1. Getting feedback early and often, from the learner's perspective, is critical to the success a rapid design project. What strategies do you recommend for gaining useful and timely feedback from people who represent the learner's perspective?
1.1. "...explain precisely what you want feedback on" (Lisefski, 2019).
1.1.1. the most valuable feedback from a learner is in regards to if the learning objectives were met.
1.1.1.1. The objectives should very clearly show the path from current state to desired state as established in the needs assessment, so the learner should easily be able to follow this path established by the objectives to gain an understanding of the entire design of the content. From there, the representative of the learner audience will have the foundation to be able to provide feedback from, in all stages of the design process.
1.1.2. In regards to timeliness, Lisefski (2019) requests feedback using this phrase, “Please provide feedback within 24 hours. If that’s not possible, please notify me so I can adjust my schedule accordingly."
1.1.2.1. Learners who will review the project should be contacted early, and the instructional designer should be sure to coordinate the schedule and expectations early as well, to ensure all stakeholders are on the same page.
1.2. "Ask the right questions." Like in the analysis phase, asking the right questions would provide you more meaningful and constructive feedback. The designer must be clear on what "exactly [he/she is] testing for" (Dam & Siang, 2020).
1.2.1. Ask questions about exactly what you want feedback on and review feedback to determine if there are new questions that should be asked during future reviews. Adapt and be prepared to deviate from your plan
1.2.2. Let your reviewer contribute ideas by asking open ended questions or turning questions around and asking what they think.
1.3. identify the reviewers early on the instructional design process so time is not wasted finding the appropriate people and contacting them once a product is ready for review--this could waste multiple days or more, depending on the situation
1.3.1. it's important to set expectations for their review--scoping it to their expertise--so quality feedback is received
1.4. prototypes can be a good way to get actual instructional content in front of sample learners for feedback before going too far into the development process--this allows you to save time polishing materials that may be changed or ineffective.
1.4.1. get the steps scheduled on the calendar to force you to work through a prototype and make meaningful progress.
1.4.2. Have the target audience member interact with a high-fidelity prototype (and even throughout the prototyping process) to provide feedback on the training/course navigation and layout.
1.4.3. Choose the right tools to gather the feedback according to the type of the prototype.
1.4.3.1. "Be neutral when presenting your ideas." Using an online survey or email feedback techniques could help designers avoid imposing their bias on the user. However, the important point is to be "objective" and accept positive and negative feedback to enhance the prototype.
1.4.4. Test the prototype with extreme users.
1.4.5. Test several versions of your prototype at once to allow your audience to compare the different versions and solicit critical feedback.
1.4.6. test the user experience and user interface on the target audience and get feedback from them before creating the content and activities.
1.5. Before feedback can be expected from the instructor, learners must use everything the instructor has made available to the learners in order to receive useful feedback.
1.5.1. Once everything that is expected from the instructor is noted, it is important to make note of all due dates so learners can organize themselves and make sure they meet these deadlines.
1.5.2. Use feedback from the instructor as often as you can.
1.5.3. Use outlines for steps as often as possible.
1.5.4. Don't be afraid to ask questions.
1.6. Using the “scrum” process discussed by Piskurich (2015) in chapter 4 and 6, to gain quick feedback from a variety of perspectives. This process would allow for a lot of information to be obtain in a short amount of time, since this process allows for reviewers to see each other’s comments and to build upon that feedback.
1.7. Through the “scrum” process feedback can be simultaneously gather from other important perspective in addition to the learner perspective such as supervisors/managers, SMEs, and other instructional designers.
1.8. Let your reviewer contribute ideas by asking open ended questions or turning questions around and asking what they think.
2. What other perspectives are also valuable?
2.1. Although the learners can provide insight into the effectiveness of the training, having another ID professional could be useful. SME input will ensure that the content is accurate--which is important from the start to ensure that no errors are built into the project.
2.1.1. If a formal step for cleaning up / editing will be part of the overall lifecycle of the project, let them know. It may be easier for reviewers to let go of those editorial comments if they know a professional editor will be reviewing it later--or simply, that commenting on editorial items may be a waste of their time.
2.2. other individuals who aren’t necessarily the target audience group can and should be invited to these sessions as well; supervisors and managers get to have a first look at what is in the training and familiarize themselves with it
2.2.1. Other vital perspectives include higher management, decision-makers, and subject-matter experts. While they might not be the target audience, their input and support of the learning and instruction are essential to complete the design. Furthermore, the feedback from decision-makers, higher management, and subject-matter experts must be early upon completing each design process.
2.3. Identify people who work closely with the learners.
3. Beta tests and pilot tests can make or break a project, and yet it is often difficult to get this process wrapped into a project (rapidly designed or not). What are some activities you could do to get quick feedback on drafts without taking too much time? How do you strike a good balance between having a prototype that gives reviewers enough to provide useful feedback without going too far into development that it is hard to make adjustments?
3.1. Another quick way to obtain feedback with regards to content is to provide the sample reviewers with a pre/post-test, even if that won’t actually be given in the training (p.266). You can analyze the data from the pre/post-test to see if the objectives of the content are mastered and decide if you’ve used the best instructional strategies in the training course.
3.2. One quick way to obtain feedback on a draft during beta testing is to invite an instructional designer to complete a checklist with regards to the design of the training (p. 272). A checklist is quick because there is less need for written comments or verbal debriefs.
3.2.1. providing the reviewer with a structure will help streamline the process and the reviewer will not be left guessing which areas to focus feedback on.
3.3. While its isn’t an option for every instructional format utilizing an asynchronous model for project feedback can be a good option. This of course is perfect for projects that are intended to be delivered in an asynchronous format already. Conducting a test in the format does require some pre planning on the part of the instructional designer. Those reviewing the project need clear guidance and pre planned questions to answer to ensure that they are providing useful, clear, productive feedback on the project.
