Running Head: TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR MAILBOX MANAGEMENT

 

 

Return to Class Homepage

 

 

 

 

Technical Support for Mailbox Management:

A Constructivist Instructional Design Project

by

Anthony Paul Niemann

ELFH 672-50

University of Louisville

April 21, 2006, 2006


Technical Support for Mailbox Management:

A Constructivist Instructional Design Project

I chose to use a constructivist approach for the Technical Support for Mailbox Management (TSMM) lesson plan. This approach is appropriate for the goals that I outlined for this training. Deubel (2003) tells us that there is not a single theoretical model that can be used for all Instructional Design applications. In the case of this particular lesson plan, I have chosen to use a constructivist approach and deliver the training synchronously in a face-to-face classroom setting. Each region in the state has developed different solutions for handling Personal Folders (pst files) for their users. In some areas pst files are not used. It is advantageous not to promote the use of these files if users can perform their job without them.

Many users find pst files to be essential in performing the duties of their job. The students for this lesson are Cabinet for Family Services – Office of Information Technology (CHFS – OIT) technical support personnel. They have maintained flexibility in deciding how problems are handled in their area of responsibility. CHFS – OIT employees are computer professionals who have worked in the field for many years. They are IT professionals who are capable of understanding and constructing solutions that will work in their areas, and in unique situations. This is a key characteristic of constructivism, as indicated in a class handout from George Mason University (Miller, 2006c). As stated in another class handout, one crucial element in applying constructivist learning theory is to insure that learners “have access to the necessary core content from which to proceed” (Miller, 2005a. p.2). The learners have online access to Microsoft’s “TechNet” for use in completing the Level 2 evaluation, referred to as the scenario essay question.

A list of documents is presented in an arbitrary order that was developed as the lesson plan developed. A number was assigned to documents that were created. Although documents were listed in a specified order, the actual development of forms was constantly evolving throughout the process by using a systematic approach to design and development. The ADDIE model was used as a guide to insure that all the visual supports, instructional management devices, and evaluations that were necessary were included, as discussed in an American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) Info-line issue (Hoddell, 2002). I started with analysis and moved toward evaluation using the ADDIE model. Although the ADDIE model represents a single process, I found myself moving back and forth through the five stages repetitively in order to fine-tune the entire product. By using a systematic approach any component of the instruction can be fine-tuned independently of other components, based on feedback. Any component refers to factors such as the learners, content, instructors, materials, methods, learning, and evaluation environments. Because the individual components support each other, the entire system can be improved by adjusting one or two components.

As a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE) and a Subject Matter Expert (SME) the goals for this course were intuitive as a consequence of my understanding of the issues involved. As a Subject Matter Expert (SME) and an employee of the CHFS-OIT office I had a great understanding of the problem, students, and subject matter. Bloom’s taxonomy for action verbs (Miller, 2006b) combined with a class handout of an article by Kathy Waller (2006) was used to develop instructional objectives. Specific steps in the lesson plan were developed only after many revisions. The systems approach block diagram chart in our textbook was used to insure that all “sets of theories, procedures, and techniques employed by the instructional designer to design, develop, evaluate, and revise instruction” (Dick, Carey, and Carey, 2005, p.5) was employed. I began with a needs analysis and audience analysis so that the instructional goal could be pinpointed. The lesson plan was completed by developing four documents to facilitate the evaluation stage. Developing the four evaluation documents was instrumental in clarifying numerous modifications in the lesson plan. Documents were numbered beginning with item 15 so they would not be confused with fourteen additional documents that were submitted in the Mailbox Management lesson plan. The ADDIE Instructional Design model (Hoddell, 2002) was coupled with constructivist learning theory to guide creation of the following documents:

15   Technical Support for Mailbox Management Needs Analysis

16   Technical Support for Mailbox Management Audience Analysis

17   Technical Support for Mailbox Management Goals and Objectives Paper (Handout B)

18   Technical Support for Mailbox Management Level 0 Evaluation - Sign-in Sheet

19   Standards for Technical Support for Mailbox Management Lesson Plan

20   Technical Support for Mailbox Management Lesson Plan

21   Technical Support for Mailbox Management OIT Policy Statement (Handout A)

22   Technical Support for Mailbox Management Level 2 Evaluation - Objective Test (Handout C)

23   Technical Support for Mailbox Management Level 1 Evaluation - Smiley Sheet (Handout D)

24   Technical Support for Mailbox Management Scoring Rubric

25   Technical Support for Mailbox Management Level 3 & 4 Evaluation - Post Mortem Evaluations and ROI Report

26   Design Paper for the Technical Support for Mailbox Management Lesson Plan

The first step when using a system approach to instructional design is to identify instructional goals (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2005). CHFS employees experience a decline in productivity due to computers that do not operate correctly. My position at CHFS as a Network Analyst and as an MCSE qualifies me as an SME. As an SME, I know that computer technical support personnel are professionals who have a great understanding of procedures necessary to correct computer malfunctions and safeguard user data. Microsoft Outlook’s Personal Folders present unique problems that vary with location, depending on technical considerations like local area network (LAN) bandwidth and wide area network (WAN) bandwidth. The goal for this lesson is to increase the student’s ability to propose multiple solutions for storing and backing up Personal Folders under unique circumstances. Another goal is to improve student’s ability to assess the advantages and disadvantages of a given solution. This is best accomplished if the students discuss or consider solutions developed by other professionals in this field. Goals can be reached if the objectives for this lesson are met.

