connecting education and practice in an instructional design graduate program

Connecting Education and Practice in an Instructional Design Graduate Program

[ ] J a m e s Q u i n n

This paper reports on a curriculum project in which principles of instructional design are integrated with real-world experiences in a corporate environment. Working in design teams, graduate students served as instructional developers in a corporate environment. The course instructor acted as project leader. Initially, both the client organization and design teams expressed confusion concerning their roles in relation to the course instructor. Design teams initially used technical language not readily understood by the client. The lack of guidance in instructional models on the development of appropriate instructional strategies was noted by all teams. Design teams concluded that knowledge of instructional design principles is a necessary but not sufficient preparation for professional activity as instructional developers. By the end of the three-month project, both the client organization and the design teams expressed strong satisfaction with the process and the outcome.

[] A growing literature in the field of professional education (Curry & Wergin, 1993; Schon, 1983, 1987; Stephenson & Well, 1992; Harris, 1993) speaks of an emerging epistemology of practice in the professions and the implications of such an epistemology for the design of programs preparing professionals in different disciplines. This emerging epistemology of professional practice recognizes that in addition to technical and conceptual knowledge, competence in professional practice requires practical knowledge and competencies for dealing with situations that cannot be resolved by straightforward application of technical expertise. It is suggested that an increased emphasis be put on initiating students into such problems of practice and in codifying principles of effective practice for the benefit of students preparing to enter the professions. This paper reports on a curriculum development project which attempts to provide such a connection between education and practice in a graduate program in instructional design.

Schon (1987) argues that the dominant philosophy underlying professional practice has been technical rationality, in which professional activity is assumed to be a form of problem solving in which knowledge created in associ- ated basic and applied sciences is applied in relatively straightforward and unequivocal ways to the solution of well-formed problems. Such a philosophy is reflected in the education of professionals, which has most often been education in the various areas of study that are considered to underlie the practice of the discipline and then the application of such knowledge to problem-solving in the discipline. Schon suggests that such an epistemology

ETR&D, Vol, 42, No. 3, 1994, pp. 71-82 ISSN 1042-1629 71

72 ~-n~, Vol 42, No. 3

should be replaced by one of reflective practice which, in addition to the necessary technical skills and knowledge, also takes into account the artistry and skill required of professionals as they pursue their professions in ambiguous, uncertain, unstable and open-ended contexts. Harris (1993) suggests that while technical knowledge may be expressed precisely, such knowledge is only part of the requirements of a professional in any field. Practical knowledge involving know-how, insight, and the art of the profession are learned and manifested only through practice.

Such an epistemology of professional practice is also supported by current research in cognition and the development of expertise. Research on the acquisition of procedural knowledge suggests that such knowledge is learned and transformed into useful forms principally through practice (GagnG 1985; Lesgold et al., 1988, Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1990). Within the field of instructional design, Winn (1989) has suggested that students in instructional design graduate programs might best gain knowledge of professional practice through a reflective practicum, rather than by accumulating more courses in the procedures of instructional design. Such an approach is completely consistent with research on the nature of expertise in professions such as medicine (Dowie and Elstein, 1988), engineering (Koen, 1984), social work (Siegel, 1984), and teaching (Feiman-Nemser & Floden, 1986; Clark and Peterson, 1986), which indicate the fundamental importance of practical knowledge gained from reflection-in-action and reflection-about-action. In addition, such research suggests that a major reason for performance differences between novices and experts is the repertoire of practical knowledge gained by experts through dealing with com- plex problems of practice over a period of time, rather than superior reasoning skills.

OVERVIEW OF LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

This project has its theoretical basis in the above epistemology of professional practice and was prompted by a perceived gap in the

education of graduate students in the MA and Ph.D. programs in instructional design at a large midwestern university. Communication with program faculty, recent graduates, and current students suggested that more emphasis should be given to the integration of academic knowledge and professional practice in the above programs. The perception was that available mechanisms which attempted to con- nect academic knowledge with the demands of professional practice were not sufficient. This project was an attempt to provide such a connection between education and practice using only faculty and other resources currently available. In addition, it was argued that such integration could and should be sustained without sacrificing the focus on the theoretical knowledge base of instructional design which is currently a strong feature of the above graduate programs.

