You are on page 1of 11

Danielle Moffat EDCI 672

Reflection on Developing Expertise


I. Case 1 Lynn Dixon
Problem Finding
Summarize vs Synthesize
I thoroughly identified the key stakeholders and their interests. I used words such as
concerns and interested in when describing their aims. I was pleased with this section because
I went beyond simply restating the facts in the case but rather analyzed the given information to
anticipate the underlying motivations of the respective stakeholders, which I felt I articulated well.
However, within the paragraph in my case analysis entitled Instructional Design
Challenges I summarized rather than synthesized the case information. For example, I set out the
main instructional goals in a list form, using wording borrowed from the case study as follows:
"Laura and Ben have also outlined to Lynn the main instructional goals which are to provide the
target learners with an understanding of (1) the different types of wetlands; (2) the impacts that
urban development is having on the wetlands and the effect of the same on its wildlife populations,
and (3) the role the wetlands play in Aboriginal culture and heritage. As Ertmer & Stepich (2005)
point out summarizing, particularly in list form, is an ID novice approach.
Principles vs Features
My approach to the first case analysis was somewhat confused. I found it a real challenge
to formulate a coherent format in which to present my case analysis. I decided correlate the ID
issues and case-specific constraints with the ADDIE stages. At the time, I felt that this approach
would be effective because it would serve to highlight the underlying principles relating to each
ID issue and case-specific constraint I identified but it didnt work particularly well for reasons I
will explain in greater detail in following sections.
Due perhaps to my practical inexperience in the ID field, I incorrectly identified some of
the ID challenges as falling in to the Development phase of the ADDIE model. I found it
challenging to differentiate between design and development tasks in some instances because I
naturally tended to think of pen-to-paper tasks such as drafting instructional plans as falling at the
beginning of the development phase because something physical, i.e. a document, is being created
in that process. I also misunderstood the difference between ID challenges and case-specific
constraints. Rather than describing case-specific constraints specifically in terms of project
management concerns, such as restrictions to time and budget, my case-specific constraints
analyses in this case represented expanded discussions of the ID challenges in relation to each
ADDIE phase. As such, I failed to adequately articulate the underlying principles relevant to
understanding the situation presented in the case study as an ID expert would have (Ertmer &
Stepich, 2005).

Danielle Moffat EDCI 672


Relationships among Issues
My decision to correlate the ID issues and case specific constraints with the ADDIE stages,
as described above, actually worked to prevent me from effectively organizing my case study
analysis in a way that linked the key issues together coherently in terms of relationships and/or
operational priorities because my chosen approach required me to deal with each individually.
However, the aforementioned notwithstanding, I think I successfully identified many of the key
ID issues in the case.
Reflective vs Reflexive
I effectively made inferences based on the information set out in the case study. For
example, I inferred that the literature provided to Lynn by Ben was unlikely to yield an adequate
relevant information for use in the instructional content in relation to Aboriginal heritage and
culture because it did not appear specifically deal with connections between the Aboriginal people
and the wetlands.
Ertmer & Stepich (2005) point out that experts tend to consider the specific value or
purpose of further information that may be required rather than recommending a search for a broad
range of information based on simply fulfilling procedural requirements. I satisfactorily made
suggestions for obtaining relevant, outstanding information based on the issues I had identified
and in consideration of the case-specific constraints. For example, in relation to the lack of
adequate information relating to the connections between the Aboriginal people and the wetlands
I recommended that Lynn might seek out the advice of an appropriate SME who could provide
guidance as to content or, alternatively if this was not possible due to limited budget, she could
conduct her own research in to the topic area.
Problem Solving
Relationships among Solutions
Ertmer & Stepich (2005) suggest that ID experts develop solution plans in which
recommended solutions are coherently woven together while ID novices tend to present solutions
in list-form, dealing with each identified issue as a separate, unrelated item. For the reasons set out
above with regards to my chosen case analysis format, I did not adequately represent the
relationships amongst the solutions but rather compartmentalized each issue to its own individual
recommended solution.
Consideration of Implications
I effectively considered the implications of the various recommendations I made for each
solution as well as considering how they might be implemented. For each recommendation, I
identified, in broad terms, potential advantages and disadvantages as well as considering
alternative approaches in the event that one solution could not be pursued due to the case-specific
constraints.

