Apply Instructional Design Principles

The criteria for satisfying the Apply Instructional Design Principles competency are:

Identifies and analyzes learning and performance problems
Design, plans, and develops instructional interventions using appropriate strategies and techniques
Develops an evaluation plan for a project based on stated goals and recognized standards

Artifacts for Apply Instructional Design Principles

Justification for these Artifacts

For Apply Instructional Design Principles, I submit four case studies: three from EDCI 67200: Advanced Practices in Learning Systems Design, and one from EDCI 52800: Human Performance Technology.

First requirement: “Identifies and analyzes learning and performance problems”

The three case studies I’ve selected from EDCI 67200 are all structured around the identification and analysis of learning and performance problems. In these case studies, an IDer needs to determine the cause of performance issues, then work with clients, SMEs, leadership, and their learning audience to solve those issues.

Within the Pat Kelsoe case study, an instructional designer needs to determine how a seemingly-disorganized medical training program is remarkably successful. In the Jack Waterkamp case study, an ambitious instructional designer needs to convert classroom-based training into eLearning with an unreasonably brief timeline. Finally, in the Frank Tawl and Semra Senbetto case study, roleplay, simulation, and other interactive learning must be implemented in a cultural context that abhors this kind of learning environment.

I analyzed these cases and compared them against my own work. These cases are like problems that I have had to solve in the workplace; using experience through mentorships and research is fundamental to growing as a professional in the world of business.

Second requirement: “Design, plans, and develops instructional interventions using appropriate strategies and techniques”

Analysis was only one part of the EDCI 67200 case studies; determining strategies for solving these problems was the real goal. Each case began with analysis of the interpersonal relationships, office environment, personnel, locations, and equipment/media as components of the challenge. Each one required analysis of the primary instructional design problem, case-specific constraints, solutions, and a single, final recommendation.

For the Pat Kelsoe case study, I determined that the instructional designer needed to minimize resistance to change; prove the value of implementing technology; find parity between different levels of contributor; and determine how to improve the program after resolving interpersonal conflict.

For the Jack Waterkamp case, I found that the instructional designer needs to implement project management to manage the doubled workload and short timelines. He also needs to build instructional materials for under-development software by getting access to prerelease builds of the product.

For the Frank Tawl and Semra Senbetto case study, solving the problem of cultural resistance required the instructional designer to proceed slowly; find new rewards to motivate their learners for exiting their comfort zone; and to continuously monitor progress to ensure there is no slippage during the adoption of new techniques.

I compared all these cases to real-life examples from recent experience within my work life. Learning more about project management is the next phase of continuous growth after completing my degree.

Third requirement: “Develops an evaluation plan for a project based on stated goals and recognized standards”

In the final assignment for EDCI 52800, I worked through a detailed evaluation plan based on problem statements that I defined for an insurance company whose claims processors have gotten to a 30% rate of incorrectly processed claims. These problems were directly linked to recommendations based on Stolovitch and Keeps’ (2004) models of learning and non-learning performance interventions. These interventions included:

Structured on-the-job training (learning intervention), to integrate and expand the onboarding curriculum into ongoing learning efforts
Performance support systems (performance aid), to make information more readily available to claims processors in the moment
Better provisioning of information (environmental intervention), to communicate and expose new regulatory information
Motivational enhancements (emotional intervention), to ensure that claims processors are take ownership of their professional development

The evaluation plan for the non-learning solutions was presented using Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four levels of evaluation.

For the performance support system:

Reaction was assessed with a survey to determine whether claims processors were receptive to the use of a software solution
Learning was assessed with a survey after the implementation of the support system to verify understanding of information locations
Behavior was assessed through ongoing measurement of successfully resolved customer service incidents
Results were assessed by successful use of the implemented software and the minimizing of incorrectly processed claims

For the provision of information:

Reaction was assessed through the claims processors’ reception survey
Learning was assessed through the post-implementation survey
Behavior was assessed through a survey about how claims processors feel they’ve progressed with the implementation of the new information management schema
Results were assessed through the success realized by an increase in correctly processed claims

For the enhancement of motivation:

Reaction was assessed through separate surveys for claims processors and their managers to determine what the gaps are in why claims processors are not motivated vs. how managers believe they are motivating their employees
Learning was not assessed as part of motivation
Behavior was assessed through separate surveys for claims processors and managers to see how the employee motivation index was improving
Results were assessed by seeing an increase in internal promotions and better leadership, along with poor performers being coached to success or being pushed to find new employment

References

Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006.). Evaluation Training Programs (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Kohler Publishers.

Stolovitch, H. D., & Keeps, E. J. (2004). Training Ain’t Performance. Alexandria: ASTD Press.