Sub-Badge 2: Applying ID research & Theory

Reflection

Reflection on Literature Review 

For the competency “Applying ID Research & Theory,” I have selected my literature review on AI applications in workforce training and adult education as an artifact. This review allowed me to explore the integration of AI into instructional design, particularly its role in enhancing both soft skills and traditional skills training. 

The literature review demonstrates my ability to interpret and explain key instructional design concepts such as feedback loops, scaffolding, and personalized learning. Specifically, the review revealed solutions to a common learning problem in instructional design: how to effectively develop both soft and hard skills in the workplace using AI. My research skills were tested, and I created a document to use for further research. By analyzing AI-driven feedback systems, I was able to show how AI can provide continuous, personalized feedback, which is crucial for skill development in workplace settings. This paper represents a focused attention on how AI can bridge the gap between traditional and modern training methods, offering practical solutions for improving both soft skills like communication and hard skills like technical proficiency. 

My background in sales and education informed my analysis of the literature, allowing me to draw on real-world experiences to support my understanding of instructional design principles. For instance, in my role as a sales manager, I often had to develop training programs that catered to diverse learning needs, similar to the challenges addressed in the literature. This experience enabled me to critically evaluate how AI can be used to tailor instructional strategies to different types of skills, ensuring that both soft and hard skills are effectively developed in the workplace. 

Reflecting on this experience, I am proud of how this literature review deepened my understanding of instructional design concepts and their application to modern workplace challenges. The solutions identified in this review, particularly those related to AI’s ability to enhance skill development, are directly applicable to the instructional challenges I face in my current work. Despite my progress, I know there is much room for improvement when it comes to research on key instructional design concepts and principles. Moving forward, I will continue to develop my skills by applying the concepts of feedback loops, scaffolding, and personalized learning in my work, exploring how AI can be further leveraged to create effective, personalized training programs, and staying engaged with the latest research in the field. 

Challenge 2: Apply systems thinking to instructional design and performance improvement projects

Criteria for successful completion of this challenge: Evidence that shows the breakdown of the design process into individualized pieces and analyzing each section in order to see how each piece interacts with other pieces. Reflection must address: Explain how you broke down the design process (ADDIE, Kirkpatrick, ARCs Model, Universal Backward Design, etc.) and utilized individual pieces to make your recommendations.

Examples: Case studies (EDCI 672), Design Documents (EDCI 588), Final Projects (EDCI 572, EDCI 577, EDCI 528), other evidence showing systems thinking to ID and performance projects (design, performance, workplace, educational, other)

Artifact 2 (Case Analysis 1, 2, 3)

Reflection

For the competency “Apply systems thinking to instructional design and performance improvement projects,” I have selected the Lindley Case Analysis as an artifact. This case analysis was developed to address multiple stakeholders’ interests and design challenges while creating an educational game that explores the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. The process of breaking down the design into individual pieces and analyzing each interaction allowed me to apply systems thinking effectively throughout the project.

To guide the design, I utilized the ADDIE model, focusing on breaking down the Analysis, Design, and Development phases into specific components that each influenced the overall system. During the Analysis phase, I identified the key stakeholders, their interests, and potential instructional design challenges. Understanding how each stakeholder’s perspective would impact the design was crucial in determining what type of learning experience could effectively meet the educational and ethical goals of the project. For example, the stakeholders had varied concerns—some prioritized game engagement and character-building, while others focused on state alignment and avoiding controversial content. Through systems thinking, I assessed how these different pieces interacted and informed each other to shape the overall instructional design strategy.

During the Design phase, the team had to address differing views on how the game should be structured. I applied systems thinking to analyze these interactions, focusing on creating a unified instructional goal that could balance immersion, learning objectives, and accessibility. The use of the Universal Backward Design model helped me map out specific learning outcomes and align them with the gameplay mechanics. This model enabled me to identify how individual design decisions—such as character choices and game narratives—could impact the overall player experience, ensuring each component worked cohesively to achieve educational goals.

Additionally, I applied the ARCS Model to enhance learner motivation by focusing on Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction. By incorporating engaging storylines, connecting the game content to learners’ experiences, and providing opportunities for success through challenges, I ensured that learners remained motivated throughout the experience. This helped in creating a more engaging and meaningful learning journey that aligned well with the instructional goals.

To evaluate the effectiveness of the game, I used Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation: Reaction, Learning, Behavior, and Results. By assessing learner feedback, knowledge acquisition, behavioral changes, and the overall impact on learning outcomes, I was able to ensure that each component of the instructional design contributed positively to achieving the desired results. This evaluation process allowed for continuous improvement by identifying areas that needed adjustment to better align with the overall learning objectives.

The Development phase required iteration, where the interactions between different components were further analyzed for their overall effect on project success. The analysis of instructional elements such as feedback loops, ethical considerations, and the balance between gameplay and educational content allowed me to ensure that each piece supported the intended learning outcomes. For example, incorporating meta-reflective activities into gameplay was necessary to support students’ understanding of complex issues while keeping the game within the scope of appropriate content for the classroom.

The Beckett and McSweeny Case Analysis provided another opportunity to apply systems thinking by managing differing stakeholder perspectives and conflicting design decisions. In this case, the stakeholders had varying priorities regarding the inclusion of empathy-building activities versus structured instructional objectives. By breaking down the Analysis and Design phases and using a systematic approach to align both stakeholder needs and project goals, I was able to navigate these conflicts effectively. This analysis underscored the importance of understanding how each component within an instructional design project influences the others and how leadership can help reconcile differing visions to create a cohesive learning experience.

Similarly, the Lynn Dixon Case Analysis highlighted the complexity of designing instructional content for a diverse audience using a new medium. The project involved creating an interactive kiosk for an aquarium, with the challenge of addressing the varied needs of children, families, and experts. By breaking down the instructional design process and analyzing each audience’s requirements, I utilized systems thinking to create modular content that catered to different user needs. This experience emphasized the importance of tailoring content to different audiences while ensuring that each module contributed to the overall educational objectives.

Through these artifacts, I demonstrated systems thinking by dissecting the instructional design process into individualized parts and analyzing each section’s interaction with other pieces. The reflection allowed me to identify areas where iterative development could enhance project outcomes and where clear communication among stakeholders could resolve conflicting expectations. This experience reinforced the value of viewing instructional design as an interconnected system, where understanding the relationships between individual components can lead to more effective and cohesive learning solutions.

Moving forward, I plan to continue applying systems thinking by breaking down complex instructional challenges into smaller, manageable pieces, ensuring that each element of the design aligns with the overall learning goals. By leveraging models like ADDIE, Universal Backward Design, ARCS Model, and Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation, I will enhance my ability to design instructional experiences that are not only well-structured but also impactful for diverse learning environments.