Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
A senior project.
Citation preview
Advanced Instructional Design In Practice
American League of Bicyclists Inquiry Advanced Instructional Design
F i r s t E d i t i o n
C o g n i t i v e A f f e c t i v e P s y c h o m o t o r
Preface Table of Contents This manual is an original production. The following literature assembles needs
and learner analyses. An in-depth description of task analysis follows the literature
review of needs and learner instructional design elements. Readers already familiar
with instructional design have the option of skipping directly to the instructional ob-
jectives and goals on page 19. This manual is 80% literature review of existing instruc-
tional design methods and 20% application to a fictional client scenario.
Our company prides itself on developing in-depth, efficient and relevant
instruction. This manual is constructed in a manner which allows a novice to gain
insight into the field of instructional design (ISD). We provide rationales, justifications,
and critiques of existing instructional design models and learning theories. On page
12, we provide a table detailing the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor tasks.
Visual tables reflecting the learner audience characteristics are provided on page 15.
Individuals already competent in the field of instructional design have the option of
skipping to pages 19 through 20 where visual aids illustrate the necessary objectives
for instruction. We have provided heavy literature review for the reader. However,
we encourage readers to personalize their ISD experience by exploring different ISD
sources and literature written by ISD professionals. Use our references on pages 19 to
explore the theories and models utilized in this project. We hope the reader gains
a greater comprehension of our methodology through independent research. The
nature of our work is education. Our vehicle for delivering instruction productively is
instructional design.
Cover page………………………………………………….…………………..….....…....……p.1
preface……………..……………………………..……………………….….…….…........….…p.2
table of contents….…………………………………………………………….…..........……p.3
inquiry………………………………………………………..…………….....…...…….........……p.4
needs analysis…………………………………………………………………….....…..........p.5-8
task analysis…………………………………………………………..…………................…p.9-15
learner analysis…………………………………………………………………......………p.16-19
cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains…………...………...……….....….p.20-21
instructional goals and objectives………………………...………...……..….............p.22-24
instructional ttrategy for the teacher…………..…………….………...…….......…...p.25-29
evaluating learning achievement…………..…………….……………....…….....…..p.30-33
references…………………………………….…………………………………….....……......p.34
appendix…………………………………….………...…………………………….....……......p.35
p r e f a c e p a g e 2 t a b l e o f c o n t e n t s p a g e 3C a m e r o n U n i v e r s i t y R y a n D a n g
Inquiry Needs AnalysisRepresentatives from The League of American Bicyclists have contacted our com-
pany with a proposal to set up a successful Bike Month in Lawton, Oklahoma. Due to
staggering adult obesity rates and air pollution, there is a need to develop a culture
of physical activity. The League wants us to teach college students how to plan a
successful monthly ‘Bike to School Day.’ Outcomes of this project will reduce car-
bon emissions, reduce traffic congestion, and improve the physical health of citizens.
Some novice bike riders are concerned with safety and the proper way to ride a
bike. The project leader has asked our company to develop instruction that attend
to these needs. Our company excels in providing clear instruction in three domains:
Psychomotor, Affective, and Cognitive.
n e e d s a n a l y s i s page 5
Brown and Green (2011) aptly describe the needs analysis process in eight ques-
tions: What problem exists or what change is being requested, who is being asked to
change, what is currently taking place with the individual being asked to change,
who identified the requested change, where will the solution need to take place, is
instruction the most appropriate means for solving the problem, what is the solution
to be developed and implemented? (p. 53). For this project, our team offers con-
structive criticism of the processes developed by Mager (1989) and Rossett (1995).
Needs analysis is a critical step in determining the scope of work. The summary at
the end of this section describes which model our team has chosen. Individuals well
versed in instructional design have the option of skipping to page 6.
Robert F. Mager (1989) is a popular author of instructional design texts. He
concisely defines the needs analysis process as, “the proper course of action in
those instances where people aren’t doing what they should be” (p. 44). Brown and
Green (2011) elaborate further by stating, “If a difference exists, then it is the job of
the instructional designer to determine why the difference exists.” (p. 44). Mager’s
(1989) version of needs analysis is a performance analysis that “allows an instruc-
tional designer to determine what individuals are now doing and what they should
be doing.” (p. 44). Mager’s model rapidly determines who’s performance is being
questioned, what is causing the problem, what they should be doing and determin-
ing the obstacles of performing. The Mager model quickly identifies the problematic
behavior, determines the causes of the problem, questions if the performers can use
the skill correctly, and identifies any obstacles preventing the performers from doing
what they should be doing. Mager’s model effectively applies to a traditional corpo-
rate setting as well as a traditional classroom. However, this model does not consider
employee attitudes surrounding the topic like Rossett’s process.
i n q u i r y p a g e 4
Needs Analysis Rossett’s (1995) version of needs analysis outlines the eight essential questions
into five elements: optimal performance, actual performance, feelings, causes, and
solutions (p. 48). She asks, what knowledge does an individual possess which allows
him or her to perform at an optimal level? To answer this question, designers should
seek experts, documentation, interviews, and standards. In observing actual perfor-
mance, Rossett’s process seeks to identify why a change is being requested, how
an individual is currently performing and what the underlying causes are for current
performance. Her process is unique, in that designers seek to understand individuals’
feelings about the topic, and their confidence surrounding the topic. Rossett’s needs
analysis method focuses heavily on the affective domain of learning. Individuals inter-
ested in the affective domain of learning can skip to page 15.
