Joyce's Blog

For the empathy phase of my design challenge, I was planning to use a combination of the secondary research and extreme and mainstreams methods as introduced in the IDEO design kit; however, I hit an obstacle. Like some of my other peers, due to time constraints and time of year (summer holidays), the participants that I was hoping to interview for my needs assessment are not available. Fortunately, I have been in touch with one of my colleagues who assists one of the faculty members during class and was able to interview her to get her perspective on the students’ conduct while guest speakers present. With the interview results and the secondary research, I decided to use an empathy map to assist me with synthesizing the results. As pointed out by our instructor, Jordanne Christie, in her Collaborate Session presentation on July 3, an empathy map will allow us to “draw out unexpected insights about end users’ words, thoughts, feelings and actions”. Please refer to Figure 1 to see the findings.

Figure 1: Empathy Map by Joyce W.

To try and define my design challenge, the method that resonates with me so far is the Point-of-View (POV) Madlib method which was described by Woolery (2017) and in the d.school bootcamp bootleg. The POV statement incorporates the information about the end user, their needs and the insights that has been noted during the empathy phase.

[USER] needs to [USER’S NEED] because [SURPRISING INSIGHT]

I feel that this method will help me to reframe my design challenge especially since the POV statement can be converted into “How Might We (HMW)” questions, which will lead into the Ideate phase of the design thinking process.

References:

IDEO. (2015). Design Kit – Methods. Retrieved from http://www.designkit.org/methods

Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). Bootcamp Bootleg.  Retrieved from http://dschool-old.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/METHODCARDS-v3-slim.pdf

Woolery, E. (2017). Design Thinking Handbook. Retrieved from https://www.designbetter.co/design-thinking

 

During one of our first year Dental Hygiene courses, we like to have guest speakers especially from the Royal Canadian Legion or Parkdale Queen West Community Health Centre to introduce their programs that the students will be involved with when providing dental services for vulnerable populations in our community.

My design challenge is to develop a digital resource that students would be able to refer to if they were unable to see the guest speaker, if they cannot remember information about the program, or a place where they can post questions to each other or the instructor about the program.

“Empathy is about finding echoes of another person in yourself” (author Mohsin Hamid, in Leyshon 2012, as cited by Matthews, Williams, Yanchar & McDonald, 2017)

When thinking about the design, our students need to be considered. Their ages range from 18 (straight out of high school) to 50 or older (second or third career change). Some of them have post secondary education where they achieved a diploma or certificate from college or completed an undergraduate degree from university. Some of our students are new immigrants or are International students; therefore, English may be their second language. From the implementation of electronic textbooks in September 2019, it has been found through feedback from our faculty that the students are not comfortable with the digital environment and are not accessing the digital resources or modules.  Another possibility that the students are not accessing the digital resources is that they have no time to spend on modules due to the heavy workload in the existing curriculum of theory and clinical requirements.

As noted by IDEO (2015), there are various methods to consider in engaging in a human centred design approach. For this design challenge, I have decided to use a combination of ‘Secondary Research’ and ‘Extremes and Mainstreams’ methods to ensure success of this project. I plan to interview the faculty member who will be involved with working with the students as well as one recent graduate and one current student. The challenge that I may encounter is contacting my participants due to their schedules and summer vacation. I am looking forward to working on this challenge to ensure success of our future students.

References:

IDEO. (2015). Design Kit – Methods. Retrieved from http://www.designkit.org/methods

Matthews, M. T., William, G. S., Yanchar, S. C., & McDonald, J. K. (2017). Empathy in Distance Learning Design Practice. Tech Trends, 61: 486-493. DOI 10.1007/s11528-017-0212-2.

 

                   

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was first introduced to open pedagogy and open educational resources (OER) like open textbooks in our MALAT program through the virtual symposium sessions in April 2018. My curiosity and interest grew as I spoke with others in my cohort and during conferences like the Digital Pedagogy Lab and the CSHS Digital Education for a Digital World at George Brown College.

