Tag: Activity 2

Activity #2: Reflecting on Readings

As I read through the first eight chapters Martin Weller’s 25 Years of Ed Tech I couldn’t help being surprised at the many similarities between education technology and ‘Tech Bro’ culture. Weller argues that there is a year zero mentality in education technology, “…where any recognition of prior work undermines the myth of the individual creator.” (p. 6). This immediately made me think of Elon Musk, an investor who has at times been venerated as a genius despite the large teams of people actually developing the technologies associated with his companies. I draw this parallel to highlight something that I’m seeing in education, the promotion of technological solutions to ‘problems’ in education without spending the time to investigate if the solution is needed. In my field we see new simulation technology geared towards nursing education programs all the time; AI patients that students can interview that then provide real time feedback, medication administration simulations where a student must complete a medication order step by step, and high-fidelity mannequins that can do everything from talk, to bleed, to deliver a baby. While these technologies sound amazing at face value, they don’t always address real problems, technological sophistication doesn’t always translate to better learning. I have found that students get more out of interviewing a real person, medication simulation can be done with paper, a pen, and candy, while high fidelity mannequins are costly financially and in time required to train instructors in their use. Another point Weller made that I found surprising at first was that universities often feel pressured to adopt new technologies because they fear they may get left behind, but my experience in nursing education makes me question if this pressure actually results in better learning. This constant Silicon Valley style disruption, that doesn’t look at what came before I think can do more harm than good, especially when the companies producing the technology have a strong incentive to prioritize profits over education. Weller’s discussion of Shirky’s disruption narrative brought to mind Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery (Johnson, 2022), where Miles Bron and his sycophants call themselves ‘the disruptors’ and constantly pursue the next big idea without considering its consequences. While I don’t think all technology in education is bad, I do think it needs to be approached in a critical way that is always asking the questions; does the technology fill an actual need? Is the technology beneficial for learning? And/or is the technology addressing an actual problem in education?

References:

Johnson, R. (Director). (2022). Glass Onion: A knives out mystery [Film]. Netflix.

Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press.

               https:/doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771993050.01

LRNT525: Unit 3 – Activity #2

Identifying the Problem and Implementing Change

            At Coast Mountain College’s Health Department, the process of tracking and managing Step 2 documents—a set of student requirements for clinical placements—needed significant improvement. Originally, these documents were collected and tracked by the registration and enrollment team, who handle multiple programs across campuses. Due to their heavy workload, follow-ups with students were inconsistent, often leading to delays in submission. As a result, students either forgot to complete their Step 2 requirements or waited until the last minute, creating a backlog of documentation that needed to be processed rapidly. Beyond the delays, the workflow itself was inefficient. The Health Department coordinators were responsible for submitting Step 2 documents to the local health authority, yet they had to collect them from the registration team first, adding an unnecessary step. The project aimed to eliminate these delays by transferring responsibility for document collection and tracking directly to the Health Department. The primary goals were to:

  1. Increase the frequency and quality of follow-ups with students to ensure timely completion of Step 2 documentation.
  2. Streamline document submission by centralizing the process within the Health Department.
  3. Ensure compliance with FOIPPA regulations while managing student records.
  4. Improve coordination with the Northern Health Authority by reducing delays in data submission.
  5. Standardize procedures through training and policy development, ensuring sustainability.

The implementation strategy was developed collaboratively between the Associate Registrar, and the Practical Nursing and Health Care Aide Coordinator and followed a structured sequence:

  • A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) was developed and formalized.
  • Training sessions were conducted for staff on new responsibilities and workflow changes.
  • The Health Department took over responsibility for Step 2 document collection.
  • Affected Stakeholders were informed of the change.
  • A process for annual review and evaluation was introduced.

Although no formal project management framework was applied at the time, in hindsight, this project closely aligned with the Waterfall model. Waterfall is characterized by its structured, sequential approach, where each phase is completed before moving to the next (Project Management Institute [PMI], 2021). Given that this project followed a clear progression from problem identification to planning, implementation, and review, a more formalized Waterfall framework would have further strengthened efficiency and accountability.

Challenges and Overcoming Barriers

            One of the most significant barriers was scope management. Initially, multiple programs within the Health Department wanted to be included in the change, each with unique requirements. However, expanding the project beyond a manageable scope would have introduced additional complexity and delays. To address this, the pilot project focused exclusively on the Licensed Practical Nursing (LPN) and Health Care Aide (HCA) programs, as their Step 2 requirements are identical. This decision allowed for streamlined implementation while providing a scalable model for potential expansion. Time constraints were another major challenge. Coast Mountain College policy dictates that enrollment changes cannot be made while recruitment is active. Because LPN and HCA programs have very short breaks between recruitment cycles, sometimes only a few weeks, this meant the project had to be completed rapidly. Addressing this required close collaboration between the Health Department and the registration department, ensuring that adjustments were made efficiently without disrupting enrollment. Looking forward, using a formalized Waterfall-based project management approach would be beneficial. Waterfall is highly effective for projects with well-defined goals, structured processes, and regulatory compliance requirements (Watt, 2014).  Incorporating a formalized change management strategy, such as early stakeholder engagement and structured risk assessment, would further strengthen future implementations. Conway, Masters, and Thorold (2017) emphasize the importance of systems thinking in overcoming barriers to change, suggesting that institutional projects should consider stakeholder buy-in, policy alignment, and adaptability to ensure long-term success.

Moving Forward: Project Management in My Practice

            Future projects involving administrative process changes would benefit from a more structured application of a project management method, such as Waterfall. Because this approach emphasizes defined phases, detailed documentation, and clear handoffs between steps, it aligns well with institutional projects that require compliance, process standardization, and interdepartmental coordination (PMI, 2021), like the one I’ve described.

Key methods I plan to incorporate:

  1. Formal project planning and documentation – Clearly outlining project scope, objectives, and responsibilities from the outset.
  2. Stakeholder alignment – Engaging key stakeholders earlier in the process to address potential concerns before implementation.
  3. Defined evaluation mechanisms – Implementing structured post-project evaluations to assess effectiveness and inform future improvements.

            From the readings Waterfall seems to be the most effective framework for initiatives where compliance, documentation, and process stability are critical (Ben Mahmoud-Jouini, Midler, & Silberzahn, 2016). However, integrating systems-thinking principles can further enhance adaptability and stakeholder engagement, ensuring successful implementation. By applying a structured, sequential project management approach, future initiatives at within the Health Department at Coast Mountain College could be executed more efficiently while maintaining institutional compliance and alignment with stakeholder needs.

References:

Ben Mahmoud-Jouini, S., Midler, C., & Silberzahn, P. (2016). Contributions of design thinking to project management in an innovation context. Project Management Journal, 47(2), 144-156. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21577

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. https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/reports/rsa_from-design-thinking-to-system-change-report.pdf

Project Management Institute (PMI). (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) – 7th edition. PMI.

Watt, A. (2014). Project management. BCcampus. https://opentextbc.ca/projectmanagement/