Analyzing Scope Creep

       A few years ago, I was involved with an instructional design project to develop instructor led courses for the military. We were already familiar with the client having developed courses for them four years prior. We knew the client had a reputation for not clearly articulating their needs up front and coming to us late in development with add-ons. Nevertheless, we gave them the benefit of a doubt.

       We had a statement of work, but it was not very specific about what exactly had to be developed. We worked extensively with subject matter experts during the first month of design. We completed a design document and the unit verbally okayed the plan. We worked expeditiously toward our goal of completing four courses, over 200 hours of training in 9 months.

       Half way through the project we began developing the media presentations. It was at this point that the client realized they wanted something entirely different. It was not what they envisioned and they wanted to add some more topics. We ended up having to rewrite the design documents and several lesson plans and also create one new lesson plan. 

       The project had to be extended by about 3 months, and we had to hire consultants to help. In retrospect, what we should have obtained written approval of the design document before the project began. The document should have clearly stated what was to be developed, and it should have been signed off by each subject matter expert, the course manager, and the commanding officer. When they asked to change the plan, we could have pointed back to the agreement.

Estimating Costs and Allocating Resources

This week in my Walden University Project Management (EDU-6145-1) class, I am required to look for sites that offer help with estimating costs, effort, and activity durations associated with instructional design projects. A plethora of information exists to explain the various methods of estimation for projects in general, but I did not find many sites that offer free estimation tools in the form of online apps or downloadable software. Some went as far as to offer free Microsoft Excel spreadsheet templates and explanations about how to construct your own estimation tools. Here is one example: http://konigi.com/tools/schedule-and-cost-summary-calculator. In the past, I have most often created my own estimation tools in spreadsheets since they are specifically designed for performing calculations. This makes the job of calculating cost, effort, and durations simple. It is a matter of looking up a formula in help or online and then copying and modifying it to fit your needs.

The first site I stumbled across that looked interesting was one that offered assistance in understanding the various kinds of estimates from a software development perspective. The site is located at http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/jun07/temnenco/index.html. It is not written in relation to instructional design; however, it applies to instructional design in that software project management and ISD are similar work processes. The site explained past and present estimation models and has good and simple graphics to help visualize the processes. It lists some of the available estimation tools in Table 1. At the end is a list of articles outlining best practices and sources for more information. In this article, I especially like how it illustrates the top down and bottom up estimation models as is explained in our course text (Portny, 2008).

One size fits all rules of thumb in estimating instructional design projects are not practical (Greer, 2009). The second useful site I found presents reasonable estimate times for how long it takes to develop one hour of training. The site is located at http://www.astd.org/Publications/Newsletters/Learning-Circuits/Learning-Circuits-Archives/2009/08/Time-to-Develop-One-Hour-of-Training. It might be surprising to you that according it should take about 43 hours to develop one hour of stand-up classroom instruction according to the survey taken in 2009. This is probably still very accurate since the process of instructional design has not changed much in the past five years. If you do find this number surprising, you probably have not ever developed a course that is built on adequate analysis, sound instructional objectives, learning theory, and also required media, lesson plans, and other supporting materials that go along with it. If you are surprised, I am guessing that you probably have developed PowerPoints which some people call the curriculum. Now that I have your attention, explore the site above and see why it takes so much time to develop good instructional products, and note that the site does not include the time it takes for formative and summative evaluations which are typically required of any instructional design project. These need to be added to the time given in the chart.

References

Greer, M. (2009). Michael Greer’s PM Resources. Retrieved from http://michaelgreer.biz/?p=279

Portny, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer, B. E. (2008). Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Communicating Effectively

This week in my EDUC-6145-1 Project Management class at Walden University, I was asked to view a multimedia program called “The Art of Effective Communication (Laureate, n.d.).” In this program, I viewed a project manager named Jane communicating with someone named Mark about a deadline. The message was presented in three modalities: email, voicemail, and face to face. I am asked to interpret the message as it was delivered in each modality and point out if anything changed in interpretation from one point to the next. I am also asked to share what it implies about communicating effectively to members of a project team and what I learned that will help me communicate more effectively.