Danielle Moffat EDCI 672


For example, in order to cater the display of the instructional content to the needs of the
international visitors, some of whom have a low level of English, and children visitors at the same
time I suggested that Lynn might choose to present the display in a highly audio visual manner
with only the use of simple text cues. I suggested that advantages to this approach would include,
arous[ing] positive emotions and therefore a positive impact on the learner, increasing their
willingness to engage in the learning process [which] may result in the positive learner response
and kiosk attendance time that Laura is concerned with achieving. Selecting instructive graphics
relevant to the educational goal will help to facilitate learning of the target instructional
information. I then considered the potential disadvantages, stating that, the resources available
may not provide sufficient appropriate material to create such a highly audio visual display.
Furthermore, wetlands experts may be dissatisfied that content matter is not being put across in
sufficient detail. I then went on to consider the respective advantages and disadvantages of an
alternative solution involving designing different pathways in presentation of the kiosks
instructional content aimed at satisfying different learning levels and interests.
Ertmer & Stepich (2005) suggest that ID experts express solutions at a level of detail which
shows that the same have been thought out in some depth, as well as making reference to
considerations that are not immediately apparent. I think my first case analysis falls down in these
aspects as my recommended solutions were relatively simplistic in nature and only made reference
to considerations that were plainly apparent from the case information such as a lack of adequate
content information.
Rigid vs Flexible
In my reasonable solutions, including could, might and may because I recognized
that we had not been provided with full information in the case study details and the
appropriateness of the recommended solutions would very much depend on further considerations
that we could not know, but rather only anticipate. Ertmer & Stepich (2005) draw attention to the
fact that ID experts recognize the importance of flexibility in setting out potential solutions as, in
the real-world, things do not always go as anticipated. I made a reasonable attempt at providing
for certain amount of plasticity in my recommendations by providing an alternative to each
solution that I proposed.
Overall Rating LOW to MEDIUM
II. Case 2 Sandra Sanchez and Vincent Peters
Problem Finding
Summarize vs Synthesize
Ertmer & Stepich (2005) suggest that ID novices approach case study analyses by simply
restating relevant information in the form of a summary of key facts during the problem finding
stage. On the other hand, they indicate that ID experts combine the fact with their existing
knowledge and experience to start forming a view regarding the underlying ID issues. On

