EDUC 765: Final Reflection Paper

Megan Kappel

University of Wisconsin-Stout

March 2, 2018
Describe the decisions made along the way with the ID model, why you selected the motivational theories
employed, the learning theories utilized, and the learning theories you subscribe to and why. How does the task
analysis and learner characteristics affect the learning theory employed or the project as a whole, if at all?
Describe your thoughts on instructional design as a systematic process.

My decisions throughout the course design were driven by each discovery made (such as the argument made for
the instructional need based on analysis of previous terms) and the goal of adhering to our course objectives are
carefully and comprehensively as possible. In reference to motivational theories, learners in the course already
have the extrinsic motivator of receiving a grade, but I selected Keller’s ARCS Model of Motivation as the
motivational theory for this course because of its emphasis on relevance and confidence. First, many of the
students are pursuing majors with courses that focus on theory and/or critical thinking skills; students are drawn
to courses in the Public and Professional Writing Program specifically for their focus on real-world application.
This aligns well with the relevance step of ARCS. Second, front-end analysis of this instruction led to the
realization that students may bring a sense of discomfort or embarrassment with the performative nature of this
task (since it involves persuasive public speaking). ARCS uses strategies to encourage confidence. Small steps
facilitate self-growth and help students overcome the obstacle of discomfort (Pappas, 2015). They are also
motivated to succeed because they can exercise control over the focus of the project (an advertising campaign),
therefore ensuring their interest in the topic. Lastly, I find the ARCS Model to be very practical in its four-step
sequence and subordinate strategies, especially perceptual arousal, specific examples, active participation, and
humor. I aim to create a supportive learning environment that possesses these characteristics, so ARCS most
easily translated for the purposes of this course design.

The learning theories utilized in this course were mostly based in cognitivism because the course content
demands understanding of its fundamental principles (how to make oral delivery persuasive) before moving
forward with practicing their uses in context (the actual delivery of oral persuasion). Variations of situated
learning, cognitive flexibility theory, and cognitive theory of multimedia learning would work best for this
course. First, situated learning seeks to achieve knowledge acquisition through a community of practice, which
has the multi-purpose advantage of improving learner retention, transfer, and comfort (Culatta, 2015b). Second,
students have some background in persuasion (usually in the form of writing argument essays) but cognitive
flexibility theory would enable students to restructure their thinking based on variables including the topic being
pitched, the time frame, and—most importantly—non-verbal audience feedback during the pitch’s delivery. The
learning principles of cognitive flexibility theory also encourage multiple representations of content and the
interconnectedness of knowledge sources (Culatta, 2015a). Successful pitching requires a combination hard and
soft skills, so this theory lends itself to the holistic nature of the skill learners will practice. Finally, cognitive
theory of multimedia learning serves the multimedia component of the course and the use of visual aids that
may accompany the pitches.

Personally, I subscribe to cognitive and constructivist learning theories that stress exploration, collaboration,
self-discovery, creative problem solving, relevance, and application in context. I believe learners benefit from
the challenges and advantages of freedom and diversity in their learning experiences. With this in mind, I
readily see applicable uses for experiential learning, situated learning, elaboration theory, originality, functional
context theory, and lateral thinking.

Learner characteristics and task analysis gave way to the idea that these learners were really in the novice stage
of their learning for this type of assignment. As stated in my course design document, students have marginal
experience with speaking assignments, and likely little to no experience with oral persuasion. This reshaped for
me where the starting point of instruction should be, which was much more rudimentary than I expected.
Conducting a task analysis did exactly what it should do for subject matter experts; it forced me to really see the
series of steps involved in the content/instruction with fresh eyes and appreciate those areas where I was making
big assumptions, glossing over important foundational concepts, using poor pacing, or using pre-instructional
strategies that were not aligned with the course objectives. This step was a real eye-opener! This breakdown
allowed me to see where the principles of cognitive theory of multimedia learning could be employed most
effectively (with the enabling objective of assessing which visual aid mediums work best in specific scenarios)
and introduced me to the notion that some of the course modules leading up to this pitch assignment would
require the use of situated learning to build the foundation of a community of practice.

Over the last eight weeks, I have come to appreciate the iterative and interconnected nature of instructional
design as a systematic process. Each opportunity to reflect on the stages of the ID process or the choices I made
in my course design has illuminated another connection for me I hadn’t realized. I see instructional design as a
universally valuable process, discipline, science, and reality for not just designers, teachers, and trainers, but for
anyone who wants to understand any concept more fully. To use a metaphor to explain, it is astonishing to me
that some film theory instructors have no concept of screenwriting principles. If they are unaware of the driving
forces that make the story work, how can they analyze the story fully? The self-awareness of knowing how one
learns can be as equally beneficial as the learning itself, and will likely enrich it.

