Team Meeting (1hr in class, no other meeting was held this week)
Preparing for showcase (2 hours)
One-on-One Evaluation (1 hour)
In the team meeting, we went over technical issues about the unit. We also assigned our parts for the showcase presentation. We decided that it would be best for each of us to present the parts that we developed. My part was to present the content analysis, including the assessment, plus the instructional strategy. Over the weekend, I prepared my slides for the showcase, selecting key images that will support my talk. The one-on-one evaluation went very well, no major changes were suggested. As for the showcase, although the clients did not show up, it was a good experience to present in front of an audience. While practicing at home, I had to work on how best to articulate my ideas. There is a difference between knowing something and presenting it in a comprehensive manner, similar to designing instruction. Speaking in front of the audience was the only factor that might have caused me to stress. This did not happen because I was comfortable in how I wanted to approach my presentation and the audience ended up being all the friendly faces that I know.
Reflections: I felt that our showcase presentation was different in its approach than the rest of the presentations. It was more of how we worked behind the scene to get to the final product. However, I liked the different approaches taken in the presentations, representing the different styles of work. It is a good reminder of the diversity of styles, visions, and perceptions.
Next is finalizing the formative evaluation and making all the corrections on the unit.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Bits and Pieces
Team meeting during class time (1hr, no other team meeting was held this week).
Linking Quizmaker and other files to the main Presenter file on Articulate (2hrs).
Reviewing materials and giving feedback to team members (1 hr).
Drafting the showcase overview (1hr).
My role this week was limited to drafting the showcase overview and linking the pretest and posttest to the main file in Articulate Presenter, in addition to adding an Engage slide. Also, I was waiting on the development of the modules and a draft of the evaluation plan from team members for review. As these were sent to me, I reviewed them and sent my feedback. My feedback on the modules was not taken into consideration. At this point, besides my previous concerns about missing several deadlines, which put our project behind schedule, I am concerned about the instructional quality of the modules. Modifications were done on the design and the agreed upon strategy without consultation with the team members. With no time to make changes and no acknowledgment of my feedback, once again I cede. I feel that I have no control or say in the project and I feel that it does not reflect the quality of performance that I would have hoped to have. The main problems I see so far are the lack of consistency in the modules and a busy design. I might be wrong but I am uneasy about it. I pray that when the time comes for the showcase, our presentation will show some coherence of the team work.
As for the feedback on the showcase overview, it was almost a rewrite. So, I accept as is and move on. With everybody on the edge as the final deadline approaches, (especially since we are still talking development at a stage when we should be closing) the communication among the team members has become fuzzy. Hopefully, things will be clarified in our class team meeting tonight.
Besides that, we have not been able to send a first draft for review to the SME. The unit is still being finalized. Moreover, when I try publishing the total of the 154 slides on Articulate, the process freezes on slide 134. I hope we can resolve the issue by chunking the big file into smaller files.
Reflections: On a scale of 1 to 5, my panic level is at 4.5, my confidence in our unit is at 3. Once again, I wonder if this is what team work is about. No one will be completely satisfied nor have a sense of control on the project.
Linking Quizmaker and other files to the main Presenter file on Articulate (2hrs).
Reviewing materials and giving feedback to team members (1 hr).
Drafting the showcase overview (1hr).
My role this week was limited to drafting the showcase overview and linking the pretest and posttest to the main file in Articulate Presenter, in addition to adding an Engage slide. Also, I was waiting on the development of the modules and a draft of the evaluation plan from team members for review. As these were sent to me, I reviewed them and sent my feedback. My feedback on the modules was not taken into consideration. At this point, besides my previous concerns about missing several deadlines, which put our project behind schedule, I am concerned about the instructional quality of the modules. Modifications were done on the design and the agreed upon strategy without consultation with the team members. With no time to make changes and no acknowledgment of my feedback, once again I cede. I feel that I have no control or say in the project and I feel that it does not reflect the quality of performance that I would have hoped to have. The main problems I see so far are the lack of consistency in the modules and a busy design. I might be wrong but I am uneasy about it. I pray that when the time comes for the showcase, our presentation will show some coherence of the team work.
As for the feedback on the showcase overview, it was almost a rewrite. So, I accept as is and move on. With everybody on the edge as the final deadline approaches, (especially since we are still talking development at a stage when we should be closing) the communication among the team members has become fuzzy. Hopefully, things will be clarified in our class team meeting tonight.
Besides that, we have not been able to send a first draft for review to the SME. The unit is still being finalized. Moreover, when I try publishing the total of the 154 slides on Articulate, the process freezes on slide 134. I hope we can resolve the issue by chunking the big file into smaller files.
Reflections: On a scale of 1 to 5, my panic level is at 4.5, my confidence in our unit is at 3. Once again, I wonder if this is what team work is about. No one will be completely satisfied nor have a sense of control on the project.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Final Stages
Team Meeting: 2 hours.
Working on pretest/posttest in Quizmaker: 2 hours.
Reviewing scenario and design: 0.5 hour.
During the team meeting, the discussion revolved around the documentation that needed to be submitted as well as the prototype of the unit created. As far as documentation, work is still being done on editing and reviewing. As for the prototype, the team manager updated the team on her meeting with the client during which she presented to him the prototype. The client was pleased with the prototype and suggested minor additions. Both of my teammates are now working on finalizing the rest of the scenarios, designing, and developing the rest of the subunits. As we proceed through this stage, each subunit is being sent to the team members for feedback. The first subunit looks really good. However, I felt that the second subunit deviated from the objectives, scenario, and strategy that we have originally agreed upon and subsequently, the design of the second subunit changed as well. I expressed that in my feedback: we have to stay aligned with objectives and instructional strategy. My role in putting the pretest and posttest in Quizmaker was relatively simple. However, since my free trial has expired on my laptop, I had to download it again on my home computer and work from there. One feature I do not like about Quizmaker is that it shuffles the questions and the answers within each question by default. However, by trying to go around that, I learned more about Quizmaker and Articulate and this was a plus. Our pretest/posttest cannot be shuffled because we have tried to simulate a problem-solving approach by developing questions around one scenario that progress through the process of using the leadership values to solve problems.
Reflections: More lessons learned about group dynamics. Reflecting on the last team meeting, I felt that I have learned more about myself. I have to work very hard on taming my frustrations when my expectations of work ethics and quality of work are not met. I still get sensitive towards non-constructive criticism and I have to thicken my skin and not show emotions in the meeting because it does not lead anywhere. However, at this point, I am concerned about more disagreement that will jeopardize the timely submission of the required materials of the project. I hope my next blog post will announce the finalization of the development project and the formative evaluation plan.
Working on pretest/posttest in Quizmaker: 2 hours.
Reviewing scenario and design: 0.5 hour.
