The True Identity of an Instructional Design Review

Well, well. There you were, happy with what you were doing – kneading SME content into digestible, instructionally effective dough; secure in the knowledge that the content will be reviewed by a senior instructional designer, and that any little lapse on your part would be remedied before the content was published or transformed into a course. Then, one day…
Your good work fetches you more than applause; it brings you a promotion!

Along with the promotion comes a change in responsibilities. While you were the content developer you were cynical of the reviewer’s work. Now you find yourself strapped to the reviewer’s chair; where the clasps of instructional design, language, and style standards tie your independence and imagination, down. You suddenly find yourself track-changing the very ideas that you once fought tooth and nail for. You’ve stepped into the reviewer’s shoes.

At this point in your life you may experience a cerebral claustrophobia. You may find yourself going in circles, trying to find some reference points. Style guides, client’s instructional design guidelines, notes from the ID training session would, at this stage, do nothing more than add to your confusion. You feel lost. Internet, your best friend blinks then dozes off, when you query it with a hope to find out, what a review should comprise.

This article is an attempt to outline an instructional design review process that will enable ID reviewers to ensure that their reviews lead to improvement in the instructional efficacy of the content. But before we begin discussing instructional design reviews, I think it is a good idea to determine their scope. In other words, let us try to determine the constituents of instructional design review and separate them from those of standard and style reviews.

Let us begin.

ID and Other Things:

The fact of the matter is, that the instructional design reviewer is often asked to don the mantle of language, style, and standards reviewer as well. Most often than not all these reviews are nested under instructional design review and we begin to believe they are actually a part of ID review.

Before we begin an instructional design review, however, we need to separate instructional design from rest of the reviews. This will help us make sure that our focus on other reviews doesn’t ensnare the attention that should be given to instructional design. I am emphasizing this point because most of our instructional design review checklists look more like style and standard checklists. If you don’t believe me, dig yours out.

The following question is the litmus test, which will help you determine whether or not a checklist item qualifies as an instructional design review point (let’s call it IDRP for the sake of simplicity). Just ask, “Will this point help the learner meet the instructional objectives in a better and faster way?” If the answer is “yes”, classify the point as an IDRP. Chances are, you would find many check points that read, “all topics should be numbered in the format x_y_n, where x is…,” “Every page should end with “Click the Next button,” and so on. These are standard and style guidelines given by the client, and should be adhered to, no doubt; yet they are not IDRPs.”

After you have identified the existing instructional design review points, list them separately. Now you will be able to see huge, dangerous gaps in the list. There is a possibility that your organization already has a true ID checklist, which is different from the standards and style checklist but if it hasn’t then please create your own. This list should include the existing IDRPs and your additions that would make the list comprehensive.

The following discussion should enable you to crystallize additional IDRPs to fill the gaps in your list.

Steps in ID Review:

After you have identified and listed the existing IDRPs separately, begin with the major objective and the competencies (also known as the enabling objectives.) and review the course to determine whether or not the objectives will be achieved through the course that has been developed.

Just the way a developer needs to outline the major objective and the competencies along with their corresponding Bloom Levels, before he or she begins development; the ID reviewer requires them too. The ID reviewer’s main job is to determine whether the course will be able to help the learner develop the competencies outlined in the syllabus at the levels promised. Chunking of content, flow of language, and clarity of expression should all be reviewed in light of their contribution towards learning effectiveness.

Thus, it is important that the reviewer is equipped with the following before the review begins:

• Audience Profile
• Mode of Delivery
• Course Objective
• Competencies and their corresponding Bloom’s Levels
  

Then the reviewer should review the course objective, competencies, and their Bloom’s Levels against the course objective and audience profile. If the syllabus (containing this information) has already been reviewed and finalized by the client, the syllabus can be taken as the base-line document.

The next step should be to review all the activities and exercises against the corresponding competency and its Bloom’s level, to determine whether or not they build the required competency in the learner. It is also important to ensure that for each competency in the course, sufficient examples are given to guide the learner, enough activities are designed to elicit performance, feedback is provided in a constructive manner, and finally a comprehensive assessment is carried out.

After the examples, activities, and exercises are reviewed; the reviewer should attend to the overall construction of the module or topic. A course is divided into different logical chunks. The top-level chunk is called a module, lesson, or segment. Each of these top-level chunks is then divided into lectures or topics. The second level chunks are further made up of pages or screens. Review the course at all the three levels to determine whether or not they satisfy ARCS.

Finally the reviewer should attend to flow and clarity of expression. From the ID viewpoint, the instructional designer’s responsibility in this area overlaps with that of the language editor’s. Most good instructional designers write well and are able to express their ideas clearly. Yet, as instructional design is a discipline that permeates through all languages and cultures; language is just a tool, even for the instructional designer. Thus, I would prefer to keep language edits out of the purview of Instructional Design reviews.

As an instructional design reviewer, you should create your own IDRP list for each new project that you work on. It is a good idea to keep this list dynamic and modify it in light of client’s new requirements.

...And About Other Things?

Now, let us travel back in time to retrieve the remnants of original list that was masquerading as an ID checklist. If our organization requires us to complete reviews other than instructional design reviews, we should complete them, right? Now that we have fulfilled our true role we should tie the lose ends and complete the style and standards review as well.

I do feel that eLearning organizations should be able to produce better quality courses if they provide relevant review support to the instructional designer. We should separate the ID reviewer role from the style and standards reviewer role and the editor’s role. Style and standards review does not require deep understanding of instructional design, but it requires an eye for detail. A language editor should be well versed with the nuances of language, vocabulary, grammar, and punctuation; while an instructional design reviewer should understand applied psychology. I fail to understand how we expect one person to be superbly skilled in all of the above!

Yet, considerations such as cost and availability get into way, and the ID reviewer’s panacea review decides whether or not the course will be successful in achieving its objective.

So, what is…is. And as individuals we need to change the way we work, so that we are able to deliver to the learner what we promise. We, the instructional designers and the ID reviewers of tomorrow, should recognize our true work and ensure that we do not lose sight of instructional design in crowd of standards and style guidelines!

Author: Shafali R. Anand