With the introduction of e-textbooks in our dental hygiene program in September and finding out that some of the e-textbooks were still as high as the traditional print textbooks. Since open textbooks have been implemented in many colleges and universities in many different courses. I was curious to find out if open textbooks are the answer to our issue.

For my inquiry, I have considered the Roger’s Diffusion of Innovation Theory which looks at five characteristics: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability (Rogers & Ellsworth, 1997). Research studies on diffusion demonstrate that innovations that are not complex, advantageous to the users, visibly beneficial, user friendly and easy to trial, “would lead to a more extensive and faster diffusion than an innovation with the opposite characteristics” (Dillon & Morris, 1996, as cited by Du Plessis & Wiese, 2014). Therefore, when looking at the features, benefits and challenges of each of the textbook formats (open digital and open print textbooks, e-textbooks and traditional print textbooks), would one of these be preferred over another to be effective in learning for all students? While there are many studies showing that open textbooks have been beneficial to the students by lowering costs thus increasing accessibility for all students, there have been some studies which are demonstrating that there are costs (i.e. wages of faculty, librarians, designers) to the institutions to create and implement the open textbooks.

References:

Du Plessis, G., & Wiese, M. (2014). The battle of the e-textbook: Libraries’ role in facilitating student acceptance and use of e-textbooks. South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science,80(2), 17-26. doi:10.7553/80-2-1509

Rogers, E., & Ellsworth, J. (1997). Diffusion of innovations. Educational Technology Research and Development. 45(4), 91.

 

Dr. Porter made some great points during his session which really made me reflect on education today and for the future. Currently, education is facing some critical issues for both students and faculty. Education should be equal access to all; however, when you look at the tuition fees for students in Ontario, they are the highest in Canada. According to Nour Alideeb, a Chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students Ontario and who spoke during a panel discussion at the 7th Annual Tommy Douglas Institute, 70% of jobs require post secondary education. So, how are students going to access if funding (OSAP) is being cut/changed? Thus, alternatives need to be considered to increase access to all.

The use of open educational resources (OER) particularly open textbooks is growing to address access. “OER can be used to increase access to learning for those living in unfavourable circumstances and can also be used to address issues of cost, quality, and equity” (McGreal, 2017, p. 292). Because OER are free of licensing restrictions and are openly available, they can be reused, revised, remixed, redistributed and retained (Wiley, 2014, as cited by McGreal, 2017). This means that OER can be adapted to various learning environments, translated to different languages, and modified to address the needs of all learners.

Dr. Porter (2019) reported that the use of open textbooks in Ontario have saved students $4 million so far and that number is still growing. The B.C. Open Textbook Project in December 2018 achieved “over $10 million in savings for students through known adoptions in B.C” (Beattie, 2019, para. 9). Although there are cost savings to students, there are other costs that must be considered which are the salaries and time of the OER creators, adapters and the assemblers (McGreal, 2017, p. 293). However, McGreal (2017) continues to say that “these costs can be significantly reduced by sharing OER with other institutions” (p. 293). Nonetheless, with the adoption of the digital open textbooks, a technological infrastructure is required as well as a trained support staff for both faculty and students (which is still the same cost as using commercial content) (McGreal, 2017).

My inquiry continues…

 

References:

Beattie, E. (2019). Canada OER Group – 2019 Update. Retrieved from https://bccampus.ca/2019/02/19/canada-oer-group-2019-update/

Chow, O., Alideeb, N., Barlow, M., Clarke, J., Hope, K., & Mochama, V. (2019). Panel on Envisioning A Peoples’ Centred Economy. Panel presented at The 7^th Annual Tommy Douglas Institute: Poverty, Populism, Planet: Envisioning Economic Justice, Toronto, ON.

