The Solar System

Solar System on Prezi

RLO for IX536: Design & Development Tools

This is a STEM RLO (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics Reusable Learning Object) for my IX536 course, Unit 6:

Star Fleet University: Improving Internal Leadership Management

Introduction
The Board of Trustees has accepted my proposal to analyze the problem, and then develop a performance solution to improve internal leadership at Star Fleet University. In order to do this, I, the consultant, will follow the six steps outline by Barksdale and Lund (2001), in order to perform a rapid needs analysis. The six steps I will utilize include:

1. Analyzing the request to develop a performance solution.
2. Identifying the current situation
3. Analyzing the data
4. Determining solution specifications
5. Gaining commitment
6. Initiating development of the solution (Barksdale & Lund, 2001, pp. 1 – 2).

Analysis Request: Step 1

What is Star Fleet University's request?	Since upper administration will be retiring in a few years, and newly hired administration personnel is being lured away by competitors, Star Fleet University requests a more aggressive approach to their internal leadership management. Background about Star Fleet University: they are an international higher education facility with 177 administrative staff who are scattered throughout the United States and Japan. Although most of the administrators have stayed with the university for an average of 17 years, several will be retiring in a few years. Since the most recently-hired administrators are leaving Star Fleet to join competing universities, it is obvious they are motivated differently than the older generation of administrators. Too, the university has recently launched an online division, which consists of faculty, staff, and administers who work remotely. Since most of upper administration will be retiring in the next few years, and several of the new administrators are leaving Star Fleet to join with competitors, the Board of Trustees and the President have decided they require a more robust performance and evidence-based, decision-making process.
Who is making this request? What is their role?	The President and Board of Trustees of Star Fleet University. They are stakeholders.
Who will be contacted to gather information about the situation?	The Board of Trustees. The administrative staff—both the veterans and new hires. Too, I think it's important to contact administrators who have left Star Fleet University for positions within competing universities. Exit interviews must be incorporated as soon as possible. Faculty members need to be contacted for their point of view on the subject.  Also, get involved with leadership organizations to ask their opinions. In addition, I think it would be wise to contact university students who are majoring in administrative roles, and who are going to graduate in the next year or two to get their opinions.
What is the urgency of this request?	Although the urgency is not immediate, restructuring the organization chart, changing the performance evaluation process, and incorporating an evidence-based, decision-making procedure will take time to initiate. The analysis must begin now so that there is adequate time to incorporate the changes before those in upper administration retire. By moving quickly, the University can glean experience from the veteran administrators before they go into retirement, and give newly-hired leaders incentive to stay to become involved in incorporating the changes.
What are the gains/losses for Star Fleet University from solving this problem?	It's vital to have highly-qualified and highly-motivated leaders within Star Fleet University. If they don't, then there will be a "trickle-down" effect. Quality faculty members will leave. Student enrollment will go down. State and federal funding will not be awarded. Grants will be lost. There is everything to gain by improving internal leadership management. Having strong administrators who are motivated to go after grants, to start programs that reach out to the community and public school districts will gain recognition on the state and federal levels.
What does the University expect to gain from this analysis?	Star Fleet University goals are to: Attract new, highly qualified, and motivated administrators to their school. Recognize and reward administrators for work well done. Provide the latest leadership training modules for new ideas and continued creativity. Deliver a robust performance and evidence-based, decision-making process.
What are the analyzed risks?	Possible risks include: Poor reception from veteran administrators who are set in their ways. Disagreement over methods used to promote or reward administrators. Professional jealousy. To some, the solution might be incomplete, or "wrong" and the university ends up losing administrators anyway. Training administrators on how to use the new, innovative leadership management program, only to lose them to the competition.

Situation Evaluation: Step 2

According to the body of research there are clearly identified steps that must be completed in the analysis.  The steps are:

• Locating the needed information.
• Determining the data collection methods.
• Developing the instruments to gather the information.
• Testing the data-gathering instruments (Barnsdale & Lund, 2001).

The following is an adaptation of Worksheet 2.1, Locating the Needed Information, p. 27, (Barnsdale & Lund, 2001).

Information Needed	Where located and who has information	Availability of Information
Organizational information; Descriptions of current major initiatives.	President, Board of Trustees, veteran administrators such as the president and chancellors, provosts, vice president, deans and other senior-level administrators with responsibility for crisis planning, communication and external relations. Current policies/procedures handbook, and other university documents.	Written documentation available. Any clarification can be done by veteran upper administrators who should know the procedures.
Current leadership             practices	President, Board of Trustees, veteran administrators, current policies/procedures handbook, and other university documents	The best way to discover current leadership practices would be Job Mapping (Barnsdale & Lund, 2001, p. 40).
Current college policies regarding leadership roles and incentives	Leadership trainers/professors.	College documents; HR documents; interviewing leadership trainers; job mapping.
Best practice information; Industry Leaders	Professional organizations such as The College Board, and ACE. Review other governing structures used throughout the world. Best practices literature search.	Join organizations. Google well-known colleges and find their policies/procedures on their website. Enroll in Harvard University's Crisis Leadership in Higher Education.
What are the attitudes regarding current leadership practices?	Recently-hired Administrators.	Online surveys with incentives.
What is the quality of the current leadership program?	University president and chancellors, provosts, vice presidents, deans and other senior-level administrators. New administrators who have recently taken the training program.	One survey for veteran senior-level administrators to ascertain whether methods are outdated, and if so, how do they compensate? Was the leadership program updated to reflect this? Another survey for those who have recently taken the training. Data from observation. Information from literature review.
Data to support current trends in leadership programs	External data from literature review, organizations. External universities Focus group	Information available via textbooks, and research-based articles. Electronic focus group via a wiki.

 My Summary and Rationale for Methods of Collection.