In order to clarify goals and objectives, a needs analysis and an audience analysis were conducted. Please refer to the Needs Assessment (document 15) and Audience Analysis (document 16) which accompany the TSMM lesson plan. Goals for this lesson became apparent immediately after completing these two analyses. In the audience analysis, students were identified as adult learners from the age of 25 to 60. Both the needs analysis and the audience analysis were conducted from two perspectives. First and foremost, they were conducted from a trainer’s view of needs and an understanding of the target audience. Second, my expertise as an OIT professional allowed the needs analysis and audience analysis to be conducted with an added perspective of an SME. An extensive needs analysis was performed using data extracted from the Remedy database. Results of data extracted from this database indicate that CHFS employees from all areas of the state have experienced loss of data due to computer failure. The Remedy database contains data that allows us to track computer problems associated with loss of user data. The type of data that is most frequently lost is the pst file. A needs analysis indicates that the main reason for data loss is equipment failure in situations where the backup procedure did not work due to technical limitations of the WAN, LAN, workstation, server, backup media, or technical support personnel.

The goals and objectives form is included in the TSMM lesson plan in Handout B (document 17). The goals and objectives were much easier to construct after conducting the needs analysis. For the reader’s convenience, I have listed the goals and objectives below:

 

Goals:

Improve the student’s ability to propose solutions for storing and backing up Personal Folders under unique circumstances. Improve student’s ability to assess the advantages and disadvantages of a solution.

Objectives:

Given a scenario of a CHFS employee who uses Microsoft Outlook Personal Folders (pst files) the student will email a written plan to the instructor that evaluates:

  1. Where the files will be stored
  2. How the files will be backed up
  3. Major advantages and disadvantages of the plan

…within twenty-four hours of the completion of the class.

In order to assist the instructor and the CHFS organization in tracking who attends the TSMM lesson, a Level 0 evaluation is performed as the students enter the classroom (Waagen, 2002a). This form (document 18) is designed with the target audience in mind. For example, there is no place for the student’s email address on this form because these addresses are readily available through the state global address list. One critical inclusion on the sign in sheet is a space for the time that students arrive for class. If the student is late s/he will miss a portion of the class. It is critical that the instructor has a record of which students arrive late for class. The portion of the class that is missed may affect the learning process, and therefore should be tracked.

Standards for this lesson plan follow the Level 0 Evaluation document. The 2003 standards proposed by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) is used as a reference for standards that correlate to this lesson. This document is listed as number 19 in my list of documents.

The lesson plan (document 20) appears next in the lesson plan document list, followed by documents that will be used concurrently as the lesson is presented. The lesson plan was revised countless times while creating this document. The documents that follow the TSMM lesson plan are a crucial part of the overall effort. The first document the students will refer to once the lesson gets underway is the OIT Policy Statement, or Handout A (document 21). Handout A itemizes the Office of Information Technology (OIT) policy for Outlook Mailboxes. This policy places responsibility on the employee to clean out their mailbox as soon as possible if they receive a System Administrator message. If employees must move email out of their mailbox, it is moved into Personal Folders. If employees are required to move email out of their mailbox, they should have assurances that the data will be safeguarded from loss caused due to equipment failure.

Evaluation is a critical component of the TSMM constructivist lesson plan. Actually, evaluation is a critical component of any lesson plan (Waagen, 2002). There are five documents that accompany this lesson plan that assist instructors in evaluating whether the learning has taken place. I followed Kirkpatrick’s Four Level model for evaluating training programs (Kirkpatrick, 1998), adding a Level 0 evaluation (sign-in sheet) which was explained earlier. I decided that a Level 5 evaluation, training’s effect on society, as discussed in Rossi, Freeman, and Lipsey’s book about Evaluation (1999) was unnecessary for this particular lesson.

The second evaluation discussed in this paper is the Level 2 evaluation (Handout C, document 22) which presents the scenario problem that the student will answer at the end of the TSMM lesson. Scenarios will vary for each class that takes the TSMM lesson. The test question uses a constructivist approach and was designed to have several correct answers. The essay question requires a detailed explanation for the students’ choices. A scoring rubric is included in my list of documents that describes how the test item will be scored, and is listed as document 24. The rubric is included in the lesson plan and results will be stored for future research. In addition to scoring the student’s response to the essay question, the students’ comments for three responses written by their peers will be evaluated through the use of this rubric. Responses will be posted to the company Intranet site listed in the lesson plan. Content evaluated in the scenario responses and comments are appropriate for the objectives listed in the Goals and Objectives document. An online copy of Microsoft’s TechNet CD will be available under agreement with Microsoft at http://chfsnet.ky.gov to assist students in gathering research data for responses and critiques.

