Katie Clayton

EDCI 672
September 30, 2013
Developing Expertise Reflection

Beth Owens, Craig Gregersen, Lynn Dixon

Reflecting back on each case study analysis completed up to this point in time provides insight
into areas of both personal strength and weakness. Some areas have been improved upon as
more analyses are completed; however, there is significant room for improvement in other
areas.
Problem Finding
Since the first case, I have definitely improved in identifying and focusing on what the actual
case problem is and not allowed myself to be as distracted with other case details that are not
the main problem. A perfect example of this can be seen by reviewing the key design challenge I
identified in each case:
Beth Owens: The key design challenge in the Beth Owens case is choosing and
Instructional Strategy because while Beth prefers to take a constructivist
approach to instruction with a learner focus, she observes a behaviorist
approach taken by Chef Reiner which appears to be an effective approach in the
kitchen.
Craig Gregersen: The key design challenge in the Craig Gregersen case is
designing the instruction appropriately to fit the needs of the stated objective -
Implement a course that provides a proactive approach to product safety one
that would prevent lawsuits from happening (Ertmer, 2014).
Katie Clayton
EDCI 672
September 30, 2013
Developing Expertise Reflection

Beth Owens, Craig Gregersen, Lynn Dixon

Lynn Dixon: The key design challenge in the Lynn Dixon case is designing and
developing the instruction appropriately to fit the needs of a very diverse
learner population.
In the Beth Owens case, incomplete and inaccurate analysis of the key design problem and
allowing myself to be distracted by the role personalities played in the case, I incorrectly
identified the design challenge. While similar factors were at play in the Craig Gregersen case
(inter-office politics) I was able to learn from Beth Owens to focus on what Craig had been
charged to do creating training on product safety. This shift in focus from people to actual
problems shows growth in my analysis of case studies.
Summarize vs. Synthesize
When I first read the section of Ertmer & Stepich (2005) about synthesizing vs. summarizing, I
instantly thought Wow, I tend to summarize more than synthesize. This is one skill I most
certainly need to continue to improve upon in future case studies. My tendency to summarize is
highlighted by the variety of direct quotes I include in identifying the problem, particularly the
case specific issues.
Beth Owens:Finally, the student demographics at State College may pose
another challenge for Beth as Chef Reimer pointed out, we are in a
metropolitan area our students dont like to wear uniforms and maintain
hygiene standards. We have problems with long hair, nail polish, jewelry and
Katie Clayton
EDCI 672
September 30, 2013
Developing Expertise Reflection

Beth Owens, Craig Gregersen, Lynn Dixon

body piercings, which are not part of a professional and sanitary kitchen.
(Ertmer, 2014).
Including the precise details (i.e. long hair, nail polish, jewelry, etc.) of why the students may be
a challenge is not really a necessity to this analysis. It is important to note the cultural priorities
that may influence the students and that those need to be overcome; however this particular
quote is mostly a summary.
Craig Gregersen: I believe the one-day, one-size fits all approach originally
requested is one of the biggest case specific challenges that Craig faces which is
only compounded more by the fact that Louise does not feel that she was in a
position to press for any changes to the courses one-day, all-in-one structure
(Ertmer, 2014).
While the above quote from Craig Gregersen case analysis does a great job of creating a
relationship between the two case specific issues, it is less of a synthesis of information and
more of a summary.
Lynn Dixon: While the Aquarium has asked Telopea to create this product, a
complete Needs Analysis has not been completed which has made the project
even more challenging. There are other case specific issues that compound the
design challenge including budget constraints, over promising to the client,
extensive content and diverse learner population. The very diverse population
of learners is the biggest case specific challenge Lynn faces. Regardless of the
Katie Clayton
EDCI 672
September 30, 2013
Developing Expertise Reflection

