Ashley Chiasson, M.Ed

Instructional Designer & Consultant

Grab the free Course Development Plan

Sign up for my newsletter and grab your free Course Development Plan PDF to streamline course creation.

E-Learning Challenge #56: What Instructional Designers Don’t Want to Hear

Oh boy! This week’s challenge was definitely a relatable and somewhat fun (somewhat angering) challenge. I think everyone out there, regardless of your profession, could easily come up with a slew of things they hate hearing (and maybe some responses). I actually saw a buzzfeed article today titled 26 Faces Every Single Retail Worker Will Immediately Recognize, and nodded my head at every single one of them over breakfast…and thanked all things holy that I no longer work in retail.

The Concept

This week, David challenged us to design an infographic, poster, or list of the 10 things Instructional Designers don’t want to hear and how we would best reply to each of these items. The latter task being the more difficult. For web designers/developers out there (and anyone else – they’re easily modifiable!), my pal Erin actually created an INVALUABLE swipe file – Designer Scripts – Email Templates for Sticky Client Situations and it’s definitely worth checking out!

The Method

The method for this challenge was a little muddy, I have to admit. The first task of course was to come up with a list of my top 10 things I hate hearing as an Instructional Designer; I thought this task would be a lot easier than it was, so I was certainly surprised!

Once I came up with my list, I took my number 1 thing I hate to hear and turned it into a little poster. If nothing else, I hope you folks can relate to that one!

The Result

10. “We don’t need a prototype.” – In this situation, I would explain to the client that I understand they’re likely on a tight budget, but that a prototype will allow us to negotiate the overall design of the product, reducing time spent within the revision cycle later in the game.

9. “I trust your expertise. Just be creative.” – Here, I would explain that I understand the client hired me for my expertise; however, signing of on some broad design elements will reduce revision cycles (and $$$) in the long run. My aesthetic might not be their aesthetic (or the end client’s). For example, what it a cat lover like me snuck in images of cute kitties throughout the course…but the client is a dog lover and absolutely hates the idea of a cat?!

8. “One review cycle should be sufficient.” – I would refer back to our delivery schedule, and remind the client of that schedule, emphasizing that if they only want to pay for one review cycle, they will need to be meticulous and schedule-conscious during their review, because I will absolutely need the two days I requested to do my revisions, and will certainly not be doing them the day before delivery.

7. “I need this finished by the end of the week.” (said as the client hands you an entire re-development of the course you created) – In this situation, I would assess the amount of revisions and explain that the timeframe requested is not a feasible amount of time for the volume of work to be done, but that you can have it completed by X date. I would also explain that this extended timeframe is due to the client wanting a complete re-do of everything developed.

6. “The Subject Matter Expert (SME) is in charge of content.” – I would let the client know that this is fantastic news, but that I expect our communications to be related directly to the content and not the design. I would explain that I expect the SME to adhere, fully, to the schedule (especially their review of the content) to ensure there is no impact to the deliverables.

5. “I could have done this in PowerPoint in waaaaaay less time.” – Really? Alright. Here, I would explain the the client that they specified the work be authored using X tool, and as such, I adhered to using the specified tool. I would also explain that developing some elements in PowerPoint may have been more time consuming than developing them in X tool. I would explain that I appreciate the opinion, but that there was a reason the client decided to hire me…to do the job that I did.

4. “I think maybe we should just change the colours. That’s an easy fix, right?” (said days before delivery) – In this situation, I would explain to the client that we signed off on the overall design prior to development, and that even an ‘easy’ fix such as changing the colour scheme would take a fair amount of time. I would tell them that I’d be happy to oblige, but it may impact the delivery date.

3. “Can you make it more interactive?” (said after reviewing an extremely dry and prescribed compliance course) – If there’s wiggle room for creativity, I would tell the client ‘sure!’ and explain the impact on the schedule. However, if the content needs to be displayed verbatim, I would explain that we would need to chat about our options and provide them with a few solutions, explaining that it will likely increase cost and development timeline.