During the team meeting, the discussion revolved around the documentation that needed to be submitted as well as the prototype of the unit created. As far as documentation, work is still being done on editing and reviewing. As for the prototype, the team manager updated the team on her meeting with the client during which she presented to him the prototype. The client was pleased with the prototype and suggested minor additions. Both of my teammates are now working on finalizing the rest of the scenarios, designing, and developing the rest of the subunits. As we proceed through this stage, each subunit is being sent to the team members for feedback. The first subunit looks really good. However, I felt that the second subunit deviated from the objectives, scenario, and strategy that we have originally agreed upon and subsequently, the design of the second subunit changed as well. I expressed that in my feedback: we have to stay aligned with objectives and instructional strategy. My role in putting the pretest and posttest in Quizmaker was relatively simple. However, since my free trial has expired on my laptop, I had to download it again on my home computer and work from there. One feature I do not like about Quizmaker is that it shuffles the questions and the answers within each question by default. However, by trying to go around that, I learned more about Quizmaker and Articulate and this was a plus. Our pretest/posttest cannot be shuffled because we have tried to simulate a problem-solving approach by developing questions around one scenario that progress through the process of using the leadership values to solve problems.
Reflections: More lessons learned about group dynamics. Reflecting on the last team meeting, I felt that I have learned more about myself. I have to work very hard on taming my frustrations when my expectations of work ethics and quality of work are not met. I still get sensitive towards non-constructive criticism and I have to thicken my skin and not show emotions in the meeting because it does not lead anywhere. However, at this point, I am concerned about more disagreement that will jeopardize the timely submission of the required materials of the project. I hope my next blog post will announce the finalization of the development project and the formative evaluation plan.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Development
Team Meeting: 2.5 hours
Reviewing Prototype: 0.5 hour.
My role in the project this week was minimal due to the way the tasks were divided among the team members. I was not assigned to develop nor prepare documentation for this week.
On Friday, we spent the whole team meeting making decisions about the interface. We started from few template slides and color schemes prepared by the other team members. At the end of the meeting, we were all in agreement on the colors, the scenario presentation, the navigation, and the succession of slides for each leadership value. I am very satisfied with the results we came up with.. Few days later, overcoming some problems with navigation in Articulate, the team manager provided a version of the sidles with the interface discussed in the meeting. I reviewed it and sent my comments on revisions I felt needed to be made.
Reflections; Not much to reflect on other than to say that during the team meeting, I learned some features of Articulate Presenter. Since I am not building any of the slides, my skills in Articulate will not be strengthened, unless I practice on something on my own. However, I will be using Quizmaker to enter pre and posttest. More lesson were learned on group dynamics. Having to write the team evaluation this week helps the reflection on the issue. Collaboration is a loose term that is more of a perception than a fact, unless learned through team-building exercises.
Reviewing Prototype: 0.5 hour.
My role in the project this week was minimal due to the way the tasks were divided among the team members. I was not assigned to develop nor prepare documentation for this week.
On Friday, we spent the whole team meeting making decisions about the interface. We started from few template slides and color schemes prepared by the other team members. At the end of the meeting, we were all in agreement on the colors, the scenario presentation, the navigation, and the succession of slides for each leadership value. I am very satisfied with the results we came up with.. Few days later, overcoming some problems with navigation in Articulate, the team manager provided a version of the sidles with the interface discussed in the meeting. I reviewed it and sent my comments on revisions I felt needed to be made.
Reflections; Not much to reflect on other than to say that during the team meeting, I learned some features of Articulate Presenter. Since I am not building any of the slides, my skills in Articulate will not be strengthened, unless I practice on something on my own. However, I will be using Quizmaker to enter pre and posttest. More lesson were learned on group dynamics. Having to write the team evaluation this week helps the reflection on the issue. Collaboration is a loose term that is more of a perception than a fact, unless learned through team-building exercises.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Content Analysis (Continued) and Instructional Startegy
Revisions on Content Analysis: 10 hours
Instructional Strategy: 5 hours
Team Meeting: 2 hours
The focus of our discussion in our team meeting was the approach of the scenario. We were able to storyboard the branching in a manner satisfactory to all of us. In addition, we discussed the color schemes a bit and the content analysis
On the content analysis, I made reviews on the curriculum map and the task analysis based on the discussions and feedback from our client and sponsor. I refined the objectives to reflect the analysis skills and some attitude change in the store managers. Once again reworking the image of the curriculum map took the majority of the time in addition to selecting the action verbs for the objectives that are most appropriate. Accordingly, I made changes on the task analysis. After receiving feedback on it from my teammates, I made the adjustments needed. On the instructional strategy, I stalled. The reason for that is not having a clear instructional model to follow for the approach that we decided to take in the unit. I could not find research-based literature for the mini case-based scenarios that we are designing. Eventually, I decided to compare it to problem-based learning, since the learners are going through the same analytical process to find solutions, though in a more simplified way. Additionally, I referred to blog postings on building e-learning scenarios in order to describe a structure for our instructional approach. I found the perfect structure on the Tom Kulhmann’s blog on rapid e-learning.
Reflections
In order to refine the task analysis, I had to search through the plethora of lists of verbs on Bloom’s taxonomy. I noticed that some verbs are used for more than one level. Therefore, I had to ensure that the verbs chosen reflect the level intended very clearly.
As far as instructional strategy, I was glad to be given the green light to think outside the box. I like clarity but I like creativity as well. By trying to construct a “model” for our instructional approach, I was able to tie ends together. I saw myself trying to synthesize a model from different approaches in the literature.
Perceptions in people change and being assertive pays. These are the two things I learned from our team dynamics this week. Now that we are half-way through the course and the end-product is starting to see the light, I can look at the team experience, rocky as it is, as one facet of real life. I learned how to navigate through misunderstandings, letting go when necessary and holding on when necessary.
Instructional Strategy: 5 hours
Team Meeting: 2 hours
The focus of our discussion in our team meeting was the approach of the scenario. We were able to storyboard the branching in a manner satisfactory to all of us. In addition, we discussed the color schemes a bit and the content analysis
On the content analysis, I made reviews on the curriculum map and the task analysis based on the discussions and feedback from our client and sponsor. I refined the objectives to reflect the analysis skills and some attitude change in the store managers. Once again reworking the image of the curriculum map took the majority of the time in addition to selecting the action verbs for the objectives that are most appropriate. Accordingly, I made changes on the task analysis. After receiving feedback on it from my teammates, I made the adjustments needed. On the instructional strategy, I stalled. The reason for that is not having a clear instructional model to follow for the approach that we decided to take in the unit. I could not find research-based literature for the mini case-based scenarios that we are designing. Eventually, I decided to compare it to problem-based learning, since the learners are going through the same analytical process to find solutions, though in a more simplified way. Additionally, I referred to blog postings on building e-learning scenarios in order to describe a structure for our instructional approach. I found the perfect structure on the Tom Kulhmann’s blog on rapid e-learning.
Reflections
In order to refine the task analysis, I had to search through the plethora of lists of verbs on Bloom’s taxonomy. I noticed that some verbs are used for more than one level. Therefore, I had to ensure that the verbs chosen reflect the level intended very clearly.
As far as instructional strategy, I was glad to be given the green light to think outside the box. I like clarity but I like creativity as well. By trying to construct a “model” for our instructional approach, I was able to tie ends together. I saw myself trying to synthesize a model from different approaches in the literature.