Danielle Moffat EDCI 672


reflection, my approach to the issues in the second case study aligned much more with that of the
former than the latter.
The discussion of relevant case study background within first paragraphs of my case
analysis, entitled Key Stakeholders and Their Primary Concerns and ADDIE Model Phase and
Key Instructional Design Challenges, largely represent a chronological summary of the key facts
rather. For example, in the first paragraph listed above I again set out the key instructional goals
in a list-form, mirroring the case study wording. Rather than describing the relevant facts in
conjunction with the ID challenges and case-specific constraints giving rise to the same as an
expert would, my approach was to set down a summary of the circumstances relating to the ID
challenge or case- specific constraint I had initially identified. I then checked to see that the
relevant facts accorded with my assessment of the ID challenge or case-specific constraint before
stating my preliminary thoughts on the action that would need to be taken in order to address this
same. I felt much more comfortable working through the case study once I had decided upon a
structured approach to responding to the problem identification aspects of the case analysis
exercise. As a novice IDer, I found this approach helped me to think through the issues and
constraints in a logical way.
Principles vs Features
ID experts go beyond simply describing the ID problems in terms of their face value
features, as ID novices would they interpret the information available with reference to
underlying principles in order to understand the problems at a deep level (Ertmer & Stepich, 2005).
In places within the problem finding aspects of my case analysis I did refer to underlying
abstract principles and theories. However, such indications were limited to a discussion of the
relevant ADDIE model phase and a reference to, studies [that] have found that teachers are
particularly resistant to confronting their deeply held beliefs regarding teaching practice and
therefore are highly likely to be reluctant to implement changes relating to the adoption of reformbased curriculum, in the sub-paragraph of my case analysis entitled Gaining program buy-in from
the target audience. As such, my performance in this area was more akin to that of a novice than
an expert, although I was starting to recognize the need to explain the rationale, or theoretical basis,
upon which I had formed my views regarding the ID challenges and case-specific constraints.
Relationships among Issues
According to Ertmer & Stepich (2005), ID novices tend to present a list of ID problems
with little consideration as to how the issues might be related while experts, on the other hand,
connect the issues together in terms of cause/effect relationships or operational priorities. On
reflection, I approached the ID problem finding analysis in the novice way described, presenting
the ID issues and case-specific constraints as a bullet point list of standalone issues to be considered
separately rather than in conjunction with one another. As such, my analysis failed to describe the
different ID issues in a way that drew attention to the interconnectedness of the ID issues.
I found this case study particularly challenging in terms of identifying the key ID
challenges, perhaps in part due to my total lack of familiarity with the kind of scenario that was

Danielle Moffat EDCI 672


presented. Indeed, I incorrectly identified designing a formal procedure for reporting that
preparation for the standardized tests is being undertaken by teachers as one of these challenges
when a more appropriate response would have been for Vincent to design an assessment related to
the level of alignment of teaching with the requirements of the Common Core.
Reflective vs Reflexive
I made appropriate inferences in relation to the information provided within the second
case study, treating information gathering as a means to an end rather than as the primary problem.
For example, I inferred that uncertified teachers and instructional support staff were unlikely to
have received training in relation to ELLs or EIPs from the fact that Vincent had been advised that
certified content teachers had received minimal training in that regard, with most of them only
having undertaken one special education class as undergraduates. However, I tended to make
assumptions of a similar nature throughout my case analysis rather than making specific
recommendations for gathering further relevant information that might serve to clarify the
outstanding issues as an ID expert would likely have done (Ertmer & Stepich, 2005).
Problem Solving
Relationships among Solutions
The recommended reasonable solutions table structure provided by Dr. Lopez following
submission of the first case analysis helped me because previously I had great difficulty in deciding
the best format for setting out my proposed reasonable solutions. The table helped me to set down
my proposed solutions in a much more coherent way than I had in my first case analysis. I chose
to use the table to set out my solutions in the form of a roughly chronological implementation plan
showing how the various ID issues would be addressed over time. While this new approach
displayed more expertise in terms of devising logical solutions, on reflection I failed to make the
links between the different elements within the chronological implementation plan explicit. Each
step in the implementation plan tended to relate its own specific ID issue rather than demonstrating
the interconnected relationships between the different elements within the solutions.
Consideration of Implications
I am of the view that I effectively considered the implications I made for each proposed
solution within the Pros and Cons columns within the table referred to above. The columns set out
the potential advantages and disadvantages of each proposed solution as a whole. Ertmer &
Stepich (2005) suggest that ID experts carefully consider how solutions might be implemented
together with the potential effects arising from the same. I feel my descriptions of the relative
advantages and disadvantages of each solution could have been set out in greater detail. In
particular, I think it would have been useful to tie the pros and cons to the facts of the case. For
example, I stated the following as a con for my first proposed solution: Vincent may lack
credibility with target audience and therefore his faculty meeting presentation may not be
persuasive as to the benefits of the program. I have failed to explain why Vincent lacks credibility
which would have served to highlight the reasons that he would not be persuasive to the teaching
staff.

