The analysis that precedes the design and development of instruction contains several key sub-analyses. Two of these components, the target population (or learner) and environment analyses, are showcased in the “Target Population & Environment” challenge. For this challenge, my Design Document, for my EDCI 572 class (Introduction to Learning Systems Design), was completed as part of the foundational work for a preteen drawing workshop is presented. In this document, a thorough analysis of the target learner population is undertaken, using multiple data collection points and references, along with a detailed analysis of the learning context and an exploration of how that learning context may affect the learners and learning process.

The Dick and Carey model of designing instruction, the model on which the drawing workshop, and therefore the Design Document, is based, plainly states the importance of analyzing the learner population and the environment in which they will be learning. According to Dick et al., the importance of the learner analysis and the context analysis lies in the impact the analyses have on “later design considerations, such as appropriate contexts, motivational information and activities, materials formatting, and the amount of material to be presented at one time” (2022, p. 109).  While the Design Document as a whole contains work beyond the learner and context analyses, these two categories are highlighted for quick identification; the learner analysis is in pink and the context analysis is in yellow. The highlighted portions show how the analysis data was gathered, both in a narrative form, which theoretical explanations, and a chart showing the different information categories, data sources, and resulting learner/environment characteristics discovered.

The learner analysis was completed using a survey distributed prior to the design of the workshop. In addition, a small cohort of learners was observed engaging in drawing activities and data was collected on characteristics such as entry skills, attitudes, prior knowledge, motivation, etc. Lastly, because the survey and observation pools represented a small group of learners personally known to the designer, empirical research was conducted. The observations and survey data was found to align with the collected research data. A combination of all three sources were used to create the learner analysis. Considering so carefully and intentionally the target learner population allowed me to design instruction that was at a developmentally appropriate level, as the participants ranged in age from 10 – 12 years old. A key factor that impacted the design of the instruction was the idea, taken from the research on the target population, that the learner population seeks autonomy and independence. Because of this, the workshop was structured so that most of the instructional time was actually spent in practical exercises that allowed the learners to apply what they were learning; they were able to spend their time “doing.” The instructional context was assessed using a site visit to determine characteristics that may impact learning such as technology needs, physical space comfort, interference of other environmental factors (noise, bright lights, etc.), availability of supplies, etc.

Without the full-scale learner and learning context analyses, instruction may not have been as successful, especially for a designer like me, who is accustomed to designing instruction for adults rather than preteens (the learners in this situation). However, the participants were personally known to me (including two of my own children who participated). Although not always appropriate, in this case, the background knowledge was helpful. It was also helpful to have multiple data collection points to corroborate the analysis so that I was not relying solely on personal experiential data.

The Design Document shows my ability to conduct sound analyses, both on the target learner population and on the learning context. The process of going through the Dick and Carey model step by step afforded me the opportunity to focus on each component and explore every facet of the step. While this may not be practical in every project in my career, I did learn a lot about the value of robust analysis and the influence it has on the design and development of appropriate and effective instruction for the target population. As I continue in my career, I plan to advocate for quality analysis, particularly for high-value, high-visibility, and/or high-resource projects; I believe quality analysis is a foundational component of quality instructional products.

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O., (2022). The systematic design of instruction (9th ed.). Pearson.