I had promised to provide the college with my initial recommendations by EOB next Tuesday, 8/13. The course cannot be built in the shell (LMS) until the initial QA is performed, and it is scheduled to copy on 8/17 for a go-live date of 8/27.  The project was in danger of meeting these deadlines, and I knew I needed to inform key stakeholders of the risk.

Both stakeholders were receptive to my concerns.  My associate director gave me permission to delegate some of the other projects I am currently working on to another team member so I could concentrate my efforts on this course development. The program chair and I then discussed a few options for how to resolve the situation with as little impact as possible (Greer, 2010, p. 36):

• He and I could work together and resolve the issues in a short period of time; or
  
• I could request a phone conference with the faculty member so she and I could work together to resolve the issues.

The program chair and I agreed that the latter option would be best because (1) it wouldn’t pull him away from other pressing matters, and (2) it would provide an opportunity for the faculty member to learn best practices as they relate to our development process.


The program chair sent a preliminary email to the faculty member (marked “high importance” and alerting her to expect my conference request).  I sent a copy of the notes I’d made so far to the faculty member when I requested the conference so she would be aware of the key issues I’d cited and needed clarification on in order to move forward.

An hour after I sent my email, the faculty member and I were on the phone reviewing and discussing the course. When we finished our conversation (another hour later), I had a clear picture of how to proceed without altering her intended meaning of and goals for the assignments. 

Shortly thereafter, I composed a “thank you” email to the faculty member and sent a summary email to my associate director and the program chair (Greer, 2010, p. 36).  In my summary email, I noted that no change in the project schedule was indicated (i.e., the promised deadline would still be met). 

Finally, I forwarded the faculty member’s response to my thank you email, in which she expressed her appreciation me for taking the time to walk her through the process and offered to answer any further questions I may have regarding the course as I move through the rest of my initial review, to my associate director and the program chair.

Reflecting on the events of this week, I am not sure I would do anything different to control the scope of the project.  I did learn a lot from this experience, though, and would like to work more directly with faculty members in the future – especially when I come across a development that could benefit from 1:1 coaching. As Lynch & Roecker (2007) explain, “course developers who are unaware of the ADDIE methodology are also the people who could benefit the most from these quality assurance steps” (p. 100).

References

Greer, M. (2010). The project management minimalist: Just enough PM to rock your projects! (Laureate custom ed.). Baltimore: Laureate Education, Inc.

Lynch, M. M., & Roecker, J. (2007). Project managing e-learning: A handbook for successful design, delivery, and management. London: Routledge. Copyright by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. Reprinted by permission of Taylor & Francis Group, LLC via the Copyright Clearance Center.

The multimedia program, titled "The Art of Effective Communication," presented a piece of communication in three different formats: email, voicemail, and face-to-face. Although my interpretation of the message did not change too much based on the method of delivery, the way I received it definitely did. 

For example, I did not feel a sense of urgency when I read the email piece.  A time frame of “soon” is ambiguous.  Jane should have provided Mark with a deadline (specific date and time she needs the report by).  Since the message is not flagged with “high importance,” is Mark to assume that “soon” could mean any time in the next few days – or longer? In addition, I would imagine Mark could be left wondering what specific data Jane needs (she doesn’t clarify this in her email) to complete her report if he cannot supply her with his complete report.

I found the face-to-face scenario to be extremely annoying.  In this scenario, Jane comes across as less than confidant (I noted several “ums” and hesitation in her speech) and, at times, she is downright condescending in her tone/body language (rests/crosses her arms on Mark’s workspace and literally points her finger at him when she says “your report”).  In this example, Jane demonstrates unprofessional behavior that is distracting from the message she is attempting to convey.

The voicemail best conveyed the true meaning of the message.  
The content was the same (lacked certain details that would have been helpful), but the tone and inflection Jane used in her message clearly and effectively emphasized key words that conveyed a sense of urgency without being demanding or condescending.  If I were Mark, I would contact Jane by phone or email upon listening to the voicemail so I could fill in the gaps regarding her deadline and/or provide her with the specific data she needs to complete her project.    

Email is a convenient form of communication in the workplace.  It’s easy to send an email to a coworker without much interruption in one’s current task(s) and this format allows the recipient to reply when it is most convenient.  It also provides documentation of the conversation (Laureate Education, Inc., n.d). The main drawback to this form of communication is that the recipient may not fully understand the true meaning of the message because written text does not provide any verbal or face-to-face component.  One way to combat these limitations is to format emails with short sentences and insert line breaks between points/topics rather than present the content in extended paragraph form.  

Where I work, we generally do not approach another person’s workspace without sending an initial email to verify his or her availability. If we do approach someone directly, it is standard protocol to ask – before anything else – “Is this a good time?” or “Do you have a few minutes?”

Although spoken conversation is generally more casual than written communication, it is important to keep the tone of all communications business friendly and respectful. Being clear, concise, and focused helps keep people on track. Also, paying attention to non-verbal communication cues (spirit and attitude, body language, timing of something, and the personality of the recipient) helps to ensure effective communication among team members (Laureate Education, Inc., n.d). 

Reference

Laureate Education, Inc. (n.d.). Communicating with stakeholders [Video file]. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_3398237_1%26url%3D

Earlier in the MS-IDT program, I created a course project for EIDT6110: Advanced Instructional Design titled “Influenza and Pregnancy,” which was adapted and revised from a group project I helped create in EIDT6100: Instructional Design. 

As prescribed by the course outlines and objectives, I followed the ADDIE instructional design model for both projects.  For the initial group project, our team was blessed with an SME whose professional role as a nurse manager came in very handy throughout the process.  My primary role for this project was to function as designer/developer, and I acted as team lead for two weeks.  Our team was fortunate in that we communicated very well throughout the project and each team member performed the tasks of his/her role in an exceptionally efficient manner.  My experiences with this group helped prepare me for revising and adapting the project in the subsequent course. 
  
A few of the things I noted at the close of the initial project that could have been improved upon were (a) the general layout and navigation of the LMS, (b) the formatting and consistency of the content within the slide presentations, and (c) alignment between the course objectives, unit goals, assessments, course activities, and resources.  I tried to remain mindful of these issues throughout the creation of the revised/adapted project.

One resource I found to be especially helpful was the Quality Matters Rubric. In my professional role, I review and edit courses based on the standards provided in this rubric, which focus on the following: 

While I do consider both projects successful and this rubric did help me resolve issues related to alignment for the second project, I was still not entirely satisfied with the content layout due to the limitations of my chosen LMS (Weebly).  It was not until I took EDUC6135: Distance Learning and discovered the variety of free LMS/CMS platforms that were available to educators that I realized how much the overall layout and navigation of these projects could have been improved.  I highly recommend the Haiku Learning platform, but found Coursesites by Blackboard and Canvas by Instructure to be impressive as well.  

Moving forward, I will make it a point to remain abreast of current and emerging technologies so that I can select appropriate tools/platforms that will effectively meet the needs of the stakeholders and showcase the components of a given project. 

Thanks for stopping by!  I look forward to learning from and sharing ideas related to project management for education and training with you!  -Jenn