Danielle Moffat EDCI 672

Furthermore, I note on review that my final recommendations paragraph did not


specifically set out a reasoned solution to the ID issues and therefore represented a series of
unrelated suggestions for assisting with smooth implementation of any solution selected. With
hindsight, I think it would have been helpful to structure the discussion around specific
recommendations aimed at addressing the potential negative implications (cons) identified.
Accordingly, I would suggest that my performance in relation to this aspect of the case analysis
aligned with that of an ID novice as described by Ertmer & Stepich (2005).
Rigid vs Flexible
Ertmer & Stepich (2005) indicate that ID experts tend to suggest that solutions are trialed
in order to provide sufficient flexibility to account for unanticipated issues that might arise. On the
other hand, they say, ID novices tend to be inflexible, committing to one particular solution
regardless of any additional information that may come to light. I accounted for flexibility within
my proposed solutions and recommendations by suggesting a partial trial period of some of the
solution elements. Furthermore, the two proposed solutions provided multiple ways to address the
potential ID problems that were identified.
Overall Rating MEDIUM
III. Case 3 (facilitated by Team 1) Dianne King
Problem Finding
Summarize vs Synthesize
As stated above, I developed an approach to analyzing the issues in the cases which
involved summarizing the relevant facts relating to each identified ID problem and then stating
my rationale behind identifying the particular ID challenge or case-specific constraint in light of
the facts of the case. My procedural approach falls in line with Ertmer & Stepichs (2005)
description of an ID novices tendency to summarize, albeit accurately, rather than synthesize
available information with their existing knowledge formed through experience to provide an
analysis of the situation in light of one or two central issues at an early stage. That being said I felt
the most comfortable taking this approach as, having had limited practical real-world ID
experience, the key issues tended not to be immediately apparent to me. I usually had to read each
case study several times before ideas in that regard started to take form. Setting out a chronological
summary of the relevant facts actually helped me to crystalize my thoughts regarding the ID
challenges and case-specific constraints.
Principles vs Features
I found this case study relatively straightforward in terms of identifying underlying
principles because it largely revolved around project management issues rather than theoretical
instructional design considerations. As such, the main discussion of principles relevant to
understanding the situation in the case centered on application of the ADDIE model. In this case,

Danielle Moffat EDCI 672


however, I incorrectly identified the main ID challenge as falling in the ADDIE Analysis phase
because I interpreted the process of laying down the project plan as an analysis task rather than
design and development issues.
Relationships among Issues
This case study analysis represented by best performance in terms of making connections
among the key ID issues. In particular, I identified the interplay between the case-specific
constraints and the ID challenge at an early stage of the analysis by stating within the paragraph
entitled Key Instructional Design Challenge: The main instructional design challenge that Diane
faces at this stage of the project is in the crafting of a project plan for the team lead design project
which revises IDEALs existing instructional design process in such a way as to reduce labor time
and cost without compromising quality of the process itself and the resulting deliverables. In line
with Ertmer & Stepichs (2005) description of ID expert performance, I felt that in this sentence I
set out a coherent picture of the situation by linking together the issues.
Reflective vs Reflexive
Ertmer & Stepich (2005) suggest that ID experts use the information available to make
recommendations for reasonable possible solutions. Conversely, they are of the view that ID
novices often fall in to the trap of focusing on the gaps in the information as a primary problem.
In this instance, I am of the opinion that I made reasonable assumptions, for example relating to
the availability of SMEs, and my analysis did not unnecessarily focus on irrelevant considerations
in relation to outstanding information. Again, as with the second case study, I did not explicitly
identify further information that would have been helpful for further clarification which, on
reflection, would have usefully contributed to my analysis of the situation and proposed solutions.
Problem Solving
Relationships among Solutions
My performance in this regard was greatly improved from the second case study. In
particular, I explicitly linked the recommended solutions to the issues identified within the final
Recommendations paragraph of my case analysis, explaining the how the recommended
approaches would address the identified problems. When I was undertaking this case analysis I
really felt that I turned a corner in terms of seeing how the issues in the case were interrelated
and acted in conjunction with, and upon, each other. Ertmer & Stepich (2005) suggest that ID
experts are able to develop coherent solutions plans in which suggested solutions to the various ID
issues are interlinked. I was pleased with my proposed solutions, which formed detailed staged
implementation plans, because I felt that they were much more integrated than my previous
attempts.
Consideration of Implications
As stated above, my proposed solutions represented detailed implementation plans which
I spent a great deal of time thinking through carefully, particularly with regards to ensuring that

