Message sent does not mean message received

-->

How can it be that you think your message is nice,

When communicating with team members on a project, there are many options available through the use of technology.  However, which method is best depends on the circumstances and can affect the clarity and results of the communication (Stolovitch, n/d).  Let’s examine three different modalities for sharing the same content.

but the response you receive is defensive?

Text:

As stated by Stolovitch (n/d), effective written communication should be more business formal

in format, stating in the first line the purpose of the communication.  This email example has an informal tone and reads as a rambling plea for a document.  The tone also conveys that the author thinks the receiver is not doing his part of the work and will hold up her project.  Clear communication of dates is vital to keeping deliverables on track (Portny, Samuel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, & Kramer, 2008).  Without stating a specific time and date that the author expects the document, the receiver may feel that he has plenty of time to accomplish the task, or that the sender of the message is overreacting.  Either way, the receiver of this message may have feelings of resentment or pressure that may prevent an amicable result.

Voice:

The voice message sounded more formal yet on topic than the text alone.  The speaker expressed a polite and caring tone in recognizing that the listener may have been in all day meetings before moving to the reason for the message.  The caller stated why the report was needed to complete her portion of the project, and how to get the information to her.  This message conveyed less opportunity for the receiver to react negatively because the tone of voice conveyed a non-confrontational attitude. 

Face-to-Face:

The body language, posture, facial expressions, and voice tone give the face-to-face message a completely different tone from the text or voice only examples.  However, in face-to-face communication, the receiver of the message may not remember what the message was without written back-up (Stolovitch, n/d).  Stolovitch also states that in-person meetings are best for vital project segments and that ongoing communication works well via phone and email. 

Conclusion

From these three examples, the voice message was the most effective for the following reasons:

1.     Polite business tone was communicated

2.     The receiver of the message could take notes on the information

3.     The receiver had choice over the best time to listen to the message

The face-to-face message seemed the least effective for the following reasons:

1.     Catching a team member at their cubicle gives them no choice over time and may interrupt their workflow

2.     The verbal message may be forgotten due to other interruptions

3.     This method is not able to be saved or revisited like an email or voicemail

While there are many methods for communication with team members over project deliverables and timelines, a voice message can be a simple and direct means of conveying needed action from an individual without creating tension in the group. 

References:

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

Stolovich, H. (2012). Project Management Concerns: Communication Strategies and Organizational Culture. Retrieved on January 21, 2013 from https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.isp?tab tab group id = 2 18;url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_2097260_1%26url%3D

Post Mortem Reflection on Blended Learning

Project Description:

An expectation was handed down from an associate superintendent to a district level coordinator for the implementation of blended learning in all Advanced Academic (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) classrooms using Blackboard©, the district learning management system.  The AP and IB Coordinator sought assistance from the district Learning Technology department, and the executive director assigned the project to me.  Having all of the responsibility, none of the authority, and zero knowledge of project management I was able to manage a good amount of success.  But as this project is poised to go into the second iteration with all the freshmen (9^th grade) teachers in the district, a post mortem reflection will provide a more successful round as the project expands to a larger group.

The project was mostly successful when measured by the number of teachers who built content in the online CMS and passed the Instructional Design and Curricular reviews.  This success was hard-won and consumed most of my life for the last 6 months.   

Factors that made the project succeed:

·      Focused support, guidance, and communication from the advanced academics coordinator.  She answered my phone calls, proof-read documents, gave sage advice on communication and dealing with people issues.

·      Saving all emails and communication records so that if a question came up concerning a particular issue, there was documentation to support the project expectations.

·      Executive staff accountability, the associate superintendent communicated the expectation to principals and held them accountable for making their teachers comply with the initiative.

What I wish I had known about Project Management :

·      Statement of Work - this document would have clarified the scope of the project, the team members involved, the risks, constraints, and objectives.  Without a written approval of the plan, I was never sure of my role, where to send project updates, or how the project would be objectively measured for success.  Because so much of the process was verbal and done amidst department and district upheaval, I was often unsure of the support I would receive from direct report which caused confusion for the teachers being directed to complete the tasks.

