Posts Tagged With: instructional design

Oh, the final countdown


(Pixabay, 2016)

As I was contemplating what to write for my final blog post for this course, the song The Final Countdown started playing in my head; hence, the title of this post. There are only about four weeks left in the semester and they are jam packed with to do items. I am happy to say that I am fully finished developing my Canvas course and the job aid to complement it. I credit starting early in the semester with being able to finish on time and ahead of schedule. I admit it made for some painful weeks early on but that brief pain made the rest of the semester progress much more smoothly. I wasn’t rushing to try and finish everything. I have been able to take my time and really look at my course to provide some enhancements.

A recent challenge I encountered with my Canvas course is customization. Since we are using the free teacher accounts for Canvas, we don’t have access to the administrative side of Canvas to modify the default Canvas colors and fonts for much of our content. I have found it frustrating as I wanted to change the generic green of the Modules to my custom blue color to tie all my content together. Although I couldn’t make those changes, an addition I was able to make to my course pertained to the course homepage navigational buttons. Using Photoshop, I designed navigational buttons that incorporate my custom blue for the background color; instead of the generic black that Canvas provides. I think it really pops and adds a touch of professionalism to the course look.

Another challenge I faced was deciding how to layout my modules page so that it made the most sense navigationally to students. My peer reviewer supplied some great ideas on how I could do this. In the end, I added some headers to divide the assignments for each week and modified the titles of each assignment. This way students can clearly see what is due each week and the order it should be completed in. I think it will help students move smoothly through the course.

What do I still need to do? Well, I need to finish revising my course based upon my peer’s feedback and supply her with some as well. I will also need to revise my job aid based upon peer feedback. I really do think that overall the course is useful and will provide an advantage to our instruction in my current job.

As we are in Week 13 of a 16-week semester, it is looking unlikely that I will be able to implement and evaluate the course. My colleagues have said that they would like to implement the course in the coming Spring semester so I am looking forward to seeing how it all unfolds. I am excited to hear actual student feedback and be able to use it to improve the course structure and content. All in all, I have enjoyed learning how to make an online course from scratch. It has supplied me with new skills and insight into the world of instructional design.


Pixabay. (2016). Number counter [Digital image]. Retrieved from

Categories: LTEC 5510 | Tags: | Leave a comment

Light ahead

Rays of the sun

(Ong, n. d.)

Here we are in week 10 of the semester and there are only a few weeks remaining before the semester ends. I have been diligently working on getting the last of the materials for my online course finished and ready to go. I’ve developed and created all of my course modules, which includes the online tutorials, the videos, the discussion posts, the readings, the quizzes, the final project, the worksheets, the peer reviews, and the rubrics. This was the bulk of my course and made for a busy semester!

I still need to finalize the job aid for my course and submit it to my peer reviewer for feedback. Then, once I’ve revised it, I’ll add it to the course homepage. After that, the only thing that I should need to do to finish my course is to publish it. Based upon the feedback I’ve received from my peer reviewer and my work colleague, I think it’s going to turn out to be a good course that will be useful for my current job. It was my goal to create something that can be used outside of my UNT course.

For the most part, I have been very lucky. Aside from some confusion on adding me to her course, my peer reviewer has been very responsive with her feedback and it has been both helpful and positive. I haven’t experienced any major design challenges as the biggest change I had to make was to link the tutorials in Canvas instead of embedding them. It was an easy fix and didn’t’ require any other major changes to the course.

I believe that I will be able to meet my original timeline for completion. In fact, if things continue as they have been, I should be able to finish ahead of schedule, which lifts a huge weight from my shoulders. At the beginning of the semester, I wasn’t sure if I would be able to accomplish everything I wanted within the expected time frame. My plan is to use any extra time to tweak the parts of my course that need it based upon feedback from my reviewer and instructor.

I won’t be able to implement or evaluate the course within this semester. The main reason being that the course is designed to take place over 16 weeks and we are already in week 10 of the semester. By the time I’ll receive the final feedback on my course and the job aid, it will be week 13 and too late to expect someone to attempt to complete the course in its entirety. When I do have the time to implement and evaluate it, I want the people who take the course to have the full time they need to work through the course materials. I also want to be able to devote enough time to revise it based upon their feedback. My hope is to use actual business students from my university. I am looking forward to hearing what students think about the course content and hope that they find the course helpful.