Jane is asking Mark to send an ETA on the missing report. She explains that she will miss her deadline if he does not send the report soon. She starts off with “I know you have been busy in that all day meeting.” She then asks him to let her know when he can send the report over, or if he can send the needed data in a separate email. All three modalities contain exactly the same message, but the three modalities convey different communication tones.

I perceived the email as a passive “please help me” tone, i.e. the project manager pleading for them to send the product; however, there is really no way to interpret the sender’s tone in this email. How it is perceived may depend entirely upon the receiver’s mental state and mood when it is received. It doesn’t adequately show the urgency that should be conveyed. However, email is a good follow-up tool or a way to send information when you want to track a conversation, but it does not properly convey tone and body language. On the other hand, the voicemail does convey the proper tone minus body language. Her tone is still “please help me”, but it comes across as sincere and clearly sends the urgency message. However, I think that a voicemail is simply too easy for the receiver to delete and forget. In contrast to email and voicemail, the face to face message comes across as directive and urgent. Jane's body language is clear—I need this now. There can be no question whether or not Mark received the message. However, I recommend that Jane follow up the face to face meeting with an email so that the conversation is documented and Mark has a reminder of it (Portny et al., 2008).

It is amazing how the same message seems so different in the three modalities even though it is exactly the same words. This shows that the way you send the message is important. Some people only communicate in email. Although, email provides a good way of tracking the conversation, there is a possibility that the urgency of the message will not be conveyed. In a phone call, even though the tone is evident, it is too easy for the receiver to dismiss and forget the message leaving the sender wondering if it was received. However, the face to face communication was straightforward, sent the proper urgency through tone and body language, and allowed the receiver to ask questions.

What I learned from this analysis is that it is important to choose the modality that fits the situation. Neither email, voicemail, nor face to face is a one fits all solution to effective communication. If it is urgent, face to face is sometimes the best way to communicate and then follow up that with either a phone call if the demand is not met. If it is simply information, email is appropriate. However, if it needs a direct response that is not time sensitive, then email or voicemail is appropriate. I personally would follow any one of the three up with one of the other modalities depending upon the urgency and importance of the message (Portny et al., 2008).

References

Laureate Education (Producer). (n.d.). The Art of Effective Communication [Multimedia file]. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu

Portny, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer, B. E. (2008). Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Learning from a Project “Post-mortem”

About four years ago, I was involved in a project to create curriculum for the Navy. We were asked to design and develop four very specific combat skills courses. Curriculum existed; however, it was not up to Navy standards. Our statement of work was to develop them to full NAVEDTRA 130B standards, ready for input into the Navy’s Authoring Instructional Materials system. The East and West coast training entities that had requested the curriculum development project had never operated on the same curriculum. We were the first to develop courses that would tie them together on the same training schedule and enforce the same curriculum standards.

Prior to project start, I was asked to estimate the development time. I initially set it at 14 months for the four courses which were over 320 hours of training combined. My estimate was based on a complete work breakdown structure and a Gantt chart that described how the project team would make it happen within the allotted time (Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, & Cramer, 2008). Due to the need to maintain business with the Navy, the company immediately cut the time to 12-months thinking that the Navy would balk at the extended development time and money. After working with our business partner and prime-contractor, the time was further cut to 9-months. I had initially asked for six instructional designers and one lead instructional designer. I was given four instructional designers and one lead instructional designer for the 14-month period. I had also requested a graphics designer, but that was cut altogether. 

I reset the project schedule to match the 9-month delivery; however, we struggled constantly throughout to stay on track. There were constant shifts in client demand which resulted in scope creep (Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, & Cramer, 2008). There were many delays in product approval along the way which set us even farther behind in moving on to the next phase. Eventually, we had to hire two more instructional designers as consultants just to get back on track. In the end, we delivered the course at between 12 and 14 months with the two additional instructional designers working full time. Throughout the course development process we involved all stakeholders keeping them informed of scheduling issues and progress (Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, & Cramer, 2008). However, the project was finally completed at risk to the company, i.e. very little if any profit was obtained from it because we won the contract at a low price of 9-months but ended up taking 14-months. 