Rossett is concerned with learner motivation and confidence. The inherent dif-
ference between Mager and Rossett’s processes are the methods they use to identify
causation of a problem. Mager wants to know if the audience has the potential to
learn the skill. If they can’t, they are transferred or terminated. Rossett wants to identi-
fy optimal performance behaviors. She identifies that the less than optimal performers
lack skill or knowledge, the environment is an obstacle, there are no incentives, or the
employees are unmotivated. Implementing positive incentives should encourage em-
ployees to emulate optimal performers. If the Mager model adopts Rossett’s concern
of learner attitude, cost effective solutions could be implemented quickly.
For this project, our instructional design team will use a combination of the
Mager and Rossett models to rapidly identify performance problems and needs. Our
company excels in providing learner goals in cognitive, affective and psychomotor
domains. A hybridization of Mager’s cognitive model and Rossett’s affective model
provides a semi-postmodern, holistic approach to education. Since our target audi-
ence is a group of college students, we cannot “fire” them as Mager’s model implies.
Rather, we need to take a Rossett approach, detail their motivations and capitalize
Needs Analysis(continued from page 6) on their current attitudes. Our hybrid needs analysis should
recognize the environmental obstacles, and lack of incentives.
Representatives from the League of American Bicyclists have already identified
the need for a monthly “Bike to School Day.” It will reduce harmful carbon emissions,
reduce traffic congestion, and improve the physical well-being of citizens. Our cli-
ents have provided us with their mission statement and plan. Our needs analysis will
correlate with The League of American Bicyclists 5 essential mission statements. The
League’s 5 essential E’s are (2013):
“1) Engineering: Creating safe and convenient places to ride and park
2) Education: Giving people of all age and abilities the skills and confidence to ride
3) Encouragement: Creating a strong bike culture that welcomes and celebrates
bicycling
4) Enforcement: Ensuring safe roads for all users
5) Evaluation & Planning: Planning for bicycling as a safe and viable transportation
option
These five categories will reflect in the psychomotor, affective, and cognitive instruc-
tion our company develops. The essential 5’s listed by the client contain elements of
cognitive, affective and psychomotor skills. The cognitive domain of learning is con-
cerned with knowledge. Affective domain deals with motivation, attitudes and feel-
ings. Psychomotor skills are quantifiable physical performance skills. On page 15 we
provide an in-depth description of the educational domains.
Our design team has identified the problems areas for the client. Currently, college
students are not riding bicycles to school or work due to these reasons:
• There are limited safe and convenient places to ride and park
• The quantity of bike lanes are severely limited
• There is a lack of education: people are not aware of Share the Road message
• The community lacks a strong bike culture, the attitude is biking is a hobby
n e e d s a n a l y s i s page 6 n e e d s a n a l y s i s page 7
Needs Analysis(continued from page 7)
• The community lacks knowledge about biking incentives and opportunities”
(bikeleague.org).
These problems are apparent. An active bike culture does not exist in Lawton be-
cause of these factors. Our team of instructional designers have clearly identified
that a need for instruction exists. The problems listed in the above bullet format will be
addressed with psychomotor, affective, and cognitive instructional objectives. For
psychomotor skills, we will provide novice riders a 12 step basic riding program. For af-
fective attitude, we will promote a healthy appreciation for bicycling by showcasing
the positive incentives of bicycle riding. For cognitive knowledge, we will educate the
community about biking lane laws and bicycle rider rights.
We decided to use a combination of Rossett and Mager’s needs analyses. The
essential 5’s listed by the client already included elements of cognitive, affective and
psychomotor domains. Rossett’s model is a combination of cognitive and affective
variables. Mager’s is a combination of psychomotor and cognitive variables. Capital-
izing on the strengths of both models and the five essentials provided by the client, we
determined the reasons why college students are not riding bikes to school.
Task AnalysisIn a highly condensed explanation, task analysis is the phase in which instructional
designers piece together relevant information that constructs meaning for the leaner.
It is the job of the instructional designer to sequence the content in a way that makes
sense. Task analysis as explained by Brown and Green (2011), is “the careful consid-
eration and identification of content that will make up the instruction, and in what
sequence this content should be provided” (p. 58).
In Brent Wilson’s (1997) detailed discussion of postmodern instructional design,
he provides multiple tips for instructional designers. He advises not to expect or “cap-
ture” the content in a task analysis. He states, “content on paper is not the expertise
in a practitioner’s head, even if you believe expertise resides in someone’s head”
(1997). He warns, “The best analysis always falls short of the mark.” To Wilson, “the
only remedy is to design rich learning experiences and interactions where learners
can pick up on their own the content missing between the gaps of analysis” (1997).
Wilson’s advice creates friction with Morrison, Ross and Kemp’s procedural analysis
phase of task analysis.
In their model, the designer walks through the steps with a subject-matter ex-
pert. This helps the designer identify the necessary steps for the instruction to make
sense to the learner. The task analysis is supposed to be done in the environment
where it will be performed. As a result, the instructional designer has an opportunity
to utilize the Subject Matter Expert’s knowledge of the task at hand. However, Wilson
believes that task analysis still has gaps that cannot be captured entirely. The sub-
ject-matter expert may have extensive knowledge and expertise, but recording it
on paper, like a flowchart as recommended by Brown & Green, may not accurately
reflect real-world application. Even with close direction from an SME, as advised by
Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (2006), there remains the possibility of content gaps. The
task analysis may leave out unexamined factors. However, this is not a cause for
n e e d s a n a l y s i s page 8 t a s k a n a l y s i s page 9
Task Analysis(continued from page 9) panic. Wilson’s postmodern approach advises designers to
provide a learning experience where leaners can discover and develop their own
experiences.
For this project, our design team aligns with Wilson’s postmodern philosophy. An
openness to a variety of perspectives helps construct a more relevant view of reality.
Values and meaning are subjective. Truth is fluid and dynamic, depending on con-
tent and context. This does not mean Morrison, Ross and Kemp’s model is irrelevant.