Ong, M. (n. d.) Rays of the sun [Digital image]. Retrieved from

Categories: LTEC 5510 | Tags: | Leave a comment

Course Development

Continuing on in my online course design journey, I’ve been busy at work putting my course content in Canvas, the Learning Management System (LMS), that we are using to host our online courses. We are supposed to have about one-half of our course finished. I have been trying to work ahead as much as I can so that I can spend the majority of my time on any revisions needed and polishing my course. Because of the many hours I put in at the beginning of the semester, I have much of my course content already in place in Canvas. I estimate that about 75% of it is ready to go.

Before starting to work in Canvas, I did spend a few hours watching the instructor videos that Canvas provides. I found them to be very helpful in getting me started as well as orienting me to Canvas. My experience with Canvas has been very positive. It seems to be both user-friendly and intuitive in its design. I like working in Canvas much better than Blackboard, and so far, I haven’t really needed to make major revisions because of the Canvas structure.

One minor change that I did make pertains to my tutorials. I used an outside tool, LibWizard, to develop and create my online tutorials. Originally, I wanted to embed these in Canvas so that students would stay within Canvas to complete all of the course content. Unfortunately, that didn’t work out as planned. When I tested the tutorials in Canvas, it was inconsistent and wouldn’t display all of the content. I think it is because Canvas requires secure links and not all of the content in my tutorial uses them. Because of this, I had to reassess how I wanted to share my tutorials with students. I decided to provide a link in Canvas to each of the online tutorials that opens in a new tab. I put notes in the assignment areas in Canvas indicating that the links would open in a new tab in order to mitigate student confusion, and by making this change, all the tutorial content will display as intended.

The design model is going smoothly for me. After I create content, I send it on to a work colleague for her feedback. She has really helped me to polish my course content before I place it in Canvas. I am hoping that the upfront revisions will make for more positive feedback from my peer reviewer and the instructor. I have found through previous design experiences with other UNT courses that revising more in the beginning tends pay off when it comes to end results, i.e., less revisions are needed later on. Although it is a lot of work, I am enjoying getting experience developing and creating an online course. I fully believe that this experience will make me a better instructional designer.

Categories: LTEC 5510 | Tags: | 1 Comment

Online Course Design

At this point in the semester, I’ve submitted the design document for my online course. I received some very helpful feedback from both my peer reviewer and my instructor. I used that feedback to revise and finalize my design document. Now, I’ve started creating my online course. This experience has been eye opening.

One thing that I quickly realized is that designing an online course from scratch is a lot of work! I have had to think about how to effectively convey information to students, how to engage students with the course content, and how to create a sense of community all without relying on face-to-face communication (Office of Educational Innovation and Technology (OEIT), 2016). This has definitely been the most challenging part for me. I am used to teaching in a face-to-face environment and have struggled with how I can adjust my style and the content to work in a solely online environment. I hope that the design decisions I’ve made are successful.

One thing that seems to have worked well for me is that I started creating my content early. I decided to begin by creating my video scripts and then transitioned to recording them. I used the pro-version of Screencast-O-Matic to do this and it was super easy. They have a very nice feature titled scripted recordings, which allows you to first upload a text file, record the script, then go back and record the video while you listen to the script. I think this feature streamlined my work and saved me a lot of time.  In previous experiences, I had difficulty recording the audio and video simultaneously.

Throughout this course design process, I shared course content with my work colleagues for their feedback and input. It’s been very helpful having an outside perspective. They’ve caught errors that I overlooked, identified unclear content and pointed out potential navigation issues. Luckily, most of the items needing redesign have been minor, such as grammar. At this point, my peer reviewer hasn’t had a chance to review my course but I look forward to hearing the feedback and hope that it is positive. I also haven’t had a chance to provide my peer reviewer with my feedback on her course. I am looking forward to seeing her design choices and sharing my input. I know that when I do receive feedback it will only help me improve my course design.