Data Collection Method	Rational
Online Survey (closed questions).	To determine the attitudes and effectiveness of current leadership practices at Star Fleet University.  Online surveys are good in that they provide the maximum amount of information from a diverse group of individuals spread throughout in various locations at one time (Barnsdale & Lund, 2001).
Best Practices Literature Search	To determine what competing universities are doing to entice administrators to join them is discovered by reviewing recent publications. Review of current literature is one way to discover how other universities have solved their problems and what they currently do for leadership training (Barnsdale & Lund, 2001).
Electronic Focus group	This method will assist in determining what types of best practices appeal most to the recently-hired administrators. Electronic focus groups that are carefully monitored ensure the consistency of responses and guarantees pertinent information is collected (Barnsdale & Lund, 2001).
Job Mapping	By job mapping, the consultant will discover what tasks are involved in doing a job so that she can identify the knowledge, skill level, anticipated performance, and hindrances to doing the tasks (Barnsdale & Lund, 2001). This will be done with a group of administrators who perform the same tasks. At Star Fleet University, the veteran administrators might have inadvertently changed their procedures to adapt to changes—such as the incorporation of the online division—but have not updated their training and/or procedures.  Too, the administrators might have altered their tasks in different ways to achieve the same goal. Some methods could be better than others.
Interviews with Yahoo Messenger 10	The consultant will conduct several face-to-face interviews with key players, such as recent administrators still employed, and administrators who have recently left to join a competing university. Per Barnsdale & Lund (2001),  interview are very effective because participants can explore topics in more detail and depth than when using a survey or focus group.

References
Barnsdale, S. & Lund T.  (2001).  RAPID Needs Analysis.  Alexandria, VA:  ASTD

Case Study: Design and Development Tools

IX536-Design and Development Tools: Unit 1 Case Study

“Six instructors were on a four-week professional development leave from their regular duties. During this time, the instructors participated in a workshop on creating instructional multimedia applications. In the first three weeks, the mornings were devoted to learning the principles and guidelines of creating instructional multimedia applications. During the afternoons of the first week, two instructors evaluated authoring tools, another learned a graphics package, and the other three evaluated sample courseware. In the afternoons of the second and third weeks and throughout the fourth week, the instructors put the principles and guidelines learned into practice by creating an instructional multimedia tutorial” (Fenrich, 2005, p. 21).

Respond to the Case Study questions on the discussion board:

1. In the current case study, do you foresee any issues of having two instructors evaluating the authoring tools? Explain your answer.
2. Is it possible to have an instructional multimedia designer develop all elements (graphics, audio, animation, etc.) for a course? Provide evidence to support your answer.
3. If you were to organize a four-week professional workshop for instructors on creating instructional multimedia applications, what would your meeting schedule look like? (Create a workshop itinerary for your participants)
4. Describe how you would assess the outcome of this workshop.

This discussion addresses the unit learning outcomes:

• Identify factors that influence the growth of eLearning
• Describe the characteristics of static and interactive digital media in an eLearning environment
Describe rapid prototyping advances in eLearning content development

My Answer:

1. In the current case study, do you foresee any issues of having two instructors evaluating the authoring tools? Explain your answer.
• Yes, I can see redundancy and overlapping.
2. Is it possible to have an instructional multimedia designer develop all elements (graphics, audio, animation, etc.) for a course? Provide evidence to support your answer.
• Although I have done all this myself when I've designed websites and three-day workshops for others, I think to design a whole online course would be better to do in collaboration with three to five people. Caplan (2004) argues that, "online course development is a complex endeavor, and it is not reasonable to believe that a high caliber online course of instruction can be created by just one or two people. Quality courseware production requires a highly organized, concerted effort from many players." The traditional college instructor is used to working in solitude. But online delivery challenges those notions and instead brings together teams of people each with unique skills into a course design and development team (Ellis, 2000).  
• However, it can be done by one person if that person knows how to use the software tools. I've used Adobe Photoshop and Daz to design my own graphics. I've also used Adobe Flash for animation. I have made my own "book trailers" using my voice and other sounds for the video that could be used in a course environment. VoiceThread can also be used as well as Jing. If you do design a whole course on your own, at the least I think it's important to have a peer review as well as input from some students.
3. If you were to organize a four-week professional workshop for instructors on creating instructional multimedia applications, what would your meeting schedule look like? (Create a workshop itinerary for your participants).

Instructional Multimedia Applications Workshop
Week One	Goals and Expected Outcomes
9:00 to Noon	Discuss the principles and guidelines of creating instructional multimedia applications. Demonstrate the use of various authoring tools, showing examples. Break into groups and plan/diagram various ways to implement the tools into your environment.
Noon to 1:00	Lunch on your own
1:05 to 4:00	Hands-on use of the authoring tools in the computer lab using your group plan.
Week Two	Goals and Expected Outcomes
9:00 to Noon	Recap what we learned previous week. Build on what we've learned by discussing in depth principles and guidelines. Demonstrate the use of a graphics package, showing examples. Break into groups and plan/design various ways to implement the tools into your environment.
Noon to 1:00	Lunch on your own
1:05 to 4:00	Hands-on use of the graphics package in the computer lab using ideas gleaned from your group.
Week Three	Goals and Expected Outcomes
9:00 to Noon	Review what was learned in the previous two weeks and add sample courseware. Discuss the features and how to implement authoring tools and graphics package. Break into groups to discuss creative ways to combine the three.
Noon to 1:00	Lunch on your own
1:05 to 4:00	Hands-on use of sample courseware (use Moodle if other models not available) in the computer lab using ideas gleaned from your group.
Week Four	Combine all Principles and guidelines together to make a tutorial that the participants can use in their work environment.

4. Describe how you would assess the outcome of this workshop.
• I would give a questionnaire to the participants and ask for feedback on how to improve the workshop. In about a month, I would take a survey to see if the instructors were implementing what they had learned.

References

Caplan, D.  (2004).  The development of online courses.  In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning.  Athabasca, AB, Canada: Athabasca University.  Retrieved February 24, 2004 from http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/

Ellis, A., & Phelps, R.  (2000).  Staff development for online delivery: A collaborative, team based action learning model.  Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 26-44.

