Features of the Training Needs Assessment hybrid course

This course was created to provide graduate students in the SFSU Instructional Technologies (ITEC) Department an opportunity to go through the entire process of conducting a needs assessment for a real client. The ITEC Department is known for preparing instructional designers to work in a variety of fields, such as corporate training, K-12 or higher education, and educational multimedia development.

To view the Needs Assessment course area, follow these steps:

- Visit iLearn (the SFSU version of Moodle) and select the External User link
- Log in with username: SloanC; password: SloanC123
- Choose "Moodle Example Course: Needs Assessment"
- Explore!

Some pedagogical constructs

• Students are part of the decision-making process
  • At the outset of the class on the first day, students are required to state their expectations about the course and what they want to get out of it (beyond the learning objectives).
  • The class provides feedback via a mid-semester evaluation (week 6 out of 16)
  • We go over the feedback as a group and I invite students to give suggested solutions for any major gaps related to both achieving learning objectives and meeting student expectations.
• Guest speakers - both in class and using Moodle throughout the semester
  • Some of the clients came to the face-to-face sessions to describe their experiences with a particular team, to give strategies about "how to work with clients" to the entire class, and to engage in discussion about the needs assessment process.
  • An expert in the field participated in an online threaded discussion for one week. This was without a doubt the best online discussion of the semester!
• Core learning
  • Small group work: Students engaged in small group activities related to each week's topic for much of the face-to-face time. Each team had its own Moodle wiki for the whole semester to collaborate on different project portions.
  • Peer review: Students were expected to give feedback in all online and some face-to-face assignments. For example, students replied to peer discussion threads, used a rubric to provide feedback on the first draft of the final report, and used a presentation rubric to provide feedback during practice presentations at the end of the semester, the week before each team made the final presentation to the client outlining the needs assessment results.
  • Real life application: We use case studies to introduce concepts, but students learn every step of the process by doing it for the team client.
• Grading
  • Grades are derived from individual activities, team activities, presentations, and participation. Almost every assignment has a rubric for peer review and/or for evaluation by the instructor.
  • Students perform all skills covered in the class as individuals first. Then each team gets together and creates a team version, combining the best elements from each individual effort. This way the instructor can assess whether or not each student knows how to go through each step of the needs assessment process, but the client only sees a polished, combined product such as a Needs Assessment Plan, Data Collection Instruments (e.g., survey, interview questions), or Final Needs Assessment Report.
  • Teams (and their scores) are not held accountable for what the client(s) do or do not deliver. In some cases, students must go forward with little to no help from the client. The main criteria is that the students can demonstrate proficiency with each part of a needs assessment project.

The five pillars

• Learning effectiveness: The teams from the hybrid course produced excellent work. Compared to three other semesters conducting the same course, teams from this class ranked very high overall.
• Student satisfaction: In a final exercise (Plus/Delta), students claimed they were very pleased with the set of tools to conduct needs assessments in the future, with the course work as a portfolio piece, with the democratic approach to the course, and with the balance between face-to-face and online work. They actually asked for less flexibility with deadlines!
• Faculty satisfaction: The hybrid version of the course provided me just as much flexibility as the students, and it was fun!
• Access: Access was higher than the fully face-to-face version. Examples include:
  • Students could make up work online if they missed a class meeting.
  • The teams could work together virtually and asynchronously using a team wiki space.
  • Student questions in the threaded discussion forums automatically get e-mailed to the instructor.
• Cost effectiveness:
  • The course was cost effective for students because they could participate on their own time for much of the course.
  • From the instructor perspective: by putting over half of the course online, it made certain things possible that I could not otherwise afford. For example, the guest participant lives in North Carolina and I could not have paid to have him participate in a three-hour, face-to-face session. Instead, he participated for one full week...for free!