Proposed use of the Roadent model. 

Community Assistance Team (CAT) Program

Example 1 - Community Assistance Program

Example 2 - Office Admin.

ISD PAPER

Resources

Researched and developed in a constructivistic approach by Liz H-K, Shirley Jones, Chris Huffam, John Oakley and Lisa O'Neill as part of an assignment for Royal Roads MA in Distributed Learning.

Background

In the spring of 1999, there was strong possibility that serious flooding would occur during the spring runoff due to the above normal snow pack throughout British Columbia.  The Community Assistance Teams (CAT) model was developed and implemented to assist communities in responding to this flood threat.  The original mandate of the CAT was to assess the capability of each community to respond to a serious flood threat.  This very quickly developed into providing emergency training to communities at serious risk.  The CAT model relied on experienced people to go into communities and work with local agencies.  The demand for CAT assistance overextended the resources available.   Although the CAT model worked well, it needs to be adapted into a more rapid development approach.  This model could be adapted for other emergency and disaster situations.  The CAT approach is well suited for the slow developing flood situation, as there is time to plan and provide assistance to communities before impact.

The key training components that were used in 1999 were:

 q       Risk and Hazardous analysis
q       Emergency Operation Centre
q       Evacuation planning
q       Emergency Social Services

The basic approach for providing this training used was the ADDIE model.  In retrospect it was too slow to develop.  The new model for 2001 would be an improved model such as the proposed Rodent model.

Analysis

The task analysis concept was identified to help assess what training was required for each community.  This phase also was the most labour intensive part of the CAT model.  The time to do this analysis needs to be compressed to bring "just in time" training to the communities at risk.  The proposed Rodent model would provide a greater structure to the analysis and reduce the time required by working in parallel with the other stages.

Design

The CAT model relied on the existing training material already developed.  The ability to design for individual community needs was limited.  Learning outcomes were not used because of the time needed to develop them for each community.  The Rodent model would help streamline the design phase by using part of the Program Logic model.

Development

 The key to development is using current training materials and adapting them to the need of the community at risk.  There is currently a database of training materials that may be accessed and adapted to the needs of the community.  The development team would be part of the CAT model and be ongoing as the community is assessed for risks and hazards.  The development would use a variety of media (print, computer, web-based, video, etc) depending on the communities capabilities.

Implementation

The instruction would use a varity of instructional techniques to deliver the training.  The current method is sending an instructor to the community to provide training.  There are other methods that could be utilized depending on the communities capability with access to technology.

q       Conference call
q       Computer based using WEB

Develop training based on following scenarios

q       No warning disaster, how to manage sudden event, based on 30 minute training package.  Example is the 30 minute Quick-Response Guide for managing walk-in disaster volunteers.

q       On alert: time to organize, more slowly developing event (eg. Flood)

Evaluation

There was no formal evaluation of the CAT model because the risk of floods and forest fires had passed.  An informal evaluation took place in form of general discussions with communities.  The general consensus was that the CAT model worked for communities, the question of why or what do not work was not really addressed.  The analysis phase of the CAT model needs to be very reactive and timely so that communities could "learn" from a community that was recently impacted by a flood or forest fire.  The Rodent model would use a formative evaluation process that would shorten this development cycle.

Office Administration Program at the local Community College

Background

After several years of producing qualified graduates in the Office Administration program, the numbers of students interested in Office Administration began to decrease and the demand for higher-level computer skills began to increase. 

Offices in the community were asking the college for a variety of courses and training in computer programs and applications, both short term and long term.  The college staff was not sure what project or training would be viable and whether or not short or long-term training would be the best track to take.

Analysis

A group of college staff (managers, coordinators, and instructors) met with community business owners to identify what training would possibly meet the goals of each particular office.  Along with identifying specific computer application training clients were asked if short or long-term training was preferable.  Along with identifying the specific training needs of the community, the colleges focused on what local computer resources were in place to provide training and who the learners would be.  The analysis team recognized the need to have ongoing input into the Office Administration Program by means of a program advisory committee, but opted this time for a rapid response to a current training need.  The Rodent model identifies that analysis needs to be quick.  The focus is not to fine tune a needs assessment, but rather to quickly determine what will work now and get on with the job of designing it. 

Design

After quick analysis of “the gap” in performance in local offices the committee met again to create learning outcomes and objectives to begin the design process.  Communication around what activities were needed to provide outcomes and what level of complexity was needed to design program were considered.  The committee identified several courses – but for this example we will look at the database course Access 97.  Here the committee decided to design two courses to teach Access – one would be a three hour, quick get around the program introduction for those learners who needed a brief introduction as part of their jobs the other would be a three month credit course that would be included in the Office Administration Assistant Certificate.  As the committee discussed the two courses and the outcomes and objectives, another committee (OA instructors, manager) was charged with the development of the courses.  Here the principles of parallel processing helped to speed up the time necessary to get the courses designed and into the development while the need in the community was still current.  Another aspect that was addressed at this stage was feedback – or formative evaluation.  The design team discussed the plans to create the Access course in committee and asked the committee to share its findings and decisions with their constituents.  This was to prevent any oversights or errors in determining the critical information and needs. 

Development

Again this step works concurrently with Design in that the developers have already begun to plan and frame the courses identified by the design team.  Here communication between the groups is fluid with information regarding a prototype, what resources are planned for, any services that need to be in place, etc.  The project manager ensures that the communication flows and any modifications are incorporated as they are identified.   The quick response three-hour course does not require the same amount of input as does the 4-month credit course, but the manager asks for feedback throughout this phase to ensure that all possibilities have been addressed.

Implementation

The course is developed, the instructor hired, the materials, and resources in place.  This is the trial run of the course in both the short-term 3-hour course and the 4-month credit course.  With students now registered in the courses, this is the beta test stage.  The committee has participated in both the course design and development, offered its feedback throughout the parallel stages of design and development and now the learner will test the course for relevancy, practical usage and ease of training.  Here unforeseen problems may arise and need to be documented for the next course or corrected in this course if at all possible.  The learner or client needs to feel that this quick response course meets his/her training needs and the goals of the organization where they work.  Again evaluation will occur at this stage with the instructor eliciting responses from the learners involved in the training.

Evaluation

In the traditional ADDIE evaluation is much more summative than formative.  This means that an entire analysis, design and development of a course or program can continue to completion without much feedback reaching the designers until the project reaches completion and beta testing.  In most cases evaluation at this late stage is not effective in helping to adapt the design or modify it for better usage.  By incorporating an evaluative loop or continuous feedback throughout the various steps in ADDIE the people involved in design and development receive critical information that can ensure the product’s success.  Here once the course in Access 97 was beta tested by the learners – both in the short and long term courses, an evaluation of the course was created by the committee that addressed some of the issues identified by participants throughout the steps in the design process.  Many of the problematic areas were identified and corrected.  Suggestions were considered and included in questions on the summative evaluation.  The information collected at this stage now becomes the basis for which to begin a new step of analysis for the next design project.

By Incorporating the Rodent Model of ISD time constraints and resource constraints and the issue of receiving critical, just-in-time feedback were addressed.  The course was designed and developed all within a time frame that ensured the material was still relevant when implemented.