Pedagogical Multimedia: Caricature Agents Vs. Human Agents

Note: Introduction and Purpose

Research Proposal

Pedagogical Multimedia: Caricature Agents Vs. Human Agents

Kaplan University: IX540

Gloria Harchar

                         January 23, 2011

Introduction

Today's adult students are active and prolific on social networking sites, blogs, and mobile devices that have access to the internet.  They are on the internet a major portion of their day and are more accustomed to reading books online via eReaders and other mobile devices rather than on paper.  McLuhan (1967) states that learners today are bemused when they enter the traditional classroom that characterizes an educational establishment that presents limited information in an ordered and structured manner that is disjointed, and has classified patterns, subjects and schedules.  Conversely, some say that developing a personalized connection in a Web based environment is impossible, but personal narrative is one method that has been found to personalize instruction, center learning on the student and directly engaging them in the learning process (Newmaster, Lacroix & Roosenboom, 2006).  However, it has already been established that online education allows for a much more personal one-on-one interaction between instructor and student and even among student groups (Ash, 2010).  Vast sums of information are available at the click of a button and reading books online via eReaders and other mobile devices rather than on paper is the norm.  A constructivist view epitomizes this view where people pursue new knowledge and construct it to fit existing schemas that makes sense to them (Woolfolk, 2010).  This may be why distance learning has made such rapid growth and the debate between the effectiveness on online and traditional classrooms has ruled in favor of online learning.  Now the issues lie in which pedagogical elements improve the online experience for students. 

When people learn by constructing new knowledge they often learn more when linked to instructors on a personal basis.  Research has found that learner motivation increases when a personalized connection between the learner and the instructor is present (Wlodkowski, 1999). Therefore, the relationship between the narrative approach and student motivation is an essential component when fostering interactive online learning experiences.  It would stand to reason that if the student views the instruction of a multimedia presentation in a very personal way, the learner will be able to identify with the instructor and feel greater satisfaction from the presentation.  Course designers need to know which multimedia presentations are more effective and for which audiences in order to maximize learning and adult student satisfaction.  Do adult students learn more from caricature or human agents?  Which type of agent appeals to the adult learner?  Does previous exposure to technology have an impact on which agent is more satisfying?  Do other issues, such as age or gender, have an impact on which agent is more satisfying?  Is the adult learner more satisfied with the agent depending on the implied age or gender of the pedagogical agent?

In presenting information some online course designers use a caricature agent, while others use a more realistic or human agent.  The research on the effects of various kinds of online agents is limited.  For example, one research on pedagogical agents revealed a caricature, Adele, who was designed to present information, provide feedback, questions, hints, and explanations to medical students (Johnson, 1998).  Adele provided eye contact and various facial expressions. Another study promoted human-like media, including web based learning programs that can promote social presence because it uses conversational narration that promotes immediacy, and work toward deeper understanding (Mayer, Fennell, Farmer, & Campbell, 2004).  However, none have probed the effectiveness of caricature agents  versus human agents.  This paper examines each of these online agents, subsequent learning and the opinions of adult students’ reactions to them.

Purpose

The purpose of this phenomenological method of inquiry is to discover whether a pedagogical agent or a human agent has a greater impact on learning in relationship to students at both University of Louisiana at Lafayette (ULL), and at Kaplan University.  At this stage in the research, the pedagogical agent will be defined as an animated cartoon figure, and a human agent will be defined as a real, live human being.

References

Ash, K. (2010). Making the move to the virtual world. Education Week, 30(4), S6-S7. Beck, I., McKeown, M.G., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning the author: A year-long classroom implementation to engage students in text. Elementary School Journal, 96, 385-414.

Beck, I., McKeown, M.G., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning the author: A year-long classroom implementation to engage students in text. Elementary School Journal, 96, 385-414.

Johnson L., Shaw E., & Ganeshan, R. (1998). Pedagogical agents on the web. Center for Advanced Research in Technology for Education. USC / Information Sciences Institute. Retrieved from http://www.isi.edu/isd/ADE/papers/its98/ITS98-WW.htm.

McLuhan, M. (1967). The Medium is the Massage: An Inventory of Effects with Quentin Fiore, produced by Jerome Agel; 1st Ed.: Random House; reissued by Gingko Press, 2001.

Mayer, R. E., Fennell, S., Farmer, L., Campbell, J. (2004). A personalization effect in multimedia learning: Students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 389-395.

Newmaster, S., Lacroix, C. A., & Roosenboom, C. (2006). Authentic learning as a mechanism for learner centredness. International Journal of Learning, 13(6), 103-112.

Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (2002). The media equation: How people treat computers, television and new media like real people and places. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Thissen, F. (2003). Screen design manual: Communicating effectively through multimedia. New York: Springer.

Wlodkowski, R. J. (1999). Enhancing adult motivation to learn: A comprehensive guide for teaching all adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Woolfolk, A. (2010). Educational psychology. Pearson Education.

Web 2.0 Tools

Note: This is a term project that took 10 weeks to develop for my IX510 course at Kaplan University:

Instructional Design Document for Team Brilliant – Web 2.0 Tools

Scott Benton

Gloria Harchar

Joshua Hester

Tanya Napoli

Kaplan University

IX510 – Instructional Design

November 23, 2010 
Instructor: Sue Hutchinson

Abstract

This is an instructional design document that addresses Web 2.0 tool instruction of Kaplan University professors.  Rather than utilize emerging Web 2.0 communication technologies, many professors choose only to employ the standard communication tools provided and required by the online college.  Because Web 2.0 tools such as Dipity, Jing and Prezi have become integral to the online learning environment, the solution to this problem is to provide instruction in these tools to increase efficacy in online communication between professors and students.
Instructional Design Document for Team Brilliant – Web 2.0 Tools

Adult learners over age 24 currently comprise about 44 percent of U.S.  post-secondary students, but many millions more need post-secondary credentials to succeed economically.  As a growing numbers of adults are participating in post-secondary and work-related courses; as many as 37 million adults are interested but unable to participate.  The vast majority of adult learners are financially independent, work part or full-time, have dependents and must juggle many responsibilities. (Kazis, Callahan, Davidson, McLeod, Bosworth, & Choitz , 2007) Understanding the unique needs of adult learners is critical to designing higher education systems and policies that support this population and promote their success (Department of Education, 2007).

Based on both personal accounts and an informal review of instructor evaluations, students enrolled in online courses noted that delivery communication with their professors seemed outmoded and ineffectual.  Rather than utilize emerging Web 2.0 communication technologies, many professors choose only to employ the standard communication tools provided and required by the online college.  Rather than using Dipity and Prezi to generate creative and engaging presentations, there is an insistence to cling to Microsoft PowerPoint.  Rather than using Jing to share desktop videos instantly, text-based seminars with limited audio and chatting capabilities is preferred.  The result is a dry and unimaginative online experience for the student.

