Eric Folks
EDTC 6332: Practicum
Managing Your Roaming User Profile at Lampasas ISD
|
|
Project Description:
Student will apply the knowledge and theory from previous courses toward the solution of an actual instructional/training problem in a real-world context. The practicum project consists of three parts: a proposal, an instructional package, and a synopsis of "lessons learned." Student will demonstrate the ability to: (1) solve a given human performance problem by evaluating and synthesizing learned knowledge, skills, and dispositions, (2) manage an instructional design project by using all the resources available, and (3) synthesize learned experience of developing a real life instructional solution to an identified human performance problem.
|
Responsibilities Met:
|
|
Responsibility 2: Design. The candidate will design instruction (or human performance strategies) to meet the needs of learners. Design documents and projects must show evidence of analysis of problem situation, awareness of unique characteristics of intended audience and implications for instruction, selection and implementation instructional strategies consistent with analysis of the learning situation and intended learners, selection and justification of appropriate medias, and evidence of both formative and summative evaluation strategies.
|
| Performance Indicators |
Justification |
2.1 Demonstrates ability to perform analysis and documentation of instructional need or opportunity resulting in student-centered, performance based instructional objectives based upon, and appropriate for, a specific audience.
|
2.1 After an educational problem was identified and the proposed solution was approved, a front-end analysis was done to determine the instructional goals based on the target audience and environment. The learners, the learning context, and the social context were all analyzed in the project design phase, as documented in the Instructional Design Document.
|
| 2.2 Demonstrates ability to perform comprehensive task analysis of an instructional objective. |
2.2 After goal, learner, and learning/performance contexts were analyzed, a detailed task analysis was conducted and documented under the Subordinate Skills Analysis section of the Instructional Design Document. This included an overarching goal, a series of three main objectives and their accompanying enabling objectives, and an in-depth task analysis chart for visualization purposes.
|
| 2.3 Demonstrates ability to select and integrate into instruction a variety of research-based instructional strategies. |
2.3 Extensive research was conducted on the subject of Roaming User Profiles at Lampasas ISD, in terms of how they function, existing issues, and disparities between existing end user behaviors and desired behaviors. After determining the vast majority of instructional content needed to be developed for this course, I selected, built and delivered a combination of text and multimedia instruction (based on research and theory provided by R. Gagné, W. Dick and L. Carey) that included images, videos, slideshows, digital pin boards, interactive avatars, mouse-over closed captioning and virtual manipulatives. All these instructional strategies are discussed and documented at length in the Instructional Strategies and Instructional Materials Development sections of the Instructional Design Document.
|
|
Responsibility 3: Development, Utilization and Management. The candidate will develop, utilize and manage a variety of media and instructional technologies to deliver instruction to students.
|
| Performance Indicators |
Justification |
3.1 Demonstrates ability to develop instruction using a minimum of three different medias.
|
3.1 My instruction included a combination of text and multimedia instruction: images, videos, slideshows, digital pin boards, interactive avatars, mouse-over closed captioning, and virtual manipulatives. All these instructional strategies are discussed and documented at length in the Instructional Strategies and Instructional Materials Development sections of the Instructional Design Document.
|
| 3.2 Applies research-based rationale for the selection and utilization of technologies for learning. |
3.2 After goal, learner, learning and performance analysis, I selected and utilized a variety of web-based instructional media delivery and engagement tools, as well as web-based assessment tools, to better meet the needs of my learners. |
| 3.3 Demonstrates ability to manage projects and evaluate progress and improvement. |
3.3 I created a timeline for the project initially that was used to guide the project and its deliverables and ensure not only that the design phase of the project progressed on schedule, but that the instructional solution was completed on schedule as well. While the timeline served as a tool for managing and monitoring progress, as the project matured, necessary adjustments were made and documented in the biweekly reflection papers submitted throughout the project. |
