Instructional Design Anchor Points

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 12-21-2004 / 10:00

Turning Electronic Learning Environments into Useful and Influential ‘Instructional Design Anchor Points’ Jan Elen Instructional design may help make educational research more useful and influential. In this discussion, I argue that instructional design anchor points (IDAPs) are the basis for this kind of research. In short, IDAPs are educational tools or approaches that can be studied to generate design guidelines. The study of IDAPs may become more useful and more influential when it meets at least the following four conditions: (a) a clear description of the IDAP under study; (b) presence of a clear conceptual framework; (c) a deliberate consideration of complexity; and (d) a realistic perspective on improvement and implementation. This two-part special issue of Educational Technology Research and Development, on electronic learning environments, illustrates the possibilities and pitfalls of studying IDAPs. In this contribution, the four conditions are illustrated by referring to the main articles of the special issue. Indeed, it is argued that electronic environments are the most recent version of an IDAP. The discussion highlights the need for a clear description of the IDAP electronic learning environment, the elaboration of a layered conceptual framework, a more systematic consideration of limitations, and a good balance between realism and voluntarism.

ETR&D, Vol. 52, No. 4, 2004, pp. 67–73 ISSN 1042–1629

Many educational researchers, through their research, aim at improving educational practice. Despite this ambition, the relevance of educational studies for educational practice regularly gets questioned, and the gap between theory and practice remains a key-issue. In a recent contribution to Educational Researcher, Burkhardt and Schoenfeld (2003) provided a systematic and in-depth analysis of the problem. They also formulated a reasonable set of proposals to make educational research more useful and more influential. Most strikingly, they called for more “engineering research” to better bridge the gap between research findings and actual practice. Such engineering research entails “the research-based development of tools and processes for use by practitioners” (p. 3). Given its orientation, instructional design is the field that is called upon here. Indeed, it is the mission of instructional design to become a real technology (Clark & Estes, 1998) and to provide systematic and research-based advice, guidelines, and even prescriptions on the design and development of learning environments (e.g., Ledford & Sleeman, 2000; Reigeluth, 1983, 1999). Accomplishing this mission requires scientific rigor in well-directed engineering research (Winn, 2003). In this discussion, I argue that instructional design, and hence the underlying engineering research, may happen through the study of instructional design anchor points (IDAPs). Electronic learning environments will be presented as a recent version of an IDAP. After describing the nature of IDAPs, I present and analyze four conditions that may render research on them useful and influential. The contributions in the two-part special issue of Educational Technology Research and Development

67

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 12-21-2004 / 10:00

68

ETR&D, Vol. 52, No. 4

(ETR&D) on electronic learning environments illustrate the arguments.

IDAPS

A variety of very different tools and approaches are embedded in learning environments, with the intention of enhancing the quality of education and fostering learning. Some have clear artifacts (e.g. diagram, simulation) or at least can be made observable through recording (e.g., tutorial). Such tools or approaches can become IDAPs when they are studied in order to generate advice, guidelines, or even prescriptions on their design, development, and actual use. Research on IDAPs is oriented toward identifying the learning functions of the IDAP and exploring its instructional potential. Development activities aim at optimizing its use in concrete settings. Research and development efforts with respect to a particular IDAP fluctuate over time. Research attention for an IDAP seems linked to easy access to instances of the IDAP or the processes related to the use of the IDAP. For instance, because of the possibility of logging interactions, information-searching processes now get ample educational research attention. Not surprisingly, IDAPs also generate extensive professional development initiatives, which are directed toward optimizing their actual implementation. Typical examples are the delivery of training courses and the publication of manuals. A prototypical example of an IDAP is a textbook. Other examples include direct instruction, multimedia, intelligent tutoring systems, and programmed instruction. Textbooks refer to an important category of education tools and approaches used to enhance learning. For a long time, textbooks were an essential component of any learning environment. Textbooks and their major ingredients (e.g., explicit objectives, summaries, inserted questions) can be touched and manipulated, are widely used, and have been intensively studied in order to generate design and development rules (e.g., Jonassen, 1982). Each of these IDAPs has attracted or still attracts major research attention. As indicated, research interest for a particular IDAP seems linked to access to instantiations of the IDAP. At