What are some significant ways in which you will expand the use of ID in your current position? What were the
most valuable concepts/ideas gained during the course? What was the most valuable, most fun, or most
interesting activity during the course? How will this course impact your instructional design?
I see everything this course had to offer as the framework and sequence for how to approach and appreciate
instructional design, and I intend to come back to it again and again as my template upon which I will build and
add new knowledge (elaboration theory, anyone?). While I am tempted to say everything I have learned
throughout the course has been valuable, primarily because it has, I believe the research-based best practices in
the textbook and course modules have been extremely helpful. For example, short statements like “A balance is
needed between the picture and the activity, as overprompting the learner is also detrimental to learning from
the picture (Winn & Holiday, 1982)” demonstrated that these suggestions are grounded in evidence or expert
theory, giving me confidence in not just the overarching concepts, but also in the optimal ways in which to
apply those concepts (Morrison, Ross, Kalman, & Kemp, 2013).

Relating to my current position, the most valuable tools have been learner entry characteristics and task analysis
(along with the concepts of step size and appropriate pacing). With them in my arsenal, I am able to quickly and
systematically remind myself of the extent of student exposure to course concepts/skills prior to instruction and
to calibrate my instruction accordingly and, again, systematically. I have applied them quite a few times over
the last month or so in my current courses and have already seen dramatic differences in the level of my
students’ motivation and confidence in their understanding of concepts learned, which in turn allowed us to get
to more complex thinking and ideas earlier in the term. This summer, I am slated to teach a continuing
education course for adults ages 50+. I am looking forward to using front-end analysis in a more comprehensive
way as I develop the course content and compare and evaluate the resulting differences from past continuing
education courses I have taught.

Also, using learning theories and instructional design theories equipped me with the vocabulary and conceptual
basis for why and how I do certain instinctual things when developing and delivering instruction. This has
enabled me to foster those practices that enhance effective and efficient planning and creating of instruction and
weed out those that were detrimental or not aligned with course objectives or my specific audience of learners.

I loved creating the T-charts and the short reflections. Even when I felt overwhelmed by the scope of the
concepts, terminology, and relationships to other models/theories, the very act of having to sort out details in a
comparative format was extremely effective in learning the content. The process of creating the T-chart forced
me to make order out of chaos, or practical sense out of abstraction. Given my understanding of Bloom’s
Taxonomy, creating a T-chart combines remembering and understanding, while the accompanying reflection
serves as a blend of applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. Plus, I had ownership over which models to
compare (hey, what a great example of learner control from Keller’s ARCS Model!), which gave me the
freedom to choose models/theories that felt the most interesting, relevant, and comfortable. But the byproduct of
that searching was familiarity with many more models/theories than I likely would not have retained if I was
simply expected to read about them one after the other in a textbook. The act of picking and choosing, exploring
and deciding, was very informative indeed.

What questions/concerns do you have about using instructional design? Where will you go to answer these
questions/concerns? What information do you still want to learn about instructional design?

I don’t have many lingering questions related to the topics covered in this first course; I am confident in my
understanding of front-end analysis, learning theories, motivational theories, task analysis, and writing terminal
and enabling objectives. In the last couple of weeks, I have been more consistent with my ID job searches to see
what opportunities are available and to continue observing patterns in key competencies. This first course and
those real job descriptions reinforced the importance of knowing and applying different instructional design
models and adult learning theory, so I hope to broaden and solidify my experience in both, as well as my
exposure to and retention of the many learning theories we were introduced to this term.

This brings me to my first concern. I selected my course design topic based on an instructional need that I saw
in my current work as a writing instructor for undergraduate students. I am concerned that the work I have thus
far produced will appear one-dimensional to potential employers, as if I am able to develop effective instruction
for the college classroom but not prepared for projects in corporate settings. To address this concern, I will try
to diversify the topics of any subsequent projects we complete throughout the certificate. I may also spend some
of my own time this summer creating a second course design that speaks more directly to instructional design
scenarios outside of higher education. I am very grateful for the course design template for this purpose.

My second, and possibly more significant, concern is access to and familiarity with the relevant software and
authoring tools employers expect of candidates. There seems to be an endless list of these requirements in job
descriptions: Adobe Captivate, Articulate 360, Articulate Storyline, Camtasia, Flash, HTML, Java, Lectora,
Python, Screencast-O-Matic, and so on. Aside from finding the time to learn those that are not offered through
our certificate, prolonged access to them is cost-prohibitive for me, even with educational discounts. This
concerns me in my ability to stay relevant and possess a competitive edge when it comes to hard skill
competencies. I am unsure how I will resolve or address this concern, but I am looking forward to upcoming
courses, particularly the third course in the program, for the knowledge and skills I will gain in this area. And,
thanks to this course, I am significantly more confident in the foundational aspects of instructional design and I
am emboldened to pursue these job opportunities even with my learning still in progress.

Thinking ahead to future courses, I am very much looking forward to learning more in depth about strategies for
creating supporting content and how to approach assessment, something with which I have struggled in the past.
 References

Culatta, R. (2015a). Cognitive flexibility theory. Retrieved March 2, 2018, from

http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/cognitive-flexibility.html

Culatta, R. (2015b). Situated learning (J. Lave). Retrieved March 2, 2018, from
http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/situated-learning.html

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2013). Designing effective
instruction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Retrieved March 2, 2018, from
https://platform.virdocs.com/app/v5/doc/87546/pg/86

Pappas, C. (2015, May 20). Instructional design models and theories: Keller’s ARCS model of motivation.
Retrieved March 2, 2018, from https://elearningindustry.com/elaboration-theory