Stephanie Hicklin Final Reflection December 10, 2012 EDET 650

I have learned many things during the course of this internship. From analyzing the learners and assessing the needs to evaluating the effectiveness of the module, following the ADDIE model was very effective in organizing the entire experience. Applying the ADDIE model to a real-life situation made it much easier to understand. Each phase of the process presented various challenges and successes. I was able to apply many of the principles learned in the Educational Technology Program. Although I have been pleased with this internship experience, there are many things that I will revise for future iterations of this module. Analyze During the analyze phase, I had to review past training evaluations to determine needs that trainees had identified for themselves. I also reviewed past requests that our training team had received from supervisors for more information related to IFSP Outcomes. Based on my work experience history, I had a unique perspective into the needs of our state personnel. I began working in the field of early intervention in 2002. My first job after earning my Bachelors degree that same year was with the York County Department of Disabilities and Special Needs as a BabyNet Service Coordinator/Special Instructor. Two years later, I took a position with the Department of Health and Environmental Control as a BabyNet intake service coordinator and eventually became the BabyNet supervisor for York, Chester, and Lancaster Counties. In 2007, I changed positions again, though still working with the same interagency program, BabyNet. This is when I found my current position as a Training and Technical Assistance Specialist for the BabyNet program. Because I have served in many roles in this program, I have first-hand knowledge of many of the staffs needs. I realize that as an instructional designer, I may not always have as much subject matter knowledge or insight into the needs of the learners as I do in my current position. Analyzing the learners and assessing the needs may involve much more work as an independent instructional designer or one who contracts to provide instructional design services. In addition to determining the learners content needs, I also analyzed their needs related to training format. On each training evaluation, attendees are always asked if they would have preferred a different format for the delivery of the professional development/training. We have several examples offered and allow them space to write in additional formats. Many times we find that participants would have rather received

the training via webinar or online modules if it was presented in a face-to-face setting or vice versa if were originally presented as a webinar or online module. One lesson I have learned from this experience is to offer choices. Trainees dont have to participate in the same format for each training activity. If resources allow for a choice, we can allow for the training format to better fit the learners needs. Design A very positive lesson learned during the design process was that it is important to avoid reinventing the wheel if you can help it. In the world of early intervention, all state Part C (of IDEA) programs are funded and regulated by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in Washington, D.C. Because we are all funded from the same large pot of money, our products are free to be shared among all state Part C programs. We also have a close relationship with the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC) and several Regional Resource Centers, all of whom are funded by OSEP as well. This means that there is a wealth of information and products that have already been developed all over the United States. Sufficient time and energy should be put into researching what products have already been developed before spending time and money reinventing the wheel. A better use of our time could be spent revising and editing available resources to better fit our states needs. I was able to do just that for the IFSP Outcomes module. In the future, I would also like to have the learners go outside of the LMS and research information on their own some. Its great to have the content all in one place, but I would like them to become more independent learners. Keramidas, et al., (2007) addresses the need for helping teachers and early intervention professionals with professional development. They insist that these professionals must develop strategies for finding reputable information online on their own. The training package that NECTAC has developed for Writing Quality IFSP Outcomes is customizable for various training formats. For this online module, I had to determine the goals and objectives for the learners. I also had to decide how I would organize the training content and present the information. I had to decide how learners would be assessed throughout the process. One thing I would do differently when revising the sequence and organization of content will be to separate each presentation a little better. Our LMS allows professors to create lessons or courses. For this module, I decided to create one lesson which housed all the learning objects. In the future, I will create a course that will include three lessons. Lesson 1 will include the first two presentations. Lesson 2 will contain the third presentation (the largest one), and lesson 3 will contain the final two presentations. I think this will help the learners track their progress a little better and know which content relates to each discussion board prompt. In the future, I would also like to solicit more input on the design of the module from coworkers and other key people prior to beginning the development stage.

Development Having access to the NECTAC training package was very helpful. If I had not had this content available, my entire internship would have surrounded creating a training package instead of being able to go through the entire instructional design process with a group of learners. Although this content was very useful, many revisions had to be made to each presentation. The presentations were originally developed for use by those who work with children birth to 3 and 3 to 5. Our BabyNet program only sees children birth to three, so the information on 3-5 year olds had to be taken out of every presentation. I also had to revise the speakers notes based on the age ranges covered. This tedious process of revising the presentations triggered one of the biggest challenges that I encountered. Because of the limited amount of time I had to get the information revised and uploaded the LMS, I ended up beginning the implementation phase when the content for only week 1 was ready. This meant I had to work on revising and posting the week 2 content while the learners were working on their week 1 assignment. This time-consuming process kept me from interacting as much as I would have liked in the discussion board. In the future, I will be sure to have all the content edited and uploaded before the first user logs on. Another change that I would like to make for the next version of this module deals with the format of the presentations. Again, based on time constraints, I wasnt able to offer all 5 presentations in multiple formats. The most important presentations were narrated and recorded using Articulate Presenter. The other presentations were saved as PowerPoint notes pages as pdfs. Learners were to read the slides and speakers notes and then participate in the discussion board. In the future, I would like to offer each presentation in both formats. Based on informal feedback, most users preferred one format or the other. I think it would be very helpful to offer both. They might wish to view the Articulate presentation and then print the pdfs for use during an actual IFSP meeting. I have been very fortunate to have such great role models when it comes to developing an online course. I was able to review all of my past courses in Blackboard to get ideas on the organization of the module itself. I also used facilitation techniques that I had experienced in other courses. I have had some professors have very little involvement in the discussion forums, and others replied to each students posts. Also, some responded to the group as a whole through email. I felt that email feedback would be the most time-efficient strategy for this module. According to Jianxia, Havard, and Heng (2005), one of the most important factors of the success of any online course (or training module) is the incorporation of opportunities for interaction among learners and instructors. Hopefully, the use of the discussion boards and considerable email correspondence helped the learners to feel included and more engaged.

