The Analysis Phase

THE BEGINNING
The analysis phase of any learning programme can be often underdone or neglected - as it takes time and thought to do it well, and can often throw up unexpected or unwanted issues. The sponsor, subject expert or course designer may not be too happy to know that the course they had planned, that staff or students 'needed' is not actually what the learners wanted or actually needed! In business or industry this usually means that the project sponsor (often the HR director or department manager) pays the money and gets the course he or she wants.

If the in-company project manager is open to ideas and works closely with the instructional designer the project can be successful both in its development as well as in its outcome, and benefit the company and the learners. A business focus usually means the learning programme is performance-based and certain learning outcomes are expected, and these are reinforced or rewarded (by internal recognition, certification or by other means). So business programmes normally take a behavioural approach.

Other higher level programmes may stimulate learners to take more responsibility for their learning path, and have more of a cognitive constructivism approach, including criticizing, synthesizing and analyzing. But normally, unless the learning contributes to the business and to the bottom line, these aspects may not always be included in the learning design.

THE MECHANICS
My experience of working with industry has helped me see the value of careful analysis. I have worked with other people's training needs analyses, and I have conducted my own analyses, normally in collaboration with HR people. I usually enjoy this phase of any project, as it is a discovery, an insight into the company or business, a chance to meet the actual learners, and involves communication and interaction. The techniques I have used have varied depending on a certain factors:

• The size of the target audience and their accessibility
• If I have access to performance reviews or other documentation
• If I have access to trainers, supervisors or others.
• If I can review critical incidents, reports or other records.

The tools I have used included:

• Surveys - based on a questionnaire sent to the target group, their supervisors or trainer – (quantitative)
• Focus groups - face to face discussion on the participants perceived training needs (qualitative)
• Telephone interviews - on a one-to-one basis (qualitative)
• Direct observation of job performance or functions (qualitative).

Nunan (1988) makes a distinction between product-oriented and process-oriented course design, where product-oriented design focuses on the knowledge and skills learners should gain as a result of the instruction, and process-oriented design which focuses on the learning experience itself. This leads me to look at the analysis stage of course design for my current work which is back in the world of education rather than industry. However, many of the ideas I used in industry are still very relevant to the analysis phase of academic course design too.

THE PROJECT
My major upcoming project is to plan, redesign and re-engineer a taught MSc in Hotel & Tourism Management offered by the School of Hotel & Tourism Management (SHTM) at Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Siemans (2002) has said that, ‘Elearning is the marriage of technology and education, and most often, the instructional designer's greatest role is that of "bridging" concepts between the two worlds’. So I have been thinking about the factors that will affect the design of the course or programme, and what should I take account of in the analysis phase?

In an academic context I am learning there are many complex and interwoven factors, internal and external that will affect the learning design of any course or programme. Most striking to me is that industry is quite straightforward compared to a public university. In industry - the one that pays the money calls the tune. But in academia it is not the students/customers who call the tune, but the government (who sets the quotas and provide funding), the institution (who set the policies and the infrastructure for course delivery, assessment etc) and the instructors who decide how, and sometimes what they want to teach. 'The existing policies and procedures of the institution in which the web-based classroom is based can present some of the biggest hurdles in the classroom's development,' according to McCormack (1998).

Having come from an instructional design & consulting role in industry to a university, I found my original ideas on course design being transformed by my environment. No longer could decisions be made on the telephone, I needed to recognize the slow and cumbersome academic decision-making processes which might sometimes take years! I also needed to understand that decisions were more a collegiate than an individual event. Consultation takes time, requires reflection, discussion, cogitation - and often a decision may just not be made at all. So lesson one, talk to as many people as possible, assemble many views and perspectives and try to gather them, so that consensus can possibly be achieved.

So my original perception that I could take existing course contents (lecturer’s notes, slides and materials) and convert them into online courses soon went out of the window. Not only would this not be appropriate – it would probably not be effective. I found that I needed to consider a number of new and more nebulous and challenging issues. I needed to realise that planning and preparation takes a lot more time than I was used to and extensive consultation needed to really happen. Porter (2004) agrees that, 'Although planning cannot eliminate all the gremlins from online courses, it can help establish a sound educational outline for each course and meet the needs of learners with different learning styles and preferences.'