Overall, I’ve learned that there are many nuances to designing online courses, such as determining the best method for sharing course information – using a discussion post, an announcement, or an email? Once I’ve decided on the method, I then need to determine and schedule the best time for students to share their ideas. I now realize that online course design requires a lot of advance planning (OEIT, 2016). There are many pieces that need to come together as a cohesive whole. I still have a lot of work to do, but I believe this course will come together, and that it will be a great learning experience for me.


Office of Educational Innovation and Technology. 2016. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved from

Categories: LTEC 5510 | Tags: | Leave a comment

Peer Feedback – It’s a Go


(Levine, 2014)

At this point in the semester, I have drafted a rough version of my complete design document for my course. I have to admit I wasn’t expecting to have to submit a complete design document by the second week of the semester. In previous courses, we worked on the design document throughout the semester and were able to make changes and revisions as needed. Needless to say, it was a lot of work up front and made for a very busy couple of weeks. I do understand why we need to have a complete design document. It makes it difficult, if not impossible, to create a course without a sound plan to follow.

At the end of Week 2, I submitted my rough draft for my professor to review. I was pleasantly surprised to see that the work I had put into my design document paid off. My professor was mostly happy with my design document. He did have some suggestions for me to improve it, which I fully expected; however, I was in much better shape than I expected to move forward for the semester. I was relieved to not have to start over and that I just needed to make some minor revisions to my document.

After revising my document based on my instructor’s feedback, it was time for peer feedback. I was very nervous about this part as I didn’t really know who would be in my group. I shouldn’t have worried. My partner was awesome and provided the feedback quickly after we were assigned to our respective groups. Furthermore, I was very lucky in that the feedback she supplied was both insightful and helpful. After reviewing her perspective on my document, I have a better understanding of how a new instructor or instructional designer would interpret my design document.

For the most part, I learned that my design document was in good shape. She had some grammatical suggestions which I followed and she also recommended that a few sentences be modified for clarification purposes. The best part of her peer feedback is that she gave me some insight on the flow of my document. What I mean by that are the little details that I overlooked that make sense to me but not to an outsider reading my document, such as the shorthand name I used for my course, BUSL. It’s clear to me that BUSL stands for Business Library but it wasn’t to my peer.

One area that she made a suggestion to change but I didn’t was the numbering system I used for my goals and objectives. I didn’t delineate my goals and objectives as G.1 and O.1. I used a numbering system that my professor in CECS 5210 recommended, which was 1 and 1.1, 1.2, etc. I like the simplicity of that system and left my numbering system as is.

Other than that one major area, I did try to revise my document based on the suggestions of my peer. I do hope that the feedback I provided her was appreciated and considered in turn. I expect that the changes I made have improved my design document and that by the end of the semester I will have created an awesome course!


Levine, A. (2014, May 26). Got feedback? [Digital image]. Retrieved from

Categories: LTEC 5510 | Tags: , | Leave a comment

Backward Design

This week we were to find an article that discussed an instructional design model that was unfamiliar to us. I decided to choose the Backward Design model. This model centers around achieving results-focused student-centered learning. The steps as stated by Wiggins & McTighe (n.d, para. 11-13) are to “identify desired results . . . determine acceptable evidence . . .  [and] plan learning experiences and instruction.” Reynolds and Kearns (2016) rephrase them by stating that instructors and instructional designers should begin by creating the learning outcomes, then transition to choosing the most appropriate assessments, and finish by developing the learning activities.

Some critics of this model have said that it is essentially teaching to the test (Culetta, 2013) but I propose that all standardized educational efforts are ultimately teaching to the test, and using Backward Design actually increases instructional design responsibility and accountability by clearly linking the elements of course design to the learning expectations (aka the test). We have standardized testing in elementary and secondary schools, entrance exams for higher education, and certification exams for professional and technical jobs. This model simply asks instructors and instructional designers to think about what they expect students to learn and why as well as design the instruction to meet those expectations.

The instructional design model that I am most familiar with is ADDIE. With ADDIE, you start by determining the needs of the client, move to designing and developing the product, transition to the implementation stage to receive feedback, and then based on the feedback, evaluate the design. With Backward Design, you literally start the design process in reverse. You begin with what you want your learners to accomplish and why. The instructional design is built with the end results in mind, the learning outcomes. The assessments and learning activities align with the learning outcomes because they are developed later and designed around them (Reynolds & Kearns, 2016; Wiggins & McTighe, n.d.). Backward design is similar to ADDIE in that it still requires the instructional designer to use the ADDIE stages. It’s just how you go about that process that’s changed.