Perceptions in people change and being assertive pays. These are the two things I learned from our team dynamics this week. Now that we are half-way through the course and the end-product is starting to see the light, I can look at the team experience, rocky as it is, as one facet of real life. I learned how to navigate through misunderstandings, letting go when necessary and holding on when necessary.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
More Content Analysis
2 team meetings with Dr. Grant: 2.5 hours
Meeting with client: 1.5 hours
The work for the past two weeks has slowed down a little bit, one, due to Spring Break, two due to a halt on the Content Analysis. After two weeks of discussions about the curriculum map and the instructional objectives, the team was locked in a no-consensus situation on what to teach. Having skipped the Learners’ Analysis, we had no data on where our learners stand in their knowledge and skills about the content. A meeting with our client seemed to be a necessity to clarify the actual instructional need. This meeting was also an opportunity to show our client some prototypes of the slides. After some probing with our client, the instructional need appeared to address an attitudinal change and a honing of some of the leadership skills more than knowledge and skill building of all the leadership skills. It was suggested to make phone call interviews with few store managers around the country to probe on the types of problems the managers face with their employees and the difficulties they face in the implementation of the leadership skills. Too late in the game, but this data will help in building a more relevant content. Coming out from the meeting with our client, my big concern was how to address his need for an attitudinal change, knowing the challenges we would face in incorporating that in an e-learning unit. Therefore, we met again with Dr. Grant to get guidance. The meeting was very enlightening on many levels. Most important is the reassurance that attitudinal change cannot be achieved nor measured properly in e-learning; therefore, our approach should stay focused on the cognitive domain with light touches on attitudes. My role now is to redo the curriculum map and the task analysis (which will probably be the first draft I have created for both). So we’re back in square one. We have wasted time but at least, we are clear on the direction our unit should take. Hopefully, we can sail through that smoothly as a team.
Reflections
Although I have been described as rigid, I still hold on to ADDIE very strongly. This exercise in building a curriculum map without a proper needs assessment is proof to me that, yes, well-designed instruction can be developed but does it really address the need? Through the many discussions over the span of this course, I have been getting these reality checks that, even with ADDIE being the simplest of all instructional design models, not all the steps are implemented. I guess for some, having a concrete-el-learning unit completes the job. But, where is learning? Where is the provision of the right solutions to the performance problems? Being passionate about learning and teaching and still holding on to what learning really means, I will still strive to go from A to E in ADDIE. How much will my immersion in authentic environments change me? I will have to wait and see, I hope not too much.
Meeting with client: 1.5 hours
The work for the past two weeks has slowed down a little bit, one, due to Spring Break, two due to a halt on the Content Analysis. After two weeks of discussions about the curriculum map and the instructional objectives, the team was locked in a no-consensus situation on what to teach. Having skipped the Learners’ Analysis, we had no data on where our learners stand in their knowledge and skills about the content. A meeting with our client seemed to be a necessity to clarify the actual instructional need. This meeting was also an opportunity to show our client some prototypes of the slides. After some probing with our client, the instructional need appeared to address an attitudinal change and a honing of some of the leadership skills more than knowledge and skill building of all the leadership skills. It was suggested to make phone call interviews with few store managers around the country to probe on the types of problems the managers face with their employees and the difficulties they face in the implementation of the leadership skills. Too late in the game, but this data will help in building a more relevant content. Coming out from the meeting with our client, my big concern was how to address his need for an attitudinal change, knowing the challenges we would face in incorporating that in an e-learning unit. Therefore, we met again with Dr. Grant to get guidance. The meeting was very enlightening on many levels. Most important is the reassurance that attitudinal change cannot be achieved nor measured properly in e-learning; therefore, our approach should stay focused on the cognitive domain with light touches on attitudes. My role now is to redo the curriculum map and the task analysis (which will probably be the first draft I have created for both). So we’re back in square one. We have wasted time but at least, we are clear on the direction our unit should take. Hopefully, we can sail through that smoothly as a team.
Reflections
Although I have been described as rigid, I still hold on to ADDIE very strongly. This exercise in building a curriculum map without a proper needs assessment is proof to me that, yes, well-designed instruction can be developed but does it really address the need? Through the many discussions over the span of this course, I have been getting these reality checks that, even with ADDIE being the simplest of all instructional design models, not all the steps are implemented. I guess for some, having a concrete-el-learning unit completes the job. But, where is learning? Where is the provision of the right solutions to the performance problems? Being passionate about learning and teaching and still holding on to what learning really means, I will still strive to go from A to E in ADDIE. How much will my immersion in authentic environments change me? I will have to wait and see, I hope not too much.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Content Analysis (Continued)
Team meeting: 2 hours
Working on the Content Analysis: 10 hours
In our team meeting last week, we discussed the best format of presenting the deliverables in the Project Plan. Then we went over the first draft of the curriculum map that I have already shared with the team. The desire of the team is to involve the learners in higher order thinking as they go through the unit and assessment. We proposed to have the assessment in a problem-solving format, representing a culmination of the skills learned in the unit and use the assessment items that I have created earlier as the practice questions that come after each section of the unit. We also reviewed the action verbs I used in the objectives to give a better representation of the skills we want our learners to acquire.
Individually, I continued working on the Content Analysis. It seems to be one of the most demanding components of the project documentation. The objectives must be well woven together in order for the content to flow smoothly. In addition, we want our learners to acquire leadership skills that we will not be able to completely test for in the final assessment. In other words, we are hoping for transfer but we cannot test it in the final assessment. The challenge for me was in trying to specify measurable objectives that are as close to transfer as possible. I refined the curriculum map and this was not done quickly. Other than serving as a space to specify the objectives, the curriculum map is also a visual component. So, between specifying the objective and working on the visual appeal, finalizing the curriculum map took a considerable amount of time. Having done that, I moved to the final assessment questions. Here, the challenge was in the desire to have the learner problem-solve but then again, we want a close-ended quick assessment for the convenience of the learners and the convenience of collecting and analyzing data from 4,000 store managers or so. So, what I finally decided on was to use one of the scenarios provided to us by our client. I broke it down into segments, each of which representing a leadership skill. For each segment, I developed three questions: One will have the learners discern the leadership skill used, one will have them rate their agreement with the approach used (attitude), and one will have them identify the key elements in the scenario that represent the component of the leadership skill. This was time consuming but once I had my strategy down, it was only a matter of repeating the same process with different scenario text. I also added few other general questions to summarize the leadership skills. All of that went into the task analysis table.
Reflections: Having had several discussions in class about rapid prototyping, about the value of assessment, and about the short shelf-life of elearning courses in the corporate world, my reflection on the development process is one of pain. My pain was added upon, when our client mentioned that adult learners want to get over the training quickly, and he specified 5 minutes. Maybe it is reality but it does not make it less painful. As instructional designers, we aspire for in-depth learning. We want retention and then transfer. We also aspire for immersing the learners in higher order thinking experiences where they dig and search to create their understanding of the content. How can an instructional designer reconcile rapid, quick and continuous turnover with in-depth, immersive, leading to transfer kind of learning? Maybe the answer lies in the creativity of the instructional designer, to think way outside the box to get the desired learning. This is what I will have to work on, especially if I get to work in a corporate environment.