2. “Can you add just one more scenario? Oh! and I forgot to give you this 30 page document – it needs to be incorporated into the course somehow.” (said after the first review cycle and certainly leaning into scope creep) – Here, I would explain to the client that the project scope was created to account for 5 scenarios, not 6, and that I will most certainly include a sixth scenario for X cost. As for the second item, I would explain that prior to developing the contract, I requested all content and course documentation to adequately price out the contract, and this 30 page document was not in the original estimate, so I will incorporate it at X cost to the client.

1. “This looks great, but I just can’t ‘visualize’ the end product.” (said after initial review of a text-based storyboard) – This is my most-hated sentence. I’ve heard it from clients, SMEs, programmers, media developers – UGH! This situation begs me to explain that the text-based storyboard was requested (by the client) and developed primarily as a means of reviewing the content within a certain context (of the screen and with a brief description of the supporting media elements), and that the visual elements would be available for review in the second review cycle. Similarly, during the second review cycle, I hate hearing “Can you please review the comments I made; there are a few content revisions that need to be made.” (GAH! You’re now reviewing for look/feel – bugger off!)

ELH_Challenge_56

Terminology Tuesday: Piagetian Tasks

This week’s term is less of a term and more of a group of tests or ‘tasks’. In any event, Piaget was always cool in my books, so I thought I’d chat a bit about some of his tasks, reversibility in particular. I was inspired by a chat I had recently with a very passionate professor – she rattled off one of the tasks she has her students do (so these are on average 18-22 year olds):

  • First, she presents the students with two jars of jelly beans; one contains all red jelly beans and the other contains all black jelly beans. She explains that there are 250 jelly beans in each jar.
  • Then, she shows her students a scoop, explaining that it holds exactly 15 jelly beans.
  • She takes a scoop or red jelly beans and puts them in the black jar and then takes a scoop of now black and red jelly beans and puts them in the red jar.
  • Finally, she asks the students how many jelly beans are in each jar.

The result she gets is much the same as one a child might get. Why? The correct reason is because the students, at 18-22, still have issues with the concept of the reversibility. Another reason might be that the students became confused by the word problem…similar to any time I was presented with one of those ‘a train is traveling south west at a speed of X…’ problems – which I HATED. Anyhow…so that discussion was my inspiration for this week’s post.

Alright, but what is a Piagetian task?

Jean Piaget was a developmental psychologist who some may refer to as the pioneer of cognitivism. He was a pretty cool cat, and is often chatted about in close proximity to Vgotsky (another name, another theory). His theory basically stated that cognitive development occurs in stages, as we grow, age, and learn from the world around us. Throughout his research, he tested children in varying stages of development with Piagetian tasks to determine whether they understood concepts of conservation, centring, and reversibility, to name a few. Based on their responses, Piaget posited that he could determine (or approximate…in the example of the 18-22 year olds) what stage of cognitive development the child was in. How neat is that?!

Another popular Piagetian task you might be more familiar with is one having to do with conservation of volume:

  • The child is presented with two beakers; one is squat and wide, while the other is tall and slim.
  • There is water in both beakers, and the instructor asks “which beaker contains more water?”
  • The child typically responds that the taller one contains more water, when in actuality, both beakers contain the same amount of water. BAM!

Intrigued? Here are some resources:

Terminology Tuesday: Rubrics

Hey folks! First off, I want to apologize for the less than exciting blogging week; things have been completely insane over here! Two projects on the go, two books being written (whaaaaat?!), webinars and meetings – oh my!, and a proposal that I’m working on. All exciting things, but how does Beyonce do it?

This week I wanted to chat a bit about rubrics. The online course I’m taking is currently discussing course quality, and rubrics feature prominently in this discussion. Now, as a student, I’ve been on the annoyance side of the rubric stand-point (ugh…a table?! you want me to look at a table to figure out what I need to do?!), but I’ve also learned to appreciate the structure of a rubric and how functional it can be, especially when evaluating more subjective materials that don’t necessarily have a solid wrong or right answer – e.g. papers.

