Katie Clayton

EDCI 672
December 3, 2013
Developing Expertise Reflection

Michael Bishop, Rhonda Park, Jack Waterkamp

Reflecting back on the semester, I know I have greatly improved in my case analysis skills while I
know I will still fall into the occasional trap I am now much more likely to ask questions (LOTS of
questions) before just jumping into a case. Review of each case study analysis provides insight
into areas of both personal strength and weakness.
Problem Finding
Throughout the semester, I have greatly improved identifying the key design challenge in the
each case. Many of the cases have distractors that make me think and try to throw me off of the
key design challenge but I have gotten much better at defining the key design vs. case specific
challenges. This is apparent in reviewing the key design challenge I identified in each case:
Rhonda Park: The key design challenge in the Rhonda Park case is designing the
instruction appropriately to fit the needs of the Wabash School Corporation
teachers. (Clayton, 2013)
Michael Bishop: The key design challenge in the Michael Bishop case is
implementation of the educational games in the traditional middle school
science classroom. (Clayton, 2013)
Jack Waterkamp: The key design challenge in the Jack Waterkamp case is
developing the instruction to accurately represent the CRM software product at
the time of launch. (Clayton, 2013)
Katie Clayton
EDCI 672
December 3, 2013
Developing Expertise Reflection

Michael Bishop, Rhonda Park, Jack Waterkamp

In each case, I simply identified the issue and moved on without adding unnecessary details or
summarizing the case. I no longer focus on people as I did early in the semester I stay objective
and unemotionally involved. I now simply focus on the problem at hand.
Summarize vs. Synthesize
While I still occasionally summarize rather than synthesize, I have made significant
improvements in this particular area of expertise. My occasional tendency to summarize but
follow up with synthesis is highlighted by the use of direct quotes when identifying the case
specific issues.
Rhonda Parks: However, after the teacher in-service day where she went
through the basics of using the LMS and other programs, she was disappointed
to hear and observe the training was ineffective with only approximately 20%
of the teachers had logged in and were using the resources (Besser, et al.,
2012). The minimally effective initial training conducted by Rhonda seems to
indicate a variety of issues within this case including poor learner analysis,
technology apprehension, breakdown/lack of open communication, and lack of
upper administration support. (Clayton, 2013)
In the Rhonda Park case I utilized a direct quote to highlight how few teachers had utilized the
online training. But the following sentence provides a synthesis of all of the case specific issues
that impacted the previously quoted statistic providing nice balance.
Katie Clayton
EDCI 672
December 3, 2013
Developing Expertise Reflection

Michael Bishop, Rhonda Park, Jack Waterkamp

Michael Bishop: It seems that Michael must decide if he is committed to use in
the regular everyday classroom and will make adjustments to the
program/game accordingly. Or if he is committed to the set up and structure of
the game and is willing to look for implementation in settings outside of the
everyday classroom? (Clayton, 2013)
The above quote from the Michael Bishop case analysis provides a great example of synthesis of
a problem. This quote identifies the key challenge of implementation while also bringing the
case specific issues into the picture. No direct quotes from the text and a focus on providing an
overarching image of the issues demonstrates movement from summary to synthesis.
Jack Waterkamp: Jack has put in place a solid design plan as well as
implementation plan; however, the content from which he is to develop the
instructional materials from is changing thereby making this a development
problem. Other case specific issues are the ever shortening timeline, tight
budget, very busy limited staff, lack of buy-in from Melissa on the effectiveness
of online training as well as a tiny glitch in the software development.
(Clayton, 2013).
Finally, the Jack Waterkamp also provides a synthesis of the key design challenge in the case
while also delving deeper into the issue but highlighting specific related challenges.
Principles vs. Features
Katie Clayton
EDCI 672
December 3, 2013
Developing Expertise Reflection