It was intended that such an integration of education and practice occur through providing students with experience in the world of practice under the close guidance of an expert (a faculty member). Working in teams, students were required to design, produce, imple- ment, and evaluate instruction for a client under the supervision of the instructor. In addition, students were encouraged to reflect on how their practice relates to the technical knowledge which forms the basis of the discipline of instructional design, the limitations of such knowledge, and if and how such knowledge needs to be transformed in the transition from education to practice. Also, students were encouraged to reflect on their experience with a view to the codification of those strategies for competent performance that may become apparent as they begin the practice of the profession.

HOW THE PROJECT WAS SET UP

The course in which this project was situated is the second course in a two-course sequence in the principles and practice of instructional design. At the end of the first course, students are expected to be familiar with several models for designing instruction and with the philosophy and assumptions of instructional design,

CONNECTING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE 73

and to have designed a short lesson in a content of their own choosing. Therefore, students are introduced to the technical knowledge required to complete a project involving the practice of instructional design.

When preparing for the project-oriented course, the instructor sought out local organizations with a willingness to work with instructional design students. The instructor sought two characteristics in such organizations--a commitment to training/instruction within the organization and a willingness to spend the necessary time working with student teams on the development of instructional products. After discussions with several organizations, the instructor decided to work with a division of a major international automobile manufac- turer which had recently entered the automobile insurance business. The division had recently relocated to the area and was responsible for providing service by telephone and mail to insurance holders throughout the United States. The division was regarded by management and employees as a young com- pany and most of the employees were newly hired for the startup.

After the instructor selected the client organization, the client was asked to identify organizational needs which might be addressed through instruction. This request resulted in a working document outlining perceived instructional needs of the client organization in the areas of human relations training, occupational health and safety, communications in the workplace, and organizational skills. The preliminary instructional needs also outlined a tentative timeline for completion of various phases of project development (tour of organization by instructional design teams, provision of project blueprints (course content and strategy blueprints), piloting of draft instructional materials with organization employees and finalized training programs delivered to organization employees). It was agreed that the client organization would provide the instructional design teams with access to employees (observing employees on-the-job, completion of surveys, evaluations by the employees, pilot groups for evaluating materials, and participants in finalized training programs), and to training facilities (rooms,

overhead projectors, etc.). It was also understood that the client organization would not provide subject matter expertise in the development of the agreed upon instructional products--each design team would have to develop expertise in their chosen topic using their own resources.

Finally, each instructional design team was assigned a representative within the client organization. The representatives were members of the training department and were given the responsibility of reviewing all materials developed by the design teams as to their suitability for client use. In addition, the representatives acted as intermediaries between the design teams and all levels of the client organization.

INITIAL PROJECT ACTIVITIES

All students were aware of the nature of the project when they registered for the course. In the first class meeting, students were presented with the instructional needs document prepared by the client organization. After reviewing the broad outline of the project, including needs that could be addressed by instruction, students introduced themselves to each other and formed themselves into teams of three. Nine students were registered for the class, so there were three teams of three students each. Important factors in the composi- tion of the groups were (1) the preference of particular people within groups for particular topics and (2) the home location of students. Since student teams were required to develop expertise in their chosen topic without any help from the client organization, some students were naturally drawn to topics in which they felt they had some expertise; for example, two of the students in the class were nurses and they eventually became part of a team that developed a training program on health issues related to working in a high computer-use environment.

The primary reason for providing a level of choice to students was that allowing student teams to work on topics in which they had some expertise (at least at the team level) would enable team members to focus more on other demands of the task. In fact, the skill of

74

Figure 1. [ ] Objectives for Each Training Course

ETR&D, Vol 42, No, 3

After completing the Health Awareness at the Computer Terminal training course, associates will be able to:

1. Apply appropriate eyestrain avoidance techniques.

2. Apply proper techniques for healthier work postures at the keyboard.

3. Apply appropriate techniques for adjusting workstation for proper distances, angles and comfort.

4. Perform appropriate stress reduction exercises.

After completing the Listening for Success training course, associates will be able to:

1. Identify the role of listening in interpersonal communications and the difference between hearing and listening (supporting objective).