The task analysis model provided by them is an apt guideline for
instructional designers. It aids designers in identifying content that will make sense to
the learners. Collaboration with an SME at each step pinpoints prerequisite steps that
need to occur in order for the leaners to accomplish the task. Despite SME collabo-
ration, Wilson argues that the best analysis always is incomplete. From a postmodern
perspective, the expertise in the SME’s head is never completely reflected by con-
ducting the task analysis. There will always be a disconnection between analysis and
pure human expertise. Integrating the natural disconnect between analysis and pure
human expertise leads our design team to this conclusion:
• The most effective method is to develop learning experiences that allow learn-
ers to discover on their own the content missing from analysis.
From our understanding, this method of task analysis gives the students an opportu-
nity to develop their own expertise. Rather than the designer taking the perspective
of the learner, Wilson’s view allows the learner to develop, and take the role of a
subject-matter expert, albeit, in a constructive trial-and-error way. Despite the conclu-
sion we arrive at, the needs and learner analysis are vital to this method of thinking.
Are learners’ critical and creative thinking skills strong? Will they be able to intuit gaps
in analysis as Wilson suggests? Exactly what level of guidance should be provided
in these situations? Do we even know what an effective level of guidance is? These
questions should help an instructional designer create richer learning experiences for
learners.
Task Analysis Our team ends this critique with a piece of advice from Wilson. On his section,
“Instructional Strategy Development”, he advises instructional designers to “distinguish
between instructional goals and learners’ goals; support learners in pursuing their own
goals” (1997). Through his research, Wilson came to the conclusion that students had
three kinds of goals, task-completion goals or “hoop jumping,” instructional goals set
by the system, and personal knowledge goals set by the student. Task-completion
goals do not necessarily foster learning, but do directly affect student behavior. This
is how most traditional instructional tasks are structured. There is heavy emphasis on
performance. Wilson argues the postmodern approach would help foster and nour-
ish students’ personal knowledge goal while simultaneously supporting instructional
goals. As a consequence, students can fulfill their own motivations. For our college
aged audience, there are students that expressed a desired to adopt a healthier life-
style through biking.
Applying this philosophy to task-analysis requires the designer to recognize stu-
dent goals and instructional goals. Thus, a successful postmodern approach to Mor-
rison, Ross and Kemp’s task analysis model can be accomplished through in-depth
needs and audience analyses. Understanding personal learner goals helps the de-
signer leave enough gaps for students to develop their own expertise.
We will be using a postmodern style of Task analysis. It is a hybrid of Morrison,
Ross and Kemp’s model (2006).The League of American Bicyclists provided an SME to
help us outline the task analysis. The League’s representative has given us their mission
plan, also known as the ‘5 E’s’. Our design team has developed three main objec-
tives. These three objectives are in the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains
with elements of the SME’s essential 5’s. This Postmodern task analysis is a product
of negotiation and collaboration with the client’s representative SME. Brent Wilson’s
postmodern approach is recognized and integrated into our task analysis. Sufficient
gaps are strategically placed in our task analysis. This allows learners to fulfill their per-
sonal learner goals. See figure 1.1. t a s k a n a l y s i s page 10 t a s k a n a l y s i s page 11
Task Analysis The task analysis on the follow page is segregated into cognitive, affective and
psychomotor goals. Our design team has chosen a holistic, postmodern approach to
task analysis. We want to limit the details we add in the task analysis. In accordance
with Brent Wilson’s postmodern philosophy, we want to provide enough gaps in the
analysis for students to develop their own personal goals. Fortunately, the student’s
personal goals are in near perfect alignment with the client’s pursuit; students express
a desire and need to adopt a physical fit lifestyle. The American League of Bicyclist’s
mission statement includes the students’ personal goals.
Our team needs to sequence the content in a way that makes sense to the
audience. Tying the 5 essential E’s into the instruction is also very important. To limit
confusion, we must segregate the goals into cognitive, affective and psychomotor
domains. Each goal will be broken down into sequential tasks. In accordance with
Brent Wilson’s postmodern philosophy, we will not capture every single detail. Rather,
we will subdivide the most important goals into smaller, prerequisite tasks. The learners
should be able to independently discover the content missing between smaller tasks.
The method of task analysis will not cause cognitive overload. In fact, it will encour-
age independent discovery and a higher chance of knowledge retention. Figure 1.1
is an example of the flowchart task analysis style. On the following pages you will find
figure 1.2, the task analysis for this project.
