ID Project Post-Mortem

I was recently involved in a project at work for release of a new software system to employees. This project was unusual from the beginning and fraught with problems.  In this blog, I’ll review the project and discuss some of the lessons learned and how this could be addressed/corrected in the future.

This project involved introducing a new timekeeping software to our organization. We were moving from an entirely paper-based processing system to an online tracking system for exempt and non-exempt employees. The project is being rolled out as a pilot to a smaller group of employees with a release to all employees within two months of the project date. So, let the project autopsy begin:

Let me preface this by saying that our team was not involved in any initial meetings with the vendor, vendor selection, or review of the software. The focus on this project was that we were the training deliverers, and they’d let us know when they needed training – very much a hands-off approach (despite our pleas to be involved earlier.)

As I said, our team was not involved in the selection of the vendor, or the review of the product. This very much affected our project deliverables. The internal client relied on the software vendor to offer their ideas of training. Of course, the vendors preferred training approach would be that the vendor provide the training. Failing that option, the vendor suggested training methods that had been used by other clients. Again, we weren’t involved in this stage.

The training deliverables and schedules were developed by the vendor and the stakeholders. Our team was brought in about 3 weeks prior to pilot group training. We were tasked with making training materials to distribute during class, and provide the initial training to the pilot group. After the pilot training, all future roll-out training would be performed by the project stakeholders (not trainers).

Of course, the biggest issues with this project revolves around the lack of involvement in the planning phase and the training deliverables. Throughout the entire process, our team was running in place trying to get materials produced with a ticking clock next to us.

What would I do differently?

  1. I would have requested earlier involvement in the process, preferably as the product was being reviewed to gain better understanding.
  2. Ideally, our department should have been involved in the creation of the training plan and schedule.
  3. I would prefer to have an opportunity to do some kind of needs assessment and tailor materials to that, rather than be handed a product developed by someone else.
  4. Our group should be involved in future training, so we can continue to improve the process.

I hope that everyone in our group has learned an important lesson about the process. This definitely was a project where the stakeholders defined the project and the project scope.  Of course, memories fade after a while. Hopefully, we won’t have to re-educate team members in the project development phase in the future.  


Up Hill Climb For Distance Education


I believe distance education has been on an uphill climb to change the public perception about the quality of distance learning. Fortunately, I think that distance learning is just about to crest the mountain.


More professionals are embracing distance education; it’s becoming an essential educational tool in corporate training. It is a tool that is fairly new given the true scope of time. Yes it does have its skeptics, within K12 education community, higher education and corporate training. Skepticism is an essential part of the quality and improvement process. Skepticism forces us to answer our critics by employing acceptance standards, using best practices in instructional design, and continuing course evaluation. (Siemens, n.d).


As a resident of Washington state, I’ve seen some amazing technical innovations. But I’ll admit (somewhat shamefully) to an early belief that the internet wasn’t going to be all that great, that a company like Amazon which did not release dividends back to investors was probably not going to be there for the long haul. Clearly, my technological insight is lacking. I find it difficult to address the issue of where will distance learning be in 5, 10, 15 or 20 years, in part because of the meteoric growth and changes to the industry. It’s obvious that the tools that were available ten years ago to instructional designers (email, video and audio conferences) have changed  dramatically in the last 5 years (Web 2.0 tools, serious games, etc.) (Nash, 2005). We will certainly be using more mobile apps as training tools, and increasingly sophisticated gaming/simulation software


A number of factors have been suggested as a method for improving perceptions towards distance learning. Clear professional practices have been discussed earlier and by Leven & Wadmany, (2006). Another factor to explore is the quality of the web-based tools used in distance education and the focus of the educational experience as a learner-led instructional environment. (Shain & Shelly, 2008).


Some of my peers have expressed a feeling of dismissal when they mention they are working towards a degree with an emphasis in online learning. I’ve found that I have the exact opposite reaction, at least within the professional community. Most of my peers faces light up and the general perception is “good for you.” Ultimately, I think it comes down to familiarity with distance learning. Those that have some exposure to it are more likely to have a positive impression. Those that haven’t experienced it need time and experience to validate or change their perception.


