring people to participate in weekly threaded discussions has really changed lately. What I really want is for discussion to flow naturally, because people want to connect and share ideas related to what they are reading and experiencing. But, I also know that adult learners have many demands on their time, and when push comes to shove may neglect to pursue these sorts of learning opportunities unless persuaded with requirements and points.

Now, getting back to the desire for things to flow naturally... I decided to pursue this with IT 5130. There will be a few "required" discussion opportunities. But, the other discussion opportunities will be voluntary. To this end, I have set up "Self-select Study Groups" for readings and tools. My hope is that people will choose to contribute to these groups because the connection and sharing is relevant. I am not going to count number of posts or anything like that...and hope that doesn't leave a few folks alone in a forum wanting to discuss and having no colleagues with which to discuss.

To counter this very real possibility, I have added a requirement to the Design Sketches that must be turned in with each Culminating Project. The Design Sketch is a description of the instructional message design decision the learner has made, with a rationale -- based on the readings -- for the decision. OK, so learners will be required to include a certain number of references: a certain number from each of the readings, and then a certain number from the required and optional discussion forums. And, they only way a learner can cite a discussion forum is if she or he participated in the discussion forum by offering at least two ideas, insights, perspectives, or counter-arguments.

So, ultimately I am counting... But, the idea is that people will make their own decisions about participation -- and the value of that participation -- based on perceived relevance and knowing the consequences (a few missed points on Culminating Projects) if they don't participate.

Weekly Agendas

One of the strategies I've decided to use for the course -- one that I always use in my face-to-face courses and really like -- is the weekly agenda. I like having a one-page document, or checklist, that spells out what needs to be done. The weekly agendas are pithy on purpose...the details are elsewhere (pointed to from the agenda). This means that learners have to click to other parts of the course to get the details, but it also means that multiple agendas can refer to the same assignment, and that assignment only needs to reside in one location (as opposed to being copied and pasted multiple times...which is then a nightmare if I need to make a change to the assignment).

It begins...

It has been a month since my father died, and it is a month out from when the course starts. So, I think I am ready to start going through all of my notes for this course and plan the experience.

A few months ago I had an interesting conversation with Raymond Wlodkowski (well-known author of texts on enhancing adults motivation to learn, and diversity in the classroom) regarding my application of his motivational framework to online courses. This sort of spun off into a discussion about course structure, and how structured to be. I tend to be very structured with online courses (which lead to me creating a 22 page syllabus for my on-campus Adult Education and Learning course...yikes!). At this point, I believe I have been too structured, too complex, too cluttered. So, with this course I want to be minimalist, natural, organic. I'm not sure it is possible for me to do that, but what gives me hope is that I used to teach that way...before teaching online.

Here is the flaw in my thinking about online course design, I believe. The courses I create are for graduate students (or, at least, post-undergraduate). But, my thinking has been that the audience for online programs and courses are not as self-directed as they need to be, that the demands on their time cause a distraction from engaging in the coursework. And, therefore, that I needed to provide layers of structure, and deadlines, and directions in order to scaffold the missing self-direction and wave a red flag to garner attention.

But, here's the reality. Adult learners are self-directed, are motivated. They just may not be self-direct and motivated to do what I want them to do. This has everything to do with relevance (and, of course, their need to balance the many demands on their time and energy). If the learning activity isn't relevant to them, then they are less engaged in the activity. If they do see the relevance, and can find the time and energy to make it happen, then they will engage. My job is to create learning activities that have the potential of being seen as relevant and, thus, engaging. I can't force this to happen with layers of structure, and deadlines, and directions. There is no magic number or size of red flags I can wave to make this happen.

So, throughout this design process, I am going to keep reflecting on what I used to do when teaching face-to-face in a classroom -- what my attitude about the learning-teaching exchange was, what I valued in terms of flow and structure -- and see if I can come up with an approach that reflects a valuing of adult learners' intrinsic motivation to engage. My approach will be as minimalist as appropriate (without leading everyone to confusion), and I will try to create learning opportunities for students that are inviting and not forced.

Let's see what happens...