From the educator perspective, based upon professor feedback, the learning curve associated with keeping abreast of trends in online technologies is too steep and the results of this effort are uncertain.  Although emerging technologies promise streamlined work flows and new features, once these technologies are learned and adopted, their relevance can soon become obsolete and retrograde.  Professors find it virtually impossible to determine whether a current online trend will become foundational or will simply fall to the wayside.  Many feel that their only alternative is to cling onto older, more established communication tools as technological fads come and go.  Professors should see change as necessary to survive in this evolving society.  Such change will not only be beneficial to the college, but will help with job security.

Web 2.0 tools can be used to resolve one of the “missing links” in online education: collaborative communication.  According to Hastings (2009), “One of the benefits of collaborating using Web 2.0 services is that it does not matter where in the world a collaborator is working - everyone can access and contribute equally.”  (p.  16).  This increased communication can work to lessen the “virtual gap” between instructor and student in the online environment.  Web 2.0 tools such as Dipity, Jing and Prezi have become integral to the online learning environment.  The solution to this problem is to provide instruction in these tools, so that professors no longer feel intimidated by the technology and online communication between professors and students will have increased efficacy.

Web 2.0 Tools

Dipity.  Dipity (http://www.dipity.com/) is an online timeline tool that supports text, hyperlinks, YouTube videos and Flickr photos.  The Dipity platform provides easy-to-create and easy-to-share interactive timelines that provide both collaboration and discussion board capabilities.

Jing.  Jing (http://www.techsmith.com/jing/) is an online conversation tool for both synchronous and asynchronous communication that can enhance online seminars, presentations and feedback with students on tests and projects.  With Jing, you can take a screenshot of the desktop or create a simple step-by-step tutorial video.  You can share these videos via Web link, e-mail, instant message, Twitter or through a blog.

Prezi.  Prezi (http://prezi.com/) is an online presentation tool to organize ideas using graphics, videos and text across a virtually infinite canvas .  Content can include geometric organizers like arrows and frames, hyperlinks, YouTube videos and uploaded photos.  Camera animation is also easy to implement.  Presentations can be embedded or shared via Web link, Facebook, Twitter or e-mail.

Target Audience

Adult Learners in Higher Education.  According to a questionnaire survey, over 90 percent of the adult students surveyed preferred combining lecture and discussion together in instruction.  Of these students, 80 percent wanted the instructor to provide a syllabus, while 60 percent preferred an outline for each lecture.  Over 50 percent preferred the instructor to determine the actual course content and learning goals (Check, 1984). 

Women have constituted the fastest growing segment of adult students (Solmon and Gordon 1981).  Adult students are likely to be from a working class background and are likely to be first generation college students whose parents did not attend college.  The largest group of adult students are professional and technical workers.  Clerical workers are next and managers and administrators are third in the number of courses for which they enrolled (Eurich, 1985).

Learner Characteristics and Assumptions.  To understand college professors in an online environment, the instruction must address adult learning theory and its relationship to distance or learning online.  Most adults were taught in traditional and passive classrooms (Cercone, K.  2008).  One of the most well-known theories is Malcolm S.  Knowles’ learning theory of andragogy, the art and science of helping adults learn (Cercone, K.  2008).  It is grounded by the humanistic learning theory that contains a model with five assumptions:

1.                           The first assumption – Underlying andragogy refers to adult learners’ independent self-concept and ability to direct their own learning (Knowles, 1984).  Adult learners are independent and self-directed.  Adults prefer autonomy; younger students prefer dependence (Schwartz, 1985).

2.                           The second assumption – “An adult accumulates a growing reservoir of experience, which is a rich resource for learning” (Merriam & Caffarella, 1992).  Adults want to learn new skills or new information which can be put to use immediately in their personal lives or in their jobs (Preston, Burnham, Wendell, 1986).

3.                           The third assumption – “The readiness of an adult to learn is closely related to the developmental tasks of his or her social role” (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999)

4.                           The fourth assumption – “There is a change in time perspective as people mature- from future application of knowledge to immediacy of application.  Thus an adult is adult is more problem centered than subject centered in learning” (Merriam & Caffarella, 1992).  Adults view education as a means to an end, not as an end in itself (Zemke & Zemke, 1981).  Adults are motivated by knowing that some need will be met by learning and material.

5.                           The fifth assumption – Adults are motivated to learn by internal factors rather than external ones” (Merriam & Caffarella, 1992).  Factors like job satisfaction and self-esteem are important.

Design Implications.  Implications for adult learners related to social and psychological differences are: differences in age, gender, socio-economic group, previous education, work and family responsibilities, and motivations and barriers to attending college (Kelly, D.  1986). 

Three major types of barriers, which may prevent adults from attending college, are situational, institutional, and dispositional (Cross, 1981).   Sewall's study (1986) shows that those three factors account for 59 percent of the most pressing reasons for delaying entry to college.  Situational barriers are those which arise out of a particular time and may include the costs of attending college, hours spent working, and family responsibilities.  Institutional barriers may include the course offerings, marketing of programs, the times at which courses are offered, the length of the semester,  the methods of registration,  and the academic standards for enrollment.  Poor attitudes of faculty and administration can also pose institutional barriers for adult college students.  Dispositional barriers are those imposed on the student by the student:  poor time management, poor study skills, low self-esteem, boredom, lack of curiosity, lack of energy, and fear of going to college.

Survey.  To evaluate previous assumptions of the target audience, Team Brilliant surveyed 15 Kaplan University professors within the Education program using a Survey Monkey (http://www.surveymonkey) questionnaire.  The results of the questionnaire confirmed most assumptions, but also provided additional insights into preferred learning styles and prior knowledge.

Of the technological prerequisites, all professors expressed high proficiency with only discussion boards, while approximately half of respondents had only familiarity with blogs and HTML.  In regards to JavaScript and object embedding, most professors had no experience whatsoever.  By a large margin, professors do not maintain their own Web sites, although a little more than half expressed some familiarity with Web 2.0 tools.  Most professors had used Jing (though half of those indicated only rare usage), but a much smaller minority have used Prezi and over 80% had never used Dipity.
 