Looking back on the project, what happened was that the company chose the idea of wanting a good client relationship over the expert advice of their instructional design team lead. Business development managers decided that they knew what was best and overrode my estimate of 14-months. The project ended up costing the company their reputation and their money. According to Allen and Hardin (2008), "the manner in which the scope, schedule, costs, and human resources of a project are presented to the organization's management impact and often determine an ISD project's success (p. 73)." I think if I had been given the chance to present my plan to the business development managers versus simply “sending” it forward, I might have been able to persuade them differently. There was no champion to explain why it takes 14-months to develop four courses totaling over 320 hours of training. The project was a success in that quality curriculum was delivered, and we did receive positive feedback from the Navy curriculum manager. However, the 9-month delivery timeline was busted, and because of that, we didn’t receive good reviews from the commanding officer. Consequently, the company was not invited back to develop curriculum the next time.

References

Allen, S., & Hardin, P. C. (2008). Developing instructional technology products using effective project management practices. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 19(2), 72–97.

Portny, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer, B. E. (2008). Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

New Journey

I am starting a new journey in my Walden University Instructional Design and Technology Master's degree. For the next eight-weeks, I will be exploring instructional design project management. This course has direct application to my current job, and I am looking forward to the challenge.

The Future of Distance Learning

      During the past eight weeks in the Walden University, EDUC 6135-1, Distance Learning course, I learned about best practices for designing distance learning as well as various technologies that can be used to enhance the learning experience. I explored and critiqued various theories about distance learning and practiced using these theories in creating a course project. The course project involved implementation of an online orientation course in a course management system. I used CourseSites by Blackboard® to host my project.  I analyzed ways to support distance learners’ unique needs, and explored the various ways those needs may be met through effective instructional design. I learned the importance of using learning theory and conducting evaluations to ensure the course is meeting the intended outcomes. Finally, I conducted interviews and discovered differing perceptions about the effectiveness of distance learning as compared to brick-and-mortar institutions. I discovered that people are biased based on their personal experiences with distance learning. More recent distance learners reported positive learning outcomes compared to those who experienced distance learning 10 years ago.
      Schlosser & Simonson define distance learning as an “institution-based, formal education where the learning group is separated and where interactive telecommunications systems are used to connect learners, resources, and instructors (p. 1).” One thing that this definition does not address is intentionality of design to ensure learners receive the same quality of instruction that they can receive in a brick-and-mortar institution. Consequently, distance learning is perceived by many as a less than desirable method of learning. If designed properly, distance learning is an opportunity for learners to get their education at anytime and anywhere in an accessible and convenient manner that they might not be able to achieve otherwise (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2012). Courses in the early 2000s appear to have been primarily shovelware courses that were converted from brick-and-mortar institutions with little or no intentional instructional design to change them into a distance learning format (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2012).  They simply put the existing brick-and-mortar course online in an electronic format and called it distance learning.

      Because of the previous rush to get courses online, and consequently their poor design, many people experienced ill-designed courses and have the perception that distance learning is not as effective as brick-and-mortar. However, today we are seeing more online courses designed specifically for the distance learning environment. In 5-10 years, the overall perception that distance learning is less effective and prestigious than brick-and-mortar will disappear, largely due to the fact that people are conducting business and life increasingly online and more courses are being designed to meet course outcomes in the distance learning environment (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2012). In 10-20 years, I believe distance learning courses will become an accepted means of education that will leave the brick-and-mortar environments reserved for specialty fields requiring more hands-on education.

      Those who have experienced positive outcomes of distance learning can become an impetus for changing perceptions about distance learning. One good way to change perceptions is to talk to others about the advantages of distance learning. Subject can include how distance learning caters to the adult learner by providing a quality education that is accessible to adults with families and full time jobs. Another way to become an advocate is to show employers by doing quality work and being professionals as graduates of distance learning institutions. A third way is to become a recruiter of distance education and help potential learners to choose the right program. Finally, as instructional designers, we can become a positive force for continuous improvement in academic fidelity by being involved with effective distance learning design (Gamescia and Paolucci, 2009). As a graduate of a distance learning program, I can more easily determine what works and what does not. I can also use my experience as a recipient of distance learning to further enhance the effectiveness of distance learning courses that I design.