Michael Bishop, Rhonda Park, Jack Waterkamp

Looking at my analysis of the three cases as well as comparing to earlier in the semester, initially
I had a tendency to focus on features of the case and people rather than the overarching
principles and goals of the case. But I have continued to improve throughout the course of the
semester. For example, in Beth Owens, I simply could not look past the individual features of
each person and face value of information provided in the case description to identify the
principle issues at play. The first and probably biggest case specific issue is the strong
personality of Chef Reiner and his likely opposition to a constructivist method of instruction.
(Clayton, 2013). While I thought I was focusing on principles, particularly teaching principles, I
was so caught up in the features of the case I misevaluated the actual problem. In the Rhonda
Park and Jack Waterkamp cases I successfully avoided solely focusing on the people in the case
and was more aware of the principles surrounding the problem.
Rhonda Parks: In Rhondas efforts to revise and improve the training her
biggest contributing challenge is the lack of open communication and support
from the superintendent in who to hire to assist in the revisions of the training.
Because of the lack of open communication and support, Rhonda is now in the
position of trying to identify the best method of moving forward with revisions
while working with an online learning guru, the superintendents niece.
(Clayton, 2013)
In Rhondas case I could have focused solely on Phoebe as the problem; however, I recognized it
as a problem separate from Phoebe that was actually a communication problem between
Rhonda and the superintendent. Similarly, Jack really needed to get buy-in from Melissa in order
Katie Clayton
EDCI 672
December 3, 2013
Developing Expertise Reflection

Michael Bishop, Rhonda Park, Jack Waterkamp

for the training to be successful. While Melissa and her thoughts and attitudes are a factor in
this case I was able to see the entire picture as a whole.
Jack Waterkamp: Other case specific issues are the ever shortening timeline,
tight budget, very busy limited staff, lack of buy-in from Melissa on the
effectiveness of online training as well as a tiny glitch in the software
development. (Clayton, 2013)
Marked improvement is visible in the final three case study analysis in my ability to analyze for
principles rather than only features.
Relationship among Issues
Understanding relationships among issues has been a strong point for me from the beginning.
However, there is always room for growth which has occurred when comparing the
relationships made in each case.
Rhonda Park: Not only is there a design and development issue in this case study, there
is also a gap of not completing a full learner analysis. Not completing a full learner
analysis contributed to the ineffective initial training. Had a full learner analysis been
completed, Rhonda would have been aware of the technology apprehension a majority
of the teachers had and likely would not have put everything online from the start or
put other support structures in place for the teachers. (Clayton, 2013)
Michael Bishop: A science class in the computer lab for two weeks also hinders use by
other classes in the school. Cultural focus on standardized testing performance is a
Katie Clayton
EDCI 672
December 3, 2013
Developing Expertise Reflection

Michael Bishop, Rhonda Park, Jack Waterkamp

significant barrier to implementation in the everyday classroom if no direct correlation
can be drawn from educational gaming and positive test performance. It seems that
Michael must decide if he is committed to use in the regular everyday classroom and
will make adjustments to the program/game accordingly. Or if he is committed to the
set up and structure of the game and is willing to look for implementation in settings
outside of the everyday classroom. (Clayton, 2013)
Jack Waterkamp: The number one case specific issue that is impacting development is
the tiny glitch in the software development process (Ertmer, 2014) Jacks team was
effectively prepared to make small necessary changes prior to product launch; however,
the limited staff on such a short timeline it will be nearly impossible to completely
change 3 modules of content which they do not know exactly what to change the
content to. The tight budget also limits the ability to add addition people to the
project Finally, the lack of confidence and buy-in from Melissa adds another area of
damage control Jack must take care of instead of completely focusing on the software
and instructional changes. (Clayton, 2013)
As in real life and most of the cases we looked at this semester, in addition to the key design
problem there are always other challenges that compound the situation and make it even more
difficult. In all three final cases I effectively focused on the skills and tools needed in each case.
Each lacking skill or tool, all interacted with the key design challenge to create the overall
problem each designer attempts to solve.
Reflective vs. Reflexive
Katie Clayton
EDCI 672
December 3, 2013
Developing Expertise Reflection

