Other times (unfortunately more often than
not) I left PD wondering why I had been forced to waste so many hours of my
life on something that was not beneficial at all. For example, my first year of
teaching I was required to attend training on the new digital curriculum.
Digital curriculum?! I love technology! I thought that training would be a
blast! WRONG. We spent a majority of the morning discussing the biographies of
the people who wrote the curriculum. (I wish I was kidding.) That is so amazing
that these people were willing to work together to provide me and other
teachers a digital curriculum, but I quite honestly did not care to hear about
their childhoods and marriages. What does that have to do with a digital
curriculum? A person's time is very important, especially a teacher's time; there are plenty of things I
would rather do (prepare lessons, get my classroom pretty, TEACH) than sit through a meaningless training.
So what was it that made me love the first
training I mentioned and despise the second training mentioned? The answer is
simple…instructional design. The first example of training had a meaningful
instructional design incorporated; while the second training seemed to be
thrown together at the last minute. GOOD instructional design is the most
important aspect of any lesson or training.
Clearly instructional design is
important…so what is it? According to Piskurich (2015), “Instructional design
is a way to plan your training program from the moment you have the idea for it
until the moment you complete your revisions of your first effort and get ready
to run the program again. It is a working model that you can use to manage the
concepts and tasks that are part of a successful training process” (p. 4).
Instructional design is the roadmap to a successful lesson or training. A
presenter may know where their destination is; but that is not beneficial if
they do not know exactly how they are going to get there.
In my opinion, the most important aspect of
the instructional design is the analysis, “what needs to be taught and what
does not need to be taught in [the] training program” (Piskurich, 2015, p. 63).
The facilitator needs to ensure the training provides information that is
beneficial to the audience. People do not want to sit through a training in
which the information is irrelevant! The analysis portion of the instructional
design could help the facilitator know what the audience is expecting to learn
from the training. This information could help the facilitator plan exactly
what type of information and resources to provide that would deem beneficial to
the attendees. A quick way of gathering this feedback is through the use of a
performance gap assessment, which can be as complex as the attached example, or as simple as two questions, as stated by Piskurich
(2015), “1. What performances do we need to change? 2. What behaviors in the
organization do we need to change to change those performances?” (p.26), could
be the difference in a successful and unsuccessful training.
Personally, I would love all future
presenters, facilitators, and instructors to use an instructional design
process within their trainings and lessons. It would be a better use of
everyone’s time, money, and resources if things were planned out and executed
properly. J
Reference: Piskurich, G. M. (2015). Rapid instructional design: Learning ID fast and right (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Piskurich was correct. There has to be instructional design for the training program as well. I have to admit, I laughed out loud, literally, when you said that you studied the biography of the curriculum authors. That had to be frustrating and a waste of time. Instructional design, even with Professional Development, must begin with the end in mind. Thank you for sharing your insights!
ReplyDeleteJessica, just like you and probably every other teacher, I have also attended professional training sessions thinking it would be the best thing ever only to walk away with a “what was that” attitude. My belief is that they did not take a brief assessment to determine what the learners needed know and how this group of learners learn. This whole instructional design has me really thinking about how I conduct and deliver lesson content to my students. As of late, I have been thinking that my students may have also walked away with the same thought after a lesson. I know there have been times that I have presented materials and the next day during review my student looked at me as if I had three heads. There was a disconnect, yet I could never quiet figure out where and how to fix it. Even though, I had tried and implemented every aspect of good lesson planning. In reflection, I believe that the worst lessons were those in which I imparted the content and knowledge through lecture without considering the “essential tasks related to doing the job” (Piskurich, p. 83). In planning, I had differentiated the lesson, taught small groups, used visuals, posted learning tasks, and allowed for turn and talks. Yet, there was still this lack of concrete understanding for my students. They could recall facts, summarize the lesson, and pass the test. Yet, two days after the test, they could not eloquently discuss the content. This information failed to become a part of their schema. Again, I reflect back on some failed lessons and I believe the lecture, teacher centered method was ineffective. I suppose, we sometimes teach as we were taught. Lecture was how I was taught and oftentimes, unfortunately, I revert back to. Throughout this reflection of my own teaching methods, I have developed an intense desire for learning great instructional design for my benefits. My personal goal is to transform my teaching and students through the instructional design process. Thanks for your insightful post.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I need to check out the Rappin Mathematician you referenced, and I am an English teacher! The training was obviously effective, and your presenter’s enthusiasm, I have a feeling, played a major role in your enjoyment of the experience. Currently, I am attending a training where the presenter lacks enthusiasm, and her nature and attitude are directly impacting the environment of the class. Additionally, something that caught my attention is that you mentioned a passage from Piskurich (2015) where he writes, “what needs to be taught and what does not need to be taught” (p. 63). As an AP teacher, so many times I attend training that I have basically attended before because the presenters choose to review the same sample previous exam questions over and over. After the third experience reviewing a particular text, I am saturated and need to move to another piece. This is where effective instructional design could benefit me as a participant. Piskurich writes that it is important, “to choose individuals who are not ‘over-experienced’ as your subjects” (p. 79). Analysis of participants in a group would benefit teacher, like myself, who have experience teaching our subject and need to be exposed to new material.
ReplyDeletePiskurich, G. (2015). Rapid instructional design: Learning ID fast and right. New Jersey: Wiley.
Loved your examples of good and bad learning experiences. There is nothing more unsatisfying than attending a professional development session where you come away not being able to relay one thing that you learned. A large part of effective training is the evaluation of that training. I think that the presenters in your example do not use their evaluations effectively. Piskurich (2015), discusses this by saying that "through the use of instructional design procedures, you will create objectives for the course that you can use as the basis of evaluation, determining which objectives the trainees have met" (pg. 12). Hopefully the digital curriculum presenters will become more effective users of evaluations.
ReplyDelete