So, what is a rubric?

A rubric is an evaluation tool that allows individuals responsible for evaluation tasks to be able to easily and effectively do their jobs. Rubrics break down the criteria, providing a range of options for each item. Evaluators will select the range option that corresponds with the material for which they are evaluating. At the end of the evaluation, the score (based on the range options selected) will be added up, providing the student with their grade.

I’m with you, Ashley – these sound annoying. Why would anyone use them?

  1. As I said before, they make it a heck of a lot easier to evaluate subjective materials
  2. They can enhance academic achievement by providing students with a clear outline of what they need to do in order to score within a particular range.
  3. They can provide students with a criteria for conducting peer evaluations, which as an instructor, ensures you don’t get an entire class  full of 5/5 peer evaluations.
  4. As an instructor, they help you back up your evaluation decisions by offering a tangible explanation for students who seek to challenge their grades.

Rubric resources, please. Here you go:

Terminology Tuesday: Community of Inquiry Model

Lately I’ve been busying myself with an online learning opportunity, among other things (you know…things that pay the bills and put kibble in the dog’s bowl), and the concept of learning communities cropped up (more on that later) and subsequently the Community of Inquiry (COI) Model.

When I first came to work in Higher Education, I was reminded of the COI model when reviewing my first course – of which there was very little student engagement and participation. The faculty member was new to developing courses for online delivery, and their course reflected that; it looked like a straight ‘chalk-and-talk’ style conversion. In my review, I encouraged the faculty member to create a Community of Inquiry with their students and explained what I meant by that. Because I was providing my review in an academic manner, drawing on well-respected and understood concepts within the academic community, the faculty member was incredibly receptive to my revision suggestions, and I’m sure their students appreciated it! Maybe if I would have known of the COI Model when I was managing a Starbucks during my undergrad…maybe then my 16-22 year old staff members would have appreciated my criticism more…naaaah.

So, what is this Community of Inquiry Model you speak of?

The Community of Inquiry Model is a concept that takes two awesome things: scientific inquiry and the construction of knowledge and mashes them into one amazing conceptualization! In the context of education, COI is most often observed when an instructor facilitates topical discussions, allowing students to ask questions and engage with one another and bounce understanding of the topic off one another. The facilitator is important here, as they are responsible for guiding their students and keeping them on track with regard to the topic (e.g. ensuring students don’t generate incorrect information as being ‘true’ with relation to the topic).

What are some good ways of fostering COI in online learning?

  1. Discussion forums – As an online student, I always loved the discussion forums! The instructor would prompt students to respond to a question (or several) in at least 500 words, and then respond to at least 2 other participants in at least 500 words. This method did just what it intended to do, generated discussion! And for me, it was a great approach to collaborative learning. If the instructor was unable to explain a concept in terms I could understand, another participant could often produce a tangible explanation for me.
  2. Twitter chats – I talked about these last week (and I think the week before), but they’re really a great way of creating COI, because they allow users to participate in a palatable manner – especially if time is a concern.
  3. Synchronous elements – Working at an institution that was really a pioneer in the broadcast television manner of providing distance learning opportunities, I always encourage my faculty members to include some synchronous element in their courses, and to make at least one session an attendance requirement. These are great! They allow participants to communicate with the instructor and ask questions. Some students can be hesitant to participate, so these sessions can be helpful as many students often have the same course-related questions or concerns.

But Ashley…where are my resources?!

The Community of Inquiry 

CIDER: The Community of Inquiry Webinars

The Community of Inquiry Model Framework Ten Years Later: An Introduction to the Special Issue by Karen Swan and Phil Ice

Utilizing Technology to Develop a Community of Inquiry by Nathan Hall and Michael Burri

Strategies for Creating a Community of Inquiry Through Online Asynchronous Discussions by Aimee deNoyelles, Janet Mannheimer Zydney, and Baiyun Chen 

Publishing Articulate Storyline Output to Dropbox or Google Drive

Yesterday, Jonathan from the Articulate E-Learning Heroes Community tweeted at me asking how I go about publishing my Articulate Storyline outputs to Dropbox, so I made a screencast! It took a couple of takes due to sneezing fits and barking beagles, but I think it does a good job at explaining how easy it is to upload your Storyline outputs to both Dropbox.com and Google Drive.