|
3.4 Uses the results of evaluation methods to revise and update instructional materials.
|
3.4 Instructional material development was an iterative process throughout the whole project: changes were made based on verbal and email communication with the project stakeholders (documented in the biweekly reflection papers), and on the formative evaluation phase, which included both a face-to-face qualitative evaluation session with a member of the target audience, and a small group, web-based independent evaluation that resulted in quantitative data used to analyze the effectiveness of changes made in previous evaluation phases, course quality overall, and specific areas targeted for evaluation. Evaluation efforts and their results can be found in the Evaluations section of the Instructional Design Document. |
|
Responsibility 4: Evaluation. The candidate uses incisive and relevant assessment and evaluation techniques (e.g., product or project which uses formative and/or summative evaluations). Candidate demonstrates the ability to evaluate quality of instructional materials and instructional systems using appropriate methodologies. Candidate also demonstrates the ability to use formative and summative assessment methodologies to ascertain the effectiveness of instruction in meeting instructional goals.
|
| Performance Indicators |
Justification |
4.1 Demonstrates ability to use formative evaluation strategies to evaluate the quality of instruction.
|
4.1 Instructional material development was an iterative process throughout the whole project: changes were made based on verbal and email communication with the project stakeholders (documented in the biweekly reflection papers), and on the formative evaluation phase, which included both a face-to-face qualitative evaluation session with a member of the target audience, and a small group, web-based independent evaluation that resulted in quantitative data used to analyze the effectiveness of changes made in previous evaluation phases, course quality overall, and specific areas targeted for evaluation. Evaluation efforts and their results can be found in the Evaluations section of the Instructional Design Document.
|
| 4.2 Demonstrates ability to use summative strategies to evaluate the quality of instruction. |
4.2 Due to a variety of factors, most notably a lack of communication with some stakeholders about the planned phase out of roaming user profiles at LISD shortly after course completion, summative evaluation of this course did not take place. However, a sufficient amount of evaluation work was completed at the formative stage to ensure the course followed the design document and was ready for wide-scale deployment.
Also, given the effectiveness and scalability of the quantitative methods utilized in the formative evaluation phase (specifically, the Google From survey tool and results), and the proficiency demonstrated in tracking learner progress and success through course analytics (student progress via Padlet and SitePal, assessment data via ProProfs, course completion via Eduphoria Workshop), I believe I've adequately demonstrated my ability to use summative strategies to evaluate the quality of my instruction.
|
| 4.3 Demonstrates ability to select a variety of appropriate assessment instruments and use those instruments to assess effectiveness of instruction in meeting instructional objectives. |
4.3 Not only did the course include an entry skills pre-assessment (with explanations), each individual learning module also contained a pre-test (1,2,3), interactive quick checks with explanations (1,2,3), and formative assessments in the form of interactive, digital manipulatives/activities with feedback (1,2,3), along with end-of-module comprehensive assessments (1, 2, 3). Additionally, a final assessment which randomly pulled a set number of questions from all the module assessments was also included in the course. All module assessment questions and the final assessment questions included clearly identified correlations to the stated learning objectives. |
|
4.4 Documents results from formative evaluations and uses those results to revise instructional materials, and/or instructional development process.
|
4.4 The formative evaluation phase included both a face-to-face qualitative evaluation session with a member of the target audience, and a small group, web-based independent evaluation. The results of the face-to-face and small group formative evaluations were used to analyze course quality overall and specific areas targeted for evaluation.
These evaluation efforts and the changes to the instructional materials that resulted can be found in the Evaluations section of the Instructional Design Document.
|
Modifications Made
Based on stakeholder feedback and the formative evaluation phase, numerous modifications were made the instructional solution. These modifications are described in detail in the Evaluations section of the Instructional Design Document, but included, at a minimum: (1) modifying the layout for the C Drive and H Drive network locations in Module 1 to include not only paragraph form but also bulleted descriptions; (2) adding customized messages to help with course navigation at the end of various quick checks; (3) adding additional directions for navigating slideshows within the quizzes; (4) removing a question from module 2 that focused on an obscure detail of the instruction rather than the overall learning goals; and (5) modifying the course implementation plan to include scheduled times in the campus library computer labs for learners to take the eCourse in an instructor-faciliatated environment. The instructional solution reflects all of these changes except for #5 as the implementation of the course is being reconsidered in light of major network changes coming early in the spring.
|
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.