I could see myself using the Backward Design method in the future. Pausing to think about what do I really expect students to learn from my instruction and why is useful. Doing so, could save me design time in the long run. By starting my design with solid learning outcomes and developing assessments and activities that fulfill those outcomes, the process should be easier than trying to reverse-fit the outcomes with already planned activities. Those pre-planned activities may or may not result in students learning what I really want them to.

Theories and models are different. A theory is based on principles or ideas (Merriam-Webster, n.d.) and is intangible. A model gives you an example or a pattern to follow and tends to be concrete. In addition, models incorporate or use theories as their foundation. Think of policy and procedure. A policy (theory) gives you the rules, and possibly even the assumptions and reasoning for establishing the rules. A procedure (model) gives you the steps to take action and create something. It’s the same with instructional design. Our models are built around the different learning theories. I believe that the differences between a theory and a model should matter to clients. When the instructional designer can show the client that the design or model for the end product is built using a sound learning theory, it should add weight and validity to the design. As instructional designers, we want our clients to have confidence in our work.


Culetta, R. (2013). Backward Design. Instructional Design. Retrieved from

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Theory. Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary. Retrieved from

Reynolds, H. L., & Kearns, K. D. (2016). A planning tool for incorporating backward design, active learning, and authentic assessment in the college classroom. College Teaching, 1-11. doi:10.1080/87567555.2016.1222575

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (n.d). Understanding by design. Edutopia. Retrieved from

Categories: LTEC 5510 | Tags: , | Leave a comment

Instructional design, learning theories, and instruction…oh my!

Thinking - Please wait

(M., 2008)

This week we were required to read three articles. An article provided by our professor, one of our own choosing and one that a peer chose. All of the articles pertained to instructional design, a learning theory, and instruction, whether it was online or blended.

What resonated the most for me from the Savery and Duffy (2001) article, which focused on problem based learning and constructivism, were the concepts of how learning is socially constructed and how important it is that students take ownership of their learning. In their article, they discuss how facts are not facts because of some universal truth but are facts because there is overwhelming agreement about that information (Savery & Duffy, 2001). Until I read this explicitly stated in black and white, I had not fully considered, or understood, how social constructivism truly functions as well as the weight that shared knowledge holds. Knowledge and understanding is based on a give and take and it does require more than one person for this to occur. I see it and experience it daily in my job. In addition, they stress the importance of giving the student ownership of the problem, the solutions, and the entire learning process (Savery & Duffy, 2001). I really like this concept but I think that I need to learn more about the delivery and implementation of it. How do you design learning so that this is possible and that it occurs?

The article by Artemchik (2016) was right up my alley. It focused on a librarian who developed online information literacy tutorials to use in a business course. As I am a business librarian who is interested in learning more about creating online tutorials, I was ecstatic to happen upon this gem. While this article did not explicitly state any theories, it most closely aligned with ADDIE for instructional design and cognitive constructivism for the learning theory. Her tutorials allowed the students to be self-directed learners but still required them to be active participants to construct their knowledge. What stood out the most for me with this article were the authors best practices, i.e., her lessons learned. Artemchik (2016) recommends working closely with the course faculty member to ensure that the tutorials are relevant and relate to course content, that the tutorials are embedded at a point of need for the students so they will use them, that the tutorials contain learning outcomes that are targeted to students so that they can relate to them and will clearly understand the purpose of the activity, and ensure that the tutorials are easy to navigate and use. I would like to learn more about writing learning outcomes that students can easily relate to and internalize.

