My role in the activity was to 1) pick the approach LOT will
use to meet each objective; which we applied to both the course itself and to
the weekly activities, and 2) determine the teaching sequence of our
objectives; which we took from the provided syllabus. I found this all very
interesting; there never seemed to be just one approach, or just one sequence; I
think it is because we chose to design this course as a hybrid. Upon collaboration
with teammates, we all determined that these were accurate to our design plan.
Wow! Our team worked very hard to get this assignment
together. Several people attended the first Skype meeting with Dr. Hunziger
(AKA Dr. Newberry). This was very helpful in areas where there was confusion as
to the direction we would take various areas. We successfully collaborated in
several different ways, sometimes as a group and other times individually via
email, texts and phone calls.
Nicole has been an awesome primary. She has explained that
this is a new area for her, and I can say that you cannot tell. She has stepped
in and taken charge like a real pro. Immediately after the Skype meeting with
Dr. Hunziger, she arranged for a group Skype meeting the very next day; she
later set up more Skype meetings and due dates. At one point we all seemed a
bit confused, she called one last Skype the very next morning. She also took on
the responsibility of creating the Google doc that we used for collaborating
our tasks, editing the doc into a great final draft and submitting it to the
professor.
Laura was her right hand- or that’s the way I saw it. She
was so very helpful to everyone. Although she had to catch a flight the next
morning, she attended the first Skype with Dr. Hunziger and diligently began
working on our project late into that night. She also met and communicated with
the group regularly, despite the time difference. I know other people needed
help with some clarification on their parts and she stepped in and met with
them via Skype, email and texting. That was so awesome. And personally, I sent
her my part and she offered great comments and considerations.
Everyone else attended regularly and shared ideas and help
via email throughout the whole process. I can say I have emailed back and forth
with nearly every member. We had a new member add and we were quite concerned as
we had not spoken with her, but she stepped in a provided great contribution to
the project. Every team member met deadlines and attended meetings (except with
legitimate reasons).
When it comes to my thoughts on the instructional design
process, specifically in light of this project, I am not a fan. I am speaking
specifically about the 11 step process. It seemed like a great thing when I first
read it (remember- I have 0 experience in this area) but as we applied it to
the project, we found it to be very repetitious. I thought it was just me, but
as I was writing my portion, I felt like I was repeating things I had already
read. But, we are presenting it to an instructor who needs to be sold on the
idea, as he is comfortable and set in his ways.
Designing an educational course is nothing like I thought it
was when coming into the class. I really thought it was just a matter of an instructor,
basically, filling in a template with the stuff from his course/syllabus and
boom- you’re done! Wow, was I wrong. Every step of the process relies on the
previous step. In a team collaboration, that means relying on the person before
you getting their part done, and done accurately, because you rely on their
information to complete your own step.
I feel like I am learning so much more with every step we
make. My team members not only offer such great insight, they also are very
understanding in the fact that several of us are new and have no experience in
this area of expertise. I admire that quality!