·      Project plan document - this would have served to diagram a flowchart of all the parts of the project.  I attempted to map out the project in terms of instructional design, but that process did not account for the other people involved in meeting the objectives.  As the project progressed, I remember feeling as if it were an octopus that continually added new tentacles.  At the onset of the project, I had an understanding of what needed to be done, but without knowing how to plan a successful project by discover my unkown-knowns, and unknown-unknowns, and developing plans to minimize the impact of them, I was thrown into a reaction situation that consumed great amounts of time and effort. 

·      Project structure breakdown – after completing the statement of work and project plan, a list of deliverables and tasks along with who was responsible for each would have clarified the roles and expectations to all stakeholders.  Without a breakdown of the structure, the project stagnated for weeks at a time.  Dates and expectations were not understood by stakeholders nor agreed upon which set up loopholes for teachers who did not want to make the change, and confused and frustrated those who wanted to comply.

·      Project schedule – defined and approved before teacher involvement, this document would have clarified the expected deadlines for compliance.  Threatening to “write teachers up” for non-compliance when the deadlines are communicated in sporadic emails and through various individuals is unprofessional and unethical.  

Essentially

The entire process of Project Management would have saved time, effort, and sanity for the teachers and for me.  Gaps and unknowns would have been recognized and either clarified or provisioned for while the scope and schedule would have kept bottlenecking and project lag minimized.  

References:

Greer, M. (2010). The project management minimalist: Just enough PM to rock

your projects! (Laureate custom ed.). Baltimore: Laureate Education, Inc.

Portny, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., &

Kramer, B. E. (2008). Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Reflecting Upon the Future of Online Learning and the Role of the Instructional Designer

-->

Online and distance learning has long fit a niche for particular educational needs (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, Zvacek, 2012).  In the past, correspondence, radio, and television have all been used to conduct learning at a distance.  And, with each new technology, the audience and influence of learning at a distance grew (Huett, Moller, Foshay, & Coleman, 2008).   The onset of the Internet for the transmission of information and multimedia across vast distances with virtually no delay, has revolutionized the industry (Simonson, et al, 2012). 

            With the increasing popularity and variety of online learning programs, a new methodology for instruction has evolved to include hybrid or blended models (Horn, & Staker, 2011).  Through reports such as Speak Up Now, learning has gone from industrialized to personalized (Project Tomorrow, 2012).  The current generation of students have never known life without the convenience of instant access to information, and the use of distance education can greatly assist students in the acquisition of valuable skills they will need to be successful in their future (P21, 2011).  Within the next decade, more personalization of learning will occur, primarily within the confines of the traditional classroom as hybrid, blended, and fles models of learning become the norm (Horn, & Staker, 2011).  Once the personalization has hit a critical mass, the future of distance learning could likely move into students learning skills and content at their own pace, place, and time, in a location of their choice (Project Tomorrow, 2012). 

            While many adults are drawn to online learning due to the need to fit learning within their ever-shrinking free time; not all courses are created equal (Beaudoin, Kurtz, & Eden, 2009).  Beyond poorly designed courses, and less reputable institutions looking to cash in on the online learning trend; the role of an instructional designer remains the same regardless of the medium of instruction (Simonson, et al, 2012).  By being a proponent of the principles guiding quality instructional design and informing and guiding others through quality online experiences, the designer is best able to positively influence how distance learning is perceived.  Staying current in research and the data concerning efficacy of online versus traditional learning also helps to steer conversations towards the great benefits the online student-centered environment gives (Dabbagh, 2007). 

            Through my current work in a large, urban, public school system in the United States; I will continue to work with teachers in our high schools to design blended courses in the district course management system (CMS).  As this shift in delivery of instruction continues, there are various opportunities to implement the A.D.D.I.E model of instructional design, as well as providing comfort, knowledge, advice, and support to teachers throughout the process.  Beyond the copying of old and outdated worksheets into the CMS, the blended learning orientation and training models best practices for designing and delivering instruction in multiple formats to engage and instruct the learner.  Through modeling in the online environment and face-to-face trainings, teachers have the opportunity to design and build a course that will enhance instruction and place students in the role of being responsible for their learning (P21, 2011).  An review process involving executive staff, curriculum coordinators, and instructional designers, lends legitimacy to the finished courses (Horn, & Staker, 2011).