The article by Loftus, Stavraky & Urquhart (2014) focused on designing multimedia instruction for a nursing course. The authors relied on Merrill’s five principles of instruction and Mayer’s principles for multimedia instruction (Loftus et al., 2014). In this article I was happy that they shared both Merrill’s and Mayer’ principles. I especially like Merrill’s (2002) principles which state that learning should be problem-centered, activate prior knowledge, use demonstration, allow application, and promote reflection and exploration. I plan on reviewing this article throughout this semester as the information will be helpful and relevant for my course design. The main takeaways I have from this article are that multimedia learning needs to incorporate multiple modalities, such as text, images and sound, and that the design of the instruction should help not hinder the learner. For this to occur, extraneous information should be excluded, outlines and headings should be used, placement of images and text should be considered, information should be presented in multiple formats, and the delivery of the content should not overwhelm the student, i.e. cognitive load theory (Mayer, 2014). I have read about this information before in previous classes; however, reading about it again with a different mindset of applying this knowledge brings about new insights and reflections for me about how to design instruction to incorporate these concepts.

All of the articles will impact my design. For my course, I want to create an online information literacy course that focuses on business library resources. To deliver the information, I want to create a series of online tutorials. I want the course and its content to be engaging, interactive, hands-on, easy to navigate and that teaches the students concepts that they will be able to use throughout their entire undergraduate career. It all sounds a bit overwhelming to me at this point, but I know that all I need to do is complete each assignment to the best of my ability. I am excited to embark on this journey.


Artemchik, T. (2016). Using the instructional design process in tutorial development. Reference Services Review, 44, 309-323. doi:10.1108/RSR-12-2015-0050

Loftus, J., Stavraky, T., & Urquhart, B. L. (2014). Design it yourself (DIY): In-house instructional design for online pharmacology. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 19, 645-659. doi:10.1007/s10459-013-9492-2

M., W. (2008). Thinking [Digital image]. Retrieved from

Mayer, R. (2014, July 8). Principles for multimedia learning with Richard E. Mayer. Retrieved from

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 43-59.

Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. (Center for Research on Learning and Technology Technical Report 16-01). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.

Categories: LTEC 5510 | Tags: , , , | Leave a comment


Prompt: Reflect on the outcome of Project B. What worked? What did not? Why? Did you use your peer for feedback? If so, discuss the feedback your peer provided; if not, explain why? Discuss your client’s feedback. What did you use? What did you reject? Why?

I made it through to the end! This was my first instructional design course and so my first true experiences with instructional design. For my Project B, my client needed me to create a new employee manual for the position of Reference & Instructional Services Librarian. As this position is new, no manual exists for it. To further add to the challenge, instead of using a paper-based manual, which is the same format as our old, existing manuals, he wanted me to create an electronic one.

I have to admit that this project was very challenging for me. Not only did I have to start from scratch but also I had to research possibilities for a secure electronic format. One of the options that we considered was LiveBinders but since the default for the free version is public, that would not work for us. In the end (and many thanks to my professor), we decided to create a Google Site. We chose this as you could make sites private as well as add and remove users from the site. Once this decision was approved, I moved onto the content. Once I actually started adding items, the creation process flowed well.

I used an existing template provided by Google Sites and just modified it to meet our needs. I used a left-hand menu to organize the overall content and added a table of contents box that appears on the right side of each page to further help with organization. I added some pictures to personalize the main page and used a ton of screenshots to help with explanations. I think the end result looks awesome! When I previewed it with my colleagues, they all loved it and thought it looked great. My hope is that my supervisor (who has been on vacation) will approve as well and we can transition the old manuals to this format.

A couple of snafus occurred during the creation process. One is that when I first set up the site, it took me awhile to figure out if Google Accounts could be created without a Gmail account. We wanted our staff to use their SMU emails to log into the site. After some intense searching, I found that yes it is possible. I was so relieved as I was afraid that the entire project would have to be scrapped. Next, I set about creating the instructions on how to do so using a non-Google email. Well, my original instructions were wrong. Instead of teaching them how to create a Google Account using their SMU email address, my instructions showed them how to create a Gmail account. That was a disaster. Luckily, this occurred during the beta test and not the implementation phase. As a further complication, I did not account for users who were already logged into their Gmail accounts when viewing documents within the site. This caused some issues with not being able to access the documents. After adjusting the instructions to account for all these technical issues, the issues were resolved successfully and repeats should not occur.

