Design Thinking for a Graduate-Level Blended Training Workshop: Using ADDIE and ARCS Model to Guide the Instructional Design Process

1. Objectives of the presentation

This presentation aims to introduce and discuss the process of designing, developing, implementing, and evaluating a blended training workshop on job interviews tips and skills.

Previous studies indicated that graduate higher education has done limited research to assess or understand the needs and experiences of graduate students beyond the classroom (Rizzolo et al., 2016). Few studies have focused on the effects of graduate student involvement or their experiences of professional development at all degree levels setting (Gardner & Barnes, 2007). However, evidence already indicated that structured professional development activities and community connection were necessary and beneficial to graduate students to remain actively engaged and involved in the higher education setting (Pontius & Harper, 2006; Dean, Woodard, & Cooper, 2007).

Aligned with previous studies, our exploratory survey at a large midwest university indicated that female graduate students, in particular, have expressed their concerns about the availability of campus-wide resources for professional development, specifically how to prepare for job interviews and female-centric academia preparation and mentorship. In order to better accommodate these students’ needs, we designed a blended workshop in Fall 2015 that aimed at providing a high-efficient and self-paced training on job interviews as an essential part of professional development activities for female graduate students. The blended format involves a week-long online session via the learning management system Blackboard Learn, and a one-hour face-to-face workshop held on campus.

We will discuss how we used and adapted the instructional design model ADDIE (i.e., Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) (Peterson, 2003), and combined it with ARCS Model of Motivational Design (Keller, 1987) to make necessary modifications to better fit into our specific outcomes and contexts. Both the ADDIE and ARCS model have been widely used and validated as a method for systematic improvement of learner experience, motivation and performance in online learning (Chang & Chen, 2015). However, the studies on the combination and application of these two models in the setting of blended training are very limited.

We believe our case will show profound implications for future studies and practices for designing, developing, implementing or evaluating a blended training workshop that can better improve graduate students’ experience and involvement in professional skills training programs.

2. Takeaways for the audience

The key takeaways for the audience attending this presentation will be: a) discussing with presenters and other attendees the benefits and challenges when developing, implementing, and evaluating blended learning related to professional development; b) exploring the affordances and limitations of both the online and face-to-face components of this training workshop in detail (e.g. instructional design approaches, learning objectives, assessment, activities, and resources); c) appraising the value of this training workshop in the area of career and professional development for female graduate students; and d) getting innovative ideas for their own design practices.

3. How to engage the audience

In order to engage the audience during the entire presentation, we plan to use a case scenario to introduce the context of this workshops. By using Poll Everywhere we will gather audience's brainstorming ideas on the initial steps of the case discussion. Our focus is to use a more participant-oriented approach to get everyone involved in a variety of interactive activities when presenting the theoretical underpinnings and results of our design work. Through discussing details and examples of the challenges we faced in animated videos or presentation, the audience will get a chance to reflect on our specific scenario and provide some feedback for our dynamic instructional design approach as well. With several different activities, our expected outcome is to have the audience explore the complexities of an instructional design process, and reflect on how to better align or revise the training content for a blended training in their own practices.

4. Description of the Presentation

The main sections to be covered in this presentation include 1) Introduction to the Context, 2) Our Instructional Design Approach, 3) Key Development and Evaluation Decisions, and 4) Discussions and Implementations.

4.1 Introduction to the context

In order to introduce the context of our blended training workshop, we will utilize a case scenario with details in regards to the background of the case, the rationale for the topic, and the overall process of instructional design. We will present the case scenario in a format of problem-based learning so that we can involve the audience in discussing the case, analyzing the potential needs of learners, and brainstorming how to carry out an appropriate instructional design process.

4.2 Our Instructional Design Approach

We will present our instructional design approach by explaining how we combined and exploited the affordances of the ADDIE Model and ARCS Model of Motivational Design that served as the guidance of our instructional design procedure. In order to better engage the audience in learning more about these instructional design models and how they relate to online job training, we will conduct a collocation jigsaw activity where the audience will interact with each other. We will provide individual descriptions of each phase in each model and will ask the audience to collocate each piece in the corresponding group. A one-page handout and other writing tools (like pens, sticky notes, easel pad, etc) will be provided to the audience to assist them with group discussion and collaboration.

4.3 Key Development & Evaluation Decisions

In this section, we will showcase our blended training workshop for the overall process, implementation plan, evaluation method and results, and the final product.

More specifically, we intend to present different components in each session. For the online session, we will showcase the content, activities, and assessment we created in Blackboard Learn. We will discuss the tools we used and their affordances for giving students diverse opportunities to get familiar with the training content, and be well prepared for the upcoming activities in the face-to-face session. For the face-to-face session, we will showcase a short video and additional photos to illustrate how students in the face-to-face session interacted in a role-play activity that aims at applying and practicing the knowledge they previously learned in the online session. We will also present the student feedback from our evaluations.

4.4 Discussions & Implementations

By adopting a question/answer approach throughout the presentation, the audience will actively participate in small-group activities to discuss the design process, review the case scenario, explore the affordances, limitations, and benefits of this blended training. Further, we will discuss the challenges in combining the design principles/models, our potential solutions, and perspectives for future improvements on a larger scale. We plan to have the small groups share their perspectives on how to better improve this training workshop and future improvements.

In this way, we believe the audience will not only learn about the whole design process, but they will also enrich their learning experience through interacting with other attendees during the presentation. We expect to engage in professional discussion and collaboration that enhances knowledge and practice in instructional design for blended learning.

References: 

Chang, N. C., & Chen, H. H. (2015). A Motivational Analysis of the ARCS Model for Information Literacy Courses in a Blended Learning Environment. Libri, 65(2), 129-142.

Dean, L. A., Woodard, B. R., & Cooper, D. L. (2007). Professional development credits in student affairs practice: A method to enhance professionalism. College Student Affairs Journal, 27, 45–56.   

Gardner, S. K., & Barnes, B. J. (2007). Graduate student involvement: Socialization for the professional role. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 369–387. doi:10.1353/csd.2007.0036

Keller, J.M., & Kopp, T.W. (1987). Application of the ARCS model to motivational design. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Theories in Action: Lessons Illustrating Selected Theories. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, Publishers, 289 - 320.

Peterson, C. (2003). Bringing ADDIE to life: Instructional design at its best. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12(3), 227-242.              

Pontius, J. L., & Harper, S. R. (2006). Principles for good practice in graduate and professional student engagement. New Directions for Student Services, 115, 47–58. doi:10.1002/ss.215

Rizzolo, S., DeForest, A. R., DeCino, D. A., Strear, M., & Landram, S. (2016). Graduate Student Perceptions and Experiences of Professional Development Activities. Journal of Career Development, 43(3) 195-210