the same time, research attention for a particular IDAP reflects importance attached—at a specific time and place—to a particular kind of (instructional or educational) goal, and mirrors educational psychological views about learning and instruction. It could be easily argued, for instance, that many classical instructional design models are rooted in research on traditionally readily available IDAPs such as textbooks, direct instruction, and programmed instruction. Modern instructional design models based on constructivist perspectives on learning and instruction seem to be rooted in and enabled by technological affordances of more recent IDAPs (e.g., visualization, computational processing power, information access facilities). In both cases, IDAPs are used to study the educational implications of particular views on learning and instruction while relying on more fundamental research on the underlying processes. IDAPs constitute rich contexts for raising and embedding educational research questions. They are the anchor points for research endeavors that help to generate educational guidelines. In view of optimizing practice and making research more useful and influential, it is important to note that IDAPs are clear mediators between theory and practice; they constitute the common ground. An IDAP can be studied only when it has also been designed, developed, and implemented. The study of an IDAP may result in new guidelines, more fine-tuned advice or the consolidation of existing prescriptions. It may even result in questioning the fundamental theoretical assumptions and conceptions (Elen, 1995). Basically, IDAPs are attempts to materialize ideas about learning and instruction. By making these ideas operational, the effects and implications of their actual implementation can be studied. The history of educational technology illustrates that new tools and approaches are continuously proposed as solutions for educational problems. Each of these tools and approaches may become an IDAP. At this moment, electronic learning environments seem to be among the more fashionable. Electronic learning environments have all the features of an interesting IDAP. First of all, they are introduced as educa-

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 12-21-2004 / 10:00

ELECTRONIC LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AS IDAPS

tional tools to foster learning. Electronic learning environments carry the promise of improvement. Reeves, Herrington, and Oliver, for instance, point out in this issue that electronic learning environments can become vehicles for innovation although their development requires substantial investment. Skinner (1968) made a similar argument when he argued for a more widespread implementation of programmed instruction. Electronic learning environments not only hold the promise of improvement as it applies to IDAPs in general, their use in instructional settings can be readily observed. The Internet makes electronic learning environments tangible, accessible, and hence, convenient to study. Furthermore, the specific features and affordances of electronic learning environments have great appeal to socioconstructivist researchers and designers. Finally, the large number of conferences, publications, and manuals illustrates that electronic learning environments generate a lot of research and development efforts. This article aims at highlighting four closely interrelated conditions that may help render research on IDAPs useful and influential. These conditions are (a) a clear description of the IDAP under study; (b) the availability of a conceptual framework for studying it; (c) a deliberate consideration of its complexity, and (d) a realistic perspective toward optimization.

STUDYING IDAPS

It is evident that any study of an IDAP requires a clear description of the IDAP in question so as to determine its breadth, specify what concrete educational tools or approaches can be considered to be instances of it, and determine what the application range of the research findings and guidelines could be. An extensive description of the IDAP under study may help avoid two possible pitfalls in this kind of research. The first is overgeneralization: the assumption that findings for one particular IDAP can be applied to any other IDAP or even to the design of learning environments in general. Ignoring this pitfall may result in blindly applying guidelines to tools and approaches even when these guide-

69 lines do not suit those tools and approaches. This may generate problems for students. Students may become frustrated because not all tools have the same functions and not all approaches elicit the same cognitive processes. A second pitfall is the complete opposite: the assumption that a “new” IDAP refers to a completely new educational tool or approach and thus, that readily available research findings are not relevant. Ignoring this pitfall may result in trying to completely reinvent the wheel, and the continuous rewriting of the educational literature. A second result of ignoring it is the continuous coining of new terms, neologisms, and reapplication of old terms so that they are no longer understandable. A description of the IDAP may help to avoid these traps if it contains at least two elements, (a) a description of the different components and functions of the IDAP, and (b) a discussion of the relationship between this particular IDAP and similar IDAPs (similarities and differences; shared and unique features). Dillenbourg (1999), in his discussion of collaborative learning, provided a useful example of a description of an IDAP. He clearly identified different aspects of collaborative learning and even offered concrete criteria. As illustrated by the various contributions in the two-part special issue of ETR&D, a clear description of electronic learning environment seems to be not readily available. For instance, Reeves et al. (this issue) seem to discuss virtual learning delivered through means of a learning management system. Similarly, in Part I Kirschner, Strijbos, Kreijns, and Beers (2004) stressed the virtuality of the learning environment and the absence of face-to-face interactions. They argued in favor of engineering social interaction by providing social affordances. The study of Collis and Margaryan in this issue, however, relates to a different type of learning environment. Their research is about a blended learning environment that provides both face-to-face and technologically mediated interactions. With respect to the identification of the components of an IDAP and the discussion of shared and unique features, this two-part special issue displays a similar diversity. The Part I contribution of Gulikers, Bastiaens, and Kirschner (2004) offered an interesting analysis of the require-