Task AnalysisFigure 1.1 Example of Task Analysis Outline
t a s k a n a l y s i s page 12 t a s k a n a l y s i s page 13
Task Analysis Cognitive Goal: Educate the community
• Teach biking lane laws to college students
1. Ride with traffic
2. Use rightmost lane headed in the direction you are going
3. Don’t ride on the sidewalk
4. Obey traffic signals and stop signs
5. Be safe, be seen. Use a front white light, red rear light and reflectors
6. Be predictable
• Teach bicycle rider rights to college students
1. Explain that bicyclists have the same rights and duties as drivers.
Affective Goal: Promote a healthy appreciation for bicycling
• Showcase positive incentives to college students
1. Fight pollution
2. Stay fit
3. Avoid traffic delays
4. Save money
5. Enjoy your commute
Psychomotor Goal: Teach bicycle skills
• Provide a 6-step basic riding program to college students
1. Gather Appropriate Gear
Helmet
Everyday Clothes
2. Mount bicycle
While seated, you should have a slight bend in your knee when pedal is
pushed down all the way
Figure 1.2 Task Analysis Outline
Task Analysis (continued from page 14)
3. Shifting
When it’s getting harder to pedal, shift into an easier, lower gear
When it’s getting easier to pedal, shift into a harder, higher gear
On flat ground, shift to a middle range of gears
4. Obey all signs
This includes stop signs, traffic lights and lane markings
5. Turning
Look and signal before you change lanes or turn
6. Braking
Apply brakes lightly to clean off rims before you need to stop
Allow a greater distance for stopping
Figure 1.2 Task Analysis Outline
t a s k a n a l y s i s page 14 t a s k a n a l y s i s page 15
Learner AnalysisBrown and Green (2011) provide succinct summaries of Dick, Carey, and Carey learn-
er analysis model, and Smith and Ragan’s version of learner analysis. Throughout the
chapter, it is apparent they share two basic similarities. One shared element is the
concept that learner analysis is a working document subject to revision as new infor-
mation is discovered. The other shared element is that learner analysis is a deliberate
investigation of the target audience and ensures the instructional design is relevant to
the audience.
Dick, Carey and Carey’s (2009) version of learner analysis lists the following as
useful information when conducting learner analysis: entry skills, prior knowledge of
topic area, attitudes toward content and potential delivery system, academic moti-
vation, educational and ability levels, general learning preferences, attitudes toward
the training organization, and group characteristics (as cited in Brown and Green,
2011). The most effective instructional content is developed by capitalizing on the
information identified throughout this list. Dick, Carey and Carey consider attitudes to-
ward content and attitudes toward the training organization as extremely important
(p. 79). Learner impressions and prejudices impact effectiveness of the instruction. The
authors advise addressing these concerns very early in the analysis phase of instruc-
tional design.
The designer should pay close attention to learner motivation. Are the learn-
ers a captive or volunteer audience? Captive audiences may respond to instruction
half-heartedly. Volunteer audiences may express greater attention to detail and en-
gage with the material more intuitively. In our scenario, students are willing volunteers.
Dick, Carey, and Carey’s learner analysis is an apt standard for learner analysis. It is a
perfect guideline for understanding the target audience.
However, our team prefers the more nuanced Smith and Ragan’s model. Smith and
Ragan approach learner analysis with four components: stable similarities, stable dif-
ferences, changing
Learner Analysis(continued from page 15) similarities, and changing differences. Stable similarities are
human qualities all people possess. Generally, everyone is configured with two eyes
and two ears. Field of vision and field of hearing for most people is the same.
Designers should keep this stable similarity in mind when developing instruction be-
cause the audience will receive the instruction through only two channels, audio and
visual. With the exception of hearing disabled and sight disabled audiences, basic
instructional material is processed by people’s ears and eyes. Stable similarities imply
this element cannot be disregarded. Whichever method the designer chooses to de-
liver instruction, learners will always see and hear the material.
Stable differences are variables that divide groups of people. Various genders,
personalities, and ages are some examples. These differences are unchanging ge-
netic variables that divide a group of learners into smaller subdivisions. These qualities
distinguish feminine from masculine and young from old. Stable differences can also
include differing learning styles, intelligence levels, creative ability, and various phys-
ical differences. Stable similarities describes how people are configured the same.
However, have different biological adaptations as well as different cultural back-
grounds. Ethnic and cultural differences are stable differences of learners. Even at the
individual level, no two people are exactly the same. A pertinent example is identical
twins. Identical twins shared the same DNA, however, may have very different person-
alities and preferences. These would be considered stable differences.
Changing similarities are factors like intellectual development, skill develop-
ment, and biological timelines. For example, all children learn to crawl by a certain
age. All humans develop motor skills, language skills, and reach sexual maturity at
approximately similar phases of development. An instructional designer with a strong
comprehension of human development is able to determine age appropriate les-
sons. Changing differences are dynamic life philosophies and experiences that shape
the human psyche over time. Each individual has a unique set of experiences, belief
systems, and motivation that morph subjectively. l e a r n e r a n a l y s i s page 16 l e a r n e r a n a l y s i s page 17
Smith and Ragan Learner Characteristics
Stable Similarities All students have the same audio and visual fields. Ears and Eyes are positioned in the same place. All students have two hands and two feet.
Stable Differences
The student population is divided nearly equally between male and female. The level of intelli-gence is relatively average. Psychosocial differ-ences distinguish different groups of students based on ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and political affiliation.
Changing Similarities
All students are in the same age group. Our target audience is college aged, born in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. All students experienced the same political presidencies, historical events, technological shifts, and collective consciousness shifts. Most students learned how to ride bicycles as children.
Changing Differences
Knowledge, values, beliefs, skills and motiva-tions vary widely between individuals. Each learner has unique motivations and values that determine their personality. These changing dif-ferences are dynamic lift philosophies and expe-riences. They are shifting constantly and nearly impossible to prepare for.
Learner Analysis(continued from page 16) This aspect of learner analysis is the most difficult to pre-
pare for. Both models determine similar pieces of information about the learner. Entry
skills, prerequisite knowledge, attitudes, and learning preferences are touched upon
by both models. However, the Smith and Ragan model is much more thorough in its
analysis of the qualities that make people different. These qualities are the dual chan-
nels of sensory input and human development.
Smith & Ragan’s recognizes the stable similarity of human visual and audio fields. Peo-
ple are subjective creatures. We perceive stimuli different from each other. However,
the biological functions of sight and hearing are generally the same for all people.
Instructional materials are observed and processed through sight and hearing. Smith
and Ragan’s model is a more convenient model for subdividing people based on
their similarities and differences. Dick, Carey and Carey’s model identifies very useful
information about the audience, but does not necessarily help the designer organize
the difference among the target audience the way Smith and Ragan’s model does.
The target audience we are concerned with are college-aged adults. They represent
a specific age group and a similar socio-economic group. See figure 1.3 for the learn-
er characteristics.
