Utilizing Competency Wizard in Springboard

using the A.D.D.I.E Process

Kim Kohlas, Stephanie Gallagher

George Niinisto, Melissa Suder

Allie Werstler

Analyze

Desire2Learn is new to faculty Faculty does not utilize Competencies

and Rubrics in Springboard Assignment:

– develop instructional material to assist the faculty in using Competencies and Rubrics

Audience is U of A faculty

Analyze Continued

Learning constraints:– Knowledge of Springboard – Faculty motivation to use the Competencies and Rubrics

feature Delivery methods include:

– PowerPoint Presentation– Click Guide– CD with resource materials – Training Session

Analyze Continued

Timeline– George & Stephanie met with SME

• Dr. Savery & Suzanne Testerman

– Group members learned to create Competencies & Rubrics in Springboard

– Creation of Click Sheet & PowerPoint– Presentation to SME & U of A faculty 4/15– Presentation to class 4/29

Analyze: Needs Analysis SME explained that faculty does not use

Competencies & Rubrics in Springboard Felt need: U of A faculty needs

– Support/Resource Materials – Instruction for using Competencies &

Rubrics SME Interview

– Faculty needs hands-on materials to help them learn such as:

• Click Sheet• Power Point• Movie

Design

Cognitive Theory – Knowledge must be organized – Individuals should be actively involved in

the learning We led a hands on learning session

with a small group of faculty Springboard terminology was explained

– Parent/Child

Design continued

Social Constructivist Learning Theory

– Inquiry Based Learning• Combination of Multimedia products and

Printed Resources• Interaction between learners• Collaboration with peers

Design Continued

Objective 1– After watching and listening to a

PowerPoint presentation about competencies and related vocabulary, the learner will recognize basic vocabulary such as: competency, objective, learning activity, and rubric

Met when learner has successfully created competency

Design Continued

Objective 2– After viewing the PowerPoint presentation

on competencies, the faculty will recognize competencies, objectives, learning activities, and rubrics with the parent child relationship

Met when learner has successfully completed matching part of survey

Design Continued

Objective 3– Given the Springboard competency wizard,

faculty will operate the wizard to link competencies, learning objectives, activities, and rubrics

Met when group members observe faculty successfully creating a competency in Springboard

Design: Training Session

Faculty completes pre-instruction survey PowerPoint

– Terms related to Competencies– Parent/Child hierarchy– Desire2Learn Competency Wizard– Additional resources

Movie Tutorial & Blog Click Guide exercise Faculty completes post-instruction survey

Develop PowerPoint will define :

– Key words– Show screen shots of Springboard Competency

Wizard Chosen because faculty is familiar with PP

& can easily be printed “Click Guide”

– simple way to create Competencies, Learning Objectives, Activities and Rubrics

Develop Continued

Movie -an additional resource for diverse learners

Blog- to access all resources online Presentation Portfolio - provided

faculty with materials needed for training session

Implementation

U of A faculty training session– All five group members attended and each

led a part of the presentation– The U of A faculty in attendance were Dr.

Ward, Suzanne Testerman and Wendy Lampner

Implementation: Timeline

Week 1 Discussed Project and developed questions for George and Stephanie to ask the SME’s.

Week 2 Stephanie and George met with the SME’s.Week 3 Discussed instructional materials to create and

worked on learning SpringBoard.Week 4 Worked on PowerPoint and discussed need for

Click Guide. We continued to work to understand the intricacies of the Competency Wizard.

Week 5 Further Developed and Revised PowerPoint and Click Guide.

Week 6 Continued critiquing the PowerPoint and Click Guide and discussed training session.

Week 7 Prepared and practiced for the training session.

Week 8 Training Session was held with Suzanne Testerman, Dr. Ward, and Wendy Lampner.

Implementation Continued

Description– Problem: projector did not work for

presentation• Once corrected, presentation flowed smoothly

– If we were to do this project again we would:

• Use ScreenCasting for electronic resource• Recruit more faculty for training session• Smaller ID group

Evaluate

Formative Evaluation from Dr. Savery and Suzanne Testerman influenced the design and development of materials for implementation.

Data collected was based on the SME’s recommendations for the U of A teaching faculty

Evaluate Continued

Formative Evaluation not as successful as we hoped WHY?– Small Target Audience.

One individual stated that our materials were:– “Excellent! Good way to help different types of

learners.” Improvement Area: all team members would

meet with the SME to clarify the materials and resources expected. – Our team purpose was not clear to some

members that did not attend the SME interview

Discussion: Strengths and Weaknesses of Training Session with SME and Dr. Ward.

Strengths All prepared for the

presentation and knew the Competency Tool in Springboard very well

Presentation of many resources for our audience to learn the Competency Wizard

We were competent in the delivery of our instruction and had a nice flow

Weaknesses Technical problem at the

beginning Would have liked to have

had more faculty present -larger target audience

More computers available had Melissa's not worked, we could of had a problem due to the room we were in

Discussion:Strengths and Weaknesses of Instructional Design Project

Strengths: Everyone learned the

Competency Tool in Springboard and became proficient

Everyone helped one another with the materials and resources, starting with rough drafts until final copy.

Everyone participated in this project and each had roles where their best strengths were used

Weaknesses: Working in groups can

be difficult; many times a group member had a different vision of the instructional design and/or resources to be used.

Improved communication was needed at times

References Cunia E. 2007. “Cognitive Learning Theory.”

http://suedstudent.syr.edu/~ebarrett/ide621/cognitive.htm

Eductech Wiki. 2007 http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Image:IBL_circle.gif#file#file

Morrison, G., Ross, S., Kemp, J. 2004. Designing Effective Instruction. 4th Edition 28-248

Ward, C. 2008. “Springboard Content.” University of Akron, Springboard, http://www.uakron.edu