1. Utilizing Competency Wizard in Springboard using the A.D.D.I.E Process Kim Kohlas, Stephanie Gallagher George Niinisto, Melissa Suder Allie Werstler

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. Design continued Social Constructivist Learning Theory –Inquiry Based Learning Combination of Multimedia products and Printed Resources Interaction between learners Collaboration with peers

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. Implementation: Timeline Week 1Discussed Project and developed questions for George and Stephanie to ask the SME’s. Week 2Stephanie and George met with the SME’s. Week 3Discussed instructional materials to create and worked on learning SpringBoard. Week 4Worked on PowerPoint and discussed need for Click Guide. We continued to work to understand the intricacies of the Competency Wizard. Week 5Further Developed and Revised PowerPoint and Click Guide. Week 6Continued critiquing the PowerPoint and Click Guide and discussed training session. Week 7Prepared and practiced for the training session. Week 8Training Session was held with Suzanne Testerman, Dr. Ward, and Wendy Lampner.

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. References Cunia E. 2007. “Cognitive Learning Theory.” http://suedstudent.syr.edu/~ebarrett/ide621/cog nitive.htm http://suedstudent.syr.edu/~ebarrett/ide621/cog nitive.htm Eductech Wiki. 2007 http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Image:IBL_circle. gif#file#file http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Image:IBL_circle. gif#file#file Morrison, G., Ross, S., Kemp, J. 2004. Designing Effective Instruction. 4 th Edition 28-248 Ward, C. 2008. “Springboard Content.” University of Akron, Springboard, http://www.uakron.edu http://www.uakron.edu