For this project, our design team decided to use Smith and Ragan’s model be-
cause it allows us divide the target audience into smaller sub-groups. The most appar-
ent distinctions are gender, and psychosocial differences. Careful consideration of
these differences are applied in the next section: instructional goals and objectives.
Learner Analysis
Figure 1.3
l e a r n e r a n a l y s i s page 18 l e a r n e r a n a l y s i s page 19
Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor
Brown and Green (2011) credit Benjamin Bloom and colleagues with developing
the original idea and work behind three learning domains, Cognitive, Affective and
Psychomotor skills (p. 33). The cognitive domain is described in six hierarchical levels:
knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Bloom,
Englehart, Frost, Hill & Krathwohl, 1956). As individuals gain mastery of subject material,
they ascend through these levels starting from knowledge. Similarly, the affective
domain is characterized in five levels: receiving, responding, valuing, organizing and
characterizing value (Krawthwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1964). The affective domain of learn-
ing is concerned with emotional responses. Brown and Green succinctly describe the
affective domain as a spectrum from least committed to most committed (p. 33).The
psychomotor domain is concerned with physical abilities and skills (p. 34).
Cognitive and Affective domains represent intellectual and emotional progres-
sion. Factual knowledge, conceptual comprehension, critical analysis and synthesis
are the marker of cognitive domain. Affective domain characterizes progression of
learner motivation and interest. Brown and Green say “at the basic level of this do-
main (receiving), an individual is able to pay attention to a certain idea but does not
show any concerted interest” (p. 33). At the highest level of affective domain, an indi-
vidual is capable of adopting a new idea and acting consistently with it. The example
Brown and Green give is, “openly demonstrating an appreciation for classical music”
(p. 33).
Cognitive and affective domains align with an incremental increase in mental
exercise. The lowest levels of both domains require the least mental stimulation. Being
able to recite facts and information determines mastery of the “knowledge” level in
Cognitive domain. Being able to pay attention to an idea determines mastery of the
“receiving” level in Affective domain. Naturally, higher levels of cognitive and affec-
tive domains are related. Evaluation, the highest level of cognitive domain,
Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor
(continued from page 19) determines an individual’s ability to judge the value or
worth of material for a given purpose (Brown and Green, p. 33). Characterizing value,
the highest level of affective domain, states an individual can act openly and consis-
tently with a new value (p. 34).
These similar qualities align with the notion of higher mental practice. If a learn-
er can judge the worth of a material, then it naturally follows he or she can internal-
ize the material. Identifying the differences of the cognitive and affective domains is
trivial compared to recognizing their shared characteristics.
When writing learning objectives, instructional designers are concerned with
setting goals for the instruction. Without goals, the instruction is useless. Brown and
Green state, “the designer should determine which learning domain the instruction is
intended for” (p. 90). Each domain has a particular set of action verbs that are in-
herent to the learning objective. For example, cognitive domain objectives use ac-
tion verbs like describe, identify, construct, graph, confirm, and memorize. Affective
domain objectives use verbs like avoid, resist, resolve, differentiate, accept, support,
measure, debate and so on.
In this project, our
c o g n i t i v e , a f f e c t i v e , p s y c h o m o t o r page 20 c o g n i t i v e , a f f e c t i v e , p s y c h o m o t o r page 21
Instructional Goals and Objectives Learning objectives according to the Smaldino, Lowther, and Russell’s ABCD
model consist of audience, behavior, conditions, and degree. If a designer uses this
model, Brown and Green suggest “the designer identify the learners, describe what
is expected of the learner after instruction, describe the circumstances in which the
learner’s performance occurs and explain the standards for acceptable
performance” (p. 92). This model is a successful guideline for writing efficient learning
objectives. For example, “After completing the lesson, students will apply company
standards to maintain a safe work environment”. This objective identifies the audi-
ence, the standard criteria, the condition, and desired behavior.
Mager’s model for writing learning objective is essentially the same as Smaldi-
no’s et al. model. The only difference is the omission of an audience. The three com-
ponents of Mager’s model are: action, conditions and criterion (as cited in Brown and
Green, p. 91). The action element of Mager’s model is the same as the behavior in
the ABCD model. Condition describes circumstances under which the learner will per-
form. This is literally the same variable in the ABCD model. Criterion is the specification
of how well the learner must perform the action. Criterion is the same as degree in the
ABCD model. The Mager model implies there is an audience. Smaldino et al. explicitly
state the audience. The audience is the only inherent difference between the two
models. The following figures 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 are examples of written learning objec-
tives. The cognitive goal is to educate the community. We have written 6 learning
objectives. Each objective compounds on the previous objective. The first goal is a
knowledge based objective. The cognitive goal will be achieved after students com-
plete each learning objective. Learners will attain the main goal in a step-wise fash-
ion. The same methodology is applied to the affective and psychomotor goals. See
figure 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 for objective lists.
Instructional Goals and Objectives Cognitive Goal: Educate the community
Knowledge: At the conclusion of a free bicycle informational seminar, college students will recall bicycle rider rights as measured by a fill in the blank worksheet.
Comprehension: Upon receiving the information from the bicycle seminar, college students will recognize the merits of bicycle rider rights. Students are considered competent if they can verbally express the merits of bicycle rider rights.
Application: At the conclusion of a free bicycle informational seminar, college students will apply bicycle lane knowledge to a fictional scenario test provided by facilitators. Students will be considered competent upon receiving a 100% score.
Analysis: After passing the fictional scenario test, students will be able to differentiate bicycle lane laws and auto-vehicle lane laws.
Students will be considered competent if they can distinguish the rights of bike rider from the rights car drivers.