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 12-21-2004 / 10:00

70 ments for and functions of authentic assessment. It might even be argued that Gulikers et al. presented an extensive description of authentic assessment as an IDAP in its own right. The exact relationship between authentic assessment as an IDAP and electronic learning environments as an IDAP deserves further exploration. For instance, the question whether authentic assessment is part of or distinct from an electronic learning environment requires additional study. Similarly, in the contributions of both Reeves et al. (this issue) and Kirschner et al. (2004), the novelty of electronic learning environments (especially in higher education) is stressed. A more in-depth analysis, however, of unique and shared features of electronic learning environments, on the one hand, and lectures or seminars, on the other, would greatly help to consolidate available research findings and to identify the gaps in our knowledge base. Burkhardt and Schoenfeld (2003) stressed, in their discussion of useful and influential research, the need for consolidating research findings. The gradual elaboration and deepening of our understanding seems to be a self-evident goal of studying IDAPs, as well. It requires, however, that a clearly identified theoretical framework be available from the start, specifying key components and basic processes and principles. The study of the IDAP then serves to elaborate, to question, to correct, or to reaffirm (elements of) that knowledge base. The work of Mayer (2001) on multimedia illustrates the power of such a theoretical knowledge base. His studies, starting from a very explicit cognitive framework on visual and auditory processing, help validate this framework and generate clear design guidelines. In the case of textbooks as an IDAP, research on text comprehension (e.g., Van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983) seems to have provided that framework. Clearly, a unified framework for studying electronic learning environments as IDAP is not yet available. While the general constructivist learning principles may present the top layer, statements in this layer are far too general to enable a systematic consolidation and elaboration of the findings. The different contributions in this issue offer interesting suggestions for a more precise layer. Reeves et al. (this issue) seem to propose “cognitive flexibility theory”

ETR&D, Vol. 52, No. 4

(Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1991). Kirschner et al. (2004) were heavily influenced by the notion of “affordances” (Gibson, 1977; Norman, 1999) while Gulikers et al. (2004) drew on theoretical concepts and research findings with respect to assessment (e.g., Birenbaum, 2003). Collis and Margaryan (this issue) borrow from activity theory and present the specific elements of an activity system. All seem to assert that the notion of authenticity is crucial for the study of learning in electronic learning environments. While a transparent and integrated theoretical framework seems not yet to be available and the authors in this issue depart from a diversified set of theoretical concepts, the different contributions do suggest the major components of the conceptual framework: task, support, assessment, and context. Gulikers et al. (2004) addressed the issue of assessment. They stressed the need for authentic assessment and provided a framework for this purpose. The clearly related need for authentic tasks is highlighted by Reeves et al. (this issue), who also offer a number of criteria for an authentic learning environment. The task component was further elaborated by Kirschner et al. (2004) in distinguishing between task ownership, task characteristics, and task control. The task is the cornerstone in the contribution of Collis and Margaryan (this issue). The task is work-based and the environment supports the execution of the task itself as well as learning about and from the activity. Kirschner et al. handled support provided in electronic learning environments by arguing in favor of what they called “social affordances.” This type of affordances is supposed to complement the support offered by technical and educational affordances. Collis and Margaryan similarly stress that support may come from different persons and even from individuals who have no direct link with the instructional processes. In other words, they affirm the need of the environment to allow for the social processes and relationships that make such human support possible. These authors broaden the learning environment by embedding and integrating it in the overall work context. In addition to highlighting the major components of a conceptual framework for elec-