As the Google Site is private, my peer reviewers could not access it but they were able to review my design document, job aid, and implementation and evaluation report. My peer reviewers did not have many suggestions for me when it came to improving my documents but did like the flow and organization of them. It was gratifying after all the effort I had put into this project. One of my peer reviewers suggested that in my job aid, I explain who a person was so that the learner would understand why the name was being used in the document. I had not thought to do this, as I did not think the name mattered but from an outside perspective, I can see why it actually does.

My client also did not provide a lot of input into this project as well. I think this is because he is super busy with own job duties and has very little free time. He did review everything I gave him and one big change he had me make was that for the assessment he wanted a perfect score. I originally had made it so that the learner could achieve a four out of five possible points but he wanted it to be all or nothing. As he put it, this is a learning experience and they need to perform every task successfully.

I did ask two of my colleagues for their input on the job aid as well as the look and functionality of the Google Site and that really helped. They found some grammatical errors as well as the larger account creation mess. One of them suggested that I take the time to explain why the learner should log out of the personal Google Account before accessing the site. I had not thought of explaining why but doing so helped make the job aid more useful.

During the process, it was the little things, such as explaining names and providing justifications, that I tended to overlook. Having multiple eyes outside of my client and myself really helped to solidify the design and to make it shine. I am very proud of what I have accomplished during this semester with both of my projects. I look forward to getting more hands-on practice with instructional design.

Categories: CECS 5210 | Tags: | Leave a comment

Instructional design & evaluation

Prompt 1: Think about instructional design in general. What have you learned this semester about instructional design and development? What about process? What else?

I think that the biggest takeaway that I have learned about instructional design and development is that it takes a lot of work. At the beginning of his book, Piskurich (2006, p. 1) states, “There is an old saying that if you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there.” Well, thanks to Projects A & B in this course, I have learned that when it comes to instructional design and development it is much, much better to have a destination in mind. Even when employing some of the shortcuts that Piskurich (2006) helpfully supplies as templates in our textbook, it still takes planning and forethought before undertaking any development. By the way, I found this textbook so helpful I plan to buy the updated version so I can continue to reference it over the years. That says a lot about how helpful the book really is.

Regarding the process, I discovered that instructional design requires not only the willingness to plan but also the dedication to see your plan through to the end, and along the way, the ability to accept constructive criticism. During the process of designing and developing both my projects, I had to keep reminding myself that the product is not static and it is not personal. As I put a lot of work into all of the ADDIE phases – analysis, design, development, implementation & evaluation – I grew attached to my products. When something did not work right, or either the client or the learner wanted something changed, it was difficult for me not to take it personally. My first thought/instinct was “No, I like it the way it is.” However, I quickly came to the realization that my thinking was ineffective for an instructional designer. That is something that I will need to continue working on, as I know that nothing is perfect, change is inevitable, and outside feedback makes for a better result.

Surprisingly, although I imagine I should take this an indication that this is the right degree/program for me, I really enjoyed doing all the work. I will admit that I found it extremely daunting and overwhelming at the beginning of each project, but once I started asking the right questions to determine my client’s true needs, it made the development process much smoother. With Project B, the development process was much more forbidding as I started with nothing. At the end now, looking back on it, I am very proud of what I accomplished. Yes, I do realize that it is not set in stone and will change.

Prompt 2: Also, what did you learn from the Evaluation of the product? What would you do differently next time? How much did you learn from the process and evaluation that will make you a better future instructional designer?

From the evaluation phase, I learned that it is easy to skip over steps that seem intuitive to the designer. When it comes to designing job aids, it is safer to err on the side of too much information than not enough. With Project B, I assumed that my learner either would use a browser other than Chrome to view the manual or would not sign into their personal account. I was wrong. When she tried to create a new account and to view documents in the online manual using Chrome, which she was already signed into, it caused major issues. Google kept defaulting to her personal Gmail account. Because there were no employee manual documents saved on her personal Google Drive, it kept giving her an error message saying nothing was available to view. I am sure this caused her unneeded frustration. To stop this from reoccurring, I added instructions about using a different browser or not signing into a personal account. From this experience, I learned why it is important not to assume as well as why I should spell out the details.