Synthesis: Using a GPS system or map, students will formulate neighborhood street routes. Students are considered competent if their routes are safe and short.
Evaluation: Upon completion of route mapping, students will revise their routes in accordance with local traffic laws and systems. Students are considered competent if their revised routes limit interference with car traffic.
Figure 1.4 Cognitive Objective List
Affective Goal: Promote a healthy appreciation for bicycling
Receiving: Given a free bicycle seminar, students will recognize the health benefits of bicycling, as measured by a multiple choice test.
Responding: After attending a free bicycle seminar, students will discuss the incentives of bicycling, as facilitated by a League of Bicyclists mentor.
Valuing: After completing group discussion of incentives, students will accept bicycling into their lifestyle, as measured by voluntarily accepting a free community bike map.
Organization: Upon receiving the free community bike map, students will organize a local bicycle association.
Characterization by Value: After organizing a local bicycle association, students will internalize the positive incentives of bicycling, as measured by completing a post-seminar survey.
Figure 1.5 Affective Objective List
i n s t r u c t i o n a l g o a l s a n d o b j e c t i v e s page 22 i n s t r u c t i o n a l g o a l s a n d o b j e c t i v e s page 23
Instructional Goals and Objectives Psychomotor Goal: Teach bicycle skills
Observing: Students will observe the motions of an experienced bicycle rider at a free bicycle safety seminar.
Imitating: Students will operate the bicycle as instructed by an experienced bicycle rider at a free seminar. Success is measured by a hands-on performance (pass/fail).
Practicing: Students will maintain the bicycle’s tires and gears under the supervision of the experienced bicycle technician at the free seminar.
Adapting: Students will manipulate the bicycle seat height and pedal resistance to their preferences, under the guidance of the experienced bicycle technician provided at the seminar.
Figure 1.6 Psychomotor Objective List
Our design team has adopted Mager’s model for writing learning objectives.
Mager’s model is considered a standard objective writing model because of its speci-
ficity. Utilizing Mager’s framework, we rapidly identified the desired behavior, situation-
al condition, and criterion for success in each objective. Mager’s methodology suc-
cessfully cooperates with Bloom’s Taxonomy of cognitive, affective and psychomotor
learning objectives.
Figures 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 are the core deliverables we will present to the client.
The target audience will be able to successfully plan their own ‘Bike to School Day’
after successful completion of each objective. The psychomotor objectives instruct
students how to correctly ride a bike, how to maintain tire pressure, adjust the seat
and pedal resistance. The cognitive objectives provide students with biker rights, road
laws, and safety information. The affective objectives provide a framework for stu-
dents to influence other peers and locals to accept a healthy bicycle culture within
their community.
Instructional Strategy for the Teacher According to Brown and Green (2011), designing the best instruction possible
involves organizing instructional activities to create a satisfactory and effective learn-
ing experience. All learning materials and information will be provided for you, but the
responsibility of organizing the material is the task of the teacher/facilitator. By utilizing
key instructional design strategies by Brown and Green and Gagne, the instructor
will have the ability to organize instruction as they see fit. For this project, our team
used a combination of Dick and Carey’s learning components and Gagne’s 9 events
of instruction. The following literature is a dense dissection of theory. For individuals
well-versed in Gagne’s events of instruction have the option of skimming to page 24,
where an example is provided.
Dick and Carey organize instructional materials by another term, learning com-
ponents. Learning components are essentially the binding agents of instructional
material to students’ minds. Gagne established the idea that instruction is the product
of an external event influencing an internal response in a student (1985). The internal
processes that occur during learning are: attention, selective perception, rehearsal,
semantic encoding, retrieval, response organization, feedback and executive control
processes (Gagne 1985). These mental processes occur during learning. There is no a
specific order to the processes. Both the designer and the learner have high control
over these processes. Internal processes can be influenced by external events. Editing
and designing instructional activities are the external events that influence the inter-
nal processes of learning. These internal processes occur throughout the 9 events of
instruction. As a facilitator, you have the authority to arrange the events as you see fit.
The 9 events represent a framework and guideline that you may or may not choose
to adhere to.
i n s t r u c t i o n a l g o a l s a n d o b j e c t i v e s page 24 i n s t r u c t i o n a l g o a l s a n d o b j e c t i v e s page 25
Instructional Strategy for the Teacher1. Gaining Attention: According to Dick and Carey attention must be gained and
sustained (2003). Instruction needs to be relevant to student needs and interests. Stu-
dents need to have the impression
that if they put forth effort they can succeed. Confident people attribute success to
ability and effort. Unconfident people fear failure. Strategies that foster student confi-
dence will instill a sense of discipline, persistence and accomplishment. Students need
to have the impression their behaviors lead to reward. Students that are aware of the
task and its reward have an incentive to perform well, persistently, and more confi-
dently.
2. Informing learners of objective: Informing the learners of the objective is some-
times obvious. The designer must provide clarity in situations where the objective is
not obvious. Be specific when informing the learners of the objective. If a lesson will
introduce students to dinosaurs, the designer should present details and specifica-
tions. What period will we be studying? The Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, or all three?
Which species are we learning about? Will we be studying carnivores or omnivores?
3. Stimulate recall of prior learning: Presenting prior information before new infor-
mation is delivered is essential to success learning. Having old information recalled
right before new information allows learners to see the relationship between what
they have already learned and what they will be learning (Dick and Carey 2003).