McGreal, R. (2017). Special report on the role of open educational resources in supporting the sustainable development goal 4: Quality education challenges and opportunities. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 18(7) Retrieved from https://ezproxy.royalroads.ca/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/docview/2009106975?accountid=8056

Porter, David. (2019). What will the EdTech renaissance look like? Retrieved from https://ecampusontario.zoom.us/recording/play/yE_j1RGxLol0Ad-Afk2LOJtxVHbeEse0xOL0_a-gZFZqLq08PQKWwMhMB9-VOb4P?continueMode=true

 

 

 

       Photo by Paul Skorupskas on Unsplash

From diving deeper into the realm of open educational resources (OER) and reflecting on my experiences at the college and in the MALAT program, I have now realized how I will be able to focus my inquiry.

At the college, we have implemented the use of e-textbooks in September 2018. Some of the concerns from students are the following: they are having a difficult time with adopting this new technology due to the following: the inability of accessing the textbooks on their devices because of  technical glitches or issues with the access codes; the cost of the e-textbooks is as high as the traditional textbooks; and the inability to have access to the textbooks after the course is completed. These observations can be supported by Pratt, Green, Rasmussen, Lai and Compton (2019) who conducted a study with a dental hygiene program and found that although e-textbooks have been considered ‘revolutionary’ in learning, “adopting this technology has been met with hesitation” (p. 1) because of the aforementioned issues. While doing the team presentation, I realized that OER particularly the use of an open textbook may be our solution; however, although OER has been around for some time, this would be an innovation that would cause a lot of change in our program. A change that may not be that easy to embrace.

To guide my inquiry, I will be looking at Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation Theory which involves the five characteristics that are key to an innovation’s rate of adoption which are “relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability” (Rogers & Ellsworth, 1997, p. 114). Relative advantage is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the practice it replaces. It can be measured by socioeconomic factors, convenience and if it satisfies the end user. However, it may be good for one situation and not the other (Rogers & Ellsworth, 1997). Compatibility is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of the potential adopters. The adoption of an incompatible innovation also often requires adoption of a new value system (Rogers & Ellsworth, 1997). Complexity is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use (Rogers & Ellsworth, 1997). Trialability is the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis (Rogers & Ellsworth, 1997). Observability is the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others (Rogers & Ellsworth, 1997). If all of these are appropriately factored into the innovation, then the rate of adoption for the innovation would be more rapid (Rogers & Ellsworth, 1997).

I will be comparing and contrasting the design features of open digital and open print textbooks vs. e-textbooks and traditional textbooks and analyze which is more advantageous to all students.

Lastly, I will look at the benefits and challenges of each format to determine which format is more effective in learning for all students. An example of an article that would address this is from Jhangiani, Dastur, Le Grand, & Penner (2018), where they found that “students assigned the open textbook, in either print or digital formats, performed either no differently or better on their course exams than students assigned the commercial textbook” (p. 14). Another significant finding from Jhangiani et. al (2018) was due to the “effectiveness of the research examples and the clarity of the writing”, students found the print format of open textbooks better than the commercial textbooks (p. 15).

From my inquiry, I hope to answer the question, “Do all students prefer and have better learning outcomes with open digital and open print textbooks than e-textbooks and traditional printed textbooks?

References:

Jhangiani, R. S., Dastur, F. N., Le Grand, R., & Penner, K. (2018). As Good or Better than Commercial Textbooks: Students’ Perceptions and Outcomes from Using Open Digital and Open Print Textbooks. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 9(1).

Pratt, R.S., Green, J.L., Rasmussen, K., Lai, H., & Compton, S.M. (2019). Dental hygiene students and faculty attitudes and utilization of a single source electronic textbook platform. Int J Dent Hygiene. 1– 12.

Rogers, E., & Ellsworth, J. (1997). Diffusion of innovations. Educational Technology Research and Development: Etr & D,45(4), 91.

 

Photo by Caleb Jones on Unsplash

Prior to becoming a MALAT student, I never heard of open pedagogy or open educational resources (OER). However, by watching the virtual symposium lectures of Paul Stacey, Dave Cormier and Catherine Cronin and reading literature by David Wiley and Tony Bates, my curiosity was sparked.

