Competency 2:
Create Knowledge
For this competency, I have selected a series of written artifacts that demonstrate my ability to create knowledge.
The research paper I wrote for the Foundations of Learning Design and Technology course (EDCI 51300), “From E-Learning to X-Learning: Transitioning from SCORM to xAPI,” demonstrates my ability to describe common research methods in educational technology.
Because the central component of this paper was a literature review, the challenge was to keep the review of the research relevant to my topic. In this paper, I explore the development of xAPI (or “Tin Can”) as a viable alternative to overcome the limitations of the durable yet limiting Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) e-learning standard, which cannot track learning experiences occurring outside the browser. From the extensive literature review I performed on e-learning, SCORM, and xAPI—from which I ultimately cited twenty-one sources in the final version of my paper—I could identify a pattern emerging: Research regarding SCORM largely focused on its constraints, whereas critical literature on xAPI focused more on its potential to promote anywhere, anytime learning. Because a literature review should not only summarize findings but also scrutinize them, I described common research methods to make judgments about the validity of some assertions in several articles and identified a gap in the research: specifically, that there has been little critical discussion about how xAPI can be leveraged pedagogically and pragmatically in the instructional design of an e-learning experience. By addressing this gap in the literature, I advanced the discussion, which is a key component of this type of review, by providing my own pedagogical example that could incorporate specific, authentic, and contextualized xAPI-based activities.
As I’ve reached the end of the program, I’ve found that properly describing common research methods is a skill I can use in my freelance career. To this end, I plan to subscribe to several academic journals, such as Performance Improvement Quarterly, that I’ve found most relevant to the types of e-learning projects that I design. Doing so will keep me up-to-date on learning design and technology research trends.
​
2.1: Demonstrates ability to describe common research methods in Educational Technology
Artifact: "From E-Learning to X-Learning” (Research Paper) – EDCI 51300
2.2: Demonstrates ability to read and evaluate Educational Technology research
Artifact: "Reflection and Analysis of Framework-Interest and Affect”—EDCI 58800
The research paper I wrote for the Foundations of Learning Design and Technology course (EDCI 51300), “From E-Learning to X-Learning: Transitioning from SCORM to xAPI,” demonstrates my ability to describe common research methods in educational technology.
Because the central component of this paper was a literature review, the challenge was to keep the review of the research relevant to my topic. In this paper, I explore the development of xAPI (or “Tin Can”) as a viable alternative to overcome the limitations of the durable yet limiting Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) e-learning standard, which cannot track learning experiences occurring outside the browser. From the extensive literature review I performed on e-learning, SCORM, and xAPI—from which I ultimately cited twenty-one sources in the final version of my paper—I could identify a pattern emerging: Research regarding SCORM largely focused on its constraints, whereas critical literature on xAPI focused more on its potential to promote anywhere, anytime learning. Because a literature review should not only summarize findings but also scrutinize them, I described common research methods to make judgments about the validity of some assertions in several articles and identified a gap in the research: specifically, that there has been little critical discussion about how xAPI can be leveraged pedagogically and pragmatically in the instructional design of an e-learning experience. By addressing this gap in the literature, I advanced the discussion, which is a key component of this type of review, by providing my own pedagogical example that could incorporate specific, authentic, and contextualized xAPI-based activities.
As I’ve reached the end of the program, I’ve found that properly describing common research methods is a skill I can use in my freelance career. To this end, I plan to subscribe to several academic journals, such as Performance Improvement Quarterly, that I’ve found most relevant to the types of e-learning projects that I design. Doing so will keep me up-to-date on learning design and technology research trends.
​
The final project for EDCI 58800, the design and development of a self-paced, self-directed e-learning module, demonstrates my ability to apply research findings to finding the solution to common problems in educational technology. The analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation of this module was informed by the interest and affect motivation theoretical framework and motivation evaluation instrument that I created for the same course.
For this project, I applied the results of my research into interest and affect to create a motivation evaluation instrument (MEI), which I then used to design, develop, and assess the e-learning module that I created using a lesson-planning model for English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers. In addition to an overview of the project, the artifact includes a description of how I incorporated the theoretical framework I created based on my research on the MEI and a reflection of the completed MEI as I applied it to the different stages of ADDIE.
For the motivation evaluation instrument that I created, I aligned Hidi and Renninger’s (2006) four-phase model of interest development with the steps of the ADDIE process, which was the instructional design model I followed to create the module. I aligned my MEI with ADDIE because I wanted to ensure that the instrument was practical for the instructional designer. To this end, I used the MEI in the two ways for which I designed it:
1. As a predesign checklist to orient the instructional designer toward a range of heuristics that can be followed to create a learning environment that triggers and maintains trainee interest and, by extension, generates motivation throughout the learning event
2. As an audit tool to ensure that key motivational elements have been accounted for before the official delivery of a learning event
This artifact demonstrates how I applied my research findings to the solution to what is a common issue in my area of e-learning compliance, licensing, and professional development courses: lack of intrinsic motivation. For this project, I was not sure what kind of instructional environment I could create to motivate and maintain the interest of a target audience, a group of ESL teachers who were not necessarily keen to undergo compulsory professional development. Using the MEI as a predesign checklist triggered new ideas that I could incorporate as either components or strategies to make the module learner centered. Using the MEI as an audit tool ensured that I had created an environment in which both situational and an emerging personal interest could be generated.
​
In the time since I completed this course, I’ve used the MEI on several projects and found it to be immensely effective as a design and audit tool. For me, deriving practicality from the artifacts I’ve created in these courses has been one of the main highlights of the LDT program.
​
Reference
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.
The final project for EDCI 58800, the design and development of a self-paced, self-directed e-learning module, demonstrates my ability to apply research findings to finding the solution to common problems in educational technology. The analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation of this module was informed by the interest and affect motivation theoretical framework and motivation evaluation instrument that I created for the same course.
For this project, I applied the results of my research into interest and affect to create a motivation evaluation instrument (MEI), which I then used to design, develop, and assess the e-learning module that I created using a lesson-planning model for English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers. In addition to an overview of the project, the artifact includes a description of how I incorporated the theoretical framework I created based on my research on the MEI and a reflection of the completed MEI as I applied it to the different stages of ADDIE.
For the motivation evaluation instrument that I created, I aligned Hidi and Renninger’s (2006) four-phase model of interest development with the steps of the ADDIE process, which was the instructional design model I followed to create the module. I aligned my MEI with ADDIE because I wanted to ensure that the instrument was practical for the instructional designer. To this end, I used the MEI in the two ways for which I designed it:
1. As a predesign checklist to orient the instructional designer toward a range of heuristics that can be followed to create a learning environment that triggers and maintains trainee interest and, by extension, generates motivation throughout the learning event
2. As an audit tool to ensure that key motivational elements have been accounted for before the official delivery of a learning event
This artifact demonstrates how I applied my research findings to the solution to what is a common issue in my area of e-learning compliance, licensing, and professional development courses: lack of intrinsic motivation. For this project, I was not sure what kind of instructional environment I could create to motivate and maintain the interest of a target audience, a group of ESL teachers who were not necessarily keen to undergo compulsory professional development. Using the MEI as a predesign checklist triggered new ideas that I could incorporate as either components or strategies to make the module learner centered. Using the MEI as an audit tool ensured that I had created an environment in which both situational and an emerging personal interest could be generated.
In the time since I completed this course, I’ve used the MEI on several projects and found it to be immensely effective as a design and audit tool. For me, deriving practicality from the artifacts I’ve created in these courses has been one of the main highlights of the LDT program.
Reference
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.
2.3: Applies research findings to the solution of common problems in Educational Technology