Slightly more than half of the professors were kinesthetic learners that work individually, while all but one professor preferred visual aids to accompany instruction.  Because the margin was surprisingly close, the instructional approach must consider detailed scaffolding to accompany hands-on activities, and include both individual and group assessment components.

Learning Outcomes

●                  Learners will be able to perform basic tasks with the Web 2.0 tools Dipity, Jing and Prezi.

●                  Learners will be able to integrate existing Web 2.0 tools into their virtual classroom experience.

●                  Learners will be able to collaborate with other learners to share best practices and strategies when using Web 2.0 tools.

Objectives

1.       Learners will be able to perform basic tasks with the Web 2.0 tools Dipity, Jing and Prezi.

1.                   Given specific event dates and access to other online media resources, learners can create, contribute and share a timeline using Dipity that includes hyperlinks and other online multimedia.

2.                   Given a procedural task, learners can create and share a Jing screencast that includes screenshots and limited collaborative capabilities.

3.                   Given an existing PowerPoint presentation script, learners can create and share a Prezi presentation that includes grouping, animation and media elements.

2.       Learners will be able to integrate existing Web 2.0 tools into their virtual classroom experience.

1.                   Given a Web 2.0 tool, learners can determine at least three different scenarios in which to apply the tool effectively.  Each application rubric will consist of creativity and effectiveness for generative and collaborative classroom environments.

2.                   Given an assignment and hypothetical scenario for a specified Web 2.0 tool, learners will create a project that meets 70% of the stated assignment rubric.  Each assignment rubric will consist of creativity, organization and incorporation of media elements.

3.       Learners will be able to collaborate with other learners to share best practices and strategies when using Web 2.0 tools.

1.                   Given a group assignment, learners will brainstorm with other faculty members to determine the best topic for their projects.

2.                   The learner will suggest at least three possible applications in the classroom for how to combine Prezi, Dipity and Jing into one presentation and share these suggestions with other learners.

3.                   Given community sites and forums for Web 2.0 tools, learners will find at least three suggestions to share with other learners and contribute at least two posts to each community site or forum.

Analysis.  According to the instructional analysis domains provided by Smith and Ragan (2005) and the Bloom's taxonomy model updated by Cochran and Conklin (2007), the objectives can be classified as follows:

1.                   The first objective is primarily concerned with the procedural learning domain, because all tasks are based upon a systematic process.  Smith and Ragan (2005) point out that instructional strategies for the procedural learning domain may include those utilized for declarative knowledge and principle learning domains.  Within the sub-objectives (1.1, 1.2 and 1.3), using the actual Web 2.0 applications to generate productions will also involve to a lesser degree problem-solving and cognitive learning domains.  Although the first objective clearly relates to the Bloom Level 3 because it requires learners to apply their knowledge to create productions, the creative act itself approaches Bloom Levels 5 and 6.  In order to create a production on a unique topic, learners must both synthesize learned procedures and evaluate the best procedure to yield the desired result.

2.                   The second objective is primarily concerned with the principle and problem-solving learning domains.  Within the sub-objectives (2.1 and 2.2), learners will need to determine when to use and the most effective application of Web 2.0 tools.  The objective falls under Bloom Levels 5 and 6.  Both sub-objectives require users to synthesize learned principles and evaluate their most affective applications.

3.                   The third objective is primarily concerned with the cognitive learning domain.  Each of the three sub-objectives encourages learners to incorporated collaboration into their learning process.  This inclusion is intended to foster increased group participation and additional networking among learners beyond the instruction.  The objective falls under Bloom Levels 5 and 6.  All three sub-objectives require users to synthesize learned principles, evaluate their most affective applications, and share findings among their peers.

Instructional Strategies

General Approaches.  Our instructional goals will include the following aspects (Lebow, 1993):

●              Context for learning that supports autonomy and information-relatedness

●              Structures and strategies for self-regulated learning

●              Engagement with intentional and meaningful learning processes

Specifically, we will utilize the C-4 model and instructional scaffolding as strategies to achieve these goals.

The C-4 model is a collaborative project strategy comprised of four components: challenge, choice, collaboration and creation (Smith & Ragan, 2005).  Our Web 2.0 projects will offer learners choices, challenges their knowledge of using these tools, and provides an opportunity for creative output.  By sharing their projects and knowledge with other learners, we are facilitating collaboration as well.  By providing an existing PowerPoint presentation and other resources as learners begin using these Web 2.0 tools, we are providing a high degree of scaffolding initially.  This scaffolding supports higher-level learning, so that students can elaborate further on complex ideas that would be otherwise beyond their grasp if they depended solely on their own cognitive resource (Greenfield, 1984).

Computer assisted instruction (CAI) and computer based training will be utilized to help learners integrate Dipity, Jing and Prezi into the classroom.  Computer assisted instruction is when students learn at their own pace with interactive computer programs.  Three didactic questions will be utilized to help create three scenarios.  A rubric containing a point system for four categories; creativity, organization, media and tools, will be implemented for performance and achievement.

Whether under a traditional or recent rubric, contextualized, relevant problems are central to motivated, meaningful, and transferable learning.  Computer-based training can provide good tools for practice, because automated programs can constantly interact with learners, asking them to respond and then checking the accuracy of responses (Smith & Ragan, 2005).

Learners will use group-based instruction, to implement mastery learning of best practices with Web 2.0 tools during the documentation phase on a blog.  Web logging, or blogging, is a form of online reporting and journaling that gives anyone an opportunity to publish on the Internet.  Blogs can be excellent tools for student reflections about course content or reporting activities in a student teaching experience (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright and Zvacek, 2009).

Media Recommendations.  Most of the instructional implementation will depend upon the existing KU system, so all existing technologies such as course wikis, blogs and discussion boards will be utilized fully.  In addition to the delivery system, we will also use quick reference guides, production examples, training recording and replay features, and community-related references to support instruction.

Quick reference guides will be developed and provided for all three Web 2.0 technologies.  These guides will serve to help the students after the training if they get overwhelmed with the technologies and as easy resources for hard-to-remember features.

A PowerPoint deck for the first Prezi project will be given to the learner so as to emphasize the transfer of knowledge and decrease technology intimidation.  The learner will use the PowerPoint deck to create a Prezi presentation that contains at least four graphics and one video, keeping in mind the redundancy, visual and modality principles of (Clark, 2008).