Michael Bishop, Rhonda Park, Jack Waterkamp

At the beginning of the semester I was very novice in this particular aspect of analysis. I had a
tendency to focus on all the unanswered questions and missing information rather than what is
available to work with to get the job done. I believe I have improved in this area of analysis with
the remaining cases. The Rhonda Park case is a great example of this.
Rhonda Park: Not completing a full learner analysis contributed to the
ineffective initial training. Had a full learner analysis been completed, Rhonda
would have been aware of the technology apprehension a majority of the
teachers had and likely would not have put everything online from the start or
put other support structures in place for the teachers. (Clayton, 2013)
In this case, I did identify the lack of a full learner analysis as a weakness and case specific
challenge; however, in my final recommendation I did not suggest a learner analysis be
completed. The first attempt at the instruction provided Rhonda the learning curve she needed
to recognize the technology apprehension of most of the teachers. This was enough information
for her to move forward and work on redesigning the instruction, therefore the focus was on
design and implementation rather than learner analysis. Similarly in the Michael Bishop case, I
was able to recognize the need for Michael to choose how he would move forward with the
project rather than what he could have done better. Additionally, I have noticed that as a group
we have moved on from always wanting to discuss analysis in class to focusing on how to move
forward rather than start over.

Katie Clayton
EDCI 672
December 3, 2013
Developing Expertise Reflection

Michael Bishop, Rhonda Park, Jack Waterkamp

Problem Solving
Being able to identify the actual problem in each case rather than be distracted by the case
specific issues has allowed me to improve my problem solving skills as well, particularly since I
am working to solve the correct problem. While I believe I have definitely moved from being a
novice in problem solving in each case, I dont think I am quite an expert yet. But I have moved
forward on the continuum!
Relationship among solutions
Early in the semester I had a tendency to identify numerous issues and how they were related
but failed to actually address them all in the recommended solution. While I do not feel like I
can effectively address them all yet, I have improved in actually acknowledging them in the
solution and addressing them to the best of my current abilities.
For example in the Rhonda Park case, I recommended Rhonda Work with Phoebe to identify
ways to motivate teachers to utilize online information, and reduce apprehension. And/or
possibly find ways to incorporate a blended learning approach. Rhonda may also want to
consider meeting with the superintendent and/or the school board regarding future hiring
decisions as nepotism is a practice typically frowned upon. Taking the opportunity to work with
Phoebe may turn out well in the end; however, simply ignoring the issue of nepotism is
unethical. (Clayton, 2013). This recommendation addresses the issue of redesign of the
instructional material, working to best meet a timeline, and working with Phoebe. But the
recommendation also does not ignore the question of nepotism that I felt was a strong case
Katie Clayton
EDCI 672
December 3, 2013
Developing Expertise Reflection

Michael Bishop, Rhonda Park, Jack Waterkamp

specific issue. While some that reviewed my recommendations for this case saw them as a very
strong position to take asking for review of the superintendents hiring practices, the
recommendation did directly address the issues.
Similarly, in the Jack Waterkamp case, I was able to recognize the numerous problems and
issues in the case that needed to be addressed and mentioned a method of addressing each in
my final recommendation. While I was a bit vague in how I would actually go about being
supportive and encouraging of his current team since the timeline and budget restrictions will
not allow for additional personnel, I did raise it up as something that would be addressed in the
solution (Clayton, 2013).
Finally, in the Michael Bishop case I believe I did effectively address each of the issues identified
in the case. Moving the educational game activities to homework type assignments rather than
in class assignments removes the implementation barrier of time... This recommendation
provides Michael with the data he has been funded to gather with the correct target audience.
(Clayton, 2013). This particular solution did create some other issues of accessibility that needed
to be taken care of, which a reasonable solution was provided for those issues as well.
Consideration of Implications
The requirements provided in the syllabus to guide students through the case analysis process
provides a perfect framework to ensure consideration of implications. Asking students to list the
pros and cons of each solution recommendation, literally begs the question what are the
implications? After creating at least two recommendations for the lead designer, listing the pros
Katie Clayton
EDCI 672
December 3, 2013
Developing Expertise Reflection