Beth Owens, Craig Gregersen, Lynn Dixon

budget or time, or original promises made, Lynn must tackle the issues of so
many learners head on in order to complete this project.
There is notable improvement in the Lynn Dixon case analysis, with more of the case content
being synthesized rather than simply summarized. While the information in the quote above is
very accurate and reflective of the case it has no direct quotes, meaning less of a summary.
Principles vs. Features
Looking at my analysis of the three cases, initially I had a tendency to focus on features of the
case and people rather than the overarching principles and goals of the case. For example, in
Beth Owens, I simply could not look past the individual features of each person and face value of
information provided in the case description to identify the principle issues at play. The first
and probably biggest case specific issue is the strong personality of Chef Reiner and his likely
opposition to a constructivist method of instruction. (Clayton, 2013). Upon further evaluation
in class, it came to light that a learner analysis should have been conducted prior to any steps
being taken about constructivist vs. behaviorist approaches. In fact, after evaluating the Chefs
teaching methods more carefully he indeed does incorporate constructivist methods in his
teaching. While I thought I was focusing on principles, particularly teaching principles, I was so
caught up in the features of the case I misevaluated the actual problem. In both the Craig
Gregersen case and Lynn Dixon case, I was able to shift my thinking more from simply features
to principles and overarching problems/goals in the case. Regardless of the inter-office politics
Craig is up against I was able to focus on the job Craig had to do implement a course that
provides a proactive approach to product safety one that would prevent lawsuits from
Katie Clayton
EDCI 672
September 30, 2013
Developing Expertise Reflection

Beth Owens, Craig Gregersen, Lynn Dixon

happening (Ertmer, 2014). (Clayton, 2013). While in this particular case I overlooked the role
legal played a bit too much, as I did not recognize that legal MUST approve the course before it
could be delivered. Finally in the Lynn Dixon case, I identified the key design challenge as
designing and developing the instruction appropriately to fit the needs of a very diverse learner
population (Clayton, 2013). While I was also able to identify the amount of content the client
wants in the product is also a challenge (Clayton, 2013), I failed to fully acknowledge the affect
development for a kiosk system had on this particular case. I originally believed it to simply be a
feature rather than a concerning principle. The issues identified in these three cases shows
some improvement in analyzing for principles rather than only features, clearly there is still a
ways to go before I am an expert.
Relationship among Issues
Understanding relationships among issues has been a strong point for me from the beginning.
However, there is always room for growth which has occurred when comparing the
relationships made in each case.
Beth Owens: The first and probably biggest case specific issue is the strong personality
of Chef Reiner and his likely opposition to a constructivist method of instruction. This
challenge is compounded by the fact that the Dean would like to maintain Chef Reiner
and his extensive reputation but make the program more inclusive for all students
which would likely be more easily achieved by a constructivist approach. The
students lack of motivation or respect of kitchen standards may prove to be a challenge
if Beth were to implement constructivist methods.
Katie Clayton
EDCI 672
September 30, 2013
Developing Expertise Reflection

Beth Owens, Craig Gregersen, Lynn Dixon

Craig Gregersen: There are other case specific issues that compound the design
challenge including inter-office politics, a short time line, a one day, one-size fits all
approach training requested, and employees feeling they are not in a position to
request a different approach. I believe the one-day, one-size fits all approach originally
requested is one of the biggest case specific challenges that Craig faces which is only
compounded more by the fact that Louise does not feel that she was in a position to
press for any changes to the courses one-day, all-in-one structure (Ertmer, 2014).
While Craig could likely design more effective instruction if the groups of employees
(Maintenance, Engineers, Service, etc.) were allowed their own day of instruction
personalized for the group then it would be a better situation for Craig. But that remains
a constraint in the case. Additionally the inter-office politics of what the training looks
like has attempted to bring Craig into the middle of everything.
Lynn Dixon: While the Aquarium has asked Telopea to create this product, a complete
Needs Analysis has not been completed which has made the project even more
challenging. There are other case specific issues that compound the design challenge
including budget constraints, over promising to the client, extensive content and diverse
learner population. The very diverse population of learners is the biggest case specific
challenge Lynn faces. Regardless of the budget or time, or original promises made, Lynn
must tackle the issues of so many learners head on in order to complete this project.
But the budget constraints certainly make it even more difficult, mostly due to Janette
over-promising to the client during their first meeting before bringing Lynn on board.
The amount of content the client wants in the product is also a challenge, as there is a
Katie Clayton
EDCI 672
September 30, 2013
Developing Expertise Reflection

