1

Needs Analysis

Analysed opportunities and constraints in
using C&IT

i.e. analysed the needs or requirements
Put simply, the goal is to describe the gap
between where the students are and where
we want them to be, before we can design
the bridge they can cross.
2
Sources of needs analysis
(more of later?)
Learning technology integration
e.g. Stoner, Laurillard, Conole & Oliver
Instructional design e.g. Gagn , Shuell
Curriculum design e.g. Taba
Action research e.g. Kemmis & McTaggart
Training needs analysis e.g. Peterson
Learning needs analysis
Systems analysis for software development
e.g. Yourdon
3
A needs analysis
Tasks some or all of
1. Review the current course, if any
2. Analyze the stakeholders especially
students
3. Analyze the subject domain
4. Analyze the learning outcomes
5. Analyze the teaching/learning activities
6. Analyze the constraints and resources
7. Analyze the evaluation methods needed

4
Stakeholder analysis
Who are they? Who cares?
What will they want from the intervention?
Are we prepared to give it them?
They include
The tutor, programme assessment
Students
Colleagues
The department
The QA office, the QAA
The university
5
The students
What relevant knowledge and skills?
How varied are they in knowledge and learning
styles?
How well can they learn? What study skills?
What motivation and interests, attitudes to
teaching/learning methods?
What obstacles to their learning, such as
anxiety, colour blindness, lack of concentration,
computer access?
6
The subject domain
In commercial training needs analysis only
task performance counts
In higher education emphasis is on the
knowledge underpinning performance, and
generic cognitive skills
We may need to represent the knowledge
domain, the context of learning activities and
outcomes
So we might use knowledge elicitation and
knowledge representation techniques
7
Knowledge elicitation
Informal interviews with experts.
This reveals their view of the domain.
Observation of actual performance of
expertise done in a natural context.
Verbal protocols in an assessment situation.
A protocol provides a framework for
capturing the knowledge in a skilled
performance.

8
Knowledge represented as
living things
mammals
animals
humans
dogs
female humans
Julia
movement
respiration
growth
plants
movement
have
have
have
not have
ako
ako
ako
ako
ako
isa
ako = class is A Kind Of
isa = individual Is A
orchids
ako
Danny
whippets
ako
isa
Semantic net
9
Pyramid of learning outcomes
to be
able to
to be
able to
to be
able to
to be
able to
to be
able to
to be
able to
to be
able to
to be
able to
to be
able to
to be
able to
to be
able to
to be
able to
Pre-requisites
to be
able to
to be
able to
to be
able to
to be
able to
10
TLAs: traditional
Acquisition reading, lectures
Practice - exercises, problems
Discussion seminars, tutorials
Discovery field trips, practicals
Assessment essays, exams
11
TLAs
Laurillards teaching strategy
Four aspects of TLAs
Discursive
discussion of goals and conceptions
Adaptive
students relate feedback on their work to their
conceptions
Interactive
acting to achieve a goal and receive feedback
Reflective
reflect on their actions in the light of conceptions
12
TLAs: Laurillards
Conversational Framework
In more detail, 12 activities of which 10 are:
Receiving information
Describing own conceptions (verbally, writing..)
Correcting misconceptions from feedback
Re-describing improved conceptions
Performing tasks
Receiving feedback on tasks
Improving performance of tasks
Reflecting on performance to improve conceptions
Reflecting on conceptions to improve performance
13
concrete experience
abstract conceptualization
reflective observation active experimentation
four stages of learning from experience:
TLAs: Kolbs cycle
14
TLAs: Robert Gagn
The nine instructional events
Use LT to support
1. Gain attention
2. Tell learners the learning objective
3. Stimulate recall
4. Present the stimulus, content
5. Provide guidance, relevance, organization
6. Elicit the learning by demonstrating it
7. Provide feedback on performance
8. Assess performance, give feedback and
reinforcement
9. Enhance retention and transfer to other contexts
15
TLAs:
Shuells Learning Functions
1. Expectations must be set
2. Motivation must be gained and maintained
3. Prior knowledge needs activation
4. Draw attention to important items
5. Encoding: help remembering, give personal
meaning with diagrams, examples
6. Comparisons: encourage with diagrams,
charts, questions
16
Shuells Learning Functions - 2
7. Hypothesis generation, encourage thinking of
alternative actions
8. Repetition: guided practice or reflection, multiple
examples or perspectives
9. Relevant feedback and correction
10. Evaluation of feedback as basis of next activity
11. Monitoring - check for understanding
12. Integration: provide ways to combine, integrate,
synthesize, with graphics, multimedia


17
Constraints & resources
Learning technology availability
When: deadlines, time available
Who is available to do what
How tools and resources available
Other costs
18
Summative evaluation, what will count as
success? (from Kirkpatrick, four ripples)
1. What happened in use?
Did learners, teachers use it? Like it?
2. Were learning outcomes achieved?
Was student performance improved?
3. Were the outcomes transferable to real
situations?
4. What were the wider effects?
On students, staff departments, institution
The evaluation in outline
19
Criticisms of needs analysis
The unit of analysis is too small. Decomposition
emphasizes elements but not their integration or
application - does not encourage constructivist
learning, synthesis, generic skills.
Hierarchies of objectives (or content) are too
simple for the richer interrelations of real domains.
Instructional strategies can become just the
integration of small items of learning.
?
20
References 1
Bostock S.J. 1996 A critical review of Laurillards classification
of educational media Journal of Instructional Science
24,71-88
Gagn R M and Medsker K L, The conditions of learning:
training applications 1996, Harcourt Brace
Harmon, P. and King, D. 1985 Representing knowledge New
York: Wiley
Kirkpatrick D L Evaluating Training Programs
Kemmis S & McTaggart R 1988 (eds) The Action Research
Planner 3
rd
ed. Deakin University Press
Laurillard D. Rethinking University Education, 1994 Routledge
and second edition 2002
Marshall, I.M., Samson, W.B., Dugard, P.I. & Scott, WA
Predicting the development effort of multimedia courseware
Information and Software Technology 1994 36 (5) 251-258
Oliver, M. and Conole, G. 1998 A pedagogical framework for
embedding C&IT into the curriculum ALT-J 6 (2)
21
References 2

Pederson, K. Expert systems programming: practical
techniques for rule-based systems 1989 London: John
Wiley
Peterson, R. 1992 Training needs analysis in the workplace
London: Kogan Page
Shuell, T. 1992, Designing Instructional Computing Systems
for Meaningful Learning, in P. Winne & M.Jones (eds)
Adaptive Learning Environments: foundations and Frontiers,
New York: Springer Verlag
Stoner G. A conceptual framework for the integration of
learning technology, chapter 3 in Implementing Learning
Technology, LTDI, Heriot-Watt 1996
http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/ltdi/implementing-it/implt.pdf
Taba H. 1971 The functions of a conceptual framework for
curriculum design 134-152 in R. Hooper (ed.) The
Curriculum: context, design and development Open
University Press