Milestone 5: Prototype & Design Rationale

For this milestone, we’re building on previous design iterations to come up with an updated design prototype as well as rationale for our design grounded in learning theory with an accompanying logic model.

Read my M5 draft prototype and design rationale paper

Design Prototype

I’m still working on my design prototype, so I still only have low fidelity prototypes to share. My ideation sketches have been updated to include newer examples.

Learning Paths

Employees are able to identify specific competencies they’d like to develop or select a predetermined learning path. An initial draft of learning paths and their associated competencies are provided for reference.

  • New Employee Essentials
    • Self-Knowledge
    • Peer Relationships
    • Boss Relationships
    • Time Management
    • Written Communication
    • Presentation Skills
  • Being a Good Mentee
    • Self-Knowledge
    • Self-Development
    • Personal Learning
    • Listening
    • Action-Oriented
  • Mentoring Skills
    • Understanding Others
    • Interpersonal Savvy
    • Listening
    • Motivating Others
  • Aspiring Leaders
    • Understanding Others
    • Problem Solving
    • Building Effective Teams
    • Delegation
    • Motivating Others
    • Directing Others
    • Conflict Management
    • Planning

Design Rationale

The following learning theories, principles, and strategies influence this design:

  • Constructivism
  • Constructionism
  • Self-directed learning
  • Gamification
  • Scaffolding
  • Self-explanation principle
  • ICAP framework
  • Learner control/ self determination theory
  • Metacognition

Draft Logic Model

Draft logic model, full text description below
Trouble viewing the logic model? Open the logic model in Lucidchart or review the full-text description below.
 
  • Purpose: Employees will be able to understand and use techniques to develop professional competencies and skill sets.
  • Context
    • 70-20-10 model of employee development
    • Motivation for professional development
    • Support from leadership, mentors, and/or coaches
    • In-app reviews on learning paths and challenges
  • Inputs
    • Self-awareness and metacognition
    • Time to review, select, and perform challenges
    • Support from leadership, mentors, and/or coaches
  • Activities
    • Developmental learning paths
    • Professional development challenges
  • Outcomes
    • More self-awareness around professional development
    • Improved ability to perform metacognitive tasks
    • Increased skill set with selected professional competencies
    • Improved employee performance review
  • Outputs
    • Higher rates of internal promotions
    • Increased employee satisfaction rates
    • Increased employee retention rates

Milestone Self-Assessment

Read through my M5 self-assessment

References

Ackermann, E. K. (2004). Constructing knowledge and transforming the world. In M. Tokoro & L. Steels (Eds.), A learning zone of one’s own: Sharing representations and flow in collaborative learning environments. IOS Press.

Chi, M., & Van Lehn, K. A. (1991). The content of physics self-explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 69–105.

Chi, M. & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43–71.

Evans, M. & Boucher, A.R. (2015). Optimizing the power of choice: Supporting student autonomy to foster motivation and engagement in learning. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(87–91). https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12073

Hiemstra, R. (1994). Self-directed learning. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.), Pergamon Press.

Kafai, Y. B. (2005). Constructionism. In R. Keith Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (1st ed., pp. 35–46). Cambridge University Press.

Leading Effectively Staff. (2020, November 24). The 70-20-10 rule for leadership development. Center for Creative Leadership. https://www.ccl.org/articles/leading-effectively-articles/70-20-10-rule/

Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–14). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reiser, B., & Tabak, I. (2014). Scaffolding. In R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 44–62). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.005

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self‐determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well‐being. American Psychologist, 55(68–78). https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Winne, P., & Azevedo, R. (2014). Metacognition. In R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 63–87). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.006

Wylie, R., & Chi, M. (2014). The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 413–432). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.021

Note: All content and designs related to my thesis project are copyright pending. Do not publish or use without explicit permission.