Below, I’ll outline the steps and then I’ll include the screencast so you can see how I published my Storyline output to both technologies.

Publishing to Dropbox

  1. Download and install the Dropbox app.
  2. Drag your output folder to your dropbox.
  3. Open dropbox and drag the output folder to the Public folder.
  4. Open the uploaded folder, within the Public folder, and right-click the story.html file.
  5. Select Copy Public Link.
  6. Open a new browser tab and paste the copied link.

Publishing to Google Drive

  1. Download and install the Google Drive app.
  2. Drag your output folder to your Google Drive.
  3. Open the uploaded folder, and rename ‘story.html’ to ‘index.html’
  4. Return to the your main page of Google Drive and right-click the uploaded folder.
  5. Select Google Drive > View on the web.
  6. Google Drive will open; Select Open in Drive (in the upper right-hand corner).
  7. Click My Drive, and then select the check mark beside the uploaded folder.
  8. Select the Share icon (icon of a person with a + symbol) and click Advanced.
  9. Select Change next to ‘who has access’ and change the permissions to Public on the web. Click Save.
  10. Enter the uploaded folder, and in the browser address bar, copy the identifier, which includes all letters and numbers appearing after “0#folders/”.
  11. Open a new browser tab and in the address bar type “http://googledrive.com/host/” after ‘/host/’, paste the identifier copied in the previous step.

As you can see, there are a few more steps when publishing to Google Drive versus doing so with Dropbox, so for ease, I recommend Dropbox; however, both are good options. My preferences is to publish to my website’s server, and if that option isn’t available, publishing to Articulate Tempshare.

Video Demonstration – Publishing Articulate Storyline Output to Dropbox and Google Drive

Sharing Storyline Dropbox GoogleDrive from Ashley Chiasson on Vimeo.

Terminology Tuesday: Microlearning

This week’s term, microlearning, was inspired by several Twitter chats I’ve been lurking for awhile now. In times like these where information is constantly requested/searched, there’s a greater trend toward instant gratification – and the wonders of the Internet can do magic to make this happen!

Microlearning

Microlearning refers to learning that occurs in bite sized chunks or very short-term learning activities. For example, these Twitter chats. Each week, participants respond to questions posed and are able to read (and respond to) the responses of fellow participants. It’s really a great form of collaborative learning. Twitter chats are a great example, because responses occur within the constraint of 140 characters, and learners are encouraged to synthesize this information in bite-sized responses or presentation.

But who the heck would this benefit?!

Everyone involved! Well – maybe not everyone (there are always outliers), but most participants and facilitators. I’ll give you an example of how microlearning is working in an online course I worked on.

The faculty member came to me wanting to redevelop her course. She wanted to swap out some readings and make it more engaging for students. Her course consists of about 3000 pages of readings over a semester (they’re all children’s books), a midterm and final exam, and some written assignments. Holy crap! What a slave driver, you might think…the reality is not really, but I could see how students might balk at the workload. In any event, she was struggling with quality forum participation because the students were exhausted by the workload and couldn’t commit to writing lengthy posts and responses. She also tried a wiki to no avail (well – it worked, but not in an optimal manner). I suggested a Twitter chat for her; like the forum posts, she could incite participation out of a course requirement and she could require the student post one original response to the question and respond to at least two of their peers, BUT the student would only be required to write a maximum of 420 characters instead of potentially a minimum of 1500 words!

This approach benefits the faculty member in terms of her participation grading and it benefits the students by requiring less of their already taxing workload to obtain the elusive participation points (some students would just drop the participation grade of 5-10% as they were too swamped to participate, but 5-10% can mean a lot of the course of a course).

Confused by what I’m talking about? Here are some great examples and some resources!