As I commented in my weekly discussion, perception of distance learning can be changed most effectively through internal stakeholders. I was pleased to see the acceptance rate of college presidents to distance learning — found 51% of college presidents stating that online courses provide the same value as traditional environments.  (Allen & Seaman, 2010). Slowly but surely the perceptions of distance learning are changing, as rapidly as the tools used to create distance learning evolves. I plan to be an active participant and use strong instructional design principles to be part of the process.




Allen,E. & Seaman, J. (2010). Class Differences: Online Education in the United States. 2010; Babson Survey Research Group: Sloan Consortium.


Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 216–223.Siemens, G. (n.d.).  The future of distance education [online video].  Retrieved August 18, 2013 from http:/


Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2006). Listening to students’ voices on learning with information technologies in a rich technology-based classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34 (3), 281-317.


Nash, Susan, S. (2005) Learning objects, learning object repositories and learning theory: Preliminary best practices for online courses. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects. (1), 217-228.


Sahin, I., & Shelley, M. (2008). Considering Students’ Perceptions: The Distance Education Student Satisfaction Model. Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 216–223.


Love is in the Air ….

My Distance Education class at Walden is discussing the following scenario for this week’s assignment:zcool-Heart 2

A training manager has been frustrated with the quality of communication among trainees in his face-to-face training sessions and wants to try something new. With his supervisor’s permission, the trainer plans to convert all current training modules to a blended learning format, which would provide trainees and trainers the opportunity to interact with each other and learn the material in both a face-to-face and online environment. In addition, he is considering putting all of his training materials on a server so that the trainees have access to resources and assignments at all times.

Our assignment is to reflect on this scenario and offer some suggestions.

The part of this scenario that caught my attention was the statement “…the trainer plans to convert all current training modules to a blended learning format.” This statement is an indicator of what happens all too often in training and HR – someone falls in love with a training strategy and decides everything must change, to incorporate this new strategy. I’ve worked in organizations that decreed All training will be…on-the-job training, self-paced training, use a wacky set of adult learning multiple intelligences, etc. To me, these decrees make as much sense as saying “All training will be conducted on bucking broncos” or “All learners will wear Star Trek t-shirts.” There is no one-fit answer to all training.

But, that’s the challenge instructional designers face, trying to balance the “let’s change everything” directives with the needs of the learners and the training objectives. And just for clarity, I like blended learning. Some of my best friends are blended-learning designers.

Given this situation, what factors should be considered when changing training programs? Again, I’m such a concrete literal thinker that I’m a bit stymied by the scenario. There’s not a lot of information. So I’m going to “Kobayashi Maru” the scenario a bit (Google it). I’m going to apply details from a training course that my organization is currently using and contemplating changing to blended learning. I’ll still try to use the information from the original scenario, but with just a bit more detail:

This training is held annually in Thailand and covers 5 days. The participants are upper level finance staff from various national offices. The training is scenario based with presentations by executive staff throughout the week. These executive staff members also play the role of SMEs for answering questions during the scenarios.

So, back to the scenario analysis – our focus in the scenario(s) is on:

  • What pre-planning strategies need to be considered?
  • What aspect of the original training could be enhanced in the distance learning format?
  • How will his role, as trainer change?
  • What steps are needed to encourage online leaners to communicate with other learners online?

A blended learning program combines online and face-to-face delivery, with 30% to 79% of the content delivered online (Allen & Seaman, 2010). In the article The Sloan-C Pillars and Boundary Objects in Framework for Evaluating Blended Learning, (Laumakis et al, 2008) discusses the Sloan-C Pillar and Boundary Object approach to evaluating the effectiveness of blended learning. While I’m not sure it’s ever smart to work backwards in instructional design, I do think these five pillars provide excellent criteria for evaluating whether the blended-learning strategy is appropriate, or at least elements to consider in the development of the program. The five pillars are:

1)     learning effectiveness

2)     access

3)     cost effectiveness

4)     student satisfaction

5)     faculty satisfaction.

I’m going to use a table to detail the strategies and analysis. I realize that this blog is already long, so I’m attaching the table in a PDF.  Evaluation blended

I do believe that blended learning is an exciting method of training. I think any shift from an Instructor-Centered Model to a Learning-Centered Model is a good thing. However “teaching with technology requires a new set of skills for most educators and learners.” (Simonson et al, 2012. p. 142). I think that this type of change needs to be carefully considered and evaluated by instructional designers and training professionals to make sure that educators and learners are ready for the move. Don’t pick a strategy and then try to make the learning work.