Working on the Content Analysis: 10 hours
In our team meeting last week, we discussed the best format of presenting the deliverables in the Project Plan. Then we went over the first draft of the curriculum map that I have already shared with the team. The desire of the team is to involve the learners in higher order thinking as they go through the unit and assessment. We proposed to have the assessment in a problem-solving format, representing a culmination of the skills learned in the unit and use the assessment items that I have created earlier as the practice questions that come after each section of the unit. We also reviewed the action verbs I used in the objectives to give a better representation of the skills we want our learners to acquire.
Individually, I continued working on the Content Analysis. It seems to be one of the most demanding components of the project documentation. The objectives must be well woven together in order for the content to flow smoothly. In addition, we want our learners to acquire leadership skills that we will not be able to completely test for in the final assessment. In other words, we are hoping for transfer but we cannot test it in the final assessment. The challenge for me was in trying to specify measurable objectives that are as close to transfer as possible. I refined the curriculum map and this was not done quickly. Other than serving as a space to specify the objectives, the curriculum map is also a visual component. So, between specifying the objective and working on the visual appeal, finalizing the curriculum map took a considerable amount of time. Having done that, I moved to the final assessment questions. Here, the challenge was in the desire to have the learner problem-solve but then again, we want a close-ended quick assessment for the convenience of the learners and the convenience of collecting and analyzing data from 4,000 store managers or so. So, what I finally decided on was to use one of the scenarios provided to us by our client. I broke it down into segments, each of which representing a leadership skill. For each segment, I developed three questions: One will have the learners discern the leadership skill used, one will have them rate their agreement with the approach used (attitude), and one will have them identify the key elements in the scenario that represent the component of the leadership skill. This was time consuming but once I had my strategy down, it was only a matter of repeating the same process with different scenario text. I also added few other general questions to summarize the leadership skills. All of that went into the task analysis table.
Reflections: Having had several discussions in class about rapid prototyping, about the value of assessment, and about the short shelf-life of elearning courses in the corporate world, my reflection on the development process is one of pain. My pain was added upon, when our client mentioned that adult learners want to get over the training quickly, and he specified 5 minutes. Maybe it is reality but it does not make it less painful. As instructional designers, we aspire for in-depth learning. We want retention and then transfer. We also aspire for immersing the learners in higher order thinking experiences where they dig and search to create their understanding of the content. How can an instructional designer reconcile rapid, quick and continuous turnover with in-depth, immersive, leading to transfer kind of learning? Maybe the answer lies in the creativity of the instructional designer, to think way outside the box to get the desired learning. This is what I will have to work on, especially if I get to work in a corporate environment.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Content Analysis
Content Analysis: 12 hours
This week, I worked on the content analysis. I designed the curriculum map, drafted the performance objectives plus the assessment items, and created the task analysis table. Our elearning unit is a refresher based on a workshop that has already been delivered. Therefore, the content is already available through the trainer’s manual and the DVDs used in the workshop. I consider us lucky as a team to have been provided with the content, especially when it is very specific to the organization we are working for. So what I did was review the DVDs one more time and break down the trainer’s manual into the principles and concepts that needed to be included in the unit. Once this was done, I designed the curriculum map. I started by using the chart-generating tool called Lovely Charts. I really like this tool except for one thing. The free version of it will allow me to export my charts as images but will not allow me to save them. So, for every editing, I would have to recreate the chart over and over again. Even with knowing that, I still tried to create my curriculum map in Lovely Charts, just because I like the ease of creating the boxes and the arrows that connects them together. However, after realizing the nightmare of editing a complicated chart such as the curriculum map, I switched to Fireworks. That was the wise the decision I should have made from the beginning. Editing in Fireworks is so easy. The image can be moved and edited within Dreamweaver with no problem and I discovered the connector tool that lets me connect the boxes, like in Lovely Charts (but not as pretty). As for the content of the curriculum map, I feel that I need to revisit it again and again and be careful about clarifying what the unit is going to accomplish versus what the transfer is expected to be. The transfer is the acquisition of the Leadership Skills but the unit can only accomplish the acquisition of intellectual and cognitive skills. The same applies to writing down the performance objectives. I think, I got more clarity once I started working on the task analysis and the assessment items and I concluded that my performance items needed revision. In order to create the assessment items, I downloaded the free trial version of Articulate, since this is the tool that our client wants us to use. I built the assessment items in Quizmaker. I can honestly say that I love Articulate, although I was apprehensive at first about learning a new tool while developing the elearning unit for our client. By giving several choices of formatting a question, Quizmaker inspires the designer in building the assessment items. For example, a multiple choice question would serve one purpose and a drag and drop another. The assessment questions I wrote were all close-ended responses. Not always my favorite form of evaluation, but we need to make the unit easy and quick to navigate for the learner who will be going though chunks of 5-7 minutes of elearning while on the job. At this point my work is not complete. I’m planning on going over it with my teammates, during our meeting in class tonight.
Reflections: Drafting the curriculum map, the performance objectives and the assessment items is no simple task. They lay the foundation for the development of the unit; therefore they must be strongly built. Careful consideration should be given to what the elearning unit is achieving. Transfer is desired but cannot be tested after the completion of the unit. So, the unit can go as a far as testing the acquisition of intellectual and cognitive skills. Moreover, the choice of selected responses used for ease of the implementation of the unit will not allow for the evaluation of higher order thinking skills in comparison to using essay questions that requires synthesis and evaluation.
As for choices of tools, the temptation of using appealing tools is big. I fall for that. However, with rapid prototyping, one should consider efficiency. Experimenting with a tool to end up redoing the work using another practical tool is not the smartest idea.
