Random Thoughts on Instructional Design
With all of the new and emerging technology available for consideration as tools to integrate into learning environments, review and assessment has become a rather daunting task. The two presenters in this session walked the audience through a three-stage process that they use at there Institution for evaluating e-learning project proposals.
In this stage new technology requests identified by faculty are discussed and a project overview developed. This activity is divided into three steps.
In this stage research is conducted to determine how other universities, k-12 institutions, business and government might be using the proposed technology. They start this process by searching websites, blogs, and talking with other institutions. They also determine if the proposed project meets the Unit and Institution’s mission and goals. If the project meets the mission and goals a strategic planning meeting is called. At this meeting a charter template (contact the presenters for a copy of the template) is utilized to review the project summary assumptions, and to assess implementation risks, project implementation timeline, budget source(s). If the meeting attendees determine that the project is viable a project synopsis is developed & approved, and the project moved to pilot stage.
In this stage a baseline rubrics is established and project piloted. The data collected during the pilot is documented and reviewed with the stakeholders to determine if they should reiterate the pilot, stop and archive the project, or develop a team recommendation for implementation. If the latter option is chosen, a formal recommendation and justification report is developed and presented to the leadership team. If the leadership team approves the recommendation a Service Improvement plan (contact the presenters for a copy of the plan template) is developed and the project is moved to the academic department for implementation and review.
Although the model is very comprehensive, I was left with a question that the presenters could not answer. If the project is not approved based on the evaluation, and faculty are allowed to find funding elsewhere to support the project, who will be responsible for implementing and maintaining the technology? What are your thoughts?