Developing Distance Education Content Using the TAPPA Process
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons STEMPS Faculty Publications STEM Education & Professional Studies 2016 Developing Distance Education Content Using the TAPPA Process Robert L. Moore Old Dominion University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/stemps_fac_pubs Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, Educational Technology Commons, and the Online and Distance Education Commons Original Publication Citation Moore, R. L. (2016). Developing distance education content using the TAPPA process. TechTrends, 60(5), 425-432. doi:10.1007/s11528-016-0094-8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the STEM Education & Professional Studies at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in STEMPS Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TechTrends (2016) 60:425–432 CrossMark DOI 10.1007/s11528-016-0094-8 (I) ORIGINAL PAPER Developing Distance Education Content Using the TAPPA Process Robert L. Moore1 Published online: 27 May 2016 # Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2016 Abstract The proliferation of distance education has oc- Institutional Context curred alongside the emerging technologies of the Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 environments, changing the way instructors ap- Morrison et al. (2013) explain that an instructional designer proach, design, and deliver their instructional materials. In the Bhas the primary responsibility for designing the instruction^ past, instructional design (ID) practitioners relied on instruc- (p. 19). That design is where the instructional designer has a tion system design (ISD) models that focused primarily on significant amount of flexibility. Instructional design projects macroinstruction. It is now important for these practitioners are similar to puzzles. Although there are multiple methods for to use microinstruction strategies to keep pace with the tech- piecing a puzzle together, some strategies are more efficient nology evolution. This case study describes the TAPPA than others. Likewise different instructional designers may (Target, Accomplishment, Past, Prototype, Artifact) Process reach similar conclusions for their ‘puzzles,’ though they which was created using the Generic Model for Design may reach them in different ways. Christensen (2008)sug- Research (GMDR) proposed by McKenney and Reeves gests that instructional designers should pick what process (2012) and uses selected ID concepts from the ADDIE works for them and be fluid in their approaches. (Molenda Performance Improvement, 42(5), 34–37, 2003) Instructional systems design (ISD) models are typically set framework, and the Dick and Carey (Dick Educational up to reflect contemporary environments and limitations. As Technology Research and Development, 44(3), 55–63, new technologies surface, instructional designers must look at 1996), Backwards Design (McTighe n.d), and Rapid ways to integrate them into instruction. The Dick and Carey Prototyping ID Models (Tripp and Bichelmeyer Educational Model (Dick 1996) and ADDIE (Molenda 2003)werecreated Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44, 1990). before online education was prevalent (Irlbeck et al. 2006)and The TAPPA Process is ideally suited for the microinstruction therefore may not be good fits for distance education content development typical of distance education environments and development. Irlbeck et al. (2006) continue to explain that has been used to create more than 25 webinars and 12 because an increasing number of instructors and learners are e-learning modules over the past four years. taking advantage of online education, instructional design (ID) practitioners must adapt their design models accordingly (Irlbeck et al. 2006). Keywords Design-based research . Distance education . The TAPPA (Target, Accomplishment, Past, Prototype, Instructional design process . Instructional design . Artifact) Process was created using the Generic Model for Microinstruction . Online education . Online learning . Design Research (GMDR) proposed by McKenney and Web-based instruction . Webinars Reeves (2012), and is ideally suited for the microinstruction development typical of distance education learning environ- ments by serving three main purposes: * Robert L. Moore [email protected] 1. Maximizing the efficiency of rapid prototyping by 1 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Government, adapting the instructional design principles of analysis Chapel Hill, NC, USA and assessment offered by ADDIE (Molenda 2003)and ~ Springer 426 TechTrends (2016) 60:425–432 the Dick and Carey (Dick 1996) Model, and utilizing the made product revisions a challenge; thus, greater emphasis framework of the backwards design approach. was placed on the planning stages of projects, as evidenced 2. Creating a process that allows for the consistent develop- in the front-end analysis steps of ADDIE (Molenda 2003)and ment and delivery of instructional materials in an online the Dick and Carey Model (Dick 1996). Rovai (2004)iden- learning environment. tifies a paradigm shift within higher education that is changing 3. Creating an adaptive and responsive process wherein both the focus from Bproviding instruction^ to Bproducing novices and experienced practitioners can develop online learning^ (p. 81). learning environments. Improvements in technology have made multiple revisions possible, resulting in a more recursive and iterative design pro- The author developed the TAPPA Process at a school with- cess. The three-phase model proposed by Sims and Jones (2002), in a tier 1 research institution in the southeast United States. which includes the Bnotion of iterative development^ allowing The education and training within this school is unique as it is for Bprototypes [that] test the water before the completion of the tailored primarily to local government officials instead of tra- entire course^ (p. 4), reflects this new emphasis. The Sims and ditional undergraduate and graduate students. Resultantly, the Jones (2002) model aligns with the characteristics of design- school’s client group is most closely aligned with adult based research and the development of online learning learners and its course offerings generally include seminars environments. Arshavskiy (2013) cited Michael Allen’s belief and workshops that meet continuing education or professional that because it is not possible to create a Bperfect product^,in- development criteria. Each year this school typically offers structional designers should instead Bfocus on producing useable between 100 and 150 face-to-face courses to more than 10, [e.g. prototypes] products as quickly as possible^ (p. 17). 000 attendees ranging in topics from property taxes to ethics. Technology now affords even a novice practitioner the ability Additionally, following the economic downturn of 2008 and to produce mockups for instructors to review and provide feed- its consequent downsizing of local government travel budgets, back on using e-learning software applications such as Articulate the school began devoting Information Technology Division Storyline and Adobe Captivate. The TAPPA process takes ad- (ITD) infrastructure and personnel to the development of its vantage of these abilities to produce more prototypes and rein- online course offerings. forces the type of iterative design process common in more con- In 2010 the school’s ITD had an existing workflow process temporary instructional design models. for the delivery of webinars, e-learning modules, and class- Despite the integration of project management phases like room captures. This process did not, however, provide any initiation, planning, and development, existing design models instructional design guidance and focused more on the tech- often have project management shortcomings (van Rooij nical requirements for course delivery options and the associ- 2010). Instructional design does not happen in a vacuum or ated responsibilities in supporting these requirements. The an academic bubble (Gordon and Zemke 2000). Furthermore, author aimed to develop an instructional design process to ID cannot realistically be separated from project management support effective creation and delivery of distance education requirements such as tight deadlines, efficient and competitive offerings by applying the GMDR originated by McKenney allocation of resources, collaborative development, manage- and Reeves (2012). The author hoped this process would fos- ment of conflicting goals, and established institutional ter consistent development of instructional materials as client workflows (van Rooij 2010). As the volume of projects in- group demand for distance education offerings increased. Of creases and production times are reduced, it is vitally impor- the school’s distance education offerings—webinars, class- tant for trainers (and those developing training) to have a room captures, and e-learning modules—the author chose to strong project management foundation (Fabac 2006). develop the TAPPA Process using webinars because they are Effectively managing projects to ensure learning objectives most frequently chosen by school faculty. The author set out are met is a critical function of instructional design and re- to create a hybrid instructional design process that met the search has demonstrated that the instructional methods used specific needs of the school’s work: a process adaptable