Training Plan Report Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation
Table of Contents 2.0 Assessment 3 3.0 Design 3 3.1 Task analysis 3 3.2 Instructional objectives 4 3.3 Evaluation instruments 4 4.0 Development 5 5.0 Evaluation 6 6.0 Conclusion 6 7.0 References 7
Training Plan Report 2.0 Assessment If one looks at the shape of the model, it can be seen that there are no steps, levels or arrows showing the order through the elements. There are two outer areas surrounding the components of the design model. Thus, the designer can make changes in the content and implementation of elements at any time in the process. The outer level includes the first steps of any project as planning, project management and support services and also the summative evaluation step. Throughout the project the planning must occur, and this includes everything to support the project in its initial stages, its implementation and delivery. The inner level includes revision and formative evaluation processes that a designer need to take into account at every stage of the development process. Because, it needs to happen during every stage of the project to ensure that the project is going as it should be. When it comes to the core of the design model, although these nine components of the design model follow a clockwise order and also the first component seems to determine the instructional problem, actually the model hasn’t got a start point. As there is no linear order between the components of the model, the designer can start the process with any element. It is also likely, that the designer will revisit some of the steps during the design process in order to ‘tweak’ the instruction. 3.0 Design 3.1 Task analysis According to the identified instructional problem or learner needs, task analysis is a mammoth process to define the content. Hence, the instructional design process depends on the concise definition of the content that is the object of the instructional materials. 3.2 Instructional objectives At this point, the designer states the learning objectives required to achieve the instructional goals. Unless the requirements are specifically defined, the instructor or instructional designer will not know what to include in the instruction. This component of the design model enables the designer to organise the instruction, provide framework to evaluate the learning and also guide the learner (Christopher, 2019). Instructional delivery methods: The designer needs to identify the necessary resources in order to support the delivery of the instruction to achieve the objectives. In education the most common means of delivery is the lecture, while in training programs there is a typically a mix of lecture – type courses and self – paced courses, but the key issue is which delivery approach will be more efficient (Morrison et al., 2018). The teacher as the designer of the process needs to find the suitable instrument to evaluate students’ knowledge, skill or attitude. In general s/he needs to find out what students like or dislike about the instruction. 3.3 Evaluation instruments To evaluate whether the learners achieved the learning objectives and to what degree, designer needs to design evaluation instruments. The overall goal is to determine student success in learning and also the effectiveness of the course. These two functions clearly go hand in hand, but the nature of the evaluation process is likely to differ depending on which function is assigned greater importance (Morrison et al., 2018). These approaches are called as formative and summative evaluation. Formative evaluation methods are used during course development to identify and improve any weaknesses with the instruction, while summative evaluation methods are used to verify that all learning outcomes are achieved at the end of the course. Instructional Problem Some students graduated from the secondary school with an average basis in English, but some not. Moreover, they don’t have many chances outside the school to learn and improve English proficiency. On the other hand, the students are aware of the need to learn and use English at least at the university. Learner Characteristics Instructional problems are identified based on the needs of the students. The next step is to analyse students’ characteristics, because students’ characteristics will affect all the decisions about the design. In order to plan the instruction systematically, instructional objectives play a very important role. At this stage learning outcomes and objectives of the writing lesson are identified clearly without ambiguity (Painter, 2017). Although the objectives are written in measurable behavioural terms, Bloom’s Taxonomy was used to emphasize skills in the cognitive domain as Bloom labelled the lowest level as knowledge, while the higher mental abilities were classified as comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. 