Allen, I. & Seaman, I. (2007). Making the grade: Online education in the United States. 2006; Midwestern edition. Wellesley, MA: Sloan Consortium.

Bonk, C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and socio-cultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King

George, T. & Mcgee, M. K. Educational AdvantageInformation Week, March 10, 2003, pp. 57-58.

Laumakis M., Graham C., Dziuban, C., (2008). The Sloan-C pillars and boundary objects as a framework for evaluating blended learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 13(1) pp.75-87

Naaj, M., Nachouki, M., Ankit A.,(2012) Evaluating student satisfaction with blended learning in a gender-segregated environment. Journal of Information Technology Education. 11. pp. 185-200.

Napier, N., Dekhane S., Smith, S., (2011). Transitioning to blended learning: understanding student and faculty perceptions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 15(1).pp. 20-32.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (5th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Exploring the Great Unknown

My assignment for this week’s blog is to select a course from a free Open Course site. I’m especially excited to review Open Course content. I’m amazed that there is so much educational content available throughout the internet. But the question is always how effective


are these learning experiences? Do open course educational systems provide the same quality education as traditional “pay-for-play” educational systems?

For this assignment, I selected an Art History course through Khan Academy. Khan Academy lists its mission as “We’re a not-for-profit with the goal of changing education for the better by providing a free world-class education for anyone anywhere.”(Khan Academy, n.d.)

The link for the course I selected is:

For the purpose of this overview, I reviewed the general Art History overview then focused on one of the specific time periods for additional exploration.  I choose to explore the Industrial Revolution period (1848-1907) or the Pre-Raphaelite period.

Zemesky and Massy noted four distinct adoption cycles for e-learning (Simonson et al, 2011):

Cycle 1: Enhancement to traditional course/program configurations – uses basic level technologies (email, web, PowerPoint) without dramatically changing instructional strategies.

Cycle 2: Course Management Systems (CMS): Use of a SMS to offer course resources and activities in an online format.

Cycle 3: Imported course objects: Embedding electronic learning objects (photographic, slides, audio and video, animations) into a course.

Cycle 4: New course/program configuration: Course is reconceptionalized to take full advantage of technology and the Internet.

Using these definitions of e-learning cycles, I would say that Khan Academy is solidly in Cycle 3. The site seems to rely on the Linear-designed instruction model (Simonson et al, 2011). From my review, it seems that courses use the following components:

Text based course content

The course content is delivered through a text presentation. It’s easy to surmise that much of the content was in fact taken from a previous Art History text book and repurposed for e-learning. Still, there are some things Khan Academy does well and some real room for improvement.

The text content is divided into manageable “chunks” and arranged by topic. There is a navigable time line that allows learners to explore the text content and the individual lessons.  Each topic includes a brief introduction and a “why study this…” explanation.

There are no learning outcomes or objectives included with the lesson.

Video lessons

Videos are the main component of Khan Academy. In fact, the site currently advertises that it offers over 4,500 videos on a wide range of topics. The videos for this particular class involved length discussions over individual paintings. The narrators discussed the history of the painting, the cultural and historical implications of the artist’s country and background, the many ways individual parts of the paintings can be interpreted.  The video was extremely well-done, with high quality content and an insightful discussion.

Although I give the video high marks for the presentation and the content, I feel like it misses the mark. While I realize that Khan Academy is built on the premise of offering video lectures, I believe offering videos only makes the content too linear. As Simonson et al state, one of the fundamentals of on-line learning is to “integrate the power of the web into the course” (Simonson et al, 2011, p. 136). Students can certainly listen to a discussion of history and culture related to a painting, but they could also use a variety of tools to exp

lore on the web and learn more about history and culture on their own.  As Beldarrain states “Educational institutions must reflect on how their distance education program currently utilizes technology” (Beldarrain, 2006, p. 144).  The existing content misses an opportunity to provide links, allow exploration and involve the learner.

