Challenge 1: Determine subordinate and prerequisite skills and knowledge
Criteria for successful completion of this challenge: Evidence of determining subordinate and prerequisite skills and knowledge. Reflection must address: How you determined subordinate and pre-req skills/knowledge for an audience (goal analysis, instructional analysis, etc.).Examples: Demonstration of identifying all of the steps a learner needs in order to achieve the learner goal, organizing learning objectives in a hierarchical order, identifying the steps needed in order to meet a goal, EDCI 572 Design Documents, EDCI 577 Content/Audience analysis (Jet Blue, Instructional Product Evaluations), artifacts focused on determining pre-req skills and knowledge (design, performance, workplace, educational, other).
Artifact (coming soon)
Challenge 2: Use appropriate techniques to analyze various types and sources to validate content
Criteria for successful completion of this challenge: Evidence of utilizing validation techniques (checking the source, researching the author – education, experience, reputation, how many times cited, etc.). Reflection must address: The specific techniques you used to validate your sources and content.
Examples: Any research paper (EDCI 513 Final Literature Review, EDCI 531 Final Paper), peer-reviews focusing on checking other’s sources, annotated bibliography (EDCI 660), work-related documentation (design, performance, workplace, educational, other) focused on use of or creation of validation techniques.
Artifact
Reflection
For the competency “Use appropriate techniques to analyze various types and sources to validate content,” I have selected my paper, “Transforming Workforce Training: The Impact of AI on Soft and Traditional Skills Development,” as an artifact. This literature review explores the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in both workforce training and adult education, and it required a rigorous process of source validation to ensure that the arguments presented were supported by credible and well-founded research.
To validate my sources and content, I employed several techniques. First, I verified the credibility of the journals and publishers by cross-checking the databases from which I retrieved the articles, such as Springer Nature and the Journal of Ethics in AI. The peer-reviewed status of the publications and their reputations in the fields of education and technology ensured that I was working with high-quality, scholarly materials.
I also researched the backgrounds of the authors to assess their qualifications. For example, I reviewed the education and experience of key authors like Salman Khan and Hannele Niemi to confirm their expertise in AI in education. I looked at their prior publications and checked their institutional affiliations, which included respected universities and think tanks. This verification process helped me understand the depth of their contributions and any biases they might bring to their studies.
Another technique I used was analyzing the number of times each article had been cited by other scholars. Articles such as Hattie and Timperley’s (2007) research on the importance of feedback were highly cited, which indicated their significance and the influence of their findings within the academic community. This gave me confidence that these sources were foundational and widely recognized as valid contributions to the field.
Furthermore, I examined the dates of publication to ensure that my sources were up-to-date, particularly for a fast-evolving topic like AI. For instance, I relied on articles published within the last three years, such as those by Cardon et al. (2024) and Wach et al. (2023), to incorporate the most recent developments and discussions on AI applications in workforce training. Ensuring the timeliness of my sources allowed me to present current trends and potential future implications in a rapidly changing technological landscape.
Finally, I cross-referenced multiple sources to identify consistencies or discrepancies in the findings related to AI’s impact on skill development. This comparative approach enabled me to validate the content by looking for convergent evidence across different studies. For example, both Morandini et al. (2023) and Ostin (2023) discussed AI’s role in upskilling, and the consistency in their conclusions provided strong support for my arguments.
Overall, these validation techniques—checking the source credibility, researching author backgrounds, assessing citations, verifying publication dates, and cross-referencing studies—helped ensure that my literature review was built on a solid foundation of reliable information. This approach allowed me to confidently support my arguments about the transformative potential of AI in both soft and traditional skills training.
Moving forward, I plan to continue refining my ability to validate sources effectively. Recognizing the value of strong research in instructional design, I am committed to applying these validation techniques rigorously in future projects to ensure that my instructional materials are not only accurate but also based on the most credible and up-to-date evidence available.