THE INITIAL ANALYSIS
My first step was a review of current e-learning initiatives in the university and the School. Second was an initial survey of 24 full and part-time MSc HTM students to try and help me to understand some of their attitudes, perceptions and ideas about learning online. Third was to explore the views and ideas of academics in the School to understand their perceptions, problems and experiences. Here are some of the things I discovered:

1. The learning tradition. Around 95% of our MSc students are from Hong Kong or Mainland China. The remainder are either expatriates working in Hong Kong or students on scholarships or exchange programmes from overseas. The Confucian values of teaching are quite strong in Hong Kong and Mainland schools, with a very didactic method of teaching. This tradition continues through undergraduate education in 'Greater China' and often online learning is not seen as 'real teaching or learning'. Implication 1 = most students seem to prefer face-to-face teaching, though the survey indicated that students recognized the value of online learning.

2. The culture. Go almost anywhere in Hong Kong and China and you will notice that young people like to meet, talk, eat and do activities in groups. This is a very social culture, and influences the way students like to study and learn. Implication 2 = Most Chinese students are social creatures - they like to be with other students, study in groups and have a group identity, so establishing a group identity, group relationships and group work in online learning will be very important.

3. The technology. In some parts of China the range of online learning media would be constrained by technical limitations such as access to broadband internet, as well as access to computers in some instances. Implication 3 = Any online learning materials need to be less resource hungry for Mainland China.

4. The teachers. A traditional university like PolyU, in the context of a traditional culture, is like trying to move an elephant with a spoon. It takes time for the wheels of university governance to move, and it takes time to persuade busy teachers, with heavy workloads to consider 'other' activities. Teachers are also the owners of their courses, they need to see that technology can help, not add to their workload. Therefore faculty need to have demonstrated to them the efficiency and effectiveness of online learning and teaching. Good models and exemplars need to be developed so that teachers want to employ technology to enhance teaching and help their workload. Implication 4 = Teachers are one of the keys to unlocking the door to online learning in a traditional university.

5. The support. Strategic planning and commitment from senior management is essential. Resources to support and assist teachers in course redesign and development, technical help and instructional design expertise need to be made available. Implication 5 = Support from senior management, ownership by teachers, underpinned by adequate financial, human and technical resources are essential.

SOME COMMENTS FROM SURVEYED STUDENTS

1. I prefer a combination of online and taught classes because as a part-time student, it is sometimes very hard for me to attend classes on the campus after work.
2. How about the handouts? Will the lecture notes be provided online as well? One of the advantages for the online teaching is that learning can become more flexible in choosing my subject.
3. Online learning is a good idea.
4. I prefer tradition classroom-based education to online education, because online classes cannot make direct contact with the teachers and teaching materials. However, I agree with online exams because it can save time and money for arrangement.
5. Online learning has one very big shortcoming, lack of interactions between the lecturer and students. Mixed mode, therefore, can be considered.
6. Learning online is difficult for many people as it takes a lot of discipline for keep yourself motivated to keep up to date on readings & assignments.
   
7. Some things just cannot be taught online. Human contact is a must and learning in the class is a huge advantage rather than learning through reading text on a screen.

References:

Chapnick, S. (2001). Research Dog eLearning Readiness Assessment. Retrieved Aug. 7, 2005, from Research Dog Web site

Kaur, K. (2004). An Assessment of E-learning Readiness at the Open University Malaysia. Paper Presented at International Conference on Computers in Education 2004, Retrieved August 2, 2005

McCormack, C. (1998). Building a web-based education system. 1st ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus design. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

O’Brian, E. (2004). Training needs analysis - the first step in authoring e-learning content. Presented at the 2004 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Retrieved Aug 8, 2005

Porter, L. (2004). Developing and online curriculum: technologies and techniques. 1st ed. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.

Siemans, G. (2002). Instructional Design in Elearning. Retrieved Aug. 10, 2005, from Elearning Space Web site: http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/InstructionalDesign.htm