7
Development
The development phase of ISD is the link that connects the design process with the implementation of a project. Plans and prototypes become realized as the designer moves materials to a final draft stage. Additionally, online courses are placed in course shells, programmers code technology-based projects, graphic artists produce artwork, and every conceivable deliverable relating to the final product is either prepared or reviewed.
As the buffer between design and implementation, development necessitates that the instructional designer carefully monitor the process elements. It can be exciting for instructional designers to work with a variety of different professionals, but it can also be hectic. Careful communication at this point pays dividends later.
One of the most rewarding aspects of the development phase for instructional designers is that they get to see all of the design plans coming to life. Manuals, videos, webpages, and a hundred different tangible deliverables finally take shape. There is usually a collective sigh of relief once this happens, and it is easy to see why.
The development phase allows designers to put the finishing touches on the observable deliverables for a project. It is also the best opportunity to do pilot testing before a project goes into implementation.
Look and Feel
Development presents many opportunities to make mistakes in training design and production. Everyone has opinions about the way materials should appear, and it can sometimes be hard to get general agreement on even the simplest things. Designers play an important role in finding consensus and working with all elements of a project.
The process of moving from draft materials to a nearly final product is crucial to a project’s success. Designers need to address any number of issues in order to ensure that the materials are satisfactory. Generally, they need to consider the following aspects of development when working on materials production:
• Cost: Designers must be sure they know what products are going to cost and that they stay on budget.
• Deadlines: They must set firm deadlines for production of materials and require that vendors stick to the deadlines.
• Written agreements: They must have everything in writing concerning paper, color, size, quantity, fonts, and other variables in their materials.
• Samples: They must always check a sample of the materials before the production begins.
• Final approval: They must be sure to approve final copy of materials, not taking anyone’s word for anything.
• Pilot test: Before producing the final materials, they must conduct pilot tests or have a review by stakeholders in the process, or do both. A pilot test evaluates the entire design, not just materials.
Working With Nondesign Subject Matter Experts
The development phase almost always requires the design of materials, handouts, slides, and perhaps even audio and video elements for a course. While you may end up doing all of this work yourself, it is often the case that you will require the assistance of a technical subject matter expert (Hodell 2013). Technical SMEs can be anything from an artist to a video producer, and in most cases they have limited knowledge and, frankly, interest in the ISD process. Their job is to provide technical assistance to a design project in their area of expertise.
While the role of subject matter experts is reviewed more generally in chapter 23, it is important to remember that these professionals need to have very clear and concise direction from the design team in order to do their best work. Incomplete and inconsistent information will invariably result in something approaching a designer’s vision for the work, but not nearly the designer’s expectations. This is always the result of faulty communications and specificity. While the SMEs are not always blameless in any communications problems, in most cases the responsibility lies with the design team to make sure that design specifications are at a level of clarity that allows SMEs to provide acceptable deliverables.
For example, a client has a style sheet that is very specific in the type, size, spacing, and color of materials, such as handouts and projected media slides, because they want a uniform look to all of their training materials. They have paid a lot of money for a rebranding, and they are not about to let the training department set their own styles. While working with a SME on handouts, the designer mentions that the color for the materials must be blue and match the organization’s style sheet specifications. The SME designs the handouts and uses a stock blue color for all of them without actually receiving any information on the specific color required. As many of us have learned the hard way, blue is not the same blue to everyone. The style sheet specifically requires Pantone PM2935, and the finished product is not even close. Now the designer has both the organization and the SME questioning her professionalism.
While extreme examples like this are the exception and not the rule in working with technical SMEs, even small miscommunications can cause a ripple effect during a project, and there may come a point when your SMEs start to doubt your ability to make their work as trouble-free as possible. As with any member of the design team, be clear in your direction and document all of the decisions made on even seemingly simple aspects of a project, such as the color of ink on handouts. This thoroughness will always work to a designer’s advantage and help build confidence in both design skills and leadership.
Pilot Testing
Pilot testing is a chance to evaluate a project before it goes into full implementation and is a key component of the development stage. The theory for instructional design is the same as that for a play: Both need rehearsals. It takes time to get all the bugs out of the implementation materials and lesson plans.
It is logical to pilot test before designers start producing final materials and begin the process of delivering their course. Some designers include pilot testing in the implementation phase, rather than in development, and that is fine. It is more important to test a project before finalizing deliverables than it is to worry about whether testing happens in the development or implementation phases.
Organizations often view a pilot test, or pre-implementation practice session, as a luxury. Even if it is a luxury, designers can still expose their project to some scrutiny before moving it into implementation. At the very least, it can be useful to do a dry run with a colleague or a friend. Here are some things that designers should look for in a pilot test. If they detect any problems, they should correct them before finalizing that aspect of the program.
• Does the lesson plan work?
• Are the directions for the facilitator clear and concise?
