An important part of an IDs life is to constantly find ways to improve their craft. An extremely easy way to do this is to use others work and see how they are accomplishing the same or similar tasks one is being assigned. For this, an ID could reasonably look at other ID products and conduct a peer-level analysis and review that does a few things. Number one, it gives feedback to the creator. Number two, it allows the ID to see different ways of solving the same problem. Finally, it allows the ID an opportunity to build their professional network!
The Scenario (Problem Statement)
Your company is getting ready to instruct some students for an upcoming mountain excursion. In doing so, the team analyzed what all needed to be taught for the refresher training, soon they realized that knots were something that was innate to the task at hand. As the instructors tossed around ideas of how to actually teach knot tying and which knots should be taught, they all realized that they did not have a good instructional method or tool to assist in teaching knot tying.
That is when a quick Google search led them to www.animatedknots.com. From this site, they were not only able to hone their own knot tying skills they now had an instructional aid for the teachers as well as a job aid for the students to continue practicing while at home. Best of all, it was all free of charge.
Below is an analysis and review using the OPWL 551 - Storyboard & Scenario-based eLearning template by Dr Lisa Giacumo.
OPWL Asset Analysis, Eval, and ID Review Document
John's Assessment of OPWLs Format
I usually appreciate a template to work from but in this case I felt like this document was very clunky for me. It did not feel like a natural assessment that I would give to a peer but I did want to try it out to see if it was valuable. Ultimately, what I arrived at was that I would not use this template or format the next time I did this but I would use the elements from the OPWL format to get the appropriate message across to my peer.
That is a lot of words to basically say, let me tell you how I would organize this so it fits my style of feedback while also hitting the "spirit of" the OPWL format.
First, my structure would be more like a report rather than a fill in the blank guide. I would start with an introduction that explained exactly what my purpose was and give a bit of an executive summary of the high points for those readers that aren't very interested in exactly "how the sausage is made" but just want the "end result." everything that is included in pages 1 and 2 of the attached document above would be restructured into this format to point the reader towards the important elements and also give them a chance to go check out the asset for themselves.
I did not like the "check the box" style for the entire analysis section. Again, I would format this like a report and have my analysis read like paragraphs to get rid of the unused areas that don't have "x's" besides them. I would also give examples with the "x's" to show that I gave a thorough analysis of the area and I would cite sources as necessary to show that I was giving evidence-based feedback as required.
The assessment section of the OPWL format does not need to be changed at all. I think this is a very well thought out rubric and allows the reader to see an objective based score of their asset from their peer.
Finally, the "ID Review" Section would be renamed to "conclusions" to show the reader that this is the last section and to give a subliminal message that I have analyzed everything and made conclusions about certain areas. Additionally, this entire section would be reformatted into a more familiar and I think friendlier "Issue, Discussion, Recommendation" format. This will allow me to take the table out as it looks like another rubric, and format it into paragraph form to help with the professional image of the document.
Other areas for improvement with the OPWL format would be to add a cover page with my letterhead or consultation graphics on it and I would also make sure that my contact information is included so the author or creator could get ahold of me to discuss my feedback at any time. (see bottom of this page or hit the "contact me" button)
Hopefully this is somewhat helpful for anyone else trying to provide feedback to peers on their assets or any work for that matter. The basics should be: show your analysis supported by evidence-based practices, grade their work based on solid objective criteria, and finally provide conclusions and suggestions for improvement.
Good luck out there if you are trying this out!
Comments