For future designs, I would like to always schedule smaller beta tests and then the larger full-scale implementations. With Project A, it fell during our spring break, so I only had limited staff available to implement. I think I would have received additional, helpful feedback using a larger audience. With Project B, while I only used one person for the full-scale implementation, I did use additional staff, three people, for a smaller beta test. The beta testers discovered a big bug. The instructions I had originally written for the Google account creation process were wrong. Had I not tested them before full-scale implementation, the design would have failed!

Overall, I learned that setbacks are inevitable but nothing is as surmountable as it may seem at the time. In most cases, all it takes is some additional thought and effort along with some time away from the project. When you come back and look at it with fresh eyes and a clear head, often times the answers are waiting for you.


Piskurich, G. M. (2006). Rapid instructional design: Learning ID fast and right (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Categories: CECS 5210 | Tags: , , | Leave a comment

Designing instruction

Prompt: What does it mean to design instruction? What skills do you think you need to have in order to do it professionally?

According to Fink, when designing instruction an instructor should do the following:

1. Identify important situational factors and then use this information to make three sets of decisions;

  • What do I want students to learn? (Learning Goals)
  • How will students and the teacher know if we are accomplishing these goals? (Feedback and Assessment)
  • What will the teacher and students do to achieve the learning goals? (Teaching/Learning Activities)

2. Make sure that the key components are integrated. (2015, “A Model,” para. 1)

According to Piskurich (2006), designing instruction involves “a system . . . that helps you ask the right questions, make the right decisions, and produce a product that is as useful and useable as your situation requires and allows” (p. 1).  My takeaway from those two quotes is that designing instruction should always include analysis. In fact, before any type of instruction (and by this I mean a deliverable tool) is designed/developed, analysis should be the very first step that is taken.

What exactly do I mean when I say analysis? Well, I am talking about all types of analysis – learner, task, delivery, and assessment (Piskurich, 2006). The instructor needs to determine who the learners are, what their learning needs are, how they like to learn, in what type of situation/environment will the learning happen, what form will the lesson/training take, and how will the learning, or lack thereof, be determined. The answers to those types of questions and more will determine the instruction. If the instructional designer does not know her audience, her client, or the actual learning needs, the instruction is doomed to fail before anything is actually designed/developed (Piskurich, 2006).

In order to design instruction effectively, I think that a sound understanding of learning theories (Clark, 1994; Leidner & Jarvenpaa,1995) as well as knowledge of the ADDIE framework are necessary (Piskurich, 2006). I also think that knowledge of existing technologies as well as a willingness to investigate new technologies is helpful. I am not saying that technology should be used just to say it was; however, if a thorough investigation and analysis of learner needs shows that using technology would benefit the situation, then the ID should be familiar with the tools.

From a personal perspective, I think that patience is definitely a necessary skill. Designing instruction requires patience to deal with the various difficulties that arise during all phases of the design process. It also requires patience to manage and work with other people. Finally, time management is a needed skill. Although designing instruction is not done in isolation, there are times that the ID is the sole person in charge of the project. When that happens, it requires the ability not only to manage your time but also to manage yourself.

I hope that as I continue learning about instructional design that both my knowledge and my skills will keep expanding. I want to learn as much as I can and look forward to being able to continue my journey. If there is one thing that I have learned up to this point in my life, it is that learning never ends.


Clark, R. E. (1994). Media and method. Educational Technology Research & Development42(3), 7-10.

Fink, L. D. (2015). Designing instruction for significant learning. National Education Association. Retrieved from

Leidner, D. E., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1995). The use of information technology to enhance management school education: A theoretical view. MIS Quarterly, 19, 265-291.

Piskurich, G. M. (2006). Rapid instructional design: Learning ID fast and right (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Categories: CECS 5210 | Tags: , , , | Leave a comment

Create a free website or blog at

K. Sterling

Purveyor of Ridiculous Thoughts And Plots.

Through stories

Scott's blog about teaching, learning, games, film...


Part of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology


learning & development

E Learning with Ali

Ideas, thoughts, research, and reflections on learning technologies, instructional design, and online learning

Entrepreneur, Globetrotter, Thrill Seeker...


one step ahead

Nerd by nature; Librarian by choice!


Nerd by nature; Librarian by choice!

Communities of Learners

Nerd by nature; Librarian by choice!

Ke'shun's Blog

"Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school." Albert Einstein