The ID was approached with a perceived problem: The Computers in Education course taught at the college was being taught without the benefit of a sound instructional design and the instructor was basically spending the semester showing pre service teachers a variety of software without any regard for practical pedagogical application.

To begin to deal with the problem, the ID began to focus on analysis of the larger environment before committing to development of a solution. The ID began with a data collection phase to determine the feasibility and desirability of developing an instructional solution to the "problem." This process allowed for the determination of whether there was a real problem that could be dealt with an instructional solution or whether it was a simple personnel problem.

The lack of an assessment instrument to ascertain incoming skill/ability levels for entering teacher education program participants compounded the problem of ascertaining needs and required steps to create solutions. Therefore the following needs were described in order to acquire the appropriate data to inform the determination of the true nature of the problem and the possible solutions to be recommended.

1. Document a set of standards to appeal to for assessment.

2. Provide practical, hands on training in a classroom setting.

3. Employ a well qualified instructor to teach the course

4. Make the proposed course a required component for every student in the Teacher Prep program.

5. Evaluate the incoming proficiencies of students in several computer related areas: Internet, Data handling, Basic computer skills, and presentation skills.

6. Perform a gap analysis of Student abilities in relation to the control criteria as expressed in the documented standards.

7. Design the ensuing instruction to take in to account these real and perceived needs.

8. Create and utilize an assessment rubric which will evaluate real learning changes.

Lack of an instructor who has mastery level skills.

Lack of clearly defined course objectives.

Problem of course tasks not matching objectives

Too much dependence on software solutions.

Lack of collaborative opportunities for learning.

Lack of organizational consensus on curriculum for course district wide.

Turnover of instructors.

Project Start Date: October 17, 2000

Project End Date: December 5, 2000

Needs Analysis- October 30

Audience Profile- November 6

Objectives written- November 10

Course map- November 14

Learner Activities selected -November 18

Specific instructional problem targeted- November 24

Micro design complete- November 30

Evaluation design- December 7