Links
Archives
Journal Entries and Reflections for R311
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Correlation between R311 and I300 - the ADDIE model
When I read the assignment to write a blog about something I’ve learned in R311 and something I’ve learned in another class, I was a little overwhelmed about the possibilities. However, I took a deep breath and it occurred to me that everything we’ve covered in R311 pertains to the ADDIE model somehow, whether it is steps directly from it or information indirectly related to parts of it.
Several times throughout the semester I’ve been surprised at how many times there have been similarities between our class and Professor Siegel’s HCID class (as I’m sure you’ve noticed, too). Whereas Professor Siegel tends to address design by focusing on the actual development and testing of the ADDIE model, our class was more focused on design by focusing on the analysis and thought process by which one creates a design.
I often found myself thinking about how beneficial it has been to me in both of my classes to be taking them in the same semester. That is, for our class where not much focus was spent on usability testing and perhaps some groups may have felt a little cloudy about the whole process and exactly what was supposed to be gained from it, I felt I had a good hold on it and was “ahead of the game” about it. This was simply because most of what is learned about a group’s product in HCID is based off the results of the usability tests. It is also the best way to defend your group’s design when you’re being questioned about your design decisions.
For HCID I realized that what your group is actually doing when making decisions about the design message, audience, and features is executing the initial steps of the ADDIE process in their most primitive state. That is, instead of actually administering surveys and collecting data in the analysis and initial design stages of the model, an HCID group brainstorms their potential users and what their potential needs might be. Then the group tries to produce a product with features to fulfill those needs by using the design message as a guide.
Both classes have been very beneficial in familiarizing me with the design process and the ADDIE model even though, for example, the ADDIE model has not been mentioned once in HCID. That is, I’m not strictly taking information from one class to aide my work in another class, but am simultaneously taking information from both classes to aide my work in both classes’ group work.
When I read the assignment to write a blog about something I’ve learned in R311 and something I’ve learned in another class, I was a little overwhelmed about the possibilities. However, I took a deep breath and it occurred to me that everything we’ve covered in R311 pertains to the ADDIE model somehow, whether it is steps directly from it or information indirectly related to parts of it.
Several times throughout the semester I’ve been surprised at how many times there have been similarities between our class and Professor Siegel’s HCID class (as I’m sure you’ve noticed, too). Whereas Professor Siegel tends to address design by focusing on the actual development and testing of the ADDIE model, our class was more focused on design by focusing on the analysis and thought process by which one creates a design.
I often found myself thinking about how beneficial it has been to me in both of my classes to be taking them in the same semester. That is, for our class where not much focus was spent on usability testing and perhaps some groups may have felt a little cloudy about the whole process and exactly what was supposed to be gained from it, I felt I had a good hold on it and was “ahead of the game” about it. This was simply because most of what is learned about a group’s product in HCID is based off the results of the usability tests. It is also the best way to defend your group’s design when you’re being questioned about your design decisions.
For HCID I realized that what your group is actually doing when making decisions about the design message, audience, and features is executing the initial steps of the ADDIE process in their most primitive state. That is, instead of actually administering surveys and collecting data in the analysis and initial design stages of the model, an HCID group brainstorms their potential users and what their potential needs might be. Then the group tries to produce a product with features to fulfill those needs by using the design message as a guide.
Both classes have been very beneficial in familiarizing me with the design process and the ADDIE model even though, for example, the ADDIE model has not been mentioned once in HCID. That is, I’m not strictly taking information from one class to aide my work in another class, but am simultaneously taking information from both classes to aide my work in both classes’ group work.
Monday, November 10, 2003
Brown Sugar Progress
All group work has the potential to result in great achievement when a group has learned to exploit its strengths, just as much as group work has potential to result in a great explosion of chaos if a group refuses to find its "groove;" that is, the rhythm in which the group operates when all of the members actively participate in finding a role in each project. I believe that Brown Sugar is well on its way to snapping along to our own groove.
Nate and I discovered at the start of our group work with the Learner/Needs Analysis that we were both unafraid to voice our opinion. Open communication is one of the most crucial, unfortunately the least utilized, efforts a group member can put forth. Often a group member does not offer input on a project because the member is timid and shy, or perhaps the member does not want to create conflicting opinion because he or she believes the project will be finished quicker. These types of group members often feel unsatisfied at the culmination of a project, often thinking that the project could've earned a higher grade with his or her input.
One aspect of group work that Nate and I are improving upon is more clearly defining, either before or at the start of each meeting, the goals for our meeting. This has helped our meetings become shorter and more productive by guiding our decisions.
One area that we may need to work on is that we often find our schedules conflicting, and must meet very late into the scheduled time allotted for working on a particular project. A negative effect of this is if we find we have questions pertaining to the project, it is often too late to ask them. This is an issue we have identified and will work on for future projects. An alternative to finding earlier meeting times if none can be found, could be to divvy up the sections of a project to work on individually; that way when Nate and I meet as a group, we can spend the time editing and polishing our project instead of composing the core content of it.
All group work has the potential to result in great achievement when a group has learned to exploit its strengths, just as much as group work has potential to result in a great explosion of chaos if a group refuses to find its "groove;" that is, the rhythm in which the group operates when all of the members actively participate in finding a role in each project. I believe that Brown Sugar is well on its way to snapping along to our own groove.
Nate and I discovered at the start of our group work with the Learner/Needs Analysis that we were both unafraid to voice our opinion. Open communication is one of the most crucial, unfortunately the least utilized, efforts a group member can put forth. Often a group member does not offer input on a project because the member is timid and shy, or perhaps the member does not want to create conflicting opinion because he or she believes the project will be finished quicker. These types of group members often feel unsatisfied at the culmination of a project, often thinking that the project could've earned a higher grade with his or her input.
One aspect of group work that Nate and I are improving upon is more clearly defining, either before or at the start of each meeting, the goals for our meeting. This has helped our meetings become shorter and more productive by guiding our decisions.
One area that we may need to work on is that we often find our schedules conflicting, and must meet very late into the scheduled time allotted for working on a particular project. A negative effect of this is if we find we have questions pertaining to the project, it is often too late to ask them. This is an issue we have identified and will work on for future projects. An alternative to finding earlier meeting times if none can be found, could be to divvy up the sections of a project to work on individually; that way when Nate and I meet as a group, we can spend the time editing and polishing our project instead of composing the core content of it.