2. Recognize the business advantages of listening (supporting objective).

3. Identify poor listening styles they may use (supporting objective).

4. Apply effective listening skills in real-life work situations (primary objective).

After completing the Conflict Management Strategy training course, associates will be able to:

1. Describe the key characteristics of interpersonal conflict (supporting objective).

2. Recognize the effects of interpersonal conflict (supporting objective).

3. Identify how conflict can be a positive force (supporting objective).

4. Apply an effective conflict management strategy (primary objective).

Figure 2. [] Portion of Script from Listening Skills Training Course

Trainer Activities Materials Associate Activities

Present the guidelines for active listening.

Present directions for the workplace scenario activity.

Conduct workplace scenario activity. Read the scenario to the groups.

Elicit discussion about activity and relate back to guidelines for active listening.

Hand out Action Plan form.

Request associates to complete evaluation.

Thank associates for participation in training.

Transparency and handout: Guidelines for Active Listening.

Activity: Active Listening Role Play.

Handout: Action Plan.

Handout: Course Evaluation: Listening for Success.

Listen and complete handout: Guidelines for Active Listening.

Ask questions about the activity as necessary.

Listen, observe, and participate in the activity.

Respond and offer comments about the activity.

Complete action plan form.

Associates complete Course Evaluation: Listening for Success.

Time Required: 50 minutes.

CONNECTING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE

Table 1 [ ] Product Development Schedule

75

Phase

Analysis Development First Pilot Second Pilot Evaluation

Instructor Review Deadline

Week 3 Week 8

Client Review Deadline

Week 4 Week 9

Delivery Deadline

Week 11 Week 13

Week 15

researching content and performing content and task analysis was not a primary goal of the project--instead the goals of the project were more in terms of student teams experiencing how instructional design models function in a real-world environment.

The place of residence of students was considered an important factor by student teams. Three students lived a significant distance away from both the university and the client. Since, in general, a significant number of graduate students in the program do not live within the university community it was important for students to make full use of electronic communication for communicating with each other and with the client organization. In one team, two out of three students had to commute more than 1.5 hours for face-to-face meetings with the client organization.

CONTINUING PROJECT ACTIVITIES

During the first two weeks of the semester, student teams met with the client and decided on the instructional projects to be worked on. The three projects agreed on by the client and the student teams were two-hour training courses on the topics of conflict management in the workplace, listening skills in the workplace, and health awareness when working at computer terminals. A list of objectives eventually developed for each project is given in Fig- ure 1. Instructional strategies used by the design teams included lecture, discussion, role- playing, simulation, and hands-on practice. The number of learners in each project ranged from five to thirteen; all learners had high

school diplomas and many had college degrees.

It was decided early on by the client and the instructor that the delivery of one-time training courses by the student teams would be of lim- ited use to the client. Therefore, the overall goal for each team was to develop training materials so that each course could be delivered subsequently by client trainers. These materials comprised print and computer copies of an instructor's guide, a learner's guide and all handouts, transparencies and job-aids required to deliver each course of instruction. The instructor's guide provided a suggested script for all activities, an overview of the instruction, comprehensive analysis and discussion of the content, and additional content references to be used as desired by the instructor. Figure 2 shows a part of the script from the instructor's guide for the course on listening skills.

Students discussed progress on projects with the instructor during weekly class meetings. In addition, all materials were subject to a final review by the instructor before delivery to the client for review. The instructor was also available to students outside of class to answer any questions and to deal with any problems that arose. The instructor also maintained reg- ular contact with the client organization and was available to answer any questions that the client representatives might have. Student teams worked according to the schedule shown in Table 1.

Students also maintained a logsheet detail- ing the total number of hours spent on each phase of the project. Time spent was classified into analysis (of environment, learners, and

76

Table 2 [ ] Hours Spent on Project Development

ETR&D, Vol 42, No. 3

Project Analysis Development D e l i v e r y Evaluation Total

Conflict Management 61 168 53 11 293 Listening Skills 53 166 62 3 284

Health Awareness 49 130 39 8 226

content), development (of instructional strategies and accompanying materials), delivery (first and second tryouts of training materials and resulting revisions to instructional strategies and materials), and evaluation (of all ele- ments of instruction by student teams and by learners). A summary of the number of hours spent by each team on each phase of product development is displayed in Table 2.