4. Presenting the stimulus material: The material needs to be presented with the
proper stimulus. The example Dick and Carey give is, “if you want the learner to ac-
quire the ability to answer questions delivered orally in French, you should not present
them with questions in English or printed questions in French” (2003). If you do not use
the proper stimuli, then you may end up teaching the wrong skills (Gagne 1985). Use
a variety of examples when presenting. Also, include a variety of non-examples so the
learner can distinguish correct and incorrect associations. Providing various examples
and non-examples stimulates the mental process of semantic coding and selective
Instructional Strategy for the Teacher
(continued from page 25) perception. This type of exercise forces the student to men-
tally distinguish the correct and incorrect qualities of presented concepts (Dick and
Carey 2003).
5. Providing learning guidance: The goal of the instructor is to facilitate learning,
not simply state what is correct and incorrect (Dick and Carey 2003). By providing
guidance, the student is lead towards the correct answer. Leading the students’
thinking direction towards the right answer stimulates the learners’ mental processes
and allows them to form an individual comprehension of the material. This method
allows students to form their own subjective associations and decisions regarding the
new material.
6. Eliciting the performance: Practice items should occur frequently and immedi-
ately after instruction. They should clearly specify the format and nature of the stu-
dent response. The student needs to
know how exactly to answer and to what degree a right answer is. Individual practice
is more relevant to learning than group practice (Dick and Carey 2003).
7. Providing feedback about performance correctness: Good feedback provides
comments about student performance, the degree of correctness and it should be
frequent. Feedback allows the student to improve their future performances. Spe-
cifically stating why their answers are wrong stimulates reinforcement and semantic
encoding mental processes (Gagne 1985).
8. Assessing the performance: This is an elicited performance to judge if students
have learned the material. It determines if the instruction has met its design objec-
tives. A proper assessment should match the stated objectives in order to provide an
accurate judgment.
9. Enhancing retention and transfer: This event of instruction is concerned with
increasing the chances that the skills taught will be used properly in outside contexts.
The best way to accomplish this is to provide context to the learners. This is done by
i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g y f o r t h e t e a c h e r page 26 i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g y f o r t h e t e a c h e r page 27
9 Events Cognitive Affective Psychomotor PerformanceGain attention Informational seminar
for target audience to understand the merits of bicycle rider rights
Informational seminar detailing the incentives for a healthy biking culture.
Supervision of an expe-rienced bicycle rider facilitator and a test bike available for target audience.
Provide learning objective Knowledge, compre-hension, application, analysis, synthesis, eval-uation
Receiving, responding, valuing, organization, characterization by value
Observing, imitating, practicing, adapting
Stimulate recall of prior knowledge
Have a gift bag avail-able for every student upon entrance, include a reference card with key information
Provide a group dis-cussion of biking incen-tives. Recall reminiscent memories of childhood bicycle riding
Repeat walkthrough of tire maintenance, turn-ing, and mounting bicy-cle under supervision
Present the material Free informational seminar Free information seminar Supervision of an expe-rienced rider and a test bike available
Provide guidance for learning
Reference card and facilitator available for questions
Group discussion and facilitator available for questions
Facilitator available for questions. Supervisor available for hands-on training
Elicit performance Route mapping exercise and fictional scenario test
Health incentives multiple choice test, post-seminar survey
Hands-on performance (pass/fail)
Instructional Strategy for the Teacher(continued from page 26) catering the classroom environment as closely as possible
to real world context. For example, writing business correspondences or writing para-
graphs free of grammatical errors. In a business setting, writing letters and e-mails are
common place. Providing a lesson review also helps reinforce learned material.
Now that you are more familiar with Gagne’s 9 events of instruction, observe
the connection between the cognitive, affective, and performance objectives and
the nine events of instruction in the table below.
Figure 1.7 Instructional Strategy for Teacher
Instructional Strategy for the Teacher
This table is only one example of how a facilitator could choose to organize in-
struction. On page 19 and 20, we provide the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor
objectives. Some events may be omitted. For example, providing learning guidance
for the affective domain may be redundant since the
activity is a group discussion. Conversation and discussion of biking incentives may or
may not require conversation deliberators or facilitators. The option of omitting learn-
ing guidance is up to you, the teacher. The beauty of this model is its synchronicity.
However you decide to organize the instructional materials, the learning components
established by Gagne will always occur. Those internal processes are embedded in
the 9 events of instruction.
strategy page 28 i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g y f o r t h e t e a c h e r page 29
Provide feedback Peer to peer evalua-tion of route maps and review of scenario test answers
Group discussion and post-seminar debrief
Repeated walkthrough and immediate feed-back from supervisor
Assess performance Do student route-maps limit interference with car traffic?
Post-seminar survey. Did the audience internal-ize positive incentives of bicycling?
Pass or Fail
Enhance retention and transfer
Fictional scenario, lesson review
Encourage students to organize a local bicycle association in their city
Provide context for stu-dents, lesson review
Figure 1.7 Instructional Strategy for Teacher
Evaluating Learner Achievement
After the events of instruction are organized, the next task of the designer is to
develop learner evaluations. Learner evaluations are the most important component
of instruction. Learner evaluations are final assessments that determine whether the
audience achieved the learning objectives. Pages 19 and 20 list the cognitive, affec-
tive and psychomotor objectives. Evaluations are always based on the learning ob-
jectives.
This project is comprised of 15 learner objectives originating from cognitive, af-
fective, and psychomotor domains. As mentioned in an earlier chapter, the affective
domain is concerned with learner attitudes and motivation. Cognitive domain deals
with explicit knowledge. Psychomotor performance is concerned with physical ability
and skill. Some assessments are embedded within the objective. In some cases, these
are base-line data or initial evaluations used as a comparison with post-lesson evalua-
tions. Initial assessments engage the learners during the seminar. The final evaluation
determines whether or not the final objective has been achieved and is compared
with base-line evaluations to determine if learning occurred in the students.
