Module+2+-+Susan

The document above is used to help faculty learn how to enter course outline information into a custom database. Database entry is a new activity for faculty at one of the community colleges in the University of Hawai'i system. The database functionality is evolving and the how-to directions often need to be updated. Workshops are offered in a hands-on setting in a computer classroom, but many faculty prefer to learn on their own by reading the document and watching the narrated JING screencasts.

An external influence on the instructional materials is the pressure to have all course outlines entered into the database in a timely manner in order to meet expectations of an external accrediting body. Additionally, the links between (1) course content and course competencies, (2) course competencies and methods of evaluation, (3) course competencies and program student learning outcomes, and (4) general education student learning outcomes and methods of evaluation were not previously required and were not previously part of the course outlines. Again, the new requirements are based on the expectations of the accrediting body.

An internal influence on the revision of the instructional materials is the faculty to staff ratio (200:1). Individual one-on-one assistance is not possible for all faculty, though it has been offered and given to faculty who request it. Group trainings have been successful for short term. Some faculty have used the instructional materials and have been successful in populating multiple course outlines. Many faculty have needed feedback, from minor to major. Successful completion of the approval process, from initial data entry/population of the fields through nine levels of reviewers and approvers, has been as short as two months and as long as two years. It is hoped/assumed that more complete and correct population of the fields in the course outlines will result in (A) a greater percentage of successful approvals in a shorter time, (B) a decrease in the one-on-one time between staff and faculty for routine issues, (C) a decrease in required feedback from staff, faculty reviewers, and approvers, (D) a higher percentage of course outlines entered into the database, and (E) an erasure of the perception/reputation on campus that the data entry is difficult (if not impossible) and time consuming.

An additional influence on the revision of the instructional materials (and an additional argument for templates) is the changes in the database. The database is custom made for the University of Hawaii system. The programmer often makes changes to the functionality, sometimes with the advice and consent of the steering/advisory committee, sometimes without.

Module 2 Assignment

Instructional Strategy Analysis – Curriculum Central Workshop for Course Proposers

Author: Instructional Services Office, Kapi’olani Community College (University of Hawai’i) Analysis by: Susan Pope Assignment for: University of Hawai’i ETEC 750B in spring 2012 Professor: M. David Merrill Date: 21 January 2012

The instructions given in Curriculum Central Workshop for Course Proposers include Information-about, Parts-of, Kind-of, and How-to strategies. Information-about strategies are shown in some explanations of how-to. Knowing the information is not a primary goal but does support the How-to strategies. Part-of strategy is shown in the examples of naming, locating, and describing as well as graphically showing the parts of the screens, such as buttons to click on. Kind-of strategy is shown in the grouping of similar types of answers expected. How-to strategies are shown in the text as well as the sequencing and demonstrations in the many screencasts available to the faculty. Additions to all of the types of strategies have been or will be recommended.
 * For the course selected in Module 1 examine this course to see if you can identify each of the instructional strategies – information-about, part-of, kind-of, how-to, and what-happens **.

Many of the strategies are weak in corrective feedback for //Ask//. The actual feedback tends to come from the human beings reviewing/approving the course outlines, not from the instructional materials. Mnemonics are absent. //Show// is a heavyweight in the screencasts for Parts-of, Kinds-of, and How-to strategies. //Tell// is more evident in the text for Information-about, Parts-of, and Kinds-of strategies.
 * Did these instructional strategies include the prescribed instructional events? **

// Tell //, //Show//, and a small amount of //Ask// are available in the current set of instructions for Curriculum Central. More could be added via a change from the document/text based format to a website format for the instructional materials. Additional //Do// could be included with the use of a test database for play and experimentation. Time is a factor with adult learners who often have no choice about learning the new skill. Experimentation/play time would be a boon to the curious and/or eager faculty but most likely would be avoided by busy faculty who feel that they have been forced to spend time on a project that they are not interested in.
 * If some of the prescribed instructional events are missing see if you can design some of these missing instructional events. **

An increase in the amount of both matching guidance and divergent guidance will be recommended as an improvement. //Tell, Ask//, and a limited amount of //Show// could be added to What-happens strategy in the text and could also be added to narrated screencasts

One of the suggested improvements [(A) examples of what the reviewers and approvers will expect to see in a finished product] is a What-happens strategy at the human level in addition to the computer database process level. One hint towards predicting a consequence at the computer database level is the phrase “[required field]” written after the text of certain fields, though the instructions do not highlight the consequence. The faculty learn by attempting to progress and then having the computer give a warning message that the field is required. The faculty learn (or in some cases just get more frustrated) by having the computer refuse to allow the requested step.
 * If some of the instructional strategies are not included in this course see if you can prescribe the inclusion of the missing instructional strategies. **