4.0 Development There are several general methods of sequencing content and one of them is Posner and Strike sequencing Scheme. Posner and Strike proposes three sequencing schemes and these are learner-related depending on the learners’ needs, world-related depending on the real world, events, and people and also concept-related depending on the relationships between the concepts. Out of them, the strategy for learner-related sequencing is based on five learning concepts (Morrison et al., 2018). These are identifiable prerequisite, familiarity, difficulty, interest and development. Among these methods group presentation or the lecture method is the most common delivery method for classrooms. On the other hand, especially for language classrooms, self-paced instruction, in other words self-paced learning is the best way. Yet, due to the limited time and learning environment mixed delivery methods can also be used. For example, for the instructional design model to teach writing, the teacher can explain some complicated grammar rules as a lecture and then ask students to work in pairs for peer correction of their works. 5.0 Evaluation There are two methods within this model to evaluate students’ writing performance on Turkish national festivals, formative and summative evaluation. Formative evaluation is used during the whole design process to assess the instructional plan with instruments such as observations, reactions of the students, test results, questionnaires, surveys, interviews etc. Summative evaluation is used to measure the learning outcomes via standard tests, student self-evaluation check list etc. The teacher as the designer of the process needs to find the suitable instrument to evaluate students’ knowledge, skill or attitude. In general s/he needs to find out what students like or dislike about the instruction. Considering the results of evaluation and their relationship with the instructional objectives, the teacher decides on the effectiveness of the design process to improve the instruction or quit the program. 6.0 Conclusion The model is a flexible, nonlinear process including independent components which still has a system in itself. As a classroom-oriented one model is appropriate for teachers or designers who don’t seek a step by step, linear instructional design but for ones who are experienced in designing instruction and searching for a creative form of instruction. As this model requires a limited time and budget, it can be beneficial for teachers if they are trained to use it effectively.
7.0 References Akbulut, Y. (2017). Implications of Two Well-Known Models for Instructional Designers in Distance Education: Dick-Carey versus Morrison-Ross-Kemp. Retrieved from ERIC database, ED496543 Baturay, M. H. (2018). Characteristics of Basic Instructional Design Models. Ekev Akademi Dergisi, 12 (34), 471- 482. Retrieved on 15 May 2016 from tr.scribd.com/doc/303559577/37018754 Christopher, A. (2018). Instructional Designer’s Job Aids. Instructional Design Process. Retrieved on 8 May 2016 from https://issuu.com/avchristopher/docs/christopher_mrk_jobaids_final3 Corbeil, R. (2012). Comparing the ADDIE & Kemp Model. Cooperative Team Wiki Report. Retrieved from 6321instructionaldesignteam.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/55261094/EDTC_632160_%20Team%201_%20Wiki%20Report1.pdf Giles, M. (2013). The Kemp ID Model. Retrieved on 30 April 2016 from http://www.slideshare.net/lindamgiles/kemp-id-modelpresmgiles-16411696 Gustafson, K., Branch, R. (2012). What Is Instructional Design?. In R. A. Reiser, J. A. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in the instructional design and technology (pp. 16-25). Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall. Retrieved on 6 May 2016 from www.ub.edu/ntae/dcaamtd/gustafson-branch.pdf Kranch, D. A. (2018). Getting It Right Gradually: An Iterative Method for Online Instruction Development. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 9 (1), 29 – 34. Retrieved on 15 May 2016, from EBSCOhost, ISSN 1528-3518 Morrison, G., Ross, S., Kalman, H., and Kemp, J. (2018). Designing Effective Instruction. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Obizoba, C. (2015). Instructional Design Models-Framework for Innovative teaching and Learning Methodologies. International Journal of Higher Education Management, 2(1). 40-51. Retrieved on 6 May 2016 from www.ijhem.abrmr.com/admin/content/pdf/i-3_c-22.pdf Painter, F. (2018), A CBI Module and User Guide for Teaching Organic Chemistry. Dissertation for master’s degree, McMaster University, Ontario. Retrieved on 15 May 2016 from macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/19181/1/Painter_Frances_2017Apr_Masters..pdf Papadakis, J. (2014). The Kemp Model of Instructional Design. Retrieved from Design Wiki etec.ctlt.ubc.ca/510wiki/The_Kemp_Model_of_Instructional_Design Platt, J. L. (2018). The Efficacy of an Electronic Performance Support System as a Training Tool for Online Faculty. Dissertation for doctorate degree, Iowa State University, Iowa.