In addition, the video does an excellent job of looking at individual parts of the painting and discussing those parts and what they mean to the overall painting. Again, this could have engaged the learner far more effectively if it allowed the learner to select those parts of the painting to explore with links to video segments.  An example of an online site that allows this type of exploration is

A final word about the videos included at Khan Academy: while Khan Academy is providing some excellent videos for courses, the site is also widely criticized for its video inaccuracies and mistakes. In fact, a recent review of Khan videos has prompted a YouTube spoof based on Mystery Science Theater 3000 (


Each course seems to have some time of question review or assessment attached to the lesson. These assessments are often referred to as “Practice This Topic” rather than actual stated assessment, but it serves the same function.  Almost the entirety of these assessment questions could be described as the knowledge level of Bloom’s taxonomy (Simonson et al, 2011). Most questions encouraged the learner to recall from memory facts discussed in the text lecture.


My primary criticism of the Khan academy is few opportunities the learners have to engage with instructors or other learners. The comment section at the end of each lesson does allow the learner to leave comments, which may or may not be answered by the instructor or other learners.

These comments are hardly robust discussions. I believe a separate discussion area with questions proposed by the instructor would yield a far more interesting experience for the learner and the instructor.

Ultimately, I found the Khan Academy course to be adequately designed. It could be substantially improved if an effort was made to engage the learner in active learning. In my opinion, this site’s downfall is the reliance of one type of media (videos) to provide the bulk of the learning experience.  Our text quotes Peters (1998) as stating that those who believe a new, digital media will “supply the interactivity and communication lacking in distance education… cherish a hope here that will prove to be serious self-delusion” (Simonson et al, 2011, p. 175). With some effort and redesign, Khan Academy could provide an incredibly rich and engaging learning experience.


Baldarrain, Y. (2006), Distance Education Trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration,Distance Education, 27(2) 139-153

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (5th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Curing the Art House Blues

My current assignment for my Distance Learning course involves selecting a scenario for distance learning education. I’ve selected Guercino's Eminia and the Shepherdsthe following scenario for my assignment:

A high school history teacher, located on the west coast of the United States, wants to showcase to her students new exhibits being held at two prominent New York City museums. The teacher wants her students to take a “tour” of the museums and be able to interact with the museum curators, as well as see the art work on display. Afterward, the teacher would like to choose two pieces of artwork from each exhibit and have the students participate in a group critique of the individual work of art. As a novice of distance learning and distance learning technologies, the teacher turned to the school district’s instructional designer for assistance. In the role of the instructional designer, what distance learning technologies would you suggest the teacher use to provide the best learning experience for her students?

I can relate to this scenario. I’ve seen some amazing examples of distance learning art classes and interactive learning experiences. There are several excellent sites that explore the restoration process. Check out this site as an example:

But, I digress. What learning technologies would I suggest for this project? This class could be an interesting and challenging course with the use of several technologies:

CMS – There are several different aspects to this class: a visual tour of the museum, an opportunity to interact with curators, and an opportunity to see art work on display. Each of these learning opportunities can be achieved with a different learning technology, but ultimately, the class requires some tool to manage all these different components. A CMS, or Course Management Software, provides the foundation to pull these tools together. CMSs allow teachers to “manage their classes, assignments, activities, quizzes and tests, resources and more in an accessible online environment” (Simonson et al, 2012).

Video Teleconferencing – Utilizing video teleconferencing to connect with museum curators and view the contents of a museum or gallery would provide an opportunity to engage these students. In a video conference, students could engage in a question/answer discussion with the curator or possibly view sections of the museum that are not commonly seen by museum visitors, such as the restoration departments.

Wikis – While the content of this course is certainly visual, viewing the art does not require a video connection. Much of the content could be viewed as a wiki page, with a links to photos or videos of the art work and written descriptions of the history of the art piece and the artist.

Blogs – Interaction is an important part of this class. Learner blogs help “foster social interaction for the purpose of knowledge construction” (Beldarrain, 2006). Allowing a place for the learners to express their opinion of the art work provides an opportunity for the learners to engage with one another as well as share their own views.

Ultimately, the challenge of the class is the instructor managing the different technologies within online learning. The instructor’s role is now shifting to be a resource manager and a “partner in learning.” (Beldarrain, 2006). Just think how much more interesting this class would be in comparison to reading an art history textbook!


Baldarrain, Y. (2006), Distance Education Trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration,Distance Education, 27(2) 139-153

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (5th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Distance learning through the haze.