Danielle Moffat EDCI 672


they represented a realistic and achievable timeline. On reflection, I can see quite a lot of
improvement between my analysis here and in respect of the second case study, especially in terms
of a higher level of explanatory detail of the relative pros and cons of each solution. However, I
think that I could have yet provided further clarification within the Recommendations paragraph
of my case analysis of the implications associated with the final recommended solution. I failed to
provide specific details about how the identified con would be addressed by each element of the
final recommended solution as well as to anticipate any further important considerations that might
arise at the point of, or following, implementation.
Rigid vs Flexible
On reflection, I am of the opinion that my proposed solutions provided for a reasonable
level of flexibility. My solutions provided open ended recommendations such as that in relation to
technological considerations where I provided for contact between key stakeholders to be
conducted predominantly in virtual spaces such as e-mail, or company intranet if available. I
also provided for alternative approaches in order that elements of the recommended solutions could
be altered on receipt of further information such as suggesting that existing instructional material
from the existing customers reps course could be reused and leveraged either by integrating the
same in to the new course or otherwise modifying the materials to suit the needs of the project
prototype. If necessary steps were included within the solutions that could be eliminated in the
event they were to prove extraneous later in the process. Im of the view that providing various
options for implementation served to provide multiple ways in which to address the ID issues, as
an ID expert as described by Ertmer & Stepich (2005) would.
Overall Rating MEDIUM to HIGH
IV. Case 4 (facilitated by Team 2) Lindsey Jenkins
Problem Finding
Summarize vs Synthesize
Please see my comments in relation to my third case analysis above as they equally apply
to my performance in relation to this aspect of the case analysis here.
Principles vs Features
I was pleased that I finally (!) managed to correctly apply the ADDIE model to the facts of
this case. The other underlying principle that was relevant to this case related to Case Based
Learning and corresponding constructivist learning theory. On reflection, while I correctly
identified designing and developing an interactive CBL framework as a key instructional design
challenge in the case I failed to fully articulate the abstract principles relating to CBL and
constructivism that formed important considerations in relation to the situation, which Ertmer &
Stepich (2005) suggest would have signaled ID expert performance.