According to Bates (2015), [o]pen educational resources (OER) are another recent development in open education. These are digital educational materials freely available over the Internet that can be downloaded by instructors (or students) without charge, and if necessary adapted or amended, under a Creative Commons license that provides protections for the creators of the material (p. 34). As we found, OER come in a variety of online formats which are accessible on laptops, tablets and phones. One of the formats that I’m very interested in exploring is open textbooks.

“College textbook prices have skyrocketed in recent years, threatening the affordability and accessibility of higher education” (Allen, 2010, p. 4). Will open textbooks be the solution to this issue? Allen (2010) suggests that open textbooks come in a variety of affordable and accessible formats that can be a cost savings to students. Some of the questions that I would like to answer are:

• Do students prefer open textbooks to e-textbooks and to traditional printed textbooks?
• Are the learning outcomes better with open textbooks than printed textbooks?
• Do open textbooks engage students more than printed?
• Are there limitations to open textbooks?
• Are there barriers in using open textbooks in education?

The use of open textbooks has not been implemented in the dental hygiene program at our college. I’m uncertain if my questions have focused my inquiry. Therefore, I request your feedback and advice.

Thank you!

 

References:

Allen, N. (2010). A Cover to Cover Solution: How Open Textbooks are the Path to Textbook Affordability. In Wiley, D. (2014). An open education reader. Retrieved from https://openedreader.org/

Bates, A.W. (2015). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning. Vancouver BC: Tony Bates Associates Ltd. ISBN: 978-0-9952692-1-7

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forsythe, G. (2012)

Team OER – Brandon Carson, Chad Flinn, Phyz Wilkes and Joyce Wimmer

The digital age has brought forward innovative methods in teaching and learning. Faculty are always facing the challenge of how to effectively teach the diverse student population in an ever-changing learning environment. Therefore, “[t]his requires more focus on teaching methods that provide support for learners, more individualization of learning, and more flexible delivery” (Bates, 2015, p. 36). Over the past few years, there have been new developments in teaching strategies especially in open learning (Bates, 2015); therefore, the delivery technology that will be focused on is open educational resources (OER).

What have we learned and where did we learn it?

Brandon: Throughout the Master of Arts in Learning and Technology (MALAT) program, I have read several academic journal articles that touch upon Open Educational Resources (OER). OER provide many benefits to faculty and students, including a variety of digital formats to use, financial savings through lowering or eliminating the cost of textbooks (Bates, 2015), increased engagement with course material (Jhangiani, Pitt, Hendricks, Key, & Lalonde, 2016), and improved student success metrics (Colvard, Watson & Park, 2018). In order for more faculty to adopt OER into their teaching practices, faculty need to be aware of the concept of OER and have evidence of their similar quality to commercial textbooks (Allen and Seaman 2014). Recently, I have become more interested in learning about faculty perceptions of Open Educational Resources due to my new role as Program Manager – Business OER at eCampusOntario. Higher Education Faculty Perceptions of Open Textbook Adoption by Jung, Bauer and Heaps (2017) examines the cost savings, learning outcomes, different uses of resources and faculty perception of the quality of the open textbooks. The work of Jung, Bauer and Heaps (2017) is an excellent starting point for a better understanding on faculty views of OER, and has encouraged me to explore the topic more throughout the LRNT 526 – Inquiry into Contemporary Issues in Learning Technologies course.

Chad:  Since first learning about Open Educational Resources (OER) at the beginning of the Master of Arts in Learning and Technology (MALAT) I have found myself fascinated and drawn towards the philosophy and practice of their use in my practice.  When first researching into different ways OER could be used in my classroom I was directed towards finding certain “toolkits” that would help give me a basic idea of what OER was and some of the intricacies that go with their use. It was through these toolkits that I learned that OER was not just about giving our students free resources.  As Donner & Chandler (2017) stated, “The research shows that OERs not only reduce student debt, they also (when used appropriately in a course) improve student learning” (p. 2).  The idea that OER could improve student learning fascinates me and is an area that I continue to research and pursue. Other toolkits that have been helpful in my journey into OER and subsequently Open Pedagogy have been the Faculty OER Toolkit (Moist, 2017) and the College Libraries Ontario OER toolkit (n.d).  Both are full of informative resources and tools that help guide someone who is interested in pursuing more information regarding the creation and use of OER.