      The EDUC 6135-1, Distance Learning course at Walden University has opened my eyes to the possibilities for distance learning. I would whole heartedly recommend this course to any person involved with distance learning design, although, it is only the foundation. Instructional designers need to go further in professional development and finding ways to make the distance learning environment active and engaging for the distance learner. Distance learning should be designed in ways that build on the personal and professional experiences of adult learners (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2012). If we as instructional designers intentionally design and create effective distance learning courses, this will further promote academic fidelity and the positive perception of distance learning (Gamescia and Paolucci, 2000).

References

Gambescia, S., & Paolucci, R. (2009). Academic fidelity and integrity as attributes of university online degree program offerings. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(1). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring121/gambescia121.html

Schlosser, L., & Simonson, M. (2009). Distance education: Definition and glossary of terms (3rd ed.). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

Converting to a Distance Learning Format

This week in my Walden University Master of Science in Instructional Design and Technology Distance Learning class, I was asked to develop a best practices guide for converting a face-to-face training class to a blended learning environment. The scenario is that a training manager is frustrated with his face-to-face training and wants to try something new. He has received his supervisor’s permission to convert the class to a blended learning format to provide trainers and trainees the ability to interact in both face-to-face and online environments. In the best practices guide, we are to include tips that could assist the trainer in facilitating communication and learning among his students. My best practices guide is attached here.

Open Course Evaluation

Open Course Evaluation

          This week for my Walden University Master’s Degree in Instructional Design Distance Learning EDUC 6135-1 class, I am asked to evaluate an open course for good distance learning design. Open courses are now available at major universities, such as Yale, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard, and include many of the typical college course subjects. Upon completion, many of these courses award learners a signed certificate. The advantage of these open courses is that they offer learners an excellent way to achieve personal learning goals in a noncompetitive grade free environment. Coursera© is an example of an open course site that advertises itself as an education platform that partners with top universities and organizations and offers free courses with the goal of improving lives, families, and communities (Coursera©, 2014).

          Many universities and colleges have chosen to create their own open course site rather than partner with a learning platform or community in order to have greater control over their course content. Stanford is offering some of its most popular engineering classes free of charge to anyone around the world anywhere at any time (Stanford, n.d.). Stanford Engineering Everywhere (SEE) is available by clicking the Get Started link on their welcome page. The courses are protected under a Creative Commons 3.0 license which allows others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform, or build upon the existing materials for any purpose including commercial use (Creative Commons, n.d.). However, if the materials are revised or repurposed in any way, attribution must be given. Correct attribution, under Creative Commons 3.0, will include the name of the creator, copyright notice, license notice, disclaimer notice, and finally a link to and the title of the original materials (Creative Commons, n.d.). The specific course I am going to evaluate is Introduction to Computer Science, Programming Methodology located at http://see.stanford.edu/see/courseinfo.aspx?coll=824a47e1-135f-4508-a5aa-866adcae1111 and offered by SEE.

          Before delving into an evaluation of the course, it is important to first frame the course by learner audience and the context of its use. For effective distance learning course planning, it is important for the instructor to know the number of students, technologies available to them, and cultural, social, and economic backgrounds so they can effectively and carefully plan the types and levels of interaction that may be implemented to ensure quality learning experiences (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2012). Since the Programming Methodology course is a first year introductory course to all other computer programming courses offered at SEE, the audience of the original classroom instructor-led course was typical first-year college students in their late teen or early twenties. However, as a distance learning course that is offered anywhere and anytime, learner age is not limited. The audience will be individuals interested in pursuing knowledge about basic principles of computer programming. Their culture, social, and economic background as well as the technology available to them will also vary widely. Learners may or may not be interested in continuing computer programming beyond this particular course. The audience will most likely be self-directed adult learners who are pursuing or already involved in careers that require some knowledge of computer programming principles (Knowles, 1970). They may choose the open course format as a way to refresh themselves on basic programming principles, as a personal goal for general knowledge, or as a career enhancer. Completion may lead to further interest and pursuit of an accredited degree from the university.