 BlackboardTV (2011). Bb World 2011:  A quick chat with Sir Ken Robinson - green room.  Retrieved from:  http://youtu.be/nMUa5wTYBNk






References:

Allen, E. & Seaman, J. (2011).  Going the distance: Online education in the United

States, 2011.  Retrieved from:

https://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/going_distance_2011

Beaudoin, M. F., Kurtz, G., & Eden, S. (2009). Experiences and Opinions of E-learners:

What Works, What are the Challenges, and What Competencies Ensure Successful Online Learning. Interdisciplinary Journal Of E-Learning & Learning Objects, 5275-289.

Dabbagh, N. (2007). The online learner: Characteristics and pedagogical

implications.  Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(3), 217- 226.

Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2011).  The rise of K-12 blended learning. Innosight

Institute. Retrieved from: http://www.projectred.org/uploads/The-Rise-of-K-12-Blended-Learning.pdf

Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Coleman, C. (2008). The evolution of distance

education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 3: K12). TechTrends, 52(5), 63–67.

Partnership for 21^st Century Skills (P21), (2011).  Framework for 21^st century

learning.  http://www.p21.org/overview

Project Tomorrow.  (2012).  Mapping a personalized learning journey – K-12

students and parents connect the dots with digital learning.  Speak Up 2011: National Findings K-12 Students & Parents April 2012.  Retrieved from: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CFkQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tomorrow.org%2Fspeakup%2Fpdfs%2FSU11_PersonalizedLearning_Students.pdf&ei=uUzWUIiTAoeQ9QTLzIGwCg&usg=AFQjCNFB3dl8wlhWvsL3T4YtQs65WMafLA&sig2=WrJ3Gcti4ATSD3wqLwfTFQ&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.eWU&cad=rja

Simonson, M. Smaldino, S. Albright, M. & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and

learning at a distance: Foundationsof distance education (5^th Ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

Converting to Distance or Blended Learning

-->

When making the shift from synchronous, face-to-face instruction, to that of blended online instruction, several considerations must be addressed.  Using the tried and true A.D.D.I.E. model, here are some basics that should be considered first.

 

 

Analyze

·      Characteristics of the learner.

·      Goals of the program.

·      Outcomes of communication among participants.

·      Technology available to the trainer and participants.

Design

·      Asynchronous discussions and activities

·      Synchronous lessons and discussions for face-to-face

·      Assessments to determine whether participants have met the intended goals

Develop

·      Online components

·      Face-to-face components

·      Supporting materials for the facilitator and the participants such as a syllabus, orientation to the online environment, and a guide to the requirements and expectations of the course

·      Assessments for the evaluation of project success

Implement

·      Train the facilitator

·      Train the participants

·      Pilot the blended course with a group

Evaluate

·      Did the outcomes match the goals of the course?

·      What benefits did teacher and students state of the online component?

·      What obstacles did the online component create?

·      What improvements should be made?  (Morrison, Ross, Kalman, & Kemp, 2011).

Enhancements Afforded by the Shift:

Discussions and review materials would be enhanced in the online environment because all students could share their views, as well as affording the teacher the ability to hold students accountable for meeting specific criteria for quality discussion posts (Stacey, & Wiesenberg, 2007).   

Adjustments to Present Instructional Practices:

Rather than lecturing or presenting information, the trainer can moderate and facilitate the online discussions; this will create a richer community allowing for greater understanding of students and material when the face-to-face sessions occur.  The instructor can bring out the best from the asynchronous communication to go deeper into the content or allow time for participants to collaborate on projects (Gedik, Kiraz, & Özden, 2012).

How to Encourage Online Participation When Students are Online:

By addressing material from the online communication in the face-to-face course, as well as providing meaningful discussions and skillful facilitation of the online component, students will be more motivated to complete the online component of the training.  Additionally, the instructor can share information concerning the importance of online discussions and the benefits students will receive from their active participation (So, & Bush, 2008).

Sample Guide for Making the Shift

References:

-->

Gedik, N., Kiraz, E., & Özden, M. Y. (2012).  The optimum blend: Affordances and

challenges of blended learning for students.  Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, July 2012, 3(3), 102-117.

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H.K., & Kemp, J.E. (2011).  Designing effective

instruction. (6th ed.).  Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

So, H., & Bush, T. A. (2008).  Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social

presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors.  Computers & Education, 51, 318-336.

Stacey, E. & Wiesenberg, F. (2007).  A study of face-to-face and online teaching

philosophies in Canada and Australia.  Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 19-40.