Beth Owens, Craig Gregersen, Lynn Dixon

request to record an Aboriginal Dreamtime story which may need more funding to
achieve (Ertmer, 2014).
In the Beth Owens case, my primary focus was on the people involved and their interaction with
each other. As seen in the Craig Gregersen case, inter-personal relationships certainly are a
factor in the issue but rarely are the entire problem. My focus shifted from personality conflict
to understanding what skills and tools were either not in place or were failing in the situation.
Each lacking skill or tool, all interacted with the key design challenge to create the overall
problem each designer attempts to solve. In each case however, my initial analysis does a good
job of linking each factor/issue with another.
Reflective vs. Reflexive
In thinking about reflective vs. reflexive, I believe I am still fairly novice in this particular aspect
of analysis. I have a tendency to focus on all the questions I have unanswered and all the
information I am missing in a case rather than what I do have and what that means I have to
work with. I also have found this the situation in our class discussions of the cases, it seems
every class period we come to the conclusion at some point during the discussion that we need
more information and must do a complete, in depth learner analysis before we can move
forward and develop the instruction. But each time, the facilitator of the discussion pushes us to
move forward and work with what we do have and stop focusing on what we do not have.
While in the Lynn Dixon case it was indeed important to complete a learner analysis as the key
design issue; however in Craigs & Lynns cases we could have continued to gather data on
Katie Clayton
EDCI 672
September 30, 2013
Developing Expertise Reflection

Beth Owens, Craig Gregersen, Lynn Dixon

learners but that would not have gotten us closer to meeting the charge given to each of the
lead designers.
Problem Solving
Although I believe I have become better at identifying the problems in the cases we are
presented as well as the compounding issues in the situation, the problem solving portion I
personally feel the least confident in. Reviewing the first three cases analyzed in class provides
me some reassurance that I am indeed improving in these skills; however I hope to continue to
grow and improve in identifying reasonable solutions to the problems presented.
Relationship among solutions
While I have a solid grasp on how each issue relates to each other, I find myself struggling to
ensure all of these issues are addressed in the solution. It may not be possible to directly
address every single issue in each case with a very positive outcome; yet, each must be address
in some way.
For example, in the Craig Gregersen case, in my final recommendation to create training
around the company-wide product safety program that established a comprehensive
organizational structure and detailed procedures (Ertmer, 2014). (Clayton, 2013) I planned to
utilize the step by step systematic approach that would address the needs of the learners;
however, I failed to address the fact that legal would not approve this particular training. My
experience in the food industry where proactive, preventative approaches while not required by
the government are strongly encouraged influenced my thinking that legal could be convinced
Katie Clayton
EDCI 672
September 30, 2013
Developing Expertise Reflection

Beth Owens, Craig Gregersen, Lynn Dixon

that this route was a viable solution to the particular problem. I did suggest utilizing case studies
in the program, with his legal background Craig can develop an appropriate scenario with
Electrons cell phone product that interfere with a patients pace maker in the hospital. Then
each team can tackle the situation from their perspective to gain an understanding of how the
company-wide product safety program system works in these types of situations. (Clayton,
2013), which were identified as a reasonable solution and method to spicing up the initial
training conducted by legal. However, I took the solution a step too far, thereby making it
unrealistic.
Similarly, in the Lynn Dixon case, I was able to recognize a majority of the numerous problems
and issues in the case that needed to be addressed; however in the solution I once again failed
to address all the issues. I addressed several possible ways to meet the needs of the large,
diverse audience and stay within budget on the bells and whistles that are incorporated into the
kiosk. But I did not address the challenge of the amount of content the client wants in the
product (Clayton, 2013). Because I failed to specifically call out the challenge of designing for a
kiosk/touch screen medium, I also failed to address this in my solution.
In the last two cases, there were one or two key issues that I did not directly address in the
proposed solution; however, this is certainly an improvement over identifying the completely
wrong design issue in the Beth Owens case. I know I have further development to undergo
particularly in this area of identifying and defining relationships among solutions and continue
to learn with each and every case we analyze.
Consideration of Implications
Katie Clayton
EDCI 672
September 30, 2013
Developing Expertise Reflection

