Charting New Ground in OnLine Educational Programs:

1

• Charting New Ground in On-Line Educational
  Programs
• A collaborative approach to the process of
  courseware development
• Interface Conference May 29, 2003 The Power
  of Learning
• Educational Design Team
• Academic Development Centre
• Mount Royal College
• www.mtroyal.ab.ca/adc/

2
Educational Design Team (Norm)

• Educational Technology Integration Coordinator
  Norm Vaughan
• Instructional Design Consultant Amanda Coolidge
• Instructional Design Consultant Pattie Mascaro
• Educational Technology Programmer Amanda
  Veinotte
• Graphic Artist / Art Director Maris Mosenko
• Student Technology Resource Tutor (START)
  Julie Alati-it

3
Presentation Objectives (Norm)

• Describe the transition from single course to
  complete online program development
• Discuss the importance of a collaborative based
  approach and process to courseware development
• Share and discuss lessons learned from the
  Mount Royal College courseware design,
  development and delivery experience

4
Production Centered Model (Norm)
Project Coordinator/ Instructional Designer
CoursewareProject
Content Expert/Faculty Member
Instructional Technology Programmer
Graphic Artist/ Web Developer
5
Production Centered Model (Norm)

• Pros
• Development of a very sophisticated courseware
  project
• Cons
• Sustainability issues
• Limited use one or two faculty members
• Limited scope one specific course

6
Faculty Centered Model (Norm)
Limited Graphic Support
Educational Technology Training
Faculty Courseware Project
Limited Programming Support
Instructional Design Consultation
7
Faculty Centered Model (Norm)

• Pros
• Development of a sustainable courseware project
• Focus on using technology to transform the
  teaching/learning process
• Cons
• Limited use one or two faculty members
• Limited scope one specific course

8
Transition from a single course to program
development focus (Norm)

• SINGLE COURSE FOCUS
• External funding sources
• Mount Royal College Technology Integration Plan
  One
• Single faculty identifying needs for specific
  courses
• Application proposal process vetted by Deans
  Council on strategic institutional needs
• faculty readiness
• high enrolment courses

• PROGRAM FOCUS
• Sustainable internal funding
• MRC TIP2
• Development of departmental E- Learning plans for
  online program development
• E- Learning plans evaluated by Deans Council
  based on
• market demand
• curriculum readiness
• faculty team readiness
• student readiness

9
Which model should we use for program based
courseware development?( Maris )

• What CAN we control?
• Communication
• Clear Project Objectives
• Physical Resources
• (Time, people, equipment tools)
• Budget

• What CANT we control?
• Efficient Clear Communication
• Team Attitudes
• Working styles of team members
• Unexpected setbacks

10
A Collaborative (Program) Centered
ApproachCommunication Model
11
Collaborative (Program) Centered Model (Maris)

• Pros
• A fluid process model to accommodate various
  working styles
• Provides structure for issues around
  communication to make it possible for more people
  to be involved in development
• Not a hierarchical model Good for team morale
  attitude
• Development of sustainable courseware (not built
  by one person)
• Focus on using technology to transform the
  teaching/learning process Not using technology
  for the sake of using technology
• Widespread use and scope designed to be used by
  numerous faculty throughout an entire academic
  program
• Cons
• Increased size of development team (community)
• Communication and process challenges

12
Tools (Key Documents) Needed for a Collaborative
Program Centered ModelCollaboration Requires
Clear Communication

• Team Orientation
• Communication Model
• Phases of development

• Project Profile
• Project Charter
• Site Structure / File Inventory
• Maintenance Guide

13
Collaborative Team Phases (Maris)
14
Phase 1 Team Building (Amanda C.)

• Description
• Setting the stage Orientation
• Naming all the players
• Collaborative (Program) Centered Model
• Identifying the roles
• Roles and Responsibilities based on the Model

15
Phase 1 Team Building (Amanda C.)

• Key Documents
• Project Profile
• Finish filling out the Profile
• Instructional Designer assist key Faculty contact
  person
• Project Vision statement identified

16
Phase 1 Team Building (Amanda C.)

• Key Activities
• Project Vision
• Communication and Identification of Roles
• Outline of Project Development Where to begin?
• Equal partnership
• Production implications
• Decision making

17
Phase 2 Planning on Paper (Pattie)

• Description
• Initial planning
• Provide the structure / tools to support the
  team.
• Build a solid infrastructure and team plan.

