OVERVIEW:
A presentation given at the annual meeting of the association for educational communications and technology (AECT), Long Beach, CA, February 17, 2000 8:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.
Co-presented by: Anthony Betrus & William Sugar
Co-contributor: Mark Rixman

SHORT DESCRIPTION: (As it appears in the Conference Program)
One of the most fundamental undertakings of any ID program is to help students to understand who an Instructional Designer is, and what this person does. An instructional card game was developed to serve this purpose. The card game is based on the fundamental concept of archetypes, which represent the various roles that an Instructional Designer could take on, depending on the situation.

ABSTRACT:
One of the most fundamental undertakings of any Instructional Design program is to help students to understand who an Instructional Designer is, and what this person does. Usually, when beginning a graduate program in Instructional Design, students have various conceptions, some accurate, and some not. It is usually the role of the faculty member teaching the introductory course in the program to convey to the students the various aspects of Instructional Design. The initial attempt at this is usually done through various methods, including textbook readings, classroom discussions, and sometimes quizzes or tests.

The current study outlines the development of a complementary approach to introducing students to the concept of Instructional Design. This approach does not seek to supplant current methods of instruction, but rather offer an alternative instructional component.. With collaboration among faculty members from two Universities, and students in a graduate seminar in simulations and games, an instructional card game was developed to serve this purpose. The card game is based on the fundamental concept of archetypes, which represent the various roles that an Instructional Designer could take on, depending on the situation. The concept of archetypes is useful in helping students to see that an instructional designer is actually many different people at once, with the ability to adapt, depending on the context that is presented.

The game as it was designed seeks to help the students to understand the various attributes of an instructional designer, which depend on the archetypal ‘hat’ that the designer is wearing at the time. The game is set up to be a cooperative game, in which the goal is not to win, but to discuss the various archetypes. There are five archetypes in the game, which include: ‘the designer as artist’, ‘the designer as counselor’, ‘the designer as user’, ‘the designer as problem solver’, and a wildcard category. Each of the five archetypes has a card in the game. There are two other sets of cards, an attribute set of twenty cards, and a corresponding example set of twenty cards, for a total of forty-five total cards in the set. The twenty attribute cards are divided into five groups of four cards, with each group of four cards corresponding to one of the archetype cards. For example, there are four attribute cards for the archetype card ‘the designer as problem solver’, four attribute cards for the archetype card of the ‘the designer as artist’, and four attributes cards for each of the remaining archetypes. The twenty example cards each correspond to one of the attribute cards. For example, for the archetype cards ‘designer as problem solver’, one of the attribute cards is ‘be effective and efficient’, and the corresponding example card is ‘offer solutions which require the fewest possible resources to get he job done.’ Thus for each archetype card, there are four attributes cards, and an example card for each of the attribute cards.

The gameplay is set up to be very basic, with the goal of the game being to match the attribute cards with the archetypes cards in the first round, and then to match the example cards to the attribute cards in the second round. To get started, 2-6 players sit at a table with a deck of cards. The five archetype cards are laid out on the table in a row, with about one foot of space separating each cards from the next. The attribute cards are shuffled and placed on the table, and the example cards are shuffled and placed on the table. A person is then randomly chosen (by any equitable means) to take the first card in the attribute deck and read it, without showing it, to the people at the table. The person reading the card will be aware of which archetype the attribute belongs to, as for each attribute card, there is an icon on the card which matches an icon represented one of the five archetype cards. It is then up to the people at the table to discuss which archetype they think this attribute belongs to. They must all come to a consensus, select an archetype, and then the person reading the card places the attribute card next to the archetype the group selected. If they selected correctly, it stays, and if they selected incorrectly, they are instructed to discuss why they selected the archetype they did, and why it might fit with the archetype listed on the card. This gameplay dynamic is intentional, as it requires students to discuss the sometimes overlapping attributes that the archetypes have. After the first round is completed, the students move into the second round, in which they draw example cards and discuss which attribute they believe the example corresponds to. The students are also encouraged to outline examples from there own experiences which could correspond to the example card that is being played.

This game has currently been developed, and is in the process of being tested at two Universities offering graduate degrees in Instructional Design. The goal of using this game is to offer a game which helps Instructional Design students to understand the various roles and responsibilities of an Instructional Designer. The game is designed to first discuss abstract concepts, and then to gradually move towards tying these concepts to examples and the students’ own experiences. Finally, while this game was designed for an introductory setting, experiences using this game with advanced graduate students and faculty members have also proven to be extremely valuable. This is likely because the learning takes place in the discussion of the archetypes among the people that are playing the game, which can be useful for Instructional Designers at any level.