Reflection on my Developing Expertise 1

Reflection on my Developing Expertise

EDCI 67200-003
Alicia Pearlman
Professor Watson
December 1, 2013

Reflection on my Developing Expertise 2

Reflection on my Developing Expertise
What is the primary role of an instructional designer? Is it to design training or to
do something else? The primary role of an instructional designer is to solve problems
and designing training is solving a problem for an organization. Solving problems is
made up of two major tasks problem finding and problem solving. Problem finding
and problem solving are very different from each other. Problem Finding articulating
a clear and concise representation of the problem(s) in a particular situation" whereas
Problem Solving - developing a clear and relevant solution plan that explicitly describes
how the proposed solutions address the found problem(s) (Ertmer, 2009). Problem
finding addresses the situation and problems solving finds a solution to the problem.
The first step is problem finding in the problem-solving process. Problem finding
involves being able to articulate a clear and concise representation of the problem(s) in
a particular situation (Bridges & Hallinger, 1995; Jonassen, 2004). Experts and
Novices approach the problem finding step in different ways. Experts use their own
knowledge and experience to present the problem either in their own words or in the
words taken from another source such as a textbook. Novices simply recount the given
information, with little apparent synthesis, using words form the initial description of the
situation (Peggy A. Ertmer D. A., 2005).
In the Michael Bishop case, my approach was that of a novice. I gave a brief
summary of the problem and did not use any synthesis. I took details from the case
itself with a little translation into my own words. For example, the following information
Reflection on my Developing Expertise 3

was taken right from the ID CaseBook: One purposes of the game was to hone an
innovative model to use technology to increase the engagement of all students in
scientific inquiry in their science classes (Peggy A. Ertmer J. A., 2014, p. 33).
For the principles vs. features approach to the Michael Bishop case I took the
information at face value and described the issues in concrete terms. I did not articulate
any principles relevant to understanding the situation. For the relationships among
issues, I took a novice approach as well. I presented a list of issues with no information
on how they are related to each other. For the Reflective vs. Reflective approach, I
focused on what I did not know which was a novice approach. I treated the lack of
information as the primary problem. I used to broad a range of information about this
case and did not focus on the details of the case.
Problem Solving Michael Bishop Case
Problem solving involves developing a clear and relevant solution plan that
explicitly describes how the proposed solutions address the issues that have been
identified (Peggy A. Ertmer D. A., 2005).
Relationship among Solutions
I took the novice approach for the Michael Bishop case and basically listed the
potential solutions. The potential solutions were listed as separate items and were not
connected to one another or to the main issue in this case.
Consideration of Implication
Reflection on my Developing Expertise 4

I took the novice approach to this. I listed a few alternatives. However, there was
no information included on how these alternatives will be put into practice or the effects
that the alternatives may have. The solutions were not thought through with any
complexity.
Flexible vs. Rigid
The solutions that I presented for the Michael Bishop case were not flexible and
were rigid. My proposed solution left no room for flexibility if everything did not go as
planned.
Craig Gregersen Case
After completing the Michael Bishop case, I believed that I had more of a grasp
on the case analysis process. I thought that the Michael Bishop case was where I got
my feet wet. It was a good starting point.
Problem Finding
Synthesize vs. Summarize
To synthesize something is different from summarizing it. Summarizing the case
involves identifying the main points and condensing important information into your own
words. Synthesizing the case takes the process of summarizing one step further.
Instead of just restating the important points from text, synthesizing involves combining
ideas and allowing an evolving understanding of text (Summarizing and Synthesizing:
Reflection on my Developing Expertise 5

What's the Difference?). Synthesizing uses higher order thinking. In the Craig
Gregersen case, I was a novice in my approach. I included a brief summary of the
situation and did not include any synthesis. I just listed the problem with very little
translation into my own words. I did not use any higher order thinking.
Principles vs. Features
In my review of the Craig Gregersen case, I listed the issues and did not discuss
the principles related to understanding the issues and I did not bring any learning
theories into my review of the issues. I took the novice approach here.
Relationships among Issues
In the Craig Gregersen case, I took the novice approach to looking at the issues
and how they are related. I presented a laundry list of issues with no consideration of
how the issues may be related.
Reflective vs. Reflexive
Being reflective is characterized by deep thought. When you reflect on
something you review and evaluate it. Reflexive is when you review something and take
into consideration the facts by using critical thinking. For the Craig Gregersen case, I
took the novice approach and gathered a broad range of information about the case. I
used very little critical thinking and focused on too much information. A narrower range
of information would have been more useful to solve this case.
Reflection on my Developing Expertise 6

Problem Solving
In my approach to solving the problems of the Craig Gregersen case, I took a
novice approach. For the relationships among issues, I presented a list of possible
solutions and did not connect them to each other. Each issue had its own possible
solution with the solutions to the issues not connected to each other.
Consideration of Implications
My approach to the solution for the Craig Gregersen case was that of a novice. I
provided very little detail in my solutions. I presented a list of possible solutions with no
information on how to put these solutions into effect. I did not put much depth into the
solutions.
Flexible vs. Rigid
My solution to the Craig Gregersen case was very rigid. My solution was as
follows: My final recommendation would be for Mr. Gregersen to hold a joint meeting
with the stakeholders and the top person at Electron. There was no flexibility with my
solution. I assumed that everything would go as planned and this rarely occurs as this is
not a perfect world. My whole approach to problem solving for the Craig Gregersen
case was that of a novice.
Lynn Dixon Case
Reflection on my Developing Expertise 7

