In our recent blog post, Instructional Design 101, we provided an overview of several popular instructional design models. One of these, the original ADDIE model, was a linear approach with some iterative features. It evolved to be more cyclical, and spawned many other models. In similar fashion, our linear workflows at Victory have evolved to keep up with rapid changes in our industry.
Watch this video for a quick look at Victory’s vendor and partnership processes. Many projects do not require a partnership process; we originally used it to develop digital products, but it has many benefits for complex print products as well.
The video also references backward design, which we first blogged about in Talking to the Test: The Learning Continuum. In backward design, the initial development focuses on assessments because they determine what evidence we will accept as proof of mastery of the associated learning objectives. Again, not every project warrants a backward-design approach. It makes the most sense for subjects with open-ended user experiences that are hard to assess and hard to teach. We have found that if most of the assessment is traditional, then a traditional development process generally will also be sufficient.
Victory’s spinoff metacog was just featured in a blog post by Databricks, a company founded by the team that created Apache Spark, a powerful open-source data processing engine. See the Databricks blog post below.
metacog has been hard at work releasing new capabilities of its learning analytics platform, while at the same time enhancing existing capabilities. If you offer subscription-based products, you know that your customers expect continuous improvement. With metacog, we partner with you to deliver new capabilities in deep learning analytics that you can easily integrate into your products to generate new data-driven business models and revenue streams.
Why data analytics for adaptive and competency-based learning is so challenging
You may have seen many companies offering data analytics applied to learning products. If you look closely, most of the time what is offered is “administrative-level” data and simple scoring data:
Time-on-task data – How long did learners use the interactive?
“Attendance” data – Did learners participate?
SCORM-compliant scores reported to a learning management system (LMS) – How well are learners doing?
Simple score reports – How many right, how many wrong?
It turns out that in order to improve anything, you have to be able to measure it, but so far in education we have been measuring the wrong thing – the final answer.
This explains why scoring is the key issue. In the past, most open-ended assessments had to be human-scored. And this greatly reduces the frequency with which teachers and professors assign open-ended assessments. Yet it is open-ended tasks that best assess the ability of a candidate to perform well in today’s job market.
Why is it important to have a professional write and translate your product?
In this era of new technology and immediacy, it is easy to get carried away with the specialized tools available to get the work done. But remember, they are only tools, which means they are only as good and effective as the person who uses them.
The same thing happens with free translation tools such as Google Translate, or even with professional tools such as Wordfast or SDL Trados. There are a number of automated tools for translation, but if used alone, they can be more harmful—or comical, for that matter—than useful. In 1977, an airline promoted leather seats in its first-class sections with the slogan “Fly in leather.” It was translated into Spanish as “Vuele en cuero” (a literal translation), which really means “Fly naked.” The biggest danger with automated tools is that they tend to translate literally and word by word. Continue reading →
We have become proficient at developing performance tasks closely aligned to NGSS (Next Generation Science Standards). Of course, a good performance task aligns to standards across multiple disciplines. The following task was developed for middle grades and for these learning goals.
Please watch the video and then try the performance task. We’d love to hear your feedback!
You have been asked to make the jump safe. The video below explains how to set up a simulation to investigate.
Click “Playground” in the PhET® simulation below and set up a jump as shown in the video. Remember to set friction to zero and always release the skateboarder from a height of 5 meters.
Then modify the setup to make the jump safe, where “safe” is defined as converting less than 1/4 of the total energy into thermal energy.
Use your observations of the skateboarder’s motion to explain why reducing thermal energy transfer reduces the risk of injury.
The Skate Park simulation was developed by PhET.
PhET Interactive Simulations, University of Colorado Boulder, http://phet.colorado.edu.