Beth Owens, Craig Gregersen, Lynn Dixon

The requirements provided in the syllabus to guide students through the case analysis process
provides a perfect framework to ensure consideration of implications. Asking students to list the
pros and cons of each solution recommendation, literally begs the question what are the
implications? After creating at least two recommendations for the lead designer, listing the pros
and cons of each provided me an opportunity to think about if the solution is indeed reasonable
and may actually work. In theory this makes sense and did work well for most cases, except for
the Beth Owens case in which my initial analysis was flawed thereby making the solution
recommendations and analysis thereof flawed.
My analysis of the Lynn Dixon case provides the best example of consideration of implications,
particularly in relation to each of the populations of learners:
Because budget constraints with such a large, diverse audience group is the
main constraint to development, recommendation 2, provides a nice
compromise to address all of the issues. While a fun animation at the beginning
would be nice and ideal, it is not a necessity for this project. Other visual and
interaction portions of the kiosk provide significantly more content in a fun way,
providing more bang for the buck. If Ben can identify someone of Aboriginal
decent and fly them to Telopea to record stories, that would save Telopea the
cost of hiring an actor and would allow them to proceed with that portion of the
project. This portion of the project has the possibility of drawing in a wide
variety of the population of the learners from kids who like to hear stories, to
elderly who like to tell stories to adult that like to reminisce on listening to
Katie Clayton
EDCI 672
September 30, 2013
Developing Expertise Reflection

Beth Owens, Craig Gregersen, Lynn Dixon

stories as a kid. If Lynn can indeed easily and inexpensively add a simple game to
the design that would greatly help reach the school aged children audience. The
rest of the proposed content generally meets the needs of the adult learner
population and those very interested in wetlands. But Lynn should also discuss
with Laura, what she envisions to address the needs of the international
population of visitors, as that group has not sufficiently been address.
Flexible vs. Rigid
Finally, when reflecting on the solutions I recommended for each case, I took a novice approach
to my recommendations as I was fairly rigid in my recommendations with little flexibility. In the
Beth Owens case, I did provide a hint of flexibility in my solution recommendation with the use
of the word try my final recommendation to Beth is to work with Chef Reiner to try
implementing a balance of constructivist and behaviorist approaches in the kitchen (Clayton,
2013). The use of the word try, implies that I may not have the full picture and am
recommending Beth remain open to other option should more information become available. In
the Lynn Dixon case, I also provide some room for flexibility and change particularly in
addressing the needs of the international population of visitors to the aquarium One option
would be to translate the most important section of the kiosk. The challenge with translation
is what languages should the material be translated to and what languages should it not be?
Does Laura even see translation as a necessity? Or is the visual nature of sections 3 & 4 of the
project sufficient to meet the needs of the international audience? (Clayton, 2013). By
providing suggestions of questions to ask Lynn regarding the international population this leaves
Katie Clayton
EDCI 672
September 30, 2013
Developing Expertise Reflection

Beth Owens, Craig Gregersen, Lynn Dixon

flexibility in the solution, based on gathering only a little more data directly from Laura. While
there is certainly room for more flexibly in my solutions for Beth & Lynn, flexibility is highly
lacking in my recommendation to Craig. In Craigs case, I took the rigid stance that legal would
somehow accept the plan developed previously by Stan and that is what Craig should move
forward with for the training. In my recommendation I did not provide room for legal to
completely override the training and prevent it from happening. While this solution will
undoubtedly upset someone or some department, this is the most ethical approach for Craig to
take in order to add value, provide continuous improvement while maintaining integrity.
(Clayton, 2013). In the quote above, I recognized that legal would be unhappy but maintained
the idea that they would have to get over it and learn to accept it. This is a very rigid stance to
take, very either/or, black and white. The more and more experience I have in this course the
more clear it becomes that there is not one simple black and white answer to any of the cases
presented; the solutions are all grey, I just never realized there were so very many shades of
grey!
References:
Clayton, K.E. (2013). Beth Owens Case Study Analysis.
Clayton, K.E. (2013). Craig Gregersen Case Study Analysis.
Clayton, K.E. (2013). Lynn Dixon Case Study Analysis.
Ertmer, P.A., Quinn, J.A., & Glazewski, K.D. (2014). The ID CaseBook: Case studies in instructional
design (4
th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.