CONCLUDING PROJECT ACTMTIES

At the conclusion of the project, the instructor graded each set of materials on the basis of whether they followed instructional design principles and their potential suitability for the client, based on the needs and constraints of the client as perceived by the student teams and by the instructor. All submissions were, graded by the instructor on a satisfactory/unsatisfactory basis. While the instructor graded each student team's materials, each member of each team also graded his (her) colleagues on their contribution to project development. If a team member's contribution was graded as less than satisfactory by his (her) two colleagues, the overall course grade of that team member was reduced by one letter grade. The purpose of this aspect of the grading sys- tem was to promote self-monitoring of performance by each team and to place primary responsibility for team management on team members rather than on the instructor.

MAIN FINDINGS

The findings reported here concern the value of the process and the quality of the final product from the point of view of the learners who

received the instruction, of the client representatives and of the student teams who developed the instruction. In addition, characteristics of the process which became evident to the instructor will be discussed, including initial confusion among the student teams and the client representatives about their roles, the use of technical language in materials presented to the client by student teams, and the realization by student teams of the limitations of instructional design models in real- world situations. Finally, based on this experience, some suggestions will be given for instructors who wish to introduce their students to real-world practice in this way.

Learner Evaluations

After each delivery of instruction by student teams, learners were asked to complete a questionnaire concerning the value of the instruction and requesting suggestions for im- provement. Feedback from the second presentation was considered the principal measure of the quality of the courses as perceived by the learners. For each course, learners were asked to rate their ability to perform each of the skills presented in the course as well as the quality of the presentation. A summary of responses for each of the three courses is given in Table 3. In each case, responses indicated a high level of course goal achievement as perceived by learners. It should be noted that the data in Table 3 reflect learner perceptions of their knowledge and potential performances rather than actual performance measures. The client organization had presented the three projects to employees as developmental in nature and had requested that no formal performance assessment be undertaken at the conclusion of each course.


Table 3 [ ] Learner Perceptions of Instruction

Statement Response (5 = Strongly Agree)

Health Awareness

After training, I can perform stress reduction exercises

After training, I can properly adjust my chair and keyboard

After training, I can practice eyestrain avoidance techniques

Conflict Management

4.92

5.00

4.85

I have a clear personal definition of conflict

I can name two emotional and two physical effects of conflict

I can identify how contact can be a positive force

I can identify two strategies commonly used to deal with conflict and tell why they do not work

I am able to apply a specific conflict management strategy to a conflict situation

Listening Skills

4.67

4.83

4.83

4.58

4.25

I understand the difference between hearing and listening

I can list three professional and three personal advantages of listening

I can identify three ineffective listening styles that are commonly used

I can apply active listening skills in my professional and personal life.

5.00

4.50

4.80

5.00

Client Evaluations

After the final t raining materials were delivered to the client organizat ion, each representative was asked for feedback regarding the value of the process to the organization. Repre- sentat ives p rov ided wri t ten responses to four sets of quest ions from the supervisor of training. The quest ions and the responses are presented in Table 4. Responses indicate a high level of satisfaction with the instructional materials and the process and a strong interest in cont inuing the process. In addit ion, Table 4 indicates that the average amount of client t ime devoted to the process was approximate ly eight hours , a very small t ime commitment for the re turn to the client organization.

Student Team Evaluations

Several pa t te rns emerged from s tudent team wri t ten evaluat ions of the process they

had part ic ipated in. First, all teams men t ioned the lack of guidance on program evaluat ion in the instructional design models they used. Sec- ond, each team stated the lack of guidance available in the instructional des ign l i terature on the appropr ia te choice and subsequent use of instructional strategies. Third, two teams ment ioned their lack of skill in deal ing with other project part icipants and their initial confusion about their roles. One team ment ioned the difficulty in dealing with sensitive issues of content and their initial difficulties in working together as a group. Another team noted their lack of expertise in project managemen t skills. Finally, each team expressed s t rong satisfaction with the value of the project in terms of the practical knowledge gained. Each of these issues will now be discussed in turn.

The issue of formative evaluat ion of materials was perceived by s tudent teams to be one in which their knowledge was lacking. All three teams stated that the instructional des ign models wi th which they were familiar d id not

78

Table 4 [] Client Representative Evaluation of Process and Product

ETR&D, Vol 42, No. 3

Question Representative Representative Representative (Conflict (Listening (Health

Management) Skills) Awareness)

Were the projects well done? Was the experience worthwhile?

Should we sponsor projects like this in the future?

Was the quality of the projects acceptable (more than~ess than)? Will any projects need modification for us to present them ourselves?