Whatever evaluation format the designer chooses, evaluations should always
be valid and reliable. A valid evaluation only tests what it is inherently supposed
to test. There must be adherence to materials presented in the lesson. Validity lim-
its student confusion. The evaluations need to be relevant to what the students just
learned. Never introduce new material in evaluations. Valid tests reinforce concepts
taught during the lesson and enforce transfer of knowledge. Evaluations that ask
learners to answer unrelated questions are considered invalid and irrelevant. Invalid
evaluations break instructional design principles of consistency.
Evaluating Learner Achievement
Evaluations ought to be reliable. Reliability in this context means the evaluation
should be fair and deliver consistent results. For example, students that study hard
should receive higher scores than average students. Valid evaluations are generated
to limit error. Systematic discrepancies still occur, but reliable tests limit the amount of
error.
For this project, we developed valid and reliable evaluations through the fol-
lowing formats: assessment rubric, post-seminar questionnaire form, and a perfor-
mance checklist. For the cognitive domain, we developed a rubric based on the
learning objectives. There are six cognitive learning objectives. Embedded in each
objective is an initial activity. These activities range from worksheets, verbal express
checklists, fictional scenario tests, and route mapping exercises. The scores from those
initial activities are recorded into this final rubric.
For the affective domain, we developed a post-seminar questionnaire that
identifies the audience’s attitude toward biking culture. The questions are based on
the original affective objectives. The answers are collected by the facilitators at the
end. The feedback from students will help facilitators improve the free bicycle sem-
inar. For the psychomotor domain, we have developed a pass or fail checklist with
10 items. The students must either be able to perform each skill in order provided to
receive a satisfactory grade. Each task must be passed in order for the student to be
considered competent. The performance checklist is based on the four psychomotor
objectives: observing, imitating, practicing, and adapting. Each task is accompanied
by a facilitator or biking instructor. The student is observing and judged whether or not
they can successfully complete each task.
e v a l u a t i n g l e a r n e r a c h i e v e m e n t page 30 e v a l u a t i n g l e a r n e r a c h i e v e m e n t page 31
Final EvaluationCummulative evaluations: Yes No
Cognitive Assessment Rubric: Was the goal completed? Cognitive Goal: Educate the community
Affective Assessment Form: Was the goal completed? Affecive Goal: Promote a healthy appreciation for bicycling
Psychomotor Assessment Checklist: Was the goal completed? Affecive Goal: Teach bicycle skills
Evaluating Learner Achievement
Cognitve Assessment RubricCognitive Goal: Educate the community
Task Unsatisfactory (1pt)
Passing (2pt) Satisfactory (3pt)
Total
Knowledge: blank worksheet scoreComprehension: verbal test scoreApplication: bike lane fictional sce-nario test scoreAnalysis: bike/car rights test scoreSynthesis: route map exercise scoreEvaluation: route map evaluation scoreTotal score:Scale: Failure 6-11 points Unsatisfactory 11- 17 Excellent 17-21 points
Figure 1.8 Cognitive Assessment Form
Figure 1.9 Affective Assessment Form
Affective Assessment Form:Affecive Goal: Promote a healthy appreciation for bicycling
Question based on objective: User answer:After attending this free bicycle seminar, can you rec-ognize the health benefits of bicycling? Please write a short answer.
After attending this free bicycle seminar, can you list the incentives of adopting a bicycle lifestyle?
After attending this free bicycle seminar, how have your attitudes toward community biking changed? If not, please explain why.
After attending this free bicycle seminar, would you be interested in forming a small community bicycle associ-ation? If no, please explain why.
Evaluating Learner Achievement
Psychomotor Assessment Checklist:Psychomotor Goal: Teach bicycle skills
Objective: Fail PassObserving: Students can observe the motions of an ex-perienced bicycle rider at a free bicycle safety seminar without being distracted.
Imitating: Students will operate the bicycle as instructed by an experienced bicycle rider at a free seminar.
Practicing: Students will maintain the bicycle’s tires and gears under the supervision of the experienced bicycle technician at the free seminar.
Adapting: Students will manipulate the bicycle seat height and pedal resistance to their preferences, under the guidance of the experienced bicycle technician provided at the seminar.
Figure 2.0 Psychomotor Assessment Form
e v a l u a t i n g l e a r n e r a c h i e v e m e n t page 32 e v a l u a t i n g l e a r n e r a c h i e v e m e n t page 33
ReferencesBrown, Abbie and Timothy D. Green. (2011). The essentials of instructional design: Connecting
fundamental principles with process and practice. Boston: Prentice Hall, 2011. 14-17, 41-
53, 78-81 . Print.
Dick, W., Carey, L. & Carey, J. O. (2009). The systematic design of instruction, 7th edi
-tion. Columbus, OH: Allyn & Bacon.
The Essential Elements of Bicycle Friendly America. (2013, August 17). Retrieved Febru
-ary 22, 2015, from http://bikeleague.org/content/5-es
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M. & Kemp, J. E. (2006). Designing effective instruction, 4th edi
-tion. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Mager, R. F. (1989) Making instruction work. Belmont, CA: Lake Publishing Company.
Rossett, A. (1995). Needs assessment. In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past,
present, and future, 2nd edition (pp. 183- 196). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimit
-ed.
Wilson, B. (1997, March 1). The Postmodern Paradigm. Retrieved January 20, 2015,
from http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~bwilson/postmodern.html
r e f e r e n c e s page 34
F i r s t E d i t i o n
Cognitive Assessment Rubric: Was the goal completed? Cognitive Goal: Educate the community
Affective Assessment Form: Was the goal completed? Affecive Goal: Promote a healthy appreciation for bicycling
Psychomotor Assessment Checklist: Was the goal completed? Affecive Goal: Teach bicycle skills
appendix.
a p p e n d i x page 35