3.3.1. Having a conversation in advance to provide clarity around what they should expect will be useful so all of our feedback isn't a big inventory of what is missing.
3.4. distribute the draft and then within a few days, schedule a meeting to gather feedback and/or walkthrough the product. This ensures that feedback is received and is provided more directly. This may also result in less back and forth between designers and reviewers if issues/misunderstandings/questions can be resolved in that moment rather than over emails over the course of a few days or so. This aligns with Piskurich's (2015) recommendation to keep beta testers in the same room even for a product that is delivered asynchronously (p. 267).
3.4.1. collect feedback in a working meeting. Not only does this allow the reviewer to avoid writing out lengthy notes, sometimes people do not leave clear notes/suggestions which requires additional communication to gain clarity.
3.4.2. Piskurich (2015) mentions obtaining feedback in beta test sessions from both representatives of the target audience and their supervisors, who Piskurich (2015) suggests inviting to the session to provide an additional level of perspective (p. 264). As an alternative to a beta session where many people’s perspectives are involved, designers can hold virtual live feedback sessions with the reviewer,
3.5. depends on the type of feedback at a particular phase. For example, if an instructional designer would like feedback on the overall navigation structure of a course for a quality check (i.e., that everything works correctly and intuitively), it is less important to have all of the content filled in--rather, using a prototype that has the navigation and basic structure/layout of the pages would be useful enough for a reviewer. If an instructional designer would like feedback on content accuracy, having a lower-fidelity prototype but with all of the content filled in (like the storyboards we created) would be more appropriate.
3.6. Designers also should not be hesitant to provide reviewers with more than one prototype, if the designer had made a decision that they believe could have gone in either direction. Again, it should be made clear which areas of the prototype reviewers should be focusing on in their feedback.
3.6.1. In order to get quick feedback on drafts without taking too much time is to focus on knowing who will review your evaluation data, what data they want, why they need it, and how they’ll use it.
3.7. A key to effective feedback is to identify the goal of evaluating the prototype. Asking the right questions and putting an accurate strategy for evaluation and feedback will save the instructional designer valuable time.
3.8. When the designer reaches the prototype stage, he or she can continue to ask for feedback, maybe include more people, or expand the circle. Start with initial feedback from a small group of people upon the start of the development, expand the number when further development is done, and when there is a semi-final prototype, the designer can go through a pilot or a bet test for refinement
3.9. having beta tests or pilots can be a challenging sell in work environments.
4. "What stood out to me more about rapid instructional design is that it is very much ingrained in the context of the project--it requires more of an understanding on the instructional designer's part of the project to know where steps can be combined, skipped, done in tandem, or made more efficient (e.g., in the level/depth of documentation created)--in ways that won't negatively impact the effectiveness of the final product." Julia
5. How does rapid instructional design differ from the instructional design models you have already learned, and how is it similar?
5.1. Similar
5.1.1. Similar to ADDIE and Dick & Carey; This class showed me that the rapid instructional design is similar to ADDIE and D&C because all of these models ensure that the training objectives are clear and emphasize evaluation to prove that those objectives will be met at the end of the training.
5.1.1.1. each of the ADDIE steps still must be completed
5.1.1.2. Dick and Carey model, many of the steps to map out the instruction are the same. If we cut any of the steps out we run the risk of creating an educational product that is not sound.
5.1.2. the backward model could be seen as a rapid model of its own since it’s typically used when the desired results are already known, such as for state standard exams (Culatta, n.d., para. 5).
5.1.3. The Kemp model presents itself as more of a non-sequential model than many others, as its grouping of phases does not specify when each phase/component occurs. For instance, the third component is designating the content for the instruction, and the fourth component is identifying the objectives; clearly these do not occur in that order (Kurt, 2016, para. 6). The rapid design model discussed in this course is similarly fluid
5.1.4. foundation of sound instructional design principles and models to follow. Ultimately they guide us to look at all of the pieces of the puzzle that comes with instructional design and seeing how those puzzle pieces can best be applied to our project, programs, or training.
5.2. Different
5.2.1. Though rapid instructional design has the same steps and context as ADDIE and D&C, the differences exist in timing.
5.2.2. Rapid instructional designs are representative of the spiral design model, “...in that they recognize the value of producing a working prototype early in the design phase” (Youngman, 2017). This leaves space for analysis to be concurrent with the design phase.
5.2.2.1. there ends up being much more fluid movement back and forth between the steps. Because less time is spent of each step it is necessary to return to previous steps or to jump ahead to get other steps started before the previous step is completed.
5.2.3. there is a big push to re-use existing content when we are able to
5.2.4. Dick and Carey model: more emphasis is placed on detailing out each component of the instruction and then creating our instruction whereas with rapid prototyping we are rapidly prototyping!
5.2.5. clearer for me to see how these phases are iterative and intertwined. The Dick and Carey model feels much more linear in comparison (but that could also be adapted to be more flexible in practice), although this shares many of the same qualities.
5.2.6. this model is more focused on practical applications and finding ways to make the process more efficient without sacrificing instructional quality.
5.2.7. differs from the backwards model of instructional design in that the backwards model lacks an analysis phase where the learners and learning & performance contexts are traditionally analyzed in the rapid and Dick & Carey models.
5.2.8. the rapid model has much greater emphasis on beta and pilot testing which contributes to evaluation of the design, while the Kemp model does not address specifics about reviewer or SME feedback.
5.2.9. The differences are the order of the stages and the documentation outcome.
5.2.10. rapid instructional design aligns with the 21st-century approach to designing instruction without compromising its quality.
5.2.11. creating pathways to quicker outcomes in the development and design phases.