Online training sessions will be recorded and archived for future reference.  Sussex (2008) reported, “A combination of media, involving maximum immediacy and personal interaction combined with recording for later review, has been shown in practice to yield the richest and most flexible supervision.” (p.  121).

Students will also be directed to tutorials that are already available online, such as user and product help sites for Jing, Dipity, and Prezi.  Educator communities are also available for many of these technologies.  These forums serve not only to help with learning the technologies, but they also encourage collaboration among educators and additional ideas for using the tools.

Objective Strategies.  In the first objective, students will be introduced to existing productions and detailed task-by-task tutorials of each Web 2.0 technology.  For the Dipity tool, students will be provided an existing Dipity timeline and given simple tasks to add and modify events.  After describing how to create and share a Dipity timeline, students will be given a group assignment in which to demonstrate their understanding.  For the Jing tool, learners will participate in a seminar using Jing and participate in its collaborative features from their student’s perspective.  After describing how to create a Jing screencast and use other relevant features, students will create their own Jing screencasts and share these productions with other students.  For the Prezi tool, learners will be provided an existing Prezi presentation introducing them to its features.  After describing how to create, share and implement grouping, animation and media elements in a Prezi presentation, students will convert an existing PowerPoint presentation as a group assignment.

The second objective focuses on the applicability of learned Web 2.0 skills, rather than task performance.  In this objective, students will share their observations with each other using the discussion board and wiki and blog posts.  As a final assessment, students will work in a group assignment that will consist of a common hypothetical scenario for a Web 2.0 tool.  The group members will be assigned based on their chosen Web 2.0 tool.  The groups will share their project assignment and solicit feedback on their designs.  A portion of the rubric will contain a peer evaluation.

The third objective expands learned Web 2.0 skills with shared collaboration.  Besides sharing further observations with the virtual classroom, students will be presented standard communities and forums in which to participate and grow their experience in using Web 2.0 tools.  Classroom assignments will include group assignments divided by faculty department to foster increased exchange between professors after the course has concluded.

Evaluation Plan

Evaluation serves two purposes in instructional design: to assess individual learner performance and to assess the overall effectiveness of the instructional design and implementation  (Smith & Ragan, 2005).

The main purpose of our evaluation will be to ensure that learners can meet the stated learning outcomes.  The first learning outcome is procedural in nature and can be best evaluated using a project-based approach in the instruction itself.  Multiple unit pre-tests and  post-tests can confirm that these steps have been internalized and remembered, but a project will demonstrate actual usage.  The last two learning outcomes will need to be assessed at the conclusion of the instruction.  Although discussion board assignments will encourage the third learning outcome, the last two learning outcomes will require a voluntary reporting and survey mechanism in the field.  These mechanisms will also provide the basis for our summative evaluation.

Because our design team includes two Kaplan University members who are both familiar with the KU system and online delivery, a former corporate instructor who has trained university faculty and current Kaplan graduate students and Web 2.0 tool users, our design document is constantly reviewed, discussed and revised in each of our meetings.  These meetings perform the role of design and expert reviews in the formative evaluation process (Smith & Ragan, 2005).  As each component of the design document is developed, we submit them for a one-on-one review with our IX510 professor, Sue Hutchinson.

One goal is that professors will become comfortable in using Web tools 2.0 on a regular basis to enhance student learning, which is  difficult to measure since an attitudinal  adjustment is subjective in nature.  However, it can be observed.  Thus, the designers must have access to the professors' future online classrooms and monitor future implementation of the tools.  To think in terms of using available tools, learners must continually research the most current tools available and network with each other to see what other professors are using, or have discovered.  Therefore, the designers wish to encourage the learners to maintain either a discussion board, blog, or wiki and regularly access it to brainstorm or network.  Since we will be observing the learners in their own environment at the conclusion of the course, we will not be in danger of conducting the evaluation too early in the implementation of the instructional program (Smith and Ragan, 2005).

Related to the first goal, professors should also correctly apply the continuity, modality and redundancy principles to their application of Web 2.0 tools.  Continuity has to do with placement of the graphic close to the corresponding text that explains the graphic so the student does not have to search for which parts of a graphic correspond to which words, which wastes limited cognitive resources to understanding the materials.  When words and pictures are separated from one another on the screen, people must use their scarce cognitive resources just to match them up.  Continuity also has to do with using relevant graphics, that is, pictures that pertain to the learning objective.  When it is feasible to use audio, there is considerable evidence that presenting words in audio, rather than on-screen text, results in significant learning gains, which has to do with modality (Clark & Mayer, 2008).  Using audio allows the learner to focus on the visual while listening to the explanation.  The redundancy principle contends that people learn better from concurrent graphics and audio than from concurrent graphics, audio, and on-screen text.  Thus, do not add printed text to a narrated graphic, unless the subject is very complex and students are unfamiliar with the terminology.  In this case, just have the printed word on a screen and have the presenter to say the word to emphasize the pronunciation.

Issues in Evaluation.  Formative evaluation involves the designer evaluating the material of the instruction, looking for weaknesses, making revisions to make the instruction more effective an efficient.  If weaknesses are found in the materials or instruction, it can prohibit the learner from successfully reaching the objectives of the instruction.  Formative evaluation would not be appropriate for those materials that were not designed to foster achievement of specified learning goals.  Such materials include the traditional textbook that is written as an aid to learning a variety of objectives (Smith and Ragan, 2005).

During the design review if the instructional goals do not reflect a satisfactory response  to the problems identified in the needs assessment, goals and objectives will not be met.  Issues also include the task analysis not including all the prerequisite skills and knowledge needed to perform the learning goals.  During goal review, issues will arise if the goal does not meet an instructional need.  During task analysis review, if the target audience doesn’t have entry level skills and are not confirmed through a pre-evaluation, then neither the formative and summative evaluation will accurately measure expectations or results. 

Additional issues with formative evaluation include not knowing the target audience well and not picking the appropriate materials, content not being accurate, up-to-date or persistent, examples and exercises are not relevant to the learner context, or are not consistent with the principles of instructional theory (Smith and Ragan, 2005).