When I was young the only distance learning program was correspondence courses. These classes were looked upon with a certain amount of derision. In fact, the ads like the one on the left were the butt of frequent comic acts.

In the ’90s, I started working as an Instructional Designer. The company I worked for implemented a huge training program with self-directed learning materials. We thought we were cutting edge, simply mailing out materials (workbooks) and end-of-course quizzes, and receiving them back from the learner to grade by hand.

In the late ’90s I took a class on developing computer-based instruction at the local, highly respected university. This class was a graduate level class with many education grad students. These students were skeptical of computer-based instruction. In fact, we student suggested that computer-based instruction was best used in preparing an individual for a career at McDonalds.

We’ve come a long way from those days. Even ten years ago, distance learning was not regarded as mainstream learning methodology for most credible universities. It’s the institutions like Walden University and DeVry that forced local universities to build a distance learning as a credible option.

My definition of distance learning is changing as I review my course readings. I’ve always focused on the “distance” part of the process, and assumed any program that is offered over a distance qualifies. My definition from this week has shifted as I focus on the engagement between the learner and instructor. I think this is the biggest challenge to overcome in distance learning.

I find distance learning to be essential in the organization I’m working with, World Vision. As stated in our course text “Well-designed programs could also bridge intellectual, cultural and social differences between students” (Schlosser & Simonson, 2009). Distance learning allows us to reach an audience of learners in over 60 countries scattered all over the world. Our biggest challenge is to develop distance learning that is conscious of cultural, social and language differences. Of course, technology (specifically internet connectivity) remains an on-going issue.

I’m looking forward to learning more about distance learning. I think that there’s more to the use of this learning methodology than merely adapting our previous classroom based materials to a WebEx. It will be a fascinating journey.

Please see the attached mind map.





Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

Wrapping up the Theories

As I approach the end of my Learning Theories and Instruction course, I appreciate the insight I’ve gained from this class.  Prior to this course, I focused on learning style: auditory, visual, kinesthetic, etc.  This course has changed how I view the theories related to learning, and I realize that there’s a closer link to the psychology of learning than I had previously understood.

I mentioned in a previous blog that each learning theory I studied would elicit a reaction of “that’s the best style for me.” The real insight I gained in this class is that all the learning theories – Behaviorist, Cognitive, Constructivist, Connectivism, and Adult learning theory each have an application that best utilizes that theory.

I’ve learned a great deal about my learning style, and also my son’s style of learning. When working with my son, who has Asperger’s Syndrome, I found the work of Vygotsky to be very helpful in understanding some of the challenges my son faces. Vygotsky’s stress of social factors in learning is key to helping my understanding. I’ve never analyzed the learning process in terms of social interactions and a socially mediation. Given the social deficiencies implicit with Asperger’s, I found this theory to be especially insightful to understanding on-going issues. I also gained a much better understanding of the applied behavior analysis (ABA) approach. I’ve always considered this approach best suited for small children and children that showed extreme deficits of basic skills. I have a much better understanding that ABA can be an effective strategy to change behavior with older learners, including adults.

In regards to my own personal style, the style I identify with most is Connectivism. I rely on an evolving network that I use for my learning. I think that this may be true for many learners, especially those that are using online learning. Examining the theory of Connectivism has been the most central theory that affects my skills as an instructional designer, especially because so much of my instructional design work is computer based.

Ultimately, one of the theories that I found most applicable to my work is the Adult Learning theories. I find that the ideas for increasing motivation, especially the ARCS model is especially critical to making online learning better for learners. It helps me understand that I need to factor the motivation of learners and better understand how making small changes to materials can make them more appealing to users and more likely to actually complete a course.

I found the application of technology to be both interesting and challenging. Again, I think I’ve focused on a very narrow window of technology. This course has given me an opportunity to discover new and changing technology, such as mobile apps, personalized internets, and game theory. I look forward to exploring these theories as they become readily available to utilize in our instructional design.

Ultimately, I think this was a wonderful class for laying the foundation for becoming a more effective instructional designer. I’m excited to see how I can use analysis to determine which learning theory best applies to my future course materials and realize that I’m now open to utilizing more theories, instead of falling back on the tried and true methods I may have employed in the past.