As a representative with your group, approximately how much time did you spend reviewing the projects, meeting with the group, setting up facilities, scheduling etc.?

Yes. Everything was handled in a timely and professional manner.

Yes. This type of project provides us with current research, up to date training materials and a well- designed training program.

Yes. Further use of the training may require some slight modifications if the target audience is changed or if the presenter deems it necessary.

5 hours--facility setup, audit and evaluate presentations 1.5 hours--meeting with instructor and group 1.5 hours--review materials, phone calls and questions.

Yes. The training class flowed smoothly, the associates appeared interested, and the training materials were presented in an organized and professional manner.

Yes. However, I do think that the representative's role should be dearly spelled out in the future.

Yes. I do not know if the project needs to be modified for us to present.

5 hours---classroom setup, monitoring training. 1.5 hours--meetings and phone calls. 1.5 hours--reviewing materials.

Yes. The associates who attended the class appeared to find it worthwhile information.

Yes. Projects such as this serve as a very good source of material for future training sessions.

Yes. Given the topic and the target audience, I felt the information was appropriate and sequenced in a logical manner.

2.5 hours--pilot presentation 2.5 hours--final presentation 1.5 hours---meetings with instructor and students 1.5 hours--reviewing materials, phoning, misc.

make clear tha t formative evaluat ion was a cons tant process which should ideally take place "dur ing and after each step of the mode l . " As project deve lopment continued, s tuden t teams real ized that it wou ld be most efficient for them to obtain evaluations not just at the complet ion of each phase, but also at different stages within each phase. While such an a r rangement would undoubted ly be more efficient for the s tudent teams, nevertheless there is a limit to the amount of review and evalua- t ion which clients can be expected to do dur ing deve lopment . For that reason, the instructor

had scheduled formal evaluat ion of materials by the instructor and the client only at the completion of each draft of the analysis and development phases of the project. As the projects progressed, s tudent teams wished to have greater access to their client representat ives. This proved to be possible and it was agreed that s tudent teams could contact the client representatives as necessa ry on an informal basis in addi t ion to the formal evaluation deadl ines initially agreed to by the client. Another team stated that they were unsure of what to do when "ideal" evaluat ion condit ions were not


present; for example, many instructional design models talk about the need for a review of materials by an external (to the design team) expert and it was not clear to the team who should fulfill this role or if it was necessary to fulfill this step. In fact, this step was not carried out as time constraints and lack of availability of an external expert precluded teams performing this step.

One of the most common criticisms made about the instructional design literature was the lack of specific directions for completing development tasks. Many models prescribe macro-level strategies (analysis of learners, learning context and content, goal and objective specification, evaluation and measurement guidelines), but few models prescribe micro- level strategies (strategies for teaching particular types of content to a particular audience of learners). Each team commented on the lack of specific directions in completing development tasks in the models they used. For example, the team responsible for the conflict management course commented that "relatively little time was spent by any model addressing the micro- instructional level . . . . they do not address micro-instructional strategies and how these might be used within the (overall) framework." The team responsible for the development of the listening skills course noted that there was no guidance in the models on how to synthesize all the information provided to the learners or how to promote transfer of the skills to the workplace. The team responsible for the health awareness course commented on the lack of guidance in instructional design models on inte- grating objectives, content, and instructional strategies.

Two teams commented on the initial lack of clarity of team members as to their roles with regard to the client and to the instructor. They discussed the need to make clear to team members who the client(s) were for their instruction. This issue appeared to the instructor to be crucial in the early stages of the course and will be discussed in greater detail in the next section.

The team responsible for the health awareness course commented on the issue of what content to include in the instruction in a situation where some content might be considered

to be sensitive. For example, some of the available information on the health effects of con- tinually working in a high computer-use environment could be considered as sensitive. What content to include and what not to include became an important issue for the team. It was decided to include all the content that was considered to be necessary for a thor- ough treatment of the topic and let the client decide what was and was not appropriate. This proved to be a satisfactory solution and the conterit of the final draft was considered appropriate both by the client and the student teams.

Two teams commented on issues related to project management - -work ing in a team and managing the project time frame. One team considered that members were initially "unfa- miliar or uncomfortable with group decision making procedures." Team members stated that once the team established itself with defined roles and parameters for group members, project development was facilitated. Another team commented on their difficulty of accurately estimating the time needed for completion of the various phases of project development and expressed a desire for more guidance in this aspect of project management .

