A Qualitative Cross-Case Analysis of Three Real-World Mobile Performance Support Design Models

• Other Authors: Dick, Walter David (authoraut)
• Format: Others
• Language: English; English
• Published: Florida State University
• Subjects: Instructional systems > Design; Information technology; Information science
• Online Access: http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_FA2016_Dick_fsu_0071E_13561

Traditional Instructional Systems Design (ISD) has focused upon measurable learning, but the emerging emphasis on informal methods of learning, combined with powerful mobile computing devices, is turning the spotlight to mobile performance support (mPS) in lieu of formal instruction. However, there is thus far little research into how to design effective mPS, what design principles should be brought to bear, how mPS tools should be evaluated, and so on (Martin, Díaz, Martínez-Mediano, Sancristobal, Oliva, Peire, & Castro, 2010; Paino & Rossett, 2008), leaving designers of mPS without evidence-based guidance for their practice. To capture a picture of methodologies presently being used to design mPS, as well as the perceived effectiveness of those methods, three recent examples of mPS were examined and the individuals responsible for them were interviewed. The first case was the "Bedsider", created by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, a private, nonprofit organization. The second case was a "Turbulence App", created by Delta Air Lines, Inc., a publicly traded for-profit organization. The final case was the "Prescribed Fire Smoke Management Pocket Guide", or "Smoke App", created through the collaboration of the U.S. Department of Defense’s Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative and the Southeastern Regional Partnership for Planning And Sustainability. Each case study focused upon process employed, results, and concerns. Cross-case analysis examined similarities and differences between the methodologies, as well as apparent importance of the variation. The individual mPS design approaches were compared with traditional ISD methodology, and the three mPS design models were aggregated into a consensus mPS design model (CDM) and compared with traditional ISD methodology to identify any significant differences. This study sought to answer two major questions and two related secondary questions. The first major question was, what mPS design methodologies are organizations actually using? The individual design models in use are described in each case study. The second major question was, how do the methodologies in use compare with traditional instructional design methodology? Although similar in many ways, there were important divergences, particularly with regard to analysis and evaluation activities. The answer to the third questions, how the mPS methodologies in actual use are perceived in terms of effectiveness, was unequivocal. The sponsors of all three cases expressed complete satisfaction with the resulting mPS tools and with the outcomes. The fourth question was, how might the mPS design methodologies in actual use be improved? Several interviewees shared notions of what they "would do differently next time", and the consensus model provided the basis for suggestions for improvement in the front-end and back-end design activities. The significance of this study lies in the documentation of design procedures presently used to create mPS, and the description of how instructional designers might wish to approach the design of mPS in the future. This study helped identify and describe models in actual use in three organizations representing for-profit, not-for-profit, and government sectors, and examined the implications of differences between those models and traditional ISD methodology. This research also makes recommendations for improvement in mPS design practices. Those who follow this advice may find that they design better mPS applications === A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems in partial fulfillment of the Doctor of Philosophy. === Fall Semester 2016. === November 10, 2016. === ADDIE, EPSS, instructional design, mLearning, mobile, performance support === Includes bibliographical references. === Robert A. Reiser, Professor Directing Dissertation; Stephen D. McDowell, University Representative; Vanessa P. Dennen, Committee Member; Marcy P. Driscoll, Committee Member; James D. Klein, Committee Member.