Summative evaluation involves the actual materials already implemented and evaluated in terms of effectiveness in order  to provide data for decision makers who may adopt or continue to use the materials.  One common error in conducting summative evaluations that causes them to yield fallacious data is conducting the evaluation too early in the implementation of the instructional program (Smith and Ragan, 2005).  Many times in evaluation studies, it is not possible to eliminate all of the factors that might threaten internal and external validity, because there is not a logical relationship among the payoff outcomes.  Kearsley (1986) examined several of these factors, namely: costs avoided as a result of problems such as overruns, overtime, or employee turnover, increased output in sales/orders, production rate, or the number of transactions processed.

Data.  For the formative evaluation process in the design phase, the main reliance is on informal comments from team members and our IX510 professor.  As each asset is developed for instruction, there will be at least one assigned or voluntary KU professor that will review the material closer.  These assets will have tracked changes enabled, so that the professors can make changes and comments as needed and/or desired.  A short questionnaire will assess their overall approval of the asset using a simple three-point scale rubric: 1 meaning failure, 2 indicating basic functionality and 3 providing an exemplary score.  All changes in the asset will be evaluated before they are accepted.  Combining the overall rubric with a subjective evaluation of each comment will generate an overall score that will determine the priority of addressing the particular concern.  Any asset that has an overall rubric of 1 must be redesigned or seriously revised and re-evaluated by that KU professor again.

The summative evaluation process will rely heavily on individual reports and surveys from professors and their students.  To ensure that professors are using Web 2.0 tools in their virtual classroom and to what extent, their current students must report this information.  Ideally, the reporting process would require only an email response from students, indicating the usage and frequency of Web 2.0 tools per class.  At least one student per class taught by that professor will need to be recruited.  To ensure that professors are continuing their collaboration effort beyond the course’s conclusion, the instructor will facilitate at least two brainstorming sessions and make a simple pass/fail determination on their effectiveness.

Objective Assessments.  These assessments will evaluate the first learning outcome, namely that learners will demonstrate how to use the basic features of Web 2.0 tools Dipity, Jing and Prezi.  In the first objective, the following rubric will be the basis for assessing individual projects using these Web 2.0 tools: (continued onto next page)

Category	1	2	3
Continuity	Exceeds the following requirements: Media elements pertain to the learning objective. Visual media elements are located closely to their associated textual elements.	Meets the following requirements: Media elements pertain to the learning objective. Visual media elements are located closely to their associated textual elements	Does not meet the following requirements: Media elements pertain to the learning objective. Visual media elements are located closely to their associated textual elements.
Modality	Provides excellent organization and choice of media elements.	Provides minimal organization and limited use of media elements.	There is little organization and only a few or no examples of media elements.
Redundancy	All media elements are used effectively and appropriately.  Animation and narration do not include on-screen text.	Most media elements are used effectively and appropriately.  Animation and narration do not include on-screen text.	Too many redundant media elements are used and could compete with the learner's attention.

For the remaining objectives, the following rubric will be a basis for evaluation of discussion board posts:

Category	1	2	3
Knowledge	Student successfully applies sufficient concepts, facts, and ideas from readings and community forums.	Student attempts to apply some concepts, facts, and ideas from readings and community forums; some key points may be missing or misinterpreted.	Student fails to apply sufficient concepts, facts, and ideas from readings and community forums.
Contribution	Student’s posts contribute significantly to the depth and evolution of the discussion.	Student’s posts contribute somewhat to the depth and evolution of the discussion.	Student’s posts fail to contribute to the depth and evolution of the discussion.
Redundancy	Student provides a high level of reciprocal engagement with other participants.  Postings and replies are made throughout the academic week.	Student provides a moderate level of reciprocal engagement with other participants.	Student fails to provide appropriate level of reciprocal engagement with other participants.

Summative Assessments.  Before addressing summative evaluation, all learners will need to take a brief questionnaire to verify their current computer literacy level.  The questionnaire will require learners to rate their proficiency in the following skills (Christensen, 1997):

●              Using electronic mail and an internet browser.

●              Using search engines and saving Web pages as bookmarks.

●              Printing Web pages and saving Web graphics.

●              Authoring and publishing Web pages .

●              Integrating Web content and tools into instruction.

Also, the questionnaire will require learners to categorize their general computer knowledge and indicate their purpose in taking the course.  Because the last learning outcome is primarily an attitudinal adjustment, the questionnaire will further inquire into existing capacities to fuse and transform technologies and facilitate instruction of these technologies (Christensen, 1997).

The first assessment will directly evaluate the second learning outcome, namely that learners will use at least one Web 2.0 tools in their virtual classroom within the next ten weeks.  Students will be sent this survey after completing a KU course with one of the learners.  The survey will be hosted by Survey Monkey at the URL http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/87SNTQT and includes the following question:

Please rate the professors proficiency with Web 2.0 tools (Dipity, Jing and Prezi) based on the following statements: (Not Applicable, Disagree, Somewhat Agree, and Completely Agree)

●              Usage of the Web 2.0 tool(s) met clearly-defined objectives.

●              Dipity timeline(s) were clearly labeled and easy-to-follow.

●              Dipity timeline(s) contained audio/visual elements that were interesting.

●              The instructor's voice and cadence was animating and interesting in Jing presentation(s).

●              The instructor's usage of images and other media elements in the Jing presentation(s) made the content easier to understand.

●              Prezi presentation(s) were clearly organized and easy-to-follow.

●              Prezi presentation(s) contained audio/visual elements that were interesting.

●              Overall, the instructor was proficient with creating and sharing Dipity timelines.

●              Overall, the instructor was proficient with creating and hosting Jing screencasts and presentations.

●              Overall, the instructor was proficient with creating and sharing Prezi presentations.

●              The instructor was able to answer the majority of questions I had with these Web 2.0 tools.

The third and final learning outcome, namely that learners will collaborate best practices and strategies of using Web 2.0 tools within each department, will be addressed by an informal evaluation of the instructor as facilitator.  After the course concludes professors from each department must schedule at least two brainstorming meetings within six weeks with others in their department.  These scheduled meetings must be attended by the instructor and will either be judged as effective or ineffective.  If determined to be ineffective, then this learning outcome has not been accomplished.

