Competency 8

Apply Computer-Based Technologies and Media to the Solution of Instructional Problems

  • Sub-Competency 1: Plans and designs effective learning environments and experiences supported by technology
  • Sub-Competency 2:
  • Sub-Competency 3:

Our group project for EDCI 672 is a great fit for Sub-Competency 1. I was project manager for this challenge and also responsible for the Instructional Plan. Because this was a difficult case study and our team was responsible for the final discussion of the course, we wanted to lead our classmates through the case using a simulation of a real world experience. We chose to use role-play, assigning a role from the case to each member of the class.  I took the role of the Change Management Consultant as we were one role short. It did not take long for every classmate to get into character.

We used introductory videos for each portion of the discussion to minimize cognitive load. We also broke the learning experience into three sections, each with a different focus: project management, change management, and communication.

Part 1 was designed to engage the students in their characters and help them understand the relationships between the players as well as the tasks for which each was responsible. Each student was assigned a role and told to prepare an agenda and status report for an emergency meeting based on the facts presented in the case. 

Part 2 introduced the Six Sigma DMAIC Methodology. Students were asked to create a short video (in character) addressing another member of the team who had impacted his/her ability to effectively perform their job. This task centered on communication and positive confrontation.

Part 3 involved having the students work together to create a plan to complete the project on time and on budget by putting the plan on a Gantt Chart. The assignment instructed each individual to enter the tasks he/she had responsibility for; and then to determine dependencies together and map out the critical path. The Waterkamp Project Manager did a great job of getting everyone to fill in their parts of the chart. The Discussion ended with students writing a 100 word reflection on the experience. 

Though the time-frame was shorter than we had expected because this was the last case of the course and followed on the heels of Thanksgiving vacation so that many did not login the first time until Tuesday; the feedback we received was very positive with most students indicating they felt it was a valuable learning experience and they wished we had had more time to really work through it. 

Jack Waterkamp Case Study Discussion Summarization

I was also responsible for the final reflection/summation and I created a Prezi to show an overview of our project. My teammates filled in their own information for Things We Would Change and Final Reflections. I am including a link to the Prezi as well, so that you can play Nicole's introduction video and self-pace the presentation if you wish to. I know the music may violate Mayer's Coherence principle, but, I used it for a reason. There was so much information to present, and it was most critical that users be engaged throughout the video (at least the first time through), so I used music I thought might capture and keep attention. 

Click here to view: YouTube | Prezi

Sub-Competency 2: Applies technology to facilitate a variety of effective assessment and evaluation strategies 

For Sub-Competency 2, I offer a Paper Prototype I created for EDCI 569. This project was a recast of two modules for a course created originally by Dr. Deb Fortune; a Troy University e-Learning master's level Course entitled Graphic Design in Multimedia. The original course relied on quizzes and tests for assessment. I converted it to a problem based structure with both individual and group challenges as well as personal reflections, peer reviews and a portfolio component. The approach to the assessments can be seen in this overview I wrote: 

1.5.2 Assessments I plan to use other methods of practice and assessment to determine if students have grasped and internalized the concepts. As in the current course, a small mini-project will be posted on the DQ by the end of each week demonstrating the week’s design and/or learning principles. At the end of the week, students will critique their peer’s work, offering constructive feedback— reinforcing their prior learning before practicing the concepts for the next week. Students will also self-evaluate their own work after reviewing their peers. While I will use Kirkpatrick’s Level 1 formative assessments to monitor the acceptance of the structure, the project work will be evaluated for Level 2 learning and modified Level 3 behavior, using the learning objectives as criteria for the weekly rubrics. Discussions will also be evaluated following a rubric. I will not evaluate for Level 4 (Kirkpatrick, D. L., 2006) (Krause, 2015). 

The evaluation tools for the projects including the rubrics are located throughout the paper prototype; and, rubrics can be seen on pages 2-4 under Objectives and Assessments as well as on pages 28-31.

Sub-Competency 3: Demonstrates understanding of social, ethical, legal, and human issues surrounding the use of technology and applies it in practice

Finally, for Sub-Competency 3, I offer a discussion from Week 1 of EDCI 672 on the Craig Gregersen case in which I discuss the implications of product liability, meeting ISO 29990:2010 standards for training, and "exercising a firm commitment to do all he/she can to deliver a safe, well-designed, well-constructed, profitable, quality product within the parameters of governing regulations and ethics" (Krause, 2014, p. 2). 

In the spirit of assessment/evaluation, I cite Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick's book, Transferring Learning to Behavior (2005), which discusses the problem of low transfer rates; and, I propose designing Levels 3 and 4 evaluations to introduce accountability on the managerial level through systematic tracking and reporting. Again, I stress the importance of a design solution that produces employees who deliver products that meet "all regulatory and ethical standards" (Krause, 2014, p. 5). 

Probably most important of our ethical considerations is our responsibility for Universal Design—making our work both accessible and usable by all user groups. Because of my commitment to UDL, I again introduce the recast I created of the first of two modules of an e-Troy (Troy University) Graphics Design in Multimedia Course for Dr. Deb Fortune, excerpts of which can be seen in this interactive PDF (Krause, 2015b). To ensure functionality of this interactive PDF, you may want to download it and launch it in Acrobat Reader. This artifact shows the use of written text accompanied by audio files, transcripts accompanying videos, a learning styles inventory, documents offered in a variety of formats, and graphics demonstrating key concepts contained in the text.  

Where from Here? 

I am excited about the future engaging in the field, contributing to the knowledge base, and learning, growing and developing in these core competencies. I can see growth from my deliverables in my first courses to those reflecting my current approach; and I feel confident my skillset will continue to grow with use and additional training and involvement in the community of learning. The best is truly yet to be! 


Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006).Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Krause, T. (2015). Paper prototype, Graphic design in multimedia. Created for Troy University. EDCI 569. Purdue University.

Krause, T. (2014). Week 1 discussion 1. Craig Gregersen case. EDCI 672. Purdue University.