Finally, written comments provided by the instructional design teams clearly indicated that each team felt the project was a very useful experience. The team responsible for the health awareness course concluded that "As a group we are in agreement that we have completed a valuable experience whether we made mistakes or not for this was a win-win situation. As students our livelihoods were not on the line . . . . from all indications, the training was a success measured at least in the fact that as students we confronted issues only realized in a work environment. For this we are grateful." The team responsible for the conflict management course concluded that, "despite trials and tribulations, the process of meaningful real-world instructional design was a very good one for our entire team. We are grateful for this opportunity." The team responsible for the listening skills course commented that "It was a good experience and we all learned a lot from the p r o c e s s . . , the course gets the high- est marks for far transfer."

80 ETR&D, Vol 42, No, 3

Instructor Evaluat ion

As was indicated earlier in student evaluations of the process, initially there was a lot of confusion and ambiguity experienced by the groups with respect to whom they were working for--the client organization or the instructor. This was so even though it had been written in the syllabus that the goal of the project was to develop instructional materials for a client. However, it was also stated in the syllabus that all materials would be reviewed by the instructor prior to presentation to the client. In addition, grading of materials would be done by the instructor on the basis of their perceived suitability for the client. Such statements of course goals and grading structure seemed to provide mixed messages to the students. Stu- dents were dearly aware that they were required to develop an instructional product for the client, yet the course grading scheme also suggested to students that they present material considered appropriate to the instructor. The potential for confusion and ambiguity inherent in these directions was not recognized by the instructor prior to the student teams expressing their concern.

This concern was first expressed by students when they received comments from the instructor on the first draft of their content analysis and statement of learning goals and objectives. At that point two aspects of the materials were commented on by the instructor as needing refinement: the language used in the material and to whom it was addressed. It was clear that students were using terms that would not be readily understood by non- instructional designers. For example, terms such as task~content analysis, terminal and enabling objectives, information processing analysis, and declarative knowledge were used without any explanation. The instructor requested that the material be reviewed with the goal of elim- inating or providing an explanation for unfa- miliar terms, with elimination being the preferred option. A related issue concerned the stated audience for the materials--all three teams had specified both the instructor and the client organization in the cover sheets for the materials. The instructor requested that materials specify only the dient as the stated audi-

ence. At this point, student teams expressed their lack of clarity as to whom they were working for. As one group expressed it subsequently in their final report, "Who has the final authority? Who is the customer for the instructional materials? How do we balance the needs and concerns of the associate trainees, the client representative, the instructor?" The instructor emphasized that the customer for all materials was the client organization and that student teams should prepare all materials with this in mind. If at any time any conflict arose between what the client wanted and what was considered appropriate from instructional design principles, any solution would not negatively affect the students' grade. As it happened, no such conflict arose during the course of the project.

While the lack of clarity on the part of the student teams as to who the client(s) were for their work obviously affected the type of language used, it is also the point of view of the instructor that students' previous training in instructional design promoted the use of instructional design terminology. By the end of the first course in instructional design, students had become very familiar with the terminology of discipline and had completed a substantive design for a piece of instruction. The appropriate use of instructional design terminology to explain completed designs was necessary for student learning of the discipline and did not pose any problem since the "client" in that course was the instructor. There- fore, without explicit instructions to monitor their designs for language, it is likely that student teams would still have introduced technical instructional development terminology into their projects, even with a more accurate realization of who the client was. With hindsight, it is clear that the instructor should have explicitly clarified the role of the instructor and the client representative at the outset and also the role of language in the materials developed for the client organization.

While student teams expressed confusion about their role in the initial stages of the project, this was also true (but to a much lesser extent) of the client representatives. All representatives were employed as trainers within the organization and were given the responsi-


bility by their supervisors of reviewing all materials developed by the student teams as to their suitability. While the representatives were aware that instructional materials were being developed for their organization, they were also aware that members of the instructional design team were undergoing training themselves and that student grades depended on the quality of the materials. This being the case, representatives initially expressed some concern about the effect of their reviews on the grades of the teams. The instructor made clear that all grading would be done by the instructor on the basis of the instructor's assessment of the materials and that the representatives should not be concerned with this aspect of the project. It was emphasized that the sole concern of the representatives should be the suitability of materials in fulfilling organizational needs. Representatives readily took this advice and subsequently reviewed materials only from this point of view.