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 12-21-2004 / 10:00

ELECTRONIC LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AS IDAPS

tronic learning environments, the different contributions also present ideas on the further elaboration of the knowledge base. Kirschner et al. discussed the need for interaction design in view of fine-tuned development and explicit consideration of student use of the environment. Reeves et al. argue in favor of development research and present some key elements for a research agenda. A major advantage of working with an IDAP is its focused nature, which creates room for indepth analyses and for revealing the full complexity of the IDAP. This is well illustrated by the contribution of Gulikers et al. (this issue). At the same time, the gradual elaboration of a targeted knowledge base becomes possible. The IDAP is looked at from different perspectives. Research on intelligent tutoring systems is illustrative in this respect. Intelligent tutoring systems have attracted much attention from computer scientists on the issue of how to represent the different knowledge systems needed, has required extensive analysis of expert tutoring skills, and has engendered a lot of reflection about the sequencing of feedback and social interaction (Psotka, Massey, & Mutter, 1988). The present special issue illustrates that this is also the case for electronic learning environments. A variety of theoretical perspectives and concepts are brought forward and electronic learning environments are looked at from a developmental perspective (see interaction design of Kirschner et al., 2004), an implementation perspective (see the contribution by Collis and Margaryan, this issue) and a research perspective (see Reeves et al., this issue). While the focus on a specific IDAP creates possibilities, it may also become problematic when the broader context is neglected and the IDAP under study is not extensively described (see first condition). Research on an IDAP may become more influential and useful when the focused nature is linked to sufficient attention for the broader context and, hence, the inherent complexity of learning. IDAPs may be limited in various ways, such as educational goals strived for, the types of learners benefiting from them, or even the settings in which they are being used. Research on textbooks clearly illustrates the possible danger. The standard research pro-

71 cedure requires students to study a text in which specific elements are systematically manipulated and varied. By doing so, the text is assumed to be the entire learning environment. This is only rarely the case, because in most learning environments the textbook is only one educational tool among several used to promote learning. Textbooks do not usually stand alone but are almost always part of a larger environment that may promote or hamper their use. Except for extreme cases of distance learning, even in correspondence courses, textbooks are often supplemented with other tools and approaches for interaction, and feedback, such as assignments or summer courses. While—for research purposes—the tendency to focus on only one element of the environment sounds reasonable (i.e., to control for as much variation as possible) the practical relevance is reduced when other important components of the entire learning environment that interact with the IDAP are not considered. Unfortunately, the choice of exactly what elements need to be considered in studying the limitations of an IDAP is difficult to make. Nevertheless, and although a further specification is urgently needed, from an instructional design perspective it is clear that educational goals, learners, and context are important elements to consider. In this special issue the limits of electronic learning environments are not explicitly discussed. The broader applicability rather than potential restrictions are analyzed. Reeves et al. (this issue), for instance, present a variety of disciplines for which electronic learning environments have been developed. The nature of the goals in these courses, however, is not revealed. Notwithstanding the absence of an explicit discussion of restrictions, some of them are pointed at. First of all, electronic learning environments are related to two specific educational settings. The first is higher education. Both Kirschner (2004) in the introduction and Reeves et al. refer to this setting. The second is corporate training. Collis and Margraryan (this issue) discuss the conditions, constraints, and difficulties related to the implementation of electronic learning environments in a very large company. Whether electronic learning environments are especially suited for more self-regulated and/or mature