This week, I worked on the content analysis. I designed the curriculum map, drafted the performance objectives plus the assessment items, and created the task analysis table. Our elearning unit is a refresher based on a workshop that has already been delivered. Therefore, the content is already available through the trainer’s manual and the DVDs used in the workshop. I consider us lucky as a team to have been provided with the content, especially when it is very specific to the organization we are working for. So what I did was review the DVDs one more time and break down the trainer’s manual into the principles and concepts that needed to be included in the unit. Once this was done, I designed the curriculum map. I started by using the chart-generating tool called Lovely Charts. I really like this tool except for one thing. The free version of it will allow me to export my charts as images but will not allow me to save them. So, for every editing, I would have to recreate the chart over and over again. Even with knowing that, I still tried to create my curriculum map in Lovely Charts, just because I like the ease of creating the boxes and the arrows that connects them together. However, after realizing the nightmare of editing a complicated chart such as the curriculum map, I switched to Fireworks. That was the wise the decision I should have made from the beginning. Editing in Fireworks is so easy. The image can be moved and edited within Dreamweaver with no problem and I discovered the connector tool that lets me connect the boxes, like in Lovely Charts (but not as pretty). As for the content of the curriculum map, I feel that I need to revisit it again and again and be careful about clarifying what the unit is going to accomplish versus what the transfer is expected to be. The transfer is the acquisition of the Leadership Skills but the unit can only accomplish the acquisition of intellectual and cognitive skills. The same applies to writing down the performance objectives. I think, I got more clarity once I started working on the task analysis and the assessment items and I concluded that my performance items needed revision. In order to create the assessment items, I downloaded the free trial version of Articulate, since this is the tool that our client wants us to use. I built the assessment items in Quizmaker. I can honestly say that I love Articulate, although I was apprehensive at first about learning a new tool while developing the elearning unit for our client. By giving several choices of formatting a question, Quizmaker inspires the designer in building the assessment items. For example, a multiple choice question would serve one purpose and a drag and drop another. The assessment questions I wrote were all close-ended responses. Not always my favorite form of evaluation, but we need to make the unit easy and quick to navigate for the learner who will be going though chunks of 5-7 minutes of elearning while on the job. At this point my work is not complete. I’m planning on going over it with my teammates, during our meeting in class tonight.
Reflections: Drafting the curriculum map, the performance objectives and the assessment items is no simple task. They lay the foundation for the development of the unit; therefore they must be strongly built. Careful consideration should be given to what the elearning unit is achieving. Transfer is desired but cannot be tested after the completion of the unit. So, the unit can go as a far as testing the acquisition of intellectual and cognitive skills. Moreover, the choice of selected responses used for ease of the implementation of the unit will not allow for the evaluation of higher order thinking skills in comparison to using essay questions that requires synthesis and evaluation.
As for choices of tools, the temptation of using appealing tools is big. I fall for that. However, with rapid prototyping, one should consider efficiency. Experimenting with a tool to end up redoing the work using another practical tool is not the smartest idea.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Project Planning, continued
Team Meeting: 1.5 hours
Reviewing project plan: 1 hour
Having written my assigned sections of the project plan last week, I did not find myself spending a lot of time on the team project this week, as I had done in previous weeks. I waited for input from my teammates on their parts of the plan and gave my feedback as needed.
As for the team meeting, this week “fences were mended”. We had an honest chat about the friction and the communication problems that we experienced the weeks before. We came to the agreement of dividing the tasks more clearly among us. Instead of writing collectively each assignment and creating a tangled web, we decided to have each member take ownership of one section of the project and create a draft to be reviewed by others for suggestions and not for re-creation. As a result, the sections of the project that I will be working on will be the Content Analysis and the Research-Based Instructional Strategy. I expressed my concerns for the scope of the content requested by our client. I fear that including all of the workshop content in the refresher that we will be developing might not be well catered to the learner’s needs. I feel that some of the content is well-embedded in the company’s culture and does not need to be included in the refresher. Thus are my regrets for not having done a learner’s analysis. Hopefully, working closely with the client/SME on the content analysis will resolve my concerns. In addition, it was agreed to bring this issue up during the upcoming lunch with him. Unfortunately, I had to miss the lunch since it was not possible to find a time that is convenient for all of us to meet with our client over the lunchtime hour. During the team meeting we also discussed our client’s request to use Articulate. That was another concern for me, having to learn a new tool while maintaining the timely delivery of the product and its quality. However, our client assured us that Articulate is an easy tool to use. Hopefully, we will not encounter problems in that area.
Besides working on the project, I worked on my professional blog. I still do not find this task easy to do. Reconciling meaningful content, few words and semi-research-based approach is a new skill I need to work on.
Reflections
Not much to reflect on this week with the small role I had to play in the project. However, about group dynamics, it takes courage to face problems, compromise can be achieved even when it is emotionally difficult, and tension and differences can be tamed, hopefully diffused and not internalized.
Reviewing project plan: 1 hour
Having written my assigned sections of the project plan last week, I did not find myself spending a lot of time on the team project this week, as I had done in previous weeks. I waited for input from my teammates on their parts of the plan and gave my feedback as needed.
As for the team meeting, this week “fences were mended”. We had an honest chat about the friction and the communication problems that we experienced the weeks before. We came to the agreement of dividing the tasks more clearly among us. Instead of writing collectively each assignment and creating a tangled web, we decided to have each member take ownership of one section of the project and create a draft to be reviewed by others for suggestions and not for re-creation. As a result, the sections of the project that I will be working on will be the Content Analysis and the Research-Based Instructional Strategy. I expressed my concerns for the scope of the content requested by our client. I fear that including all of the workshop content in the refresher that we will be developing might not be well catered to the learner’s needs. I feel that some of the content is well-embedded in the company’s culture and does not need to be included in the refresher. Thus are my regrets for not having done a learner’s analysis. Hopefully, working closely with the client/SME on the content analysis will resolve my concerns. In addition, it was agreed to bring this issue up during the upcoming lunch with him. Unfortunately, I had to miss the lunch since it was not possible to find a time that is convenient for all of us to meet with our client over the lunchtime hour. During the team meeting we also discussed our client’s request to use Articulate. That was another concern for me, having to learn a new tool while maintaining the timely delivery of the product and its quality. However, our client assured us that Articulate is an easy tool to use. Hopefully, we will not encounter problems in that area.
Besides working on the project, I worked on my professional blog. I still do not find this task easy to do. Reconciling meaningful content, few words and semi-research-based approach is a new skill I need to work on.
Reflections
Not much to reflect on this week with the small role I had to play in the project. However, about group dynamics, it takes courage to face problems, compromise can be achieved even when it is emotionally difficult, and tension and differences can be tamed, hopefully diffused and not internalized.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Project Planning
Team Meeting: 1.5 hours
Writing sections of the Project Plan: 4 hours
This week, the work load was lighter than last week. On Friday, we met as a team to discuss upcoming activities in the project. Again, we went over the team’s website look. No final decisions were taken regarding this issue and, most probably this is where it is going to be left at. We also discussed the option of moving forward with the learners’ analysis since our client extended an open invitation for us to collect data from our learners. It was decided to rely on our client input with respect to information about the knowledge and skills of our learners. We then moved on to divide the task of writing the project plan. I was assigned to write the communication management plan, the risk management plan, and the work breakdown structure of the deliverables.
One more snow day gave me ample time to write my sections of the project plan. I have to admit that I was apprehensive of some of what I needed to write about. Although the concept of project planning is clear in my mind, however, going about its components seemed overwhelming. A lot has been discussed in class and I needed to revisit the resources provided to strengthen my understanding of it. I am very grateful for the richness of the resources provided on the class’s website and I did spend a good deal of time going back and forth on them. The easiest section was writing the communication management plan. Not so easy though since I had to look at it as a network: who will need to say what to whom, and when. Second in order of difficulty was the risk management plan. The risks were easy to configure since, as a team, we have already visited several of them from the start of the project. The challenge in developing the risk management plan was pinning down the value of probability and impact of each risk. I think I placed the risks in the right order; however, I am not so sure about the accuracy of the value I gave each one of them. Next came the work breakdown structure of the deliverables. Writing this section was not so easy. I understand what is meant by deliverables but how to detail every deliverable was somewhat challenging. The way I went about it was to go over the description of the assignments for the project and select what I would consider to be a deliverable. I also looked at the examples of previous projects to make sure I was on the right track.