Danielle Moffat EDCI 672


Relationships among Issues
I effectively linked the ID issues together in terms of cause/effect relationships and
operational priorities within the Prioritization of ID Challenges and Case Specific Constraints
paragraph of my case analysis in which I effectively explained the interrelationship between the
different ID problems, as follows: Given that the assessments will be built in to the CBL
framework it is suggested that both of the design challenges should be dealt with together. The
case specific challenges are integral to the development of the CBL framework as they will both
inform its overall structure as well as the form of the learning activities, exercises and assessments
it incorporates. This goes beyond ID novice performance, defined by Ertmer & Stepich (2005) as
simply presenting a list of issues with minimal consideration of how they are related.
Reflective vs Reflexive
I made appropriate inferences in relation to the information provided within the fourth case
study, a fact which Ertmer & Stepich (2005) might consider signifies ID expert performance in
this area. For example, I inferred from the volume of trivial IT support requests and Davids lack
of technological know-how that there were likely to be a number of other instructors on campus
that would require training in how to properly use online teaching tools. As in previous cases, I
failed to make specific recommendations for gathering further relevant information that might
serve to clarify the outstanding issues. In the future, I think it will be helpful to consider this aspect
in greater detail.
Problem Solving
Relationships among Solutions
The solutions I devised in respect of this case study represented the most detailed solutions
of all four analyses I undertook. Again, I chose to present them in the form of detailed plans for
implementation of the respective solutions. I was pleased with my proposed solutions as I felt that
I had been thorough in my thought processes in order to address the ID challenges and case-specific
constraints effectively, and taking a concerted approach to dealing with the various issues
identified.
Consideration of Implications
Following on from my third case study analysis, I felt I continued to provide more detailed
explanation of the pros and cons by giving specific details regarding implications. I think that in
this case analysis I effectively addressed the implications of the various elements of the final
recommended solutions by setting out in detail how the same would specifically overcome the
identified cons, which is something I had failed to do in the previous case analyses. As such, I
went beyond novice performance in respect of this aspect, identified by Ertmer & Stepich (2005)
as presenting solutions without consideration for how they might be implemented or what effects
they may have. However, I consider that there is still a great deal of room for me to improve here
I am of the view that I am still failing to identify considerations that are not immediately apparent
on face value. For example, I might have considered wider issues such as who would provide

Danielle Moffat EDCI 672


technical training on using educational tools to instructors and how that might have been achieved
as well as potential cost and time considerations in that regard.
Rigid vs Flexible
The solutions I proposed in respect of this case analysis were actually expressed in the most
rigid terms of all those presented in the case analyses I undertook, which Ertmer & Stepich (2005)
would suggest reflects ID novice performance in this area. On reflection, my solutions could have
been improved by providing more flexibility by providing for implementation trials or options to
modify or eliminate steps as necessary.
Overall Rating MEDIUM to HIGH
V. Plan of Action for Continued Development
As I have discovered from evaluating my performance over the four case study analyses,
there is still considerable room for me to improve in both areas of ID problem finding and problem
solving. I have limited practical, real-world ID experience, which I am working hard to build upon
at the moment. I believe that I will naturally develop expertise in ID analysis skills as I continue
to gain more and more experience dealing with a variety of ID problems.
As I move forward with gaining practical experience, I have learned through this exercise
that I have a number of key areas for improvement to focus on as follows:

I have incorrectly identified the ADDIE stage in which the ID challenges fall in most of
the case analyses that I have undertaken. I think I will become more familiar with doing so
as I gain more experience and come to get a general feel for the order of events in ID
projects. For the moment, it will be helpful for me to revisit the ADDIE model and practice
correctly identifying the ID process stage by analyzing a selection of the other case studies
in our core textbook (Ertmer, Quinn & Glazewski, 2014). I intend to practice using the
ADDIE model in a real-world context by relying on it during my practicum project.

Taking time to consider the abstract underlying principles relating to any ID problem at an
early stage will be an important consideration going forwards. Doing so is essential to
forming a complete understanding of the situation and crafting appropriate and effective
solutions.

It will assist me to undertake some further reading in my own time regarding general
project management principles and concerns as this is clearly a very important aspect of
the ID process. The gaps in my knowledge in that regard led me to confuse ID challenges
with case-specific constraints in several instances.

Rather than summarizing factual information relating to an ID problem, I should practice


integrating what I already know with my analysis of the situation at an early stage.
Informally, this might include jotting down notes when taking initial client instructions

Danielle Moffat EDCI 672


with my thoughts on relevant ID theory or educational models, or recalling past solutions
to similar situations that worked well.

References
Ertmer, P. A., Quinn. J. & Glazewski, K. D. (Eds.). (2014). The ID casebook: case studies in
instructional design (242 246). Boston: Pearson.
Ertmer, P. A. & Stepich, D. A. (2005). Instructional design expertise: How will we know it when
we see it? Educational Technology, 45(6), 38-43.