Joyce: During the Digital Pedagogy Lab 2019, there was an opportunity to network with other educators and facilitators who have worked with open pedagogy, OER, inclusion in the digital environment and other innovative technology used in teaching. Some of the takeaways on OER during discussions and extra readings are that they are freely available; they do not have to be incorporated in all aspects of a course/program – it is up to the facilitator; they need to be well designed; they currently are not available for all topics; and they can be remixed, reused, revised, retained and redistributed (Wiley, 2014; Stacey, 2018).

Teaching in the Digital Age by Tony Bates is one of the digital resources that was introduced to us in the MALAT program. Bates (2015) mentions that OER comes in many different formats such as online textbooks, YouTube clips, digital graphics, lecture notes in Powerpoint slides or pdfs and more. Educators/facilitators can take OER from other sources and adapt them into their courses, create their own resources and allow others to use it, or construct their course around certain OER, and in turn, have learners find their own material for problem-solving and exploration (Bates, 2015).

Phyz: Open Educational Resources (OER) encapsulates a broad spectrum of materials and requires users to understand the fundamentals of what governs it. UNESCO (n.d.) defined OER as “teaching, learning and research materials in any medium – digital or otherwise – that reside in the public domain or have been released under an open license that permits no-cost access, use, adaptation and redistribution by others with no or limited restrictions” (para. 1). These resources range from maps, videos, podcast, applications, textbooks, etc, (Commonwealth of Learning, 2011) which can be used by educators, students or any user, to enhance and transform learning, teaching or training. Likewise, OER’s are created with a license that permits users to re-use the author’s material freely without seeking approval. For this reason, open license provides credit to the author’s ownership of the material or content created (OECD, 2007). The license associated with OER’s is the creative commons copyright licenses.  This license authorizes “everyone from individual creators to large companies and institutions a simple, standardized way to grant copyright permissions to their creative work” (Creative Commons, 2017, para. 1). In that case, the creative commons license allows users to participate in the 5R activities which refer to “retain, reuse, revise, remix, and redistribute” (Wiley, 2014, Chapter 14, para 1). Moreover, OER provide numerous opportunities for educators and students to transform their learning and teaching while building and capitalizing on the abundance of open resources available.

Things that make us go hmmmm (Questions we will explore)

Faculty perception of OER

• What perceptions do faculty have on using Open Educational Resources in their teaching practices?
• What key factors do faculty consider when determining if Open Educational Resources could be used in their courses?

Effectiveness and quality of OER

• Is there a standard/criteria/tool  in place to evaluate or measure the effectiveness and quality of OER?
• What are the measures for quality assurance checks for users and creators of OER, especially students?
• Does OER provide learners with a more compact learning experience than a prioritized text?
• How can students use OER effectively? Are guidelines in place?

Learner-generated OER

• What effect does the collaboration on the building of open educational resources have on the student experience?
• What is the quality of the OER that are created by the students?

Designing inclusive learning experiences using OER

• Can open educational resources be used in designing inclusive learning experiences?
• How can the accessibility gap in OER be bridged?
• Are educators receiving enough support/training in inclusive design of OER?

The use of open educational resources may currently have its limitations; however, it is foreseeable that the development of OER will grow and will be “one of the essential features of teaching in a digital age” (Bates, 2015, p. 348). What do you think? We request your feedback in guiding our inquiry.

Thank you from Team OER!

 

References:

Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Opening the curriculum: Open educational resources in U.S.

