Judge Sandy Balli:
Congratulations on a well written, logical case response. You identified
important key issues including your unique observations based on "implications
surrounding the decision to hire an instructional designer." I liked the way you
tied the key players' perspectives in question two to the key issues you
identified in question one. In addition to recognizing the major problems
(e.g., needs assessment, group dynamics) you showed good insight into the
importance of "little things" such as Len's being unaware of how his
participation skewed the results and Larry's failure to inquire about
the audience he would address. I particularly liked the specificity of
your two plans of action (question 4 and 5). You dealt with the immediate
issue (i.e., What should be done about tomorrow's scheduled workshop?),
and your long-term plan made effective use of the committee members'
individual talents.
Your response could have been further strengthened by better justifying the
benefits of a large group session for meeting the workshop objectives
(specific provocateur question). For example, you indicated that "one of
the benefits of large groups is that they allow for small group breakouts...
" Could a workshop have effective small group sessions without meeting
in a large group? If so, can other benefits be derived from meeting in a
large group?
Overall, the strength of your team response was its specificity. Nothing was
overlooked. I believed I could take up your action plan and know what to
do next. Your response team obviously worked more effectively than Terry's
Dundee High committee!
Judge Peg Ertmer:
Overall, this was a strong response--issues were identified and addressed;
strengths and weakensses of critical team members are described; immediate
and long-term plans are developed. This team describes some fairly "simple"
ways to address the issues of relevancy to students and student involvement
in the workshop. I applaud them for this! We do not always need elaborate
strategies to be effective.
It would probably have been to this team's benefit to list the anticipated
consequences to their plans of action, separately. This kind of gets lost
in the combined answer.
The team does a fairly good job of addressing the common provocateur question,
although I think they're a little bit "off" in their interpretation of sociocultural
analysis. Plus their suggested methods can't match their data needs.
The response to the specific provocateur question seems weak. Although they
state that "large group sessions are essential," the activities they describe do
not have to occur in large groups. In fact they indicate that they would break
into small groups for many of these!
Judge David Graf:
This team identified 3 key issues in the case. While their analysis of these
issues was "right on," I believe they missed a point or two when looking at the
case from the designer's perspective.
I particularly liked the team's suggested solution (questions 4-5). The suggestion
that there was a possible short-term solution for the next workshop was an
excellent one. The idea that future workshops be modified based on the formative
evaluation of the March workshop is also a good suggestion.
In response to the conunon question, this team concentrated heavily on the
suggestion that Terry employ a contextual analysis. While this is certainly
an excellent recommendation, I don't think the team answered the question fully.
Judge Jim Klein:
Overall, this team's response to the case was very thoughtful
and showed a stong knowledge of ISD principles. While their
response to the common provocateur question was strong, I wonder why it failed
to address the context in which the skills would be implemented (namely the
workplace).
Judge Brent Wilson:
Good insightful analysis. Well-written and forthrightly presented.
I agree with your statement, "In essence, we would use the March workshops as
a formative evaluation." That shows a sensitivity to school conditions. Due to
the cyclical nature of schools, early tryouts become the de facto formative
evaluations--with each succeeding tryout yielding important feedback for the
next class.
The last paragraph of the main response treated the "dynamics" of the Committee.
I think this part of your analysis is critical, and generally underanalyzed by most
teams. Jane and other team members need to be brought onto the project more
effectively. This paragraph brought a needed balance to your response.
I'd like to have seen more attention given to how Terry could secure more support
from upper management. This seems to be a critical problem in the case.
My general response to the general provocateur's section was: Too much work!
It's so easy to expand the scope of a project by including new people--stakeholders
of various kinds. But adding and incorporating their perspectives comes at a
significant cost in time and resources. Before doing this kind of work, it's essential
to solidify the original committee and secure top-down support for the project--
and for the likely delay that would result.
I liked the defense of large-group instruction, included in the response to the
specific provocateur question.
Overall, a most excellent response that clearly shows your expertise and
practical perspective. I'd hire you in a minute!