          Given the potential for widely varied learner technology backgrounds, it was necessary to make the course available at the lowest technology accessible level. Though not specified, SEE appears to have intentionally kept the access requirements low and easy to achieve. All that is required to access the course is an adequate internet connection, modern computer and browser, PDF reader, audio/listening capability, and the ability to view videos in YouTube©, iTunes©, WMV, or MP4 formats. The course is extremely well structured flowing from basic introductory programming principles to a fully developed computer program assignment. After listening to several lectures, I decided that it would be personally beneficial and would provide a good understanding of basic computer programming methods. The instructor is very engaging and well-organized. The course syllabus follows a calendar schedule and outlines expectations of the adult learner to facilitate a readiness to learn (Knowles, 1970). Additionally, handouts are available for every lecture to provide examples, further information, and assignment instructions. Examinations are offered as a form of self-assessment; however, again there is no formal grade for this course. From a perspective of taking an instructor-led classroom and placing it online for access anywhere and anytime, they have provided a well-structured and accessible online course. However, from a good distance learning design perspective, much improvement is needed.

          Learners will access this course in both time and space-shifted manner, which is advertised as a benefit in the course introduction; however, this makes course design difficult since designers cannot adequately predict who will take the course (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2012). The course is very pedagogical by design - meaning that it is designed for instructor delivery. It does not include good design principles for distance learning. As a distance learning product, there are no statements of course outcome, no activity based learning, no learner interaction opportunities, and no learner support system. The course is simply not designed with the distance learner in mind. The class is designed to be interactive in the instructor-led classroom with designated section leaders helping learners in small groups to grasp concepts. According to Graham, Cagitlay, Lim, Caner, and Duffy (2001), online instruction should provide clear guidelines for interaction; cooperation among students; opportunities to participate in course projects; informative and acknowledgement feedback from instructors; course deadlines to keep learners on task; tasks that challenge learners; and choices for course projects. The instructor-led class may have potential for these qualities, but it is not possible in the online version since the format is video lecture with handouts only and no chance of collaboration or learning activities within the online learning environment. Finally, the course is not contained within any type of course management system. This prevents the learner from tracking their progress and the institution from the benefit of any course evaluation tool. A CMS could have been used to host course communication, topic discussion, and group projects as a minimum. However, as a free product, it is understandable that the expense of these improvements would not allow for their inclusion in the course.

          In final evaluation of the Computer Science distance learning course at SEE, I have noted that the course is engaging and well-designed as an instructor-led course. It does serve the purpose of providing education to anyone, anywhere, and at any time. However, as a distance learning course it is missing some very specific design elements to assist online learners. First, it should be placed into a learning management system. To further enhance the distance learning experience, course outcomes, opportunities for interaction, course projects, feedback from instructors, deadlines, challenging tasks, and more learner choices should be incorporated. The first principles in creation of a distance learning system is the system itself, and the creation of successful courses requires a system’s approach (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2012). The system is missing in the course from SEE, but this fact does not negate the course’s value in presenting information online. It accomplishes its goal in presenting information to a wide audience much in the same way as online reference manuals and other internet resources.

References

Coursera.org. (2014). About. Retrieved from https://www.coursera.org/about/

Creative Commons.(n.d.). Attribution 3.0 United States (CC by 3.0 US). Retrieved from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/

Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Lim, B., Craner, J., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Seven principles of effective teaching: A practical lens for evaluating online courses. The Technology Source, 30(5), 50.

Knowles, M. S. (1970). The modern practice of adult education (Vol. 41). New York: New York Association Press.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012).Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

Stanford.edu. (n.d.).Welcome to Stanford Engineering Everywhere (SEE). Retrieved from http://see.stanford.edu/default.aspx