Bates, A.W. (2015). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning. Vancouver BC: Tony Bates Associates Ltd. ISBN: 978-0-9952692-1-7

College Libraries Ontario (n.d.). OER Toolkit. Retrieved from https://tlp-lpa.ca/oer-toolkit

Commonwealth of Learning (2011).  A basic guide to open educational resources (OER). Retrieved from  https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000215804

Colvard, N. B., Watson, C. E., & Park, H. (2018). The Impact of Open Educational Resources on Various Student Success Metrics. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 30(2), 15.

Creative Commons (2017). About the licences. Retrieved from https://creativecommons.org/licenses/

Doner, S. Chandler, S. (2017). OER Toolkit for Trades Instructors. Victoria, BC: BCcampus.  Retrieved from https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/oertoolkitfortrades/

Jhangiani, R. S., Pitt, R., Hendricks, C., Key, J., & Lalonde, C. (2016). Exploring faculty use of open educational resources at British Columbia post-secondary institutions. Victoria, BC: BCcampus.

Jung, E., Bauer, C., & Heaps, A. (2017). Higher Education Faculty Perceptions of Open Textbook Adoption. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,18(4). doi:10.19173/irrodl.v18i4.3120

Moist, Shannon. (2017). Faculty OER Toolkit. Victoria, BC: BCcampus. Retrieved  from https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/facultyoertoolkit/

OECD (2007). Giving knowledge for free: The emergence of Open Educational Resources. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/38654317.pdf

UNESCO (n.d.). Open educational resources. Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/themes/building-knowledge-societies/oer

Wiley, D. (2014). An open education reader. Retrieved from https://openedreader.org/

Stacey, P. (2018). Diversity, Equity, Inclusion – Building a Global Learning Commons. In E. Childs (Chair), MALAT Virtual Symposium – Lay of the Land. Symposium conducted at the meeting of Royal Roads University, Victoria, B.C.

 

 

As I reflect on my thoughts of a leader at the beginning of the course, I equated a leader to someone who is more than just a manager or supervisor. I still believe this; however, my perspectives on the characteristics of a leader needed in a digital environment has changed. Castelli (2016) introduces the term, reflective leadership, which depends on intrinsic leadership traits such as self-awareness, mindfulness, wisdom and good judgement. Khan (2017) describes a flexible and supportive leader in a complex situation as an adaptive leader. However, Castelli (2016) and Yukl (2010) suggests that adaptive and reflective leadership “challenge beliefs, assumptions, values and norms” (as cited by Khan, 2017, p. 179). The implementation of digital tools and digital technology are always changing and evolving the learning environments; therefore, leaders need to be adaptive and reflective. The qualities involved with these two leadership styles are ones which I could strengthen.

In my current role as a support staff, I would not normally lead change in our organization; however, because I am currently a MALAT student, I had the opportunity to attend the Digital Pedagogy Lab which was held here in Toronto from Mar. 18th to the 20^th. My boss felt that this would be a great learning experience for me…and it was!  I was able to participate in the Open Pedagogy stream which was facilitated by Dave Cormier. On the first day, we did an activity to try and define what open is. By the end of the day, I realized that open cannot really be defined in one sentence. It is quite complex. One concept is that it involves the self-determined and intrinsically motivated students which direct their own learning, while the educator/facilitator guides the students’ learning. I realized that this is what we are experiencing in each of our courses in the MALAT program. After the three-day experience with Dave, I felt that this is something that I could introduce some of my colleagues and boss to, so to start the conversations, I developed my “elevator pitch” which is an infographic (see figure 1). I know that we won’t be able to incorporate open in all aspects of our courses; however, there are some areas which truly can be open and can be incorporated in the digital learning environment.

Figure 1: What is Open?

In this course, we have learned about leadership, change management, project management, and academic and learning analytics in digital learning, I feel that with the knowledge that I obtained from the readings, the educators and from my cohort, and with the support of my colleagues and supervisor, I would one day have the opportunity to lead a change in our organization.