The third evaluation used in the TSMM lesson is sometimes referred to as a smiley sheet (document 23). It is also referred to as a Level 1 evaluation by Kirkpatrick (1998). One critical component that is included in the selection of the twenty items in this questionnaire is the assurance that all questions are appropriate for this specific lesson plan. Responses to each of the twenty questions asked on this Level 1 evaluation will be helpful in revising this lesson. Questions the students are asked to complete should apply to the content that is presented.

After the lesson has been presented and a scenario question has been answered, users will read responses to the scenario question posted by other students and submit a critique of three peer responses. Students should write a critique in essay form which tells whether they agree or disagree with the advantages and disadvantages listed by authors of three responses. The responses will be available through the intranet at http://chfsnet.ky.gov. Critiques will be scored using the same rubric (document 24) developed for the responses to the scenario question. Critiques will also be discussed in a following class by students. There are many correct responses to the scenario question, depending on a wide variety of factors, including personal preferences of the CHFS employees who ‘own’ the pst files. The wishes of CHFS employees whose files the students will protect cause responses to vary widely. This is an element of Constructivist Learning Theory that was highlighted in an article by Brenda Mergel (1998) when she stated that learners eventually construct mental structures that correspond to or match external structures located in the environment”. Learners will be exposed to the experiences, insight, requests from the owners of pst files, and other valid factors that influence solutions selected by their peers. The TSMM lesson is designed to increase the student’s ability to propose and implement solutions for storing and backing up Personal Folders in unique environments. The lesson will improve students’ ability to assess the advantages and disadvantages of various solutions.

The fourth evaluation in this lesson plan compares the results recorded on the rubric with Remedy database reports for people who have lost their pst files. Level 3 evaluates the extent to which “change in behavior has occurred because the participant has attended the training program” (Kirkpatrick, 1998, p.20). Level 4 will evaluate the results in dollars as a result of the students attending the lesson plan by performing a detailed Return-On-Investment document. It is anticipated that Kirkpatrick’s Level 3 and Level 4 will be conducted in the future by comparing the scores on the rubric with data extracted from the Remedy database. Plans for how this will be accomplished are included in that document, listed as document 25 in the list. The Remedy database can pinpoint worker locations and match CHFS-OIT personnel in each area of the state. This information will be helpful in conducting a detailed Return-On-Investment report within the first year of implementation of this lesson plan. Database data detailing problems associated with lost pst files can be compared with rubric scores of OIT employees responsible for each area within the state.

The final step in the presentation of the TSMM lesson plan is this Design Paper. It shows others why design decisions were made. It also causes me to reflect on the decision-making process for each step.


References

Deubel, P. (2003). An investigation of behaviorist and cognitive approaches to

instructional multimedia design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and

Hypermedia, 12(1), 63-90. Retrieved March 1, 2006 from http://

www.ct4me.net/ multimedia_design.htm#top

Dick, W., Carey, L., and Carey, J. O. (2005). The Systematic Design of Instruction (6th

ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hoddell, C. (2002). Basics of instructional systems development. In S. Sussan (Ed.),

Infoline: Instructional Systems Development Issues (pp.1-18). Alexandria, VA: ASTD.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional design and learning theory. University of Louisville,

Blackboard. Retrieved March 8, 2006, from https:// blackboardic.louisville.edu/

webapps/ portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/

course.pl?course_id=_109083_1

Miller, K. (2005a). Lesson II 4 Commentary: Using the constructivist approach to

instructional design. Retrieved February 25, 2006, from ELFH 672 Blackboard.

Miller, K. (2006b). Bloom’s taxonomy-action verbs worksheet. University of Louisville,

Blackboard. Retrieved March 8, 2006, from https://blackboardic.louisville.edu/

webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/

course.pl?course_id=_109083_1

Miller, K. (2006c). Learning theories and instructional strategies matrix. George Mason

University Instructional Technology Program. University of Louisville,

Blackboard. Retrieved April 8, 2006, https://blackboard.louisville.edu/

webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/

course.pl?course_id=_109083_1

Rossi, P. H., Freeman, H. E., and Lipsey, M. W. (1999). Evaluation: A Systematic

Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Waagen, A. K. (2002). Essentials for Evaluation. In S. Sussan (Ed.),Infoline:

Instructional systems development issues (pp.251-288). Alexandria, VA: ASTD.

Waller, K. V. (n.d.). Writing instructional objectives. University of Louisville, Blackboard.

Retrieved March 8 2006, from https://blackboardic.louisville.edu/webapps/portal/

frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_109083_1

 

Return to Class Homepage