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 12-21-2004 / 10:00

72 learners remains unclear. With respect to educational goals, Gulikers et al. (2004) explicitly mentioned that authentic assessment is especially suited if competent employees are targeted. IDAPs refer to educational tools and approaches that are assumed to foster learning. The research and development activities that surround them, are directed toward optimizing their use. Whereas there is a need for exploring the full potential of an IDAP (in relation to specific contexts), it is also important that realism prevail. An educational tool or approach represents a solution to a specific problem and, hence, there is a need for clearly identifying the problem rather than proposing “passe-partout” solutions. Extensive voluntarism or, in other words, too much belief in the power of the will, that results in numerous must, ought-to, or have-to statements, might be counterproductive. A deliberate, realistic search for goal-directed, context-specific and scaleable indications may be far more beneficial and contribute more to making IDAP-related research useful and influential. As previously specified, this requires adherence to an extensive description of the IDAP and an elaborate and sound conceptual framework. A good sense of realism and an orientation toward scaleable solutions may prevent naive educational voluntarism. Strong ideas may become useless because reality is actually not considered. This special issue does not directly address the question of scalability. That is why a few elements may require further discussion, for example, the educational potential of electronic learning environments. However, the following proposal may require further discussion in this respect. Although Kirschner et al. (2004) encouraged engaging in interaction design, the special issue rests on the assumption that the deliberate introduction of electronic learning environments will be beneficial for education. However, although a systematic design of any type of learning environment may contribute to its improvement, it is also known that a “good” learning environment does not exist. An IDAP does not directly influence student learning, and solutions integrated in one specific instance do not generally apply to all other instances. The quality of a learning environment is related to

ETR&D, Vol. 52, No. 4

specific goals and types of learners. When assessing the contribution of an environment, both the if and the then terms deserve to be considered. Spiro et al. (1991), for instance, have repeatedly stressed that cognitive flexibility theory is tuned toward advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. A second issue of scalability relates to research methodology. While the call for development research by Reeves et al. (this issue) is justifiable, in line with the call for more engineering research, and while IDAPs may be the right level for this kind of research, one should not expect each instance of development research to be fruitful. Because development research is far more difficult to carry out than (quasi)experimental research, and because it requires a more solid theoretical basis and much more methodological maturity, flexibility, and interpretation skills, the probability that it will be useful and influential is rather low. A final point of realism pertains to the long lists of characteristics of authentic assessment—so long that they seem to turn authentic assessment into something that cannot be adequately implemented. It might be indicated, therefore, to specify what is of primary and secondary importance.

CONCLUSIONS

Various researchers have answered the recent call for more useful and influential educational research. Instructional design research in general, and IDAP-related research on electronic learning environments specifically, may offer a significant contribution to enable education to become more evidence based. This requires, however, that the research meet a number of basic criteria. Here, I have presented four of these conditions. Given the nature of the contributions in this special issue, a fifth condition related to research methodology has not been presented. It must be clear that IDAP-related research cannot be restricted to eliciting student opinions or to observing the use they make of different elements of the environment. Appropriate and dedicated approaches to assess the (broadly defined) effects of electronic learning environments will have to be elaborated and actually used.

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 12-21-2004 / 10:00

ELECTRONIC LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AS IDAPS

In this discussion, I have argued that progress in instructional design is closely linked to research on IDAPs. The nature of an IDAP contextualizes research on it. The conditions further specify that this research needs a solid theoretical underpinning. Furthermore two balances have to be realized, (a) a balance between focus on the IDAP and awareness of the broader context, and (b) a balance between voluntarism and realism. The first balance may help to avoid problems related to overgeneralization and to overestimating the novelty of the IDAP. The second may ensure scalability of the proposed solutions and guidelines. This special issue clearly reveals the status of IDAP-related research on electronic learning environments. Although interesting ideas and elements are available, there is a clear need for a conceptual underpinning of this research and further elaboration. The development of a layered conceptual framework may help to specify a systematic research agenda, to enable both how and why research, and to render this research more useful and influential.

Jan Elen [[email protected]] is Professor of Educational Technology at the University of Leuven, Belgium. Correspondence concerning this article can be addressed to Jan Elen, University of Leuven, Department of Educational Sciences, Center for Instructional Psychology and Technology, Vesaliusstraat 2, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium.

REFERENCES Birenbaum, M. (2003). New insights into learning and teaching and their implications for assessment. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of quality and standards (pp. 13–36). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and better funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3–14. Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (1998). Technology or craft: What are we doing ? Educational Technology, 38(5), 5– 11.