As indicated earlier, it became clear to the student teams that the instructional design models presented in earlier classes in the graduate program presented an idealized picture of the process of instructional development. For example, the difficulty encountered by teams in obtaining uidance on instructional strategies from the literature has already been noted. Several other constraints also became apparent to student teams as the course proceeded. In one instance, a team had considered requesting potential learners to complete a personality assessment instrument. However, for legal and other reasons, the team was not given permis- sion to do this. In addition, some design teams became aware of issues of protocol when developing instruction. For example, supervi- sory staff became concerned about the nature of the instruction on conflict management planned for their subordinates and it was necessary for the team responsible to discuss the planned instruction with these supervisors prior to giving the instruction to the subordinates. As one team put it "As novice instructional designers, we found the development of this lesson to be more complicated than any of the (instructional design) models prepared us for. We quickly discovered that the knowledge of the design process in general and instruc-

tional design models in particular are necessary but not sufficient preparation for design and development in the real world."

LESSONS LEARNED

As stated earlier, the goals of this project were to promote student reflection on practitioner- oriented knowledge in instructional design and to make explicit the mechanics of applying such instructional design principles in a real- world environment. Students became aware of the "idealistic" nature of instructional design models, how such models have to be adapted to suit particular circumstances, and how such models provide little guidance in particular areas of instructional development. In addition to achieving a high level of success as judged by the student teams, the client organization and the instructor, the experience also serves to provide some guidelines for other instructors considering such a course. The following guidelines are considered to be the most important:

1. Choose the client organization carefully. The most important factors may be a commitment to training within the dient organization and a willingness to commit necessary resources to the project.

2. Make explicit the roles of the client representatives, the student teams, and the instructor. In the environment in which this project was situated, where high grades are considered important, the issue of grading criteria needs to be explicitly addressed by the instructor.

3. Remind student teams to use non-technical language when communicating with the client.

4. Provide guidance to students on working in teams and on project management skills.

5. Create and maintain an open classroom environment which encourages and demands discussion of progress and refection on students' experiences of put- ting principles into practice.

82 ETR&D, Vo142, No. 3

CONCLUSIONS

Emerging epistemologies of professional practice suggest that knowledge of technical skills is inadequate for successful practice. Practical knowledge and skills are also necessary for professional practice. This paper has reported on an at tempt to provide graduate students in instructional design with such practical knowledge early in their graduate program. Despite initial confusion about the roles of the instructor, the students, and the client, the projects were considered to be worthwhile by the students, the client's representatives and by the instructor. [ ]

James Quinn is at The University of Iowa.

REFERENCES

Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situ- ated cognition and the culture of learning. Educa- tional Researcher, 18(1), 32-41.

Clark, C.M., & Peterson, P.L. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In Wittrock, M.C. (Ed.), Hand- book of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan, 1989.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2- 10.

Curry, L., Wergin, J. F., & Associates (1993). Educat-

ing professionals: Responding to new expectations for competence and accountability. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dowie, J., & Elstein, A. (Eds.). (1988). Professional judgment: A reader in clinical decision-making. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Floden, R.E. (1986). The cul- tures of teaching. In Wittrock, M.C. (Ed.), Hand- book of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan, 1989.

Gagn4, E.D. (1985). The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

Harris, I. (1993). New expectations for professional competence. In Curry, L. Wergin, J.F., & Associ- ates (1993). Educating professionals: Responding to new expectations for competence and accountability. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Koen, B.V. (1984). Toward a definition of the engineering method. Engineering Education, 75(3), 150- 155.

Lesgold, A., Rubinson, H., Feltovich, P., Glaser, R., Klopfer, D., & Wang, Y. (1988). Expertise in a com- plex skill: Diagnosing x-ray pictures. In M.T.H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M.J. Farr, (Eds.), The nature of expertise. HiUsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schon, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Schon, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Siegel, D.H. (1984). Defining empirically based practice. Social Work, 29(4), 325-331.

Stephenson, J. & Weil, S. (1992). Quality in learning. London: Kogan Page.

Winn, W. (1989). Toward a rationale and theoretical basis for educational technology. Educational Tech- nology Research and Development, 37(1), 35-46.

connecting education and practice in an instructional design graduate program

Documents