Implementation The implementation phase overlapped with the development phase in many instances. This is definitely something that I will avoid if at all possible in the future. Marcia Dixson (2010) explains that instructor to student and student to student communications are key in keeping students engaged in the online learning process. I would have enjoyed having a more active role in the discussion board postings. Instead of replying to the users posts, I ended up reviewing all the posts (for each week), and emailing feedback to the group. The emails focused on the most important points made in their posts, any important information they did not pick up on, and most importantly, any misconceptions they may have formed. On the days when I drafted the email feedback, I had to work for hours reading each post and the corresponding replies. This was very timeconsuming. If I could have kept up with the group better, I would have rather replied to the posts as they came in, instead of all at once. Another major issue that I discovered throughout the process, but again in the implementation phase was the need for flexibility. I had to be flexible during the analysis phase when soliciting participants. I also had to be flexible with timelines during the implementation phase. I created the original schedule to be very strict in case we need to extend deadlines some once we got started. This was a good plan because just in the middle of implementation, we had some additional required face-toface training events that we all had to attend. I was able to extend week 2s deadline an additional week. I also extended the final deadline just a little to allow everyone to catch up. They wanted to be successful and I wanted them to be able to get the most out the content that they could. We all communicated very well with each other and that allowed us to be able to make adjustments as needed. Evaluation The evaluation process involved both summative and formative evaluation. Formative evaluation was incorporated throughout each phase. I received feedback from coworkers and other national experts. I also made revisions and noted issues after communication with the users themselves. Formative evaluation is key in discovering issues, finding other ways of doing something, and sparking dialogue about aspects of the process. The summative evaluation was an end of module survey that each user must complete before they were given credit for the module. Every TECS training event (online or face-to-face) is evaluated by the users. The approximately 200 learners who participated in the face-to-face version of this training also completed the exact same survey. It was very interesting to compare the results of the two groups. The results were actually very similar with the exception of two items. The online learners reported

being more comfortable incorporating what they had learned in their everyday jobs than those who participated in the face-to-face version. Perhaps this is due to having more time to process the information or possible the ability to practice what they are learning through the week. Barbara Signer (2008) has developed a model of online instruction for teachers that does just that. She suggests that teachers should have time to learn a concept or strategy during online professional development, practice in their classroom, and then return to the online group to discuss their experiences. Another difference was with the format preferences of learners. In the face-to-face group, we had many learners report that they would like to have the training in a different format or that it must be face-to-face. The online group overwhelming reported that they preferred the training online. This is significant because historically, our BabyNet personnel has requested face-to-face training and resisted online learning. I understand that the sample size was quite different and does impact the results. As we continue to offer this training online and receive more feedback, it will be interesting to see if these trends remain the same. Next Steps I am very pleased with this entire online module process. There have been many challenges, but far more successes. I have also learned great lessons that will be applied throughout each new version of this and other trainings. This pilot has given me data to share with other management to show both the effectiveness and the need for more trainings in this format. Although this format seems to be very effective, it is also very time-consuming. With a very small training unit, we are exploring ideas for training others to facilitate these online learning groups. We plan to offer this training again in the near future to those who have already been through either the face-to-face version or the online version. This time, however, they will go through the online module wearing a different hat. We will be giving them a more in depth look at the content and what to look for in the discussion posts. This will be a train-the-trainer style online module. After many necessary revisions, we will supply each facilitator with email drafts, email summaries, and all other necessary resources that can be customized to their own group. If this plan is successful, this will mark a great new opportunity for BabyNet staff in South Carolina. References Dixson, M. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging?. Journal of the Scholarship of teaching and learning, 10(2), 1-13. Jianxia, D., Havard, B., & Heng, L. (2005). Dynamic online discussion: task-oriented interaction for deep learning. Educational Media International, 42(3), 207-218.

Keramidas, C., Ludlow, B. L., Collins, B. C., & Baird, C. M. (2007). Saving Your Sanity When Teaching in an Online Environment: Lessons Learned. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 26(1), 28-39. Signer, B. (2008). Online professional development: combining best practices from teacher, technology and distance education. Journal of In-service Education, 34(2), 205-218.