• Are the facilitator’s materials appropriate and thorough?
• Are the learner’s materials appropriate and thorough?
• Are the support materials (slides, overheads, handouts, and the like) what you expected?
• Does the timing of each of the segments match your estimates?
• Are the technology components (audio, video, computers, and so forth) appropriate?
• Do the instructional methods work as planned?
• What does not work the way you thought it should?
• What needs to be changed?
During the review, designers should look for anything that doesn’t seem to fit. Sometimes designers’ instincts bring to their attention problems that may not be obvious to the subject matter experts or the client. It is this sixth sense about design that makes the role of the instructional designer so important.
Train-the-Trainer Courses
Another way to discover any problems is with a train-the-trainer (TTT) program, an often-neglected aspect of instructional design. Like analysis, the process of providing this level of support for facilitators involves work and requires resources; in the end, however, the extra effort can make the difference between success and failure.
This critically important aspect of course implementation is often ignored for a variety of seemingly logical reasons. Some believe that TTT courses are not necessary because professional facilitators can take any course and implement it with a little practice. Another excuse is that there isn’t any time or resources available to bring everyone together for the TTT process.
A perennial favorite is the notion that any well-designed course (and all ISD courses are well designed, aren’t they?) should not require any additional support for implementation.
As with every aspect of instructional design, the decision to require a TTT course is related to the rest of the course elements. If the system demands it, then the designer should consider the ramifications of ignoring the warning. Here’s a list of reasons for including a TTT element in instructional design:
• new or unfamiliar content
• new or unfamiliar delivery system
• facilitator population with little or no previous facilitator experience
• changes in content specifics that must first be taught to facilitators
• new or unfamiliar technology demands on facilitators
• online course management systems training specific to content
• a requirement that content be rigidly and uniformly implemented
• licensure or certification required for facilitators.
A TTT course also provides the opportunity for pilot testing a course, with the caution that the target population may not be in perfect sync with the design plan population profile. In some ways, it may be a preferred method of piloting if the content must also be delivered to the facilitators. This is sometimes the case with mandated training or organization-wide rollouts. In this option, the training is often presented by the instructional design team, SMEs, or some combination of the two.
Train-the-Trainer Course Design
Several styles of TTT courses have evolved over the years, with most being some variation of the “see one, teach one” model. With this approach, facilitators first observe or participate as learners in one implementation cycle of the course. They then facilitate all or some of the course content while being coached by both the design team and other facilitators. This approach works both in online and in-class settings.
There are many advantages to incorporating a complete observation cycle of the course in this model targeted toward future facilitators, including the fact that any questions facilitators have about the content can be addressed at the same time as issues associated with their implementation of the content.
The disadvantage of this approach is the time it takes to work through the process. In most cases, it takes at least twice as long to implement the TTT course as the course actually takes in implementation to the intended population profile. That is why variations on this theme are becoming more focused on the unique aspects of a course and less on the actual art of facilitation, except in populations of novice facilitators.
One variation on the common TTT approach is called microteaching and involves the use of videotaped sessions of facilitators being reviewed by peers, SMEs, or instructional designers. This process works well when the technology and budget allow for this to easily take place. It can also be accomplished more informally without the use of videotaping and is often simply referred to as peer review. In either case, it is better than not having any review and feedback process on course facilitation before implementation.
Things to Consider in TTT Designs
As you work through the design of your TTT course, consider the following issues:
• To what degree does the population of facilitators require a facilitation skills upgrade or refresher?
• To what degree is the content new to the facilitators?
• Do you have any doubts about the ability of the facilitators to implement the course in areas that you can address in a TTT session?
• Are there any unique aspects of your course design or implementation that require facilitator participation in the content preparation (for example, field inclusion of data that the facilitator must gather and interpret)?
• No matter what you decide concerning offering a TTT option, at least work through the advantages and disadvantages of your choice. As with most things in ISD, there is no one right or wrong answer.
In Conclusion
The development phase in ISD is the time when all the design elements become tangible products and pilot testing takes place. This is the stage that is most visible to clients and represents a milestone of sorts in the course design process. To use the analogy of building a house, the development process sees the blueprint become a tangible, visible building. It is also the time the new house is inspected (pilot testing) and is prepared for occupancy (implementation). For an instructional designer, this is a very busy time, with constant quality checks and modifications to plans drawn up in the design phase. This is also the time for any train-the trainer sessions and final, last-minute updates to content and materials before implementation.
Discussion Questions
1. As an instructional designer, what should you look for as you evaluate your course in the development phase of ISD?
2. Pilot testing is a key component of the development process. Why do you think it is important to evaluate a course before implementation? What should you look for?
3. As a designer, is it better to hold a train-the-trainer program for a course or just raise the facilitator prerequisites to ensure that the course is implemented to your standards?