18
Phase 2 Planning on Paper (Pattie)

• Key Documents
• Project Charter
• Site Structure (Architecture) File Inventory
• Team Process Communication Guidelines

19
Phase 2 Planning on Paper (Pattie)

• Key Activities
• Create / complete planning documents
• Fill out project Charter
• Identify learning outcomes and goals
• Identify project outcomes
• Create timelines
• Identify resources
• Identify Deliverables
• Create status report procedures (schedule,
  authors, recipients)
• Identify assessment tools
• Contingency plans
• Creation of content submission templates

20
Phase 2 Planning on Paper (Pattie)

• Key Activities (Contd)
• Identify content structure
• Storyboard
• interactivities
• learning activities
• Identify programming needs/requests
• Identify scope and feasibility of requests

21
Phase 3 Building a Prototype (Designing
Building) (Amanda V.)

• Description
• Prototype a version of the site on a reduced
  scale so effectiveness can be evaluated and
  tested.
• Challenges Non-technical team members often want
  to see something tangible right away without
  proper planning completed
• Prototyping - makes the ideas concrete.
  Illuminates potential deficiencies etc.
• The Goal is not to make something perfect but
  rather more like The best we can do with given
  resources
• End product is one module which can be
  systematically reproduced. Only minimal decisions
  beyond this step. All the problems should be
  solved by this point.

22
Phase 3 Building a Prototype (Designing
Building) (Amanda V.)

• Key Documents
• Project Charter
• Site Structure (Architecture) File Inventory
• Team Process Communication Guidelines
• As problems and challenges are encountered,
  related to the product design or the
  communication process, solutions are noted in
  project notes so that they can be referenced in
  the future.

23
Phase 3 Building a Prototype (Designing
Building) (Amanda V.)

• Key Activities
• HTML wireframe Architecture (test and revise)
• Visual Interface design (Visuals) (test and
  revise)
• Ongoing content development
• Enter module content (test and revise?)

24
Phase 4 Gathering Piecing Together (Final
Content Development) (Maris)

• Description
• This phase is the continuation of development,
  and the gathering and bringing together of
  remaining elements to create a completed project.
  
• This phase is the continuation of production, and
  the gathering and bringing together of 'all the
  elements' to create a completed project.
• (complete as defined in Project Charter
  reaching all goals and seeing project vision
  completed)

25
Phase 4 Gathering Piecing Together (Final
Content Development) (Maris)

• KEY DOCUMENTS
• Project Charter
• Site Structure (Architecture) File Inventory
• Team Process Communication Guidelines

26
Phase 4 Gathering Piecing Together (Final
Content Development) (Maris)

• KEY ACTIVITIES
• Add finishing touches
• Gathering finished pieces from other team
  members.
• Final revisions to content visuals
• Compiling pieces into Completed site
• Quality testing

27
Phase 5 Implementation Delivery (Norm)

• DESCRIPTION
• This phase focuses on issues of
• Delivery
• Maintenance
• Evaluation
• Sustainability

28
Phase 5 Implementation Delivery (Norm)

• KEY DOCUMENTS
• Project Charter
• Site Structure (Architecture) File Inventory
• Team Process Communication Guidelines
• Maintenance Guide
• Evaluation Plan and Procedure

29
Phase 5 Implementation Delivery (Norm)

• Key Activities
• Orientation of faculty / instructors
• Courseware delivery team identifies final
  implementation plans Maintenance Issues, Who do
  I contact for what? A document that identifies
  the established lines of communication. How do
  streams of development interact with one another?
• Orientation of students
• Handing off the project to those now responsible
  - Maintenance package which includes file
  inventory and structure, Dreamweaver help,
  Blackboard information (if applicable), graphics
  information, development guidelines, Spec Guide
  (what type of font/color was used throughout the
  site)
• Evaluation plan and tool for determining the
  impact of the educational technology project on
  student learning

30
Phase 5 Implementation Delivery (Norm)
KEY PLAYERS

• Educational Technology Training Consultant
• Faculty orientation support
• Student Technician Resource Tutor (START)
  Program
• Learner (student) orientation support
• Departmental support maintenance
• Office of Institutional Analysis Planning
• Course program evaluation support

31
Phase 5 Implementation Delivery (Norm)

• EVALUATION TOOLS
• Flashlight Program for the Study and Improvement
  of Educational Uses of Technology
• http//www.tltgroup.org/programs/flashlight.html
• Free Assessment Summary Tool (FAST)
• http//www.getfast.ca/

32
Lessons Learned

• Lessons learned log
• Developing a communication content development
  process (key contacts and editors)
• Establishing time and financial parameters for
  the development of multimedia interactivities
• Mandatory faculty orientations to facilitating
  online learning
• Revision support for initial online course
  offerings
• Departmental sustainability plans and resources
  (updates and revisions)

33
Questions, Comments, Discussion