Limitations.  Several limitations were identified to the existing evaluation plan.  There definitely exists a possibility that the formative assessment phase will rely on subjective comments.  We have sought to neutralize this concern by using a focused rubric based on the principles of continuity, modality and redundancy principles.

Although a preliminary survey was given, addressing the basic computer literacy of professors, there may be issues that the designers have not anticipated.  Based upon the results of that survey, it is relatively certain that little computer knowledge can be assumed.  Thus, each lesson will need to have a pre-test to address this knowledge or lack thereof and provide a brief overview of related basic skills before instruction of Web 2.0 tools can proceed.

The reliability of professors addressing their own capabilities with Web 2.0 tools has been addressed by having their students perform the evaluation.  However, there are inherent issues with having students report of their instructors.  Specifically, students have a vested interest to report positively as their professors will be evaluating their performance in the course.  Personal bias against the instructor or subject matter may also unduly influence the evaluation as well.

Although professors will be exposed to Web 2.0 communities and forums and will be expected to collaborate to perform group assignments, there is no guarantee that professors will continue these trends after the course concludes.  The collaborative fruit of applying a Web 2.0 tool effectively will be judged by the student evaluation, but there is no comparable evaluation to assess the collaborative element singly.  The reliability of professors evaluating themselves was considered too uncertain.  By grouping professors by department, encouraging collaboration through traditional academic channels and requiring professors to join Web 2.0 communities in the course, it is expected that it will be easier to maintain these expectations, than to abandon them when the course is completed.  Although they will not be monitored, the instructor will serve as a facilitator for brainstorming meetings after the course concludes.

Design and Development Implications

Design.  Based upon these characteristics, the importance of these Web 2.0 tools must be emphasized instruction and contextual examples provided that relate directly to the professors’ curricula.  The delivery mechanism must be simple and intuitive to use, so as to avoid further intimidation and learner discouragement.

Although the instructional strategy must be clearly defined and structured, collaboration between colleagues should be encouraged to emphasize potential student scenarios, but also to facilitate an ongoing synergy between learners.  In collaboration, students should be grouped by education department whenever possible.  All of these elements indicate a constructivist approach.

Even though adult learners are rarely motivated by external factors, offering a $5,000.00 bonus to the first instructor to meet the learning goal will provide a level of professional competition common to academia.  Also, professional recognition including a certificate and ceremony should be incorporated into the final assessment.

Development.  By using the existing KU platform and pre-built Web 2.0 tools, we are reducing the resources involved in framework and delivery development.  Most of the development effort will focus on actual content and assignment scenarios.  Much of this content can be added by instructors without the need for additional instructional design hours.  Because many of our tutorial resources are provided by third-party communities and forums, the content should provide adequate reference and directing activities to these tutorials and their originating Web sites.

Group projects will require active postings and consistent moderation using the current KU discussion board mechanism.  These expectations will need to be developed further and codified.  One step further could be taken by redesigning the Wiki to allow learners to edit HTML code so that presentations can be embedded.
References

Cercone, K.(2008).  Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online learning design, AACE Journal, 16(2), 137-159.

Check, J. (1984).  Teaching-Learning Preferences of the Adult Learner.  Paper presented at the National Adult Education Conference, Louisville, Kentucky :  November, 1984.

Christensen, R. (1997).  Impact of Technology Integration Education on the Attitudes of Teachers and Their Students.  Doctoral Dissertation: University of North Texas.

Clark, R.C. & Mayer, R.  E.,(2008).  Learning together.  In M.  Davis' (Ed.), E-learning and the science of instruction.  San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Cochran, D., & Conklin, J. (2007).  A New Bloom: Transforming Learning.  Learning & Leading with Technology, 34(5), 22-25.

Cross, K.P. (1981).  Adults as Learners:  Increasing Participation and Facilitating Learning.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.

Department of Education, (2007).  http://www.jff.org/Documents/adultlearners.dol.pdf.

Eurich, N.P. (1985).  Corporate Classrooms.  Princeton, N.J.:  The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Greenfield, P.M. (1984).  A theory of the teacher in the learning activities of everyday life.  Everyday cognition (pp.  117-138).  Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press.

Hastings, R. (2009).  Collaboration 2.0.  Library Technology Reports, 45(4), 16-18.  Retrieved from Professional Development Collection database.

Kazis, R., Callahan, A., Davidson, C., McLeod, A., Bosworth, B., & Choitz, V. (2007).  Adult Learners in Higher Education: Barriers to Success and Strategies to Improve Results.  Employment and Training Administration.  Occasional Paper 2007-03.  Jobs for the Future, Retrieved from ERIC database.

Kearsley, G. (April, 1986).  Analyzing the costs and benefits of training:  Part 2:  Identifying the costs and benefits.  Performance and Instruction, 25(3), 23-25.

Kelly, D.K. (1986).  Adult Learners:  Implications for Faculty.  Fullerton College.

Knowles, M. (1984).  Andragogy in Action.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.

LeBow, D. (1993).  Constructivist Values for Instructional Systems Design: Five Principles Toward New Mindset.  ETR&O, 4(3)(pp.  4-6).

Merriam, S.B., & Caffarella, R.S. (1999).  Learning in adulthood (2nd Ed.) San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.

Preston, Burnham & Wendell (1986).  Adult Learners:  Implications for Faculty.

Schwartz, Y.K. (1985).  Undergraduates as Adult Communicators:  A Life Skills Model for Curriculum Change.  Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Denver, Colorado, November 7-10, 1985.

Sewell, T.J. (1986).  Nontraditionals in Traditional Setting:  Why Older Adults Return to College.

Simonson, Smaldino, Albright & Zvacek (2009).  Teaching and Learning at a Distance (4th ed.).  Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Smith, P. & Ragan, T. (2005).  Instructional design (3rd ed.).  Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Solomon, L.C. & Gordon, J.J. (1981).  The Characteristics and Needs of Adults in Postsecondary Education.  Lexington, Mass.:  Lexington Books.

Sussex, R. (2008).  Technological options in supervising remote research students.  Higher Education,55(1), 121-137.  doi:10.1007/s10734-006-9038-0.

Zemke, R. & Zemke, S. (1981, June).  30 Things We Know For Sure About Adult Learning.  Abstracted from  Training:  The Magazine of Human Resources Development, Innovation Abstracts, 6, (8), March 1984.