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