 

References:

Castelli, P. (2016). Reflective leadership review: a framework for improving organisational performance. Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 217-236.

Khan, N. (2017). Adaptive or Transactional Leadership in Current Higher Education: A Brief Comparison. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3).

Project Implementation Planning Toolkit

by
Jessica Brown, Brandon Carson, Beata Kozma and Joyce Wimmer

An assignment submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the course

LRNT 525 – Leading Change in Digital Learning

Dr. Michelle Harrison
Carrie Spencer

ROYAL ROADS UNIVERSITY
Assignment Due Date: March 17, 2019

Project Implementation Planning Toolkit

For optimal experience, click the above link and download the Project Implementation Planning Toolkit interactive PDF to your computer.

Companion Video

Please enjoy!

 

 

For this activity, we were asked to think of a project that we were involved with where a new technology, program or idea was implemented. When considering this, my experience with a previous organization came to mind. The focus of the project was to develop the digital forms of the dental assessment to be used in the electronic health record.

Prior to working on the project, the leaders communicated the overall goals and purpose of an electronic health record, how it was going to benefit both the staff and patients and discussed the implementation plan during a couple of “town hall” meetings where most staff attended; however, due to varying employee schedules, it was difficult to reach everyone this way. Therefore, they decided to have each manager/director communicate the goals to the members of the team and emailed news bulletins. If people had questions about the project and the manager did not have an answer, then they had someone from senior management/administration to come and talk to the team. When reflecting on the different phases of project management, the initiation and most of the planning was done by the senior management team. As stated in chapter three of Project Management, they had determined the “major deliverables” and identified the “working groups” (Watt, 2014, para. 3).

Working together to achieve a goal.  Image by geralt on Pixabay 

 

The next step was to have a representative(s) for each department meet with the design team to discuss the needs of the team and how the digital forms should look and work. I was asked to meet the design team in one of the computer rooms to do this. We worked on question and answer formatting – free text, check boxes, drop down answers, etc.; how each section of the assessment should look; was it similar to an assessment from another department and how both could be incorporated together, so repetition didn’t occur. We worked on the many different aspects of the digital form. If we completed one area, then we tried it to see if it worked. We did this for about four weeks (one to two days a week, since I still provided care for our patients) until the whole form was completed. During this time, we identified that there was one aspect missing from the form; however, there was no plan in obtaining that part due to the cost. Therefore, we worked our way around this by using a different option which was one of the many contingency plans that were considered. When we were happy with the overall outcome, the assessment forms were incorporated and went live. The process that was used is very similar to the scrum methodology that was described in Watt (2014) as using “sequential sprints for development” (para. 66).

When reflecting on the readings and applying project management to my current position at the college, I can see myself using a methodology that would be flexible and adaptable especially when working in the digital environment. Our students are very diverse and have different capabilities especially when it comes to the digital world. Concepts and technologies are always changing while complex issues may arise; therefore, we need to adapt as we proceed. One thing to consider is reducing or removing the barriers by doing a comprehensive systems analysis (Conway, Masters & Thorold, 2017). Issues can be solved before they occur which leads to a better outcome. Another concept to consider is promoting engagement in the digital environment. The Four C’s Framework of connecting, communicating, collaborating and creating (University of Calgary, 2014) would be effective to use.  As mentioned in the Strategic Framework for Learning Technologies, “[t]he strategic and adaptive plans appear to be the most useful in describing the role of learning technologies” (University of Calgary, 2014, p. 38). Because the digital environment is always changing, it may be necessary to use a combination of methodologies to address issues and manage projects.

References:

Conway, R., Masters, J., & Thorold, J., (2017). From design thinking to systems change: How to invest in innovation for social impact. Royal Society of Arts, Action and Research Centre.

University of Calgary, Learning Technologies Task Force. (2014). Strategic framework for Learning Technologies.

Watt, A. (2014). Project Management. Victoria, BC: BCcampus.