Your IDA was evaluated by: Ying Liu

Overall Instructor Rating: Satisfactory

Ratings explanation:

• Exemplary - A model answer in almost every way (this is given out very rarely).
• Satisfactory - Very well done; you've met the expectations of the assignment. There are some minor problems, so read my feedback well.
• Marginal Pass - You pass, but there are lots of issues to consider. Read my feedback very carefully and be sure you understand the points/issues I raise.
• Not satisfactory, redo and resubmit - The assignment was not completed appropriately. I am concerned that you do not understand the process well enough yet. To get credit for the assignment, you need to redo it, most probably on another topic. Read and consider my feedback very carefully before redoing.

Instructor's Overall Feedback:

Thanks for providing the ICMs. It has been very helpful for me to understand your course and unit design and to evaluate how well you have understood the instructions that prepare you for this IDA. You seem to have grasped some of the main ideas and demonstrated a few things that I’m glad to see. First, you did a good job breaking down the terminal objective. You delineated the instructional components clearly and presented them in a reasonable sequence. I also like the fact that you included supporting objectives not only in verbal information but also in attitudinal domain. You also seemed to explore Inspiration pretty well and produced the ICMs that help me to make sense of everything. But there are things that deserve your attention too: First, as you may be aware now, standard capability verbs are required when drafting objectives at all levels. In addition, they have to match the types of intellectual skills that the objectives aim at. For this IDA, all the objectives should be at the rule-using level or above (problem-solving) to make the instruction worthwhile. Therefore, several of your unit objectives and lesson objectives needs to be revised based on this principle. [Note from Greg: It is ok to have *lesson* objectives that are at concept level instead of rule-using or problem-solving. But course and unit objectives really should be one of these two higher levels.] For unit 1, the objective states “SWBAT match each of their personal or work experiences to each interview question asked. They will be able to listen to the question, identify the skill the question is referring to, and use the appropriately matching personal or work experience to respond to the question”. First of all, I'm afraid the statement is way too long for a unit objective. Second, the verb “match” indicates a verbal information level intellectual skill, which shouldn’t be the focus of your instructional unit. The other verbs used in the second sentence are very specific but not standard in terms of the kind of verbs we’re looking for in an instructional design project. So please consider rewording this objective using the learned capability verbs and state the meaning in a concise way. How about something like “SWBAT demonstrate correctly matching personal or work experiences with interview questions”? For unit 3, the two things following “SWBAT generate responses to mock interview questions” indicate the specific strategies that can be used to demonstrate the expected learner behavior. This is acceptable but not necessary/required. For your lesson objectives, the same suggestion applies--it’s recommended to restate the objectives with the standard capability verbs. The expression of “SWBAT generate a description of the context (their specific actions, the results of their own actions…) will be adequate in this respect. Second, as part of the unit design portion of your IDA, the supporting objectives in both verbal information and attitudinal domains should be connected to one of the lesson objectives or the unit objective you listed in the unit design. It is incorrect to connect this attitudinal objective with the overall course objective without also connecting it to the unit or lesson objective as you did in the course ICM. On the other hand, the verbal information supporting objective of “Students will summarize the results of their specific actions in each of their experiences” should be related to the lesson 3 objective instead of replacing the lesson 3 objective in your course ICM. Last, let’s look at several issues in your ICMs: ----Course ICM---- 1) The course ICM should include the course title, the overall terminal objective, and enabling unit objectives with an appropriate representation of instructional sequence. However, you course ICM looks more like a unit ICM. For a course ICM, you only need to keep the objective boxes on the left of the page. Please leave out the entry behaviors (those are for the unit ICM) and supporting objectives (both attitudinal and verbal on the right side of the page). 2) It is correct that the entry behaviors should point to the lesson objective at the bottom of the map. But that doesn’t mean that each entry behavior needs to point in that direction separately. Please refer to Dr. Rieber’s unit ICM example for the standard way to demonstrate the relationship. 3) The three objectives that enable (subordinate) unit 3 objective appear to be lesson level objectives but are represented in the way that supporting objectives are supposed to be presented. [Note from Greg: These look to me like supporting verbal information items, and as such they don't belong in the course ICM. They can support lesson objectives in the unit ICM, as Ying points out below.] ---Unit ICM---- 1) Because the type of details that should be included in the unit ICM were actually include in your course ICM (probably due to misunderstanding), your unit ICM lacks the supporting objectives and entry behaviors. 2) Another big issue is that the enabling lessons should focus on intellectual skills at the rule-using and problem-solving level (indicated by the learned capability verb “demonstrate” and “generate”). The three objectives as you listed use “list” as the key verb, which indicate an intellectual skill of verbal information level (you also indicated this in the ICM). However, this level of skills are not worthy of the instruction you are designing for this IDA. Please bear in mind that objectives in the verbal information domain (and attitudinal domain) are good enough to serve as supporting objectives for a lesson objective, but they themselves are not qualified as lesson objectives. Additionally, a comparison of your IDA and your unit ICM shows that the lesson objectives you included in the unit ICM are not the same as those in your unit design IDA. They were actually the supporting objectives in verbal information domain. I guess there’s some confusion about what a unit ICM should include here too. 3) The second and third boxes at the lesson objective level contain the same objective. Please double check the ICMs, the IDA, and the congruency between the two next time. That’s all my comments on your IDA. An overall suggestion is to review the intellectual skills hierarchy, the corresponding standard capability verbs, and Dr. Rieber’s ICM examples before moving forward with your instructional design project. Thank you for your effort! Ying [Note from Greg: I approve of Ying's feedback, along with the couple of notes I have added.]

This activity builds on the needs assessment IDA. This IDA is divided into two parts. First, you will design a rough outline of a course. In this context, "course" is defined as an instructional entity, which has both a recognizable start and finish point, and has an organized set of content. It is the most general instructional solution to a problem identified in needs assessment. Second, you will choose one of the units from your course design and design a rough outline of that unit (of course, in the 'real world', you would do this for all of your units). The activity is designed to give you hands-on practice with course- and unit-level task analysis.