Michael Bishop, Rhonda Park, Jack Waterkamp

and cons of each provided me an opportunity to think about if the solution is indeed reasonable
and may actually work. In two cases I struggled with coming up with a second reasonable
solution. For example, in the Jack Waterkamp case my second recommendation was to focus on
the in-class training first for the November launch and then worry about the online component.
Technically this was not a reasonable solution because it did not meet the mandate of the
CEO. Similarly in the Rhonda Park case my second recommendation was focused solely on the
hiring of the superintendents niece and did not at all address the key design challenge in the
case. But the second option in each case did provide reasonable solutions which effectively
addressed the implications of the solution
My analysis of the Rhonda Park case provides the best example of consideration of implications:
In order to continue moving the project forward Rhonda should take an open minded
approach and work with Phoebe. Although Phoebe has a focus on online learning and
based on her website appears to be a guru, she also has a Ph.D. in instructional design
which we can assume means she will be familiar with a wide variety of theories and
models including the Dick & Carey model. *+ Phoebe may be able to suggest a variety
of tools or characteristics to include, making the training more successful and still
remaining online. *+ Putting faith in Phoebes abilities will help create a favorable work
environment between both Rhonda and Phoebe. But Rhonda should also be prepared
should the second attempt at training fail. *+ Making the decision to move forward,
working with Phoebe helps make sure the project is not delayed further and revisions
can be started as soon as possible. *+ Rhonda should consider meeting with the
Katie Clayton
EDCI 672
December 3, 2013
Developing Expertise Reflection

Michael Bishop, Rhonda Park, Jack Waterkamp

superintendent one on one to express her concerns about having the support and
backing of her superiors in the future and make a commitment to better the
communication between the two of them.
Flexible vs. Rigid
Finally, when reflecting on the solutions I recommended for each case, I believe I have moved
from a novice to more of an intermediate expert as I have become more flexible in my
recommendations. I was much more flexible in the Rhonda Park case and Jack Waterkamp
cases. For example, in Jacks case I utilized the word may in the solution providing flexibility
Jack may need to leverage Elizabeths authority in an effort to get Melissa on board with the
online training and the need for a team effort during this critical time. (Clayton, 2013). Similarly
in Rhondas case I recognize that things may not go as planned and Rhonda should have a
backup plan in place:
Rhonda should consider meeting with the superintendent one on one to express her
concerns about having the support and backing of her superiors in the future and make
a commitment to better the communication between the two of them. But Rhonda
must keep in mind that this approach may or may not be successful. In order to address
the unethical hiring practices of the superintendent, Rhonda should inform the school
board of the situation and ask that hiring policies and practices be reviewed for future
employee hires. (Clayton, 2013)

Katie Clayton
EDCI 672
December 3, 2013
Developing Expertise Reflection

Michael Bishop, Rhonda Park, Jack Waterkamp

Marked improvement is noted in my flexibility with Rhonda & Jack; however, I find I was more
rigid in my solution for Michael. In Michaels case I felt he had to choose and commit to either
his original target audience or his original set up and structure of the game. Because I did not
feel there was much flexibility in the choice Michael had to make I believe that was reflected in
my recommendation for Michael on how to move forward. Although I tried to find a solution
utilizing the best of both worlds, there was little flexibility in the wording as well as little to no
room for a backup plan should things not go well.
I feel this course has done the job it was created to do, and that is to grow each of us in how we
think about and approach a situation/problem. I have learned it is vital to ask LOTS of questions
up front, never to take someones word at face value always dig a little deeper, in real life
there often times is not more time or money to give to the situation, and that at some point you
must stop analyzing and move forward to actually working/doing. And finally, things dont
always go as planned so be prepared.
References:
Clayton, K.E. (2013). Rhonda Parks Case Study Analysis.
Clayton, K.E. (2013). Michael Bishop Case Study Analysis.
Clayton, K.E. (2013). Jack Waterkamp Case Study Analysis.
Ertmer, P.A., Quinn, J.A., & Glazewski, K.D. (2014). The ID CaseBook: Case studies in instructional
design (4
th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.