73 Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What do you mean by ‘collaborative learning’? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.). Collaborative learning. Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Amsterdam: Pergamon Press. Elen, J. (1995). Blocks on the road to instructional design prescriptions. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gulikers, Bastiaens, & Kirschner. (2004). [Special issue, part I]. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67–86. Jonassen, D. H. (1982). The technology of text. Principles for structuring, designing, and displaying text. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Kirschner. (2004). Introduction to the special issue: [Special issue, part I]. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 39–46. Kirschner, Strijbos, Kreijns, & Beers. (2004). [Special issue, part I]. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47–66. Ledford, B. R., & Sleeman, P. J. (2000). Instructional design: A primer. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Mayer, R. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38–43. Psotka, J., Massey, L. D., & Mutter, S. A., (1988) (Eds.). Intelligent tutoring systems: Lessons learned. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional design: What is it and why is it? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.). Instructional design theories and models: Vol. I (pp. 3–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What is instructional design theory and how is it changing? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.). Instructional design theories and models: Vol. II, A new paradigm of instruction theory (pp. 5–30). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instructions for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31(5), 24–33. Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press. Winn, W. (2003), Beyond constructivism: A return to science-based research and practice in educational technology. Educational Technology, 43(6), 5–14.

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 12-21-2004 / 10:00

74

ETR&D, Vol. 52, No. 4

The PacifiCorp Design and Development Award Call for Participants (students, mentors, judges) PacifiCorp and the Design and Development Division of AECT are pleased to announce the second annual PacificCorp Design and Development Award for promising instructional design research by graduate students working with mentors in the Design and Development Division of AECT. PacifiCorp is specifically interested in promoting collaboration and mentoring within the professional community. The goals for this award are to:

• Improve the professional practice of design and development in adult learning and performance-improvement settings;

• Promote collaboration among students, faculty, and practitioners; • Mentor promising students by leaders outside their home institutions; and • Recognize innovative design-and-development approaches to adult learning and performance-improvement problems.

Guidelines The PacifiCorp Design and Development Award competition is open to student members of the Design and Development Division of AECT. Details on AECT and Design and Development Division membership information can be found at http://www.aect.org. Division membership is free and AECT memberships for students are discounted. Interested faculty and students are strongly encouraged to join the D&D division and to sign up for the D&D listserv. The Award Committee formulates a problem statement each year with a challenging conceptual or practical problem relevant to the interests of the adult learning and performance-improvement community. Graduate students who wish to respond will form teams of two and prepare a preliminary solution abstract of no more than 1,500 words (12 point Times Roman font, double-spaced, 1 inch page margins, APA 5th edition style) that offers a proposed solution in response to the problem statement. Teams from all around the world may participate, and the two graduate students need not be at the same institution. The three-member judging panel will select up to six abstracts that they believe are most promising—based on creativity, theoretical soundness, and practicality. The Award Committee will then match mentors to these teams. The assigned mentors—who will likely come from either corporate or academic backgrounds—will become active members of the design competition team, working closely with the two graduate students on the final paper. Final papers will be limited to 5,000 words, including all references and appendixes (also 12 point Times Roman font, double-spaced, 1 inch page margins). Submissions may contain no more than 10 tables and figures. Design teams may develop associated designand-development products related to the problem statement, as appropriate. These additional materials or artifacts must be accessible via the Internet and can consist of no more than 10 Web pages. For the final portion of the competition, the three-member judging panel will then select up to three final papers, based on creativity, theoretical soundness, and practicality. The graduate students will present these papers at a special session during the Annual AECT Continued next page

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 12-21-2004 / 10:00

75

PACIFICORP DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT AWARD

Convention. Although mentors may help students prepare for this session, they may play no role in the presentation itself. The judging panel, which will be joined by a fourth member from PacifiCorp, will then select the best presentation from that session for special recognition at the D&D/RTD Awards Luncheon. Presentations will be judged on clarity, teamwork, and professionalism. All graduate student finalists invited to present at AECT will receive free conference registration. Award-winning papers will be considered for likely publication in ETR&D. See below for deadlines and additional submission requirements:

Timeline Date 1. Call for draft papers, mentors, and judges goes out. 31 Jan 2005 2. Selection of mentors and judging panel (3) 1 Mar 2005 by the committee. 3. Draft papers due from two-member student teams. 1 Apr 2005 4. Selection of up to six promising draft papers 1 May 2005 by the judging panel. 5. Final papers and any additional materials or artifacts 15 Aug 2005 due to committee. 6. Selection by judging panel of up to three finalist teams 1 Sep 2005 for AECT D&D 75-min session. 7. Selection of best presentation from session by AECT Annual Meeting judging panel. Oct 2005 8. Presentation of awards to finalists and winner AECT Annual Meeting at D&D/RTD Awards Luncheon. Oct 2005 All submissions for the competition must be in MS Word, .RTF, or .PDF file formats and sent via e-mail to Monica Tracey ([email protected]) by midnight of the appropriate deadline listed above. You will receive an e-mail confirmation when your submission has been received.

Problem Statement The problem statement for the 2005 PacifiCorp Design Award is: You work as a human performance and training specialist for a leading-edge electronics company, Lighting Inc., with offices in 23 states in the United States and in 13 other countries. The products that your company develops are state-of-the-art electronics products for the home. The company has developed a reputation for being innovative by applying new technologies to create products that range from e-mail–enabled sensors that send email to a specified address when particular events occur, to medical monitors that record readings, develop histories, identify trends, and send reports and alerts to selected e-mail addresses. The company takes pride in being the first to bring an innovative application to market but has recently experienced a series of setbacks due to competitors being able to find and apply new technologies in innovative ways ahead of in-house efforts involving those same technologies and similar applications. The corporate leadership has decided to attack this problem on two fronts: (a) Hire a number of young and very promising engineers; and (b) create an advanced engineering design institute to reinvigorate the current engineers. The plan is to provide two groups with the means to support these efforts and to evaluate outcomes after two years and again in five years. Continued next page

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 12-21-2004 / 10:00

76

ETR&D, Vol. 52, No. 4

Continued from previous page.

The person responsible for the training effort has asked you to work on this project and assigned you to the task of developing a plan for assessing short-and-long-term outcomes of the advanced engineering design institute, which is tentatively planned as a one-monthlong intensive, project-based training institute at one of the company’s six regional training facilities. Your task is to provide a plan to assess transfer of training and other beneficial outcomes that can be attributed to the advanced design institute. Your plan should include: 1. A short summary of the design institute, its overall structure, the training approach adopted, and the intended objectives. 2. A statement of the rationale for the institute, and a justification for expenditures in support of the institute, which identifies anticipated benefits, including new product development. 3. A description of the transfer of training challenges that arise in this situation, including those specific to a project-based approach. 4. A method to conduct pre- and postassessments after graduates have returned to their workplace settings, which addresses the transfer of training issues identified earlier. Additional information relevant to the solution of this problem statement can be found at http://www.lehigh.edu/~mjba/PCDesignCompetition/.

Call for Mentors The PacifiCorp Design & Development Award Committee is seeking volunteers to work with two-member student teams on this year’s problem statement. Mentor volunteers may come from either academic or corporate backgrounds but should have extensive, practical experience in design and development and be able to lead student teams to relevant instructional design theory and useful research in the field. Assigned mentor volunteers will come from a different institution than the students, working with them at a distance, using available technologies. In addition, mentors will likely need to be available to the student teams over the summer months for a total of between 30 and 50 hours (see timeline, above). Interested mentors should contact Monica W. Tracey ([email protected] or 248-3704415). Additional information about the competition and expectations of mentors can be found at http://www.lehigh.edu/~mjba/PCDesignCompetition/.

Call for Judges The PacifiCorp Design & Development Award Committee is also seeking volunteers to serve as judges for this year’s competition. Judges will be called upon three times during the competition: (a) to judge initial proposals, (b) to judge final papers, and (c) to judge presentations at the AECT national convention (see timeline, above). Judging may include conference calls with other judges and competition committee. Judges may come from either academic or corporate backgrounds, but should have extensive, practical experience in design and development, and have extensive knowledge of relevant instructional design theory and research in the field. Interested judges should contact Monica W. Tracey ([email protected] or 248-3704415). Additional information about the competition and expectations of judges can be found at http://www.lehigh.edu/~mjba/PCDesignCompetition/.