After completing my assigned sections, I shared them with my teammates, received feedback and made the corrections needed.
Reflections
I see myself as someone who would be interested in leading a team as a project manager. However, experiencing the documentation that goes with it and comparing it to the documentation and process of instructional design, I think I would much rather immerse myself in the ID process where I can give way to creativity. Of course, more exposure might sway the perceptions I have so far of project management. On the other hand, going through this process, I learned about the terminology used in project planning and the multitude of tools available to facilitate the process. I understood how to develop a communication plan, a risk management plan, and a work breakdown structure of deliverables. I dug into analyzing and weighing the elements of each of those sub-categories of the plan. Even though it is not my favorite part of the project, I still enjoy this learning experience that solidifies my knowledge-base.
Writing sections of the Project Plan: 4 hours
This week, the work load was lighter than last week. On Friday, we met as a team to discuss upcoming activities in the project. Again, we went over the team’s website look. No final decisions were taken regarding this issue and, most probably this is where it is going to be left at. We also discussed the option of moving forward with the learners’ analysis since our client extended an open invitation for us to collect data from our learners. It was decided to rely on our client input with respect to information about the knowledge and skills of our learners. We then moved on to divide the task of writing the project plan. I was assigned to write the communication management plan, the risk management plan, and the work breakdown structure of the deliverables.
One more snow day gave me ample time to write my sections of the project plan. I have to admit that I was apprehensive of some of what I needed to write about. Although the concept of project planning is clear in my mind, however, going about its components seemed overwhelming. A lot has been discussed in class and I needed to revisit the resources provided to strengthen my understanding of it. I am very grateful for the richness of the resources provided on the class’s website and I did spend a good deal of time going back and forth on them. The easiest section was writing the communication management plan. Not so easy though since I had to look at it as a network: who will need to say what to whom, and when. Second in order of difficulty was the risk management plan. The risks were easy to configure since, as a team, we have already visited several of them from the start of the project. The challenge in developing the risk management plan was pinning down the value of probability and impact of each risk. I think I placed the risks in the right order; however, I am not so sure about the accuracy of the value I gave each one of them. Next came the work breakdown structure of the deliverables. Writing this section was not so easy. I understand what is meant by deliverables but how to detail every deliverable was somewhat challenging. The way I went about it was to go over the description of the assignments for the project and select what I would consider to be a deliverable. I also looked at the examples of previous projects to make sure I was on the right track.
After completing my assigned sections, I shared them with my teammates, received feedback and made the corrections needed.
Reflections
I see myself as someone who would be interested in leading a team as a project manager. However, experiencing the documentation that goes with it and comparing it to the documentation and process of instructional design, I think I would much rather immerse myself in the ID process where I can give way to creativity. Of course, more exposure might sway the perceptions I have so far of project management. On the other hand, going through this process, I learned about the terminology used in project planning and the multitude of tools available to facilitate the process. I understood how to develop a communication plan, a risk management plan, and a work breakdown structure of deliverables. I dug into analyzing and weighing the elements of each of those sub-categories of the plan. Even though it is not my favorite part of the project, I still enjoy this learning experience that solidifies my knowledge-base.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The Analysis
Time spent on tasks
Website design: 10.5 hours
Viewing Content Material of Worskhop and Learners’ Analysis Questionnaire: 4 hours
Analysis Report: 3 hours
Team Meeting: 2.5 hours
Team’s Website
After submitting the Project Charter last Thursday, I had to work again on the team’s website. It’s funny how it was mentioned in class that if a team’s completion of a job stays at 50% for more than two weeks, then they have a problem, and I think we do. Anyhow, one of my classmates sent me the code on how to keep the menu tabs highlighted when active. I ventured to play with the code on my version of the website. Not knowing what files to work on, I ended up messing the CSS of the website and decided to start from scratch again. I was lucky to be homebound because of the weather. It gave me ample time to play with Dreamweaver. On Monday, another classmate helped me figure out the tab highlighting problem and now it is solved. During our team meeting, we discussed the website design for half an hour more. I would consider the work on it to be at 100% completion but I have yet to wait and see when it will see the light on the class’s website, replacing what we have now.
Learners’ Analysis Questionnaire
Next I worked on designing the questionnaire for the learners’ analysis and I wrote the analysis report, as these were part of my responsibilities. Our client has provided us with a DVD and a CD of the content of the workshop on which our instructional unit will be based. This was very helpful. Other than providing content material, it gave me a feel of what the Autozone culture is about and how important it is for the organization. They use the word “Autozoner “to give a sense of community and to strengthen the sense of belonging and ownership among the employees. Back to the content, the DVD presented examples of good and bad leadership practices and the CD included the trainers’ manual in PDF format. They both provided a clear understanding of what the intended message ought to be. In the trainer’s manual, I found the review questions used at the completion of the workshop. I used those as the basis of the learner’s analysis questionnaire. I also wanted to see if the store managers were facing difficulties in implementing what they have learned in the workshop. So, I included questions related to that as well. However, in our team meeting few days later, we could not reach a consensus on what to include in the questionnaire. It was decided to skip doing the learners’ analysis altogether. This was very hard for me to accept. One, I strongly believe in the importance of the learners’ analysis. Two, our client has already facilitated the distribution and collection of the questionnaires from the learners and I consider going back on this step to be unprofessional.
Analysis report
As I was writing the analysis report, I realized how fruitful our first meeting with our client was. During our brainstorming in that first meeting, we were able to cover most of the information needed for the front-end analysis. This is the result of our team’s preparedness and the Autozone team willingness to share and provide all the support needed. In addition, our client is the instructional design team at Autozone which facilitated the communication process. I posted the report on the wiki for feedback from my teammates. Sadly, the feedback received was a lot of rewriting and I felt that my efforts went to waste. However, the analysis report will be at a 100% completion by the time the report is due.
Professional Blog Post
One more thing I did this week is writing the professional blog post. It was not as easy as I thought it would be. Not being a native speaker of English makes it hard for me to write in a casual tone. Moreover, I had to limit myself to 350 words. So, I struggled between being brief and writing a juicy content. However, after receiving feedback from the professor and after the appropriate corrections were made, my blog was posted. I am excited at the opportunity of having a starting point in blog writing. I read other people’s blogs and I get kind of envious. I admire their willingness to spend the time sharing their expertise and points of view. I wonder to myself if I can ever reach that point and then have followers too who will be waiting to read my blog posts. Anyhow, I received replies from my classmates on my blog and I responded back. I also participated in the conversations of the other blogs posted by my classmates. I enjoyed this virtual exchange of ideas, whether in agreement or not.