The Lynn Dixon case was the third case that was analyzed. I still believed that I
was a novice with the case analysis process, but felt I was moving more towards
understanding the whole process and what needs to be done. For the problem finding
area, I would still classify myself as a novice. I summarized the problems in the case in
my own words and used a little synthesizing. I took a narrower approach to defining the
issues.
Principles vs. Features
In the Lynn Dixon case, I presented the issues, but did not articulate principles
that are relevant to understanding the situation (Peggy A. Ertmer D. A., 2005). I did
bring one learning theory into my analysis. I presented information on the analysis step:
The Analysis is the most important step in the process. It helps you to determine the
basis for all future decisions (The ADDIE Model). I was still a novice here, but starting
to grasp how the principles underlie the situation.
Relationship among Issues
In the Lynn Dixon case, I did not connect the issues to one another, which is
taking a novice approach. I listed all of the issues as separate items and did not relate
them to each other. I did not look for any type of relationship between the issues.
Reflective vs. Reflexive
For the Lynn Dixon case, I took the novice approach to gathering information
about the case. I gathered a broad range of information about the case. I focused too
Reflection on my Developing Expertise 8

much on what I did not know in this case and looked for information based on what I
thought should be done. I did not look at the value of the information.
Problem Solving Lynn Dixon Case
For the Lynn Dixon case my problem solving skills were that of a novice. I
developed a plan for addressing the issues in this case. However, my plan was
developed as a novice and not as an expert.
Relationship among Solutions
My plan was not that of an expert. It was that of a novice. Expert plans have their
solutions interlaced together. Expert plans also have links between the solutions and
the issues. My solutions were not linked to each other or to the central issue of this
case. The solutions were basically listed and were not interlaced together.
Consideration of Implications
My suggestions for the solution did not provide much detail. I did not include any
information about how the solution could be put to practice or any of the effects of the
solution. There was no discussion about the implications of using my solution. There
was no complexity to my solution.
Flexible vs. Rigid
Reflection on my Developing Expertise 9

The solution that I recommended was not at all flexible. There was no room for
modification of my solution or for the unanticipated. I did not make any room for a
second plan in case my original plan did not go as intended.
Scott Hunter Case
The Scott Hunter case was the second peer-facilitated case that I analyzed.
With this case I felt more confident in my case analysis abilities even though this case
had much information to absorb. I feel that I was again acting as a novice with this case.
Problem Finding
To become an expert in problem finding an individual must synthesize the
problem versus summarize the problem. In the Scott Hunter case I presented a short
summary of the problem with little synthesis. I synthesized the information about the
project management issue: Project Management is an issue in that the environment of
TCM has been through much turmoil with abusive clients (Kat), job turnover (Kat), job
restructuring (Bob Kelly), and job rotations (Antoinne) on the side of the client. I also
used my own words to identify other challenges in this case.
Principles vs. Features
In the Scott Hunter case, I presented the issues in the manner of a novice; at
face value. To become an expert I need to express principles relative to understanding
the situation. I am not there yet with this case.
Relationship among Issues
Reflection on my Developing Expertise 10

A novice looks at each of the issues in the case as a singular issue and does not
connect them together. My approach to the Scott Hunter case was that of a novice. I did
not connect the issues to each other. I did not create a link between the issues.
Reflective vs. Reflexive
In the Scott Hunter case, my approach was that of a novice. I focused on what I
thought should have been done and based this on a broad range of information. To
become an expert I need to focus on a narrower amount of information. My focus was
too broad and I needed to be more refined.
Problem Solving Scott Hunter case
Problem solving involves developing a clear and relevant solution plan that
explicitly describes how the proposed solutions address the issues that have been
identified (Peggy A. Ertmer D. A., 2005).
Relationships among Solutions
In the Scott Hunter case, I presented the solutions as a list with each item being
separate and not connected to another item. There was no relationship among my
solutions and that makes my approach a novice approach.
Consideration of Implications
Reflection on my Developing Expertise 11

The solutions that I presented in this case had no consideration for the effects of
the solutions. There was no information included on how the solutions may be
implemented or the effects of implementation. This approach was a novice approach.
Flexible vs. Rigid
The solutions that I presented were not at all trial solutions or solutions that could
be modified. They were very rigid solutions. There was no flexibility in my solutions. This
approach was a novice approach.
Action Plan for Moving Forward
In the four cases that we analyzed my thinking was that of a novice. I want to
gain more experience with case analysis and become an expert. Becoming an expert is
not something that will happen overnight. I believe that I have a long way to go. I need
to take my book knowledge and turn into real-world knowledge and expertise. My action
plan for moving forward to becoming an expert is to analyze many more cases to gain
more experience with the case analysis process. I also need to work on my critical
thinking skills so that case interpretation is something that I can excel at. Furthermore, I
need to hone up on my theoretical knowledge that will help me with case analysis.
Finally, the last area that I need to work on is action plans for problem solutions. To
become an expert I need to look at cases at a much deeper level than I currently am. I
do not believe that I will become an expert in a short amount of time. It may take years
for this to occur. In the meantime I will be somewhere between a novice and an expert.
The journey to becoming an expert will take time.
Reflection on my Developing Expertise 12

References
Ertmer, D. A. (2009). Teaching Instructional Design Expertise: Strategies to Support
Students' Problem Finding Skills. Tech., Inst., Cognition and Learning, 147-170.
Peggy A. Ertmer, D. A. (2005). Instructional Design Expertise: How Will We Know It
When We See It? Educational Technology, 38-43.
Peggy A. Ertmer, J. A. (2014). The ID CaseBook. Boston: Pearson.
Summarizing and Synthesizing: What's the Difference? (n.d.). Retrieved from
OSU.EDU: http://beyondpenguins.ehe.osu.edu/issue/climate-change-and-the-
polar-regions/summarizing-and-synthesizing-whats-the-difference
The ADDIE Model. (n.d.). Retrieved from Instructional Design Expert.com:
http://www.instructionaldesignexpert.com/addie.html