Project+ID

Last night I felt like a judge on Project Runway, Dancing with the Stars, or the one that started them all ... American Idol.

I think this is the way advanced ID should be taught. Ask students to create instruction, then have them present in front of a group of experts. The expert comments address the gestalt, which is what ID is all about. How does it all "sum up"? What is the final message?

If I were to pick winners last night they would be **Suzan and Manal.** They were able to capture the essence of alignment. Their magnetic pull and display of something that fits and doesn't fit was magic. There was much hard work on display last night -- which is as it should be for a 700-level class. There were clear successes and less clear successes. Work and effort are important, but the final product, the end result is important too. Like American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, and Project Runway ... hours of effort are on show for only a few minutes. During those few minutes the talent shows up.

I hope all the groups analyze what they did, what worked and what did not. Here's my recapture ... in the order of presentation


 * Shari - I was impressed**. Shari showed the critical components of alignment, her chart showing Why, What and How was clever and on target. The story of objectives was really good. I loved a story on aligning objectives, I'll use her example in my book if she gives me permission. If you can write a story about objectives, you can write a story about anything instructional.


 * Suzan and Mana - I was dazzled.** They got to the center of how objectives need to be aligned and what the challenge is. They used a medium that communicated their message quickly and efficiently and reminded me of the Wiki YouTube that I hope we all can all aspire to as we create learner-friendly instruction.


 * Chatchada, Watsatree, Miriam - I was pleased** to see how much effort they put into the project. The big picture, the goal of the project, was to explain the importance of alignment, and this was lost in the detail and depth of what they did. I liked their emphasis on journey, but felt it was a little too much like the puppeteer analogy that I've used to explain ID. At the same time, I know their hard work will be evident in weeks to come, when we rely more on the depth of objectives. Watsatree's skyping in elevated their presentation and demonstrated their professionalism.


 * Tekleab - I liked his opening** definition, and how he focused on alignment from the very start. He began with the end in mind. What followed was not enough, though. What followed was "more of the same" a display too similar to what wasn't working in the first place.

I went home feeling good about ET702 for the first time in weeks. I hope it continues. More important, I hope that these students love what they are doing. If they think of this as a chore, as something the "have to give up another weekend for", then they need to ask themselves if a doctorate in this is something they should be doing. I hope they can't wait to come to class next week, so they can see ID in action.

Without good instructional design, educational technology has no heart.

That's a bad sentence, but I think it says it better than "with good instructional design, educational technology has a heart".

It needs work.