Reflections
What I have learned this week is to highlight the menu tabs in Dreamweaver when active. I am starting to understand code a little bit more. On this point, I appreciate the collaborative aspect of learning where colleagues share their skills with each other.
On the other hand, writing the analysis report gave me insights into the Autozone culture and the corporate world. Other than that, I am struggling to figure out how to navigate team work when team members cannot agree.
Website design: 10.5 hours
Viewing Content Material of Worskhop and Learners’ Analysis Questionnaire: 4 hours
Analysis Report: 3 hours
Team Meeting: 2.5 hours
Team’s Website
After submitting the Project Charter last Thursday, I had to work again on the team’s website. It’s funny how it was mentioned in class that if a team’s completion of a job stays at 50% for more than two weeks, then they have a problem, and I think we do. Anyhow, one of my classmates sent me the code on how to keep the menu tabs highlighted when active. I ventured to play with the code on my version of the website. Not knowing what files to work on, I ended up messing the CSS of the website and decided to start from scratch again. I was lucky to be homebound because of the weather. It gave me ample time to play with Dreamweaver. On Monday, another classmate helped me figure out the tab highlighting problem and now it is solved. During our team meeting, we discussed the website design for half an hour more. I would consider the work on it to be at 100% completion but I have yet to wait and see when it will see the light on the class’s website, replacing what we have now.
Learners’ Analysis Questionnaire
Next I worked on designing the questionnaire for the learners’ analysis and I wrote the analysis report, as these were part of my responsibilities. Our client has provided us with a DVD and a CD of the content of the workshop on which our instructional unit will be based. This was very helpful. Other than providing content material, it gave me a feel of what the Autozone culture is about and how important it is for the organization. They use the word “Autozoner “to give a sense of community and to strengthen the sense of belonging and ownership among the employees. Back to the content, the DVD presented examples of good and bad leadership practices and the CD included the trainers’ manual in PDF format. They both provided a clear understanding of what the intended message ought to be. In the trainer’s manual, I found the review questions used at the completion of the workshop. I used those as the basis of the learner’s analysis questionnaire. I also wanted to see if the store managers were facing difficulties in implementing what they have learned in the workshop. So, I included questions related to that as well. However, in our team meeting few days later, we could not reach a consensus on what to include in the questionnaire. It was decided to skip doing the learners’ analysis altogether. This was very hard for me to accept. One, I strongly believe in the importance of the learners’ analysis. Two, our client has already facilitated the distribution and collection of the questionnaires from the learners and I consider going back on this step to be unprofessional.
Analysis report
As I was writing the analysis report, I realized how fruitful our first meeting with our client was. During our brainstorming in that first meeting, we were able to cover most of the information needed for the front-end analysis. This is the result of our team’s preparedness and the Autozone team willingness to share and provide all the support needed. In addition, our client is the instructional design team at Autozone which facilitated the communication process. I posted the report on the wiki for feedback from my teammates. Sadly, the feedback received was a lot of rewriting and I felt that my efforts went to waste. However, the analysis report will be at a 100% completion by the time the report is due.
Professional Blog Post
One more thing I did this week is writing the professional blog post. It was not as easy as I thought it would be. Not being a native speaker of English makes it hard for me to write in a casual tone. Moreover, I had to limit myself to 350 words. So, I struggled between being brief and writing a juicy content. However, after receiving feedback from the professor and after the appropriate corrections were made, my blog was posted. I am excited at the opportunity of having a starting point in blog writing. I read other people’s blogs and I get kind of envious. I admire their willingness to spend the time sharing their expertise and points of view. I wonder to myself if I can ever reach that point and then have followers too who will be waiting to read my blog posts. Anyhow, I received replies from my classmates on my blog and I responded back. I also participated in the conversations of the other blogs posted by my classmates. I enjoyed this virtual exchange of ideas, whether in agreement or not.
Reflections
What I have learned this week is to highlight the menu tabs in Dreamweaver when active. I am starting to understand code a little bit more. On this point, I appreciate the collaborative aspect of learning where colleagues share their skills with each other.
On the other hand, writing the analysis report gave me insights into the Autozone culture and the corporate world. Other than that, I am struggling to figure out how to navigate team work when team members cannot agree.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The initiation
This week our team worked on improving the website that has yet to be finalized, we met with our client and we developed the project charter. On Friday January 22, I worked with one of my teammates on the website for 1.5 hours. The following day, (Saturday January 23), the whole team met to talk about the website, discuss the charter and the upcoming meeting with our client. This meeting took two hours. On Monday January 25 we met with the client for two hours.
The website: After having agreed on color schemes, I offered to clean it up with the help of one of my teammates. We collaborated on picking the right colors, working on menu rollovers, and some other details. I followed up on it at home for few more hours. Since none of us on the team has advanced Dreamweaver skills and since there is more than one way to do the same task in Dreamweaver, it seems to me that we are unable to agree on how to approach the design, stagnating a little too long on that issue and not being able to move forward. At that point, we assigned the finalization of the website to one of the teammates. Two days later, when no progress has been made on the website for technical difficulties, I had to work on it from home some more. In my opinion, we now have an appealing and functioning website that is not yet posted, awaiting more “final touches’. The problems in the website that we are unable to solve are keeping the menu tabs highlighted when active and coordinating the link colors. The selection of the link colors applies to words and buttons at the same time and the colors that look good on the linked words do not look good on the linked buttons (that is outside the menu) and vice versa. This task is 50% completed.
Project charter: We have decided to break the charter into three sections with each one of us developing one section and then all of us giving feedback to each other. For that purpose, and under the project manager’s suggestion, I created a wiki where our collaboration throughout the project is to take place. It was easier to develop the charter after our meeting with the client and this is how we approached it. My section of the charter is 100% completed and took around two hours. I believe the project charter will be well done and completed by the due date, under the good editing of the project manager.
Meeting with the client: The meeting was very productive and we were introduced to two more Autozone representatives responsible for training and instructional design in the company. In that meeting, we discussed the Autozone team’s perceptions of the need for the instructional unit. We probed for details on the characteristics of the learners to whom the instructional unit will be addressed. We also discussed the technicalities for development and implementation of the unit. The Autozone team provided a wealth of details, and showed a great deal of enthusiasm and support for us. They also provided us with the DVDs of the workshop on which the instructional unit will be based. I offered to develop learners’ analysis questions for review and distribution by the Autozone team. Needing to watch the DVDs before developing the questions, my completion of this task is 0% at the time of writing this blog. I am hoping to finalize this task by Saturday. I am not sure if this will give us enough time to have the analysis report ready by its due date. Moreover, there seems to be a disagreement on the importance of carrying out the learners’ analysis. I view it as essential and this is not necessarily the opinion of my teammates.
Wrap up: After the meeting with the client, each of us on the team worked individually on the tasks assigned, communicating on a daily basis through email.
Reflections
Compromise, compromise, compromise, this is the magic word. However, when should one compromise and when should one not compromise? People differ in their views on a perfected product and that is a challenge when working on a team. People differ on priorities and that is another challenge. One more challenge is compromising ideals with realities. Wanting an ideal product that follows all the rules in the book gets put to the test when faced with deadlines and real-life scenarios. This is something I really need to work hard on. It is very difficult for me to accept it but I know deep inside that, ultimately, it has to happen. However, I cannot but try to take the final product as close as possible to the ideals.
