Assessment in Online Learning: Discussion Post

Safe driving experiments and brain research show that multi-tasking drivers cannot process everything occurring on the roadway and the distractions which can occur while driving and respond appropriately. If you need to refresh your memory on distracted driving, view this video on some of the craziest driver distractions before proceeding to this weeks discussion post.



In this weeks discussion you are being asked to discuss possible driving distractions you have experienced or foresee possibly experiencing; discuss why they are a potential problem or danger; and when and how we might eliminate them when driving.

Participation in the discussion forums is critical for maximizing your learning experiences in an online course. Therefore, you are required to be an active part of our online community. A participant who interacts, through discussion, will enhance and support the professional development of the group. Part of the assessment criteria for this course includes assessing the quality and quantity of your participation in the discussion forum.

Some characteristics considered part of excellent discussion contributions are outlined below. Your facilitator will consider these characteristics when assessing the quality and level of your participation.

• You should submit your initial post(s) early in the weekly session and no later than Wednesday. Your subsequent responses to the posts of other learners should occur at timely intervals through the remainder of the week (see posting criteria within the rubric). Keep in mind the goal is to have a dynamic discussion that lasts throughout the entire weekly session.
• Your posts and responses should be thorough and thoughtful. Just posting an "I agree" or "Good ideas" will not be considered adequate. Statements should be supported with examples, experiences, professional or academic references. You are, however, encouraged to be brief — keep each post and response to two or three short paragraphs. Keep in mind that you and your fellow learners will be reading and responding to at least two of your fellow learners.
  
• Make certain to address the discussion prompt(s). This does not mean you should not extend the topic, but do not stray from the topic.
  
• Discussions occur when there is a dialogue. So, build upon the posts and responses of other learners to create engaging and thoughtful discussion threads. Make sure you revisit the discussion forum and respond (if necessary) to what other learners have posted to your initial responses.
  
• Add to the discussion by including prior knowledge, work experiences, references, Web sites, resources, etc. when relevant (credit references using APA format when appropriate).
  
• Your contributions to the discussion posts and responses should be complete and free of grammatical or structural errors.
  

Click this link for a copy of the discussion rubric.

By Wednesday:
Post your initial discussion on a possible driving distraction a driver might face as well as why it is risky or dangerous and how one might avoid the distraction. Support your post with resources and research.

By Friday:

Post a response to at least one of the initial discussion posts of your fellow students.

By Saturday:
Return to each of your colleagues' Discussion posts and post at least 2 follow up responses to the thread(s)of your choice. Try to find a conversation thread engaging to you and support your responses with references, examples, or your own experiences. Please keep in mind that your responses should always be respectful and professional in tone.

Dealing with Scope Creep

Over the years I have been involved in several projects that experienced “scope creep”. One of the largest projects with which I experienced this was originally a project to create an online course for high school and higher education across the state.  

As I had contracted to do several of these in the past, this was nothing new.  However, just as the project scope and deliverables were being completed, the client decided to move the project due to political pressure and a consortium of several states wanting to create the same course.  The states in conjunction with SREB decided to outsource that particular one course project and my role would be only to import into the statewide Moodle LMS and market the course along with our other course offerings (I worked for a state education commission at the time).  

Two weeks after receiving this news, the client came back to ask if I would be willing to take on the rest of their grant deliverables.  The $50,000 course had now turned into a $500,000 project.   As it was a much larger project, the timeline was extended by 6 months and I was able to define what deliverables I would provide to make an impact statewide on the number of students becoming aware of opportunities in post-secondary education.  Again, I was tasked as the project manager for what turned into multiple multimedia deliverables. I would really define this more as scope explosion rather than scope creep through creep did occur after the initial explosion. 

There was some pressure from stakeholders and team members to include activities or deliverables that were not originally envisioned as part of the project as the work ensued.  This was especially a problem with the client who drug their feet when it came to deliverables agreed upon.  They were continually coming asking to add other small projects.  As one project was of high political visibility and included several highly sought advocates for the cause (Dr. Richard W. Riley, former US Secretary of Education and former SC State Governor for one), I did rework some of the deliverables and adjust timelines midstream.  

Throughout the entire process, I had to maintain a strict approval process in order to meet the deliverables within the allotted timeframes and continually fought to get time allotted from the assigned team members’ managers, which had been approved within the initial project development.  However, when it came time to need them, the team members and equipment were continually pulled for “priorities” (non-revenue producing) of other projects.  I continually had to go to the project sponsor, the VP of Education, to get cooperation.  One project which was $50,000, the department manager would not answer emails nor come to meetings.  This was a vital project within the multiple project work this had become.  Due to time constraints and lack of available subject matter personnel as they were all within his department, I was forced to outsource this particular project to an advertising agency.

In the end, I met all the deliverables and the project(s)  assets were beneficial and met the desired outcomes of the project.  I learned a tremendous amount about project management including creating and using a Gantt chart to manage large projects.  This allowed everyone including the client to visually see how delays affected not only one small asset or project  but also the project as a whole.  

Estimating Costs and Time in Instructional Design

This week, my  task has been to allocate the resources and estimate the costs associated with an ID project. Fortunately, many resources exist to help with these estimates for project managers as they begin to manage ID projects, and the ID community is always eager to help fellow Instructional Designers, if you know where to look.  Here are three resources that would be useful in estimating the costs, effort, and/or activity durations associated with ID projects. 

At Don Clark's "Big Dog & Little Dog's  Performance Juxtaposition" website http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/costs.html,  instructional designers and ID project managers

The Art of Communication

In the Walden University multimedia program “The Art of Effective Communication”, the message scenario for Mark’s missing report was delivered in three distinct ways.  Here we discuss how you communicate with different project stakeholders is equally important but can have distinct differences in the way messages are interpreted.  Below we discuss the difference in one message delivered in three ways.

Face to Face

The first of the communication methods we will discuss is that of the face to face discussion.  Jane seems almost apologetic in the beginning of her request of the missing report

Learning from a Project “ Post-mortem”

In a previous project management endeavor writing a large multi-million dollar federal grant which involved all the departments of the organization, it was important to follow the project management process.  I began with reading the terms of the grant to establish the intent and scope of the project.  I then had to design and present a proposal to convince the leadership team this was a worthwhile endeavor as it would require resources from all departments both in the grant proposal and the resultant grant fulfillment if the grant was awarded.  The proposal as also a way to sell the project internally to all departments and to attain a project sponsor who could work around roadblocks or uncooperative department employees. 

The grant writing group consisted of three to five participants (three constant and two as needed) with myself as the lead.  The writing