Practice: Although working on the website design took more hours from me than I have wished, I enjoyed every minute of it. This is because, the more I dig in it the more I learn about it. It is thrilling for me to perceive the comfort level I have now with technology unlike my feelings about my technology skills coming into the IDT program. About Dreamweaver, I still need to work on how to move an internal CSS to an external CSS. I resort to designing the CSS rules of the first file and saving it as a template. Although it is very functional, I need to learn how to save an external style sheet, once and for all.
A lot has been accomplished this week, a lot has been learned. I hope the dynamics of work between team members and team/client, as well as meeting the deadlines will allow for a smooth progression of the work needed.
The website: After having agreed on color schemes, I offered to clean it up with the help of one of my teammates. We collaborated on picking the right colors, working on menu rollovers, and some other details. I followed up on it at home for few more hours. Since none of us on the team has advanced Dreamweaver skills and since there is more than one way to do the same task in Dreamweaver, it seems to me that we are unable to agree on how to approach the design, stagnating a little too long on that issue and not being able to move forward. At that point, we assigned the finalization of the website to one of the teammates. Two days later, when no progress has been made on the website for technical difficulties, I had to work on it from home some more. In my opinion, we now have an appealing and functioning website that is not yet posted, awaiting more “final touches’. The problems in the website that we are unable to solve are keeping the menu tabs highlighted when active and coordinating the link colors. The selection of the link colors applies to words and buttons at the same time and the colors that look good on the linked words do not look good on the linked buttons (that is outside the menu) and vice versa. This task is 50% completed.
Project charter: We have decided to break the charter into three sections with each one of us developing one section and then all of us giving feedback to each other. For that purpose, and under the project manager’s suggestion, I created a wiki where our collaboration throughout the project is to take place. It was easier to develop the charter after our meeting with the client and this is how we approached it. My section of the charter is 100% completed and took around two hours. I believe the project charter will be well done and completed by the due date, under the good editing of the project manager.
Meeting with the client: The meeting was very productive and we were introduced to two more Autozone representatives responsible for training and instructional design in the company. In that meeting, we discussed the Autozone team’s perceptions of the need for the instructional unit. We probed for details on the characteristics of the learners to whom the instructional unit will be addressed. We also discussed the technicalities for development and implementation of the unit. The Autozone team provided a wealth of details, and showed a great deal of enthusiasm and support for us. They also provided us with the DVDs of the workshop on which the instructional unit will be based. I offered to develop learners’ analysis questions for review and distribution by the Autozone team. Needing to watch the DVDs before developing the questions, my completion of this task is 0% at the time of writing this blog. I am hoping to finalize this task by Saturday. I am not sure if this will give us enough time to have the analysis report ready by its due date. Moreover, there seems to be a disagreement on the importance of carrying out the learners’ analysis. I view it as essential and this is not necessarily the opinion of my teammates.
Wrap up: After the meeting with the client, each of us on the team worked individually on the tasks assigned, communicating on a daily basis through email.
Reflections
Compromise, compromise, compromise, this is the magic word. However, when should one compromise and when should one not compromise? People differ in their views on a perfected product and that is a challenge when working on a team. People differ on priorities and that is another challenge. One more challenge is compromising ideals with realities. Wanting an ideal product that follows all the rules in the book gets put to the test when faced with deadlines and real-life scenarios. This is something I really need to work hard on. It is very difficult for me to accept it but I know deep inside that, ultimately, it has to happen. However, I cannot but try to take the final product as close as possible to the ideals.
Practice: Although working on the website design took more hours from me than I have wished, I enjoyed every minute of it. This is because, the more I dig in it the more I learn about it. It is thrilling for me to perceive the comfort level I have now with technology unlike my feelings about my technology skills coming into the IDT program. About Dreamweaver, I still need to work on how to move an internal CSS to an external CSS. I resort to designing the CSS rules of the first file and saving it as a template. Although it is very functional, I need to learn how to save an external style sheet, once and for all.
A lot has been accomplished this week, a lot has been learned. I hope the dynamics of work between team members and team/client, as well as meeting the deadlines will allow for a smooth progression of the work needed.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The beginning
Last Thursday, we started class. We listened to different potential clients who presented their proposals of instructional design projects. After selecting our team members, we decided on our projects. I was on the team that was assigned to develop an instructional unit on leadership for Autozone. My teammates and I met the very next day to initiate our work. We named our team “Launching Learning Solutions”, based on the initials of our first names. We assigned our different roles. My role is “Instructional Team Lead”. In spite of the lead role assigned to each one of us, we agreed that we will all be involved in all the stages of the instructional design process. We then turned to the color themes of our team’s website. We brainstormed a little bit on that and then decided that we will work on it some more individually and then communicate about it through email. We ended the meeting having chosen the team manager, the team's name, the weekly meeting time, and the assigned roles. Over the weekend, I spent a considerable time experimenting with different color schemes for the website and shared it with my teammates through email. In addition, I developed my individual website which also took a considerable amount of time deciding on the layout and color schemes. For this week, decisions on the team’s name and meeting time were 100% accomplished, whereas, and up to the time of writing this blog, the team’s website is 50% accomplished. My individual website is 100% accomplished.
This first week seemed to be a bit unorganized. I realized that, in a team, members have different working schedules through which the tempo of work may vary. Therefore, communication of ideas will take time. In order to meet the weekly deadlines, I will suggest to my teammates to communicate on a daily basis when work is pending. In addition, I realized that the initiation of a project may me a bit slow. This is more true for our team who did not get the chance to listen to our client’s proposal and establish first contact yet. I believe that the dynamics of interaction among the team members will become more established in the weeks to come and the flow of work will become smoother once we meet our client and get a clear understanding of the instructional need. As for my challenge of the week, I would say it was deciding on color schemes. I had to compromise between my preference for vibrant colors and the professional look that should be given to the websites (team or individual). I am glad to have my teammates to discuss the themes with. I find it fascinating to compare our likes and dislikes. On that issue one may say that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
This first week seemed to be a bit unorganized. I realized that, in a team, members have different working schedules through which the tempo of work may vary. Therefore, communication of ideas will take time. In order to meet the weekly deadlines, I will suggest to my teammates to communicate on a daily basis when work is pending. In addition, I realized that the initiation of a project may me a bit slow. This is more true for our team who did not get the chance to listen to our client’s proposal and establish first contact yet. I believe that the dynamics of interaction among the team members will become more established in the weeks to come and the flow of work will become smoother once we meet our client and get a clear understanding of the instructional need. As for my challenge of the week, I would say it was deciding on color schemes. I had to compromise between my preference for vibrant colors and the professional look that should be given to the websites (team or individual). I am glad to have my teammates to discuss the themes with. I find it fascinating to compare our likes and dislikes. On that issue one may say that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
