Project Evaluation Report
Project title
EdTech Certificate
Project manager
Brouke Reynolds
Sponsor
Dr. Trey Martindale
Date
December 5, 2016
Project goal
Update and further develop and deliver the modules and resources for IDT 7061, 7062, 7063,
& 7064 for the University of Memphis IDT EdTech Certificate program by integrating newer
instructional models, badges, and edTPA components.
Project objectives and results
Newer instructional modules are effectively integrated into the four courses
instructional components.
Result-four newly created courses were designed with several new learning modules in each
course.
Badges for completing specific tasks with various software are implemented into the
four courses.
Result-badges for specific courses were created using BadgeSchool and were implemented
into specific learning modules.
Course tasks and expectations are aligned with edTPA requirements and rubrics.
Result-the courses were aligned with MTVT lesson plan template rather than edTPA
Course modules will be aligned with ISTE standards.
Result-all instructional modules were aligned with one or more ISTE standard.
Scope Comparison
Planned Scope
Update the module topics in each course according to the new scope and sequence.
Weave Visible Thinking and the thinking routines throughout courses (Related: 1, 2).
Further integration of edTPA
Badges, HyperDocs, Instructional Video
Newer Instructional Models: flipped learning, maker/DIY, blended learning, etc.
Additional Scope
Most modules were completely redesigned rather than use existing material
Google Classroom banners were designed
Student introduction to Google Classroom was provided
Decreased Scope
The plan changed from edTPA to MTVT for lesson planning
Cost performance
Original estimate
Role
Cost Breakdown
Total
Project Management
100 hours at $100/hr
$10,000
Analysis and Evaluation
80 hours at $50/hr
20 hours per course
$4,000
Instructional Design
120 hours at $75/hr
30 hours per course
$9,000
Instructional
Development
120 hours at $50/hr
30 hours per course
$6,000
Graphic Design
40 hours at $50/hr
10 hours per course
$2,000
Total
460 hours
$31,000
Since we incurred no actual cost because labor was donated and all tools to build the courses
were available at no cost, our estimate remains accurate.
Project Schedule
Date
Project Milestone
Actual
9.9.16
First phone conversation with
clients to understand their goals
and expectations for the project
9.2.16 was the first phone
conversation with clients
9.12.16
Project Charter
9.12.16
9.26.16
Analysis Report
9.26.16
10.3.16
SOW
10.1.16
10.10.16
Formative Evaluation
10.17.16 date revised by sponsor
10.17.16
Content Analysis
10.17.16 date revised by sponsor
10.24.16
Instructional Strategy
10.17.16
10.31.16
Treatment Description and
Rationale
10.31.16
11.7.16
Treatment Design and Template
This began on 10.31.16 and
ended on 11.18.16
11.7.16
Team Member Review
11.18.16-11.20.16 Reviewed after
all evaluators finished
11.14.16
Final Treatment Report
11.14.16
11.23.16
Project Presentation Video
11.23.15
12.5.16
Project Evaluation Report
12.5.16
Process Perspectives
A survey was sent to the project team, the clients, and the sponsor for
feedback. The first questions were based on a likert scale with one being
strongly disagree and five being strongly agree. The results of those
questions are depicted in the table below.
Question
Average score out of 5
The objectives of this project were
achieved.
4.7
The communication among stakeholders
was productive and timely.
4.3
The course materials were delivered on
time as promised.
4.7
The course modules produced were of
high quality.
4.3
The project can be deemed a success.
4.7
The next set of questions were opened. All responses are posted below
the questions.
1. What is your opinion of the aesthetics of the LMS and course modules?
Limited
Clean and clear
They are very effective and efficient
The template helped with consistency
I do not like that it is a stream feed, overall designed and formatted well
All of the material is aesthetically pleasing and is based on solid design principles
I like Google Classroom's simplicity and the colors for the different courses. The instructors will
need a little training, but they should be able to successfully navigate it considering they're
teaching educational technology courses.
2. Do
you think the courses are well designed and reflect rigor of master's level
courses?
Six yes responses and one mostly
3. What were the positive points that stood out to you in the courses?
Consistent organization
For the scope you covered, it's very good.
The easy navigation. The details of the learning objectives.
Up-to-date material with current technology was produced
Consistency in formatting, videos, well designed projects
The modules are well designed and engaging. The badges look nice and professional.
There were Visible Thinking routines used as reflection pieces sprinkled in the courses. Also, the
badge integration is quite seamless.
4. What
were some improvements that could be made in the courses?
The lessons need to be further developed.
With more time, perhaps the team could complete the full courses the way the client envisioned
them.
All items were well.
Reduce length of directions and replace text with instructional videos
Screencast videos
The modules could be improved by having less reading and more visual engagement.
Integrating more multimedia based instruction such as additional videos and perhaps some
screencasts for demonstration.
5. Any
additional comments?
No
Good overall
None
This project is a success.
Lessons Learned
Issue
Improvement
Speaking with client about badges
sooner in the design process.
(Travis)
It would have saved me a lot of
time, and I would have reached
the conclusion to use
Badgeschool as our platform
sooner rather than later. Then,
we probably could have had a
lot of the technical issues
resolved sooner. I still ended up
learning a lot about badges in
general, which came in handy
when we were putting together
the modules. But the process
could have been easier in the
long run had I spoken with our
client before doing my research.
Time restraint of the four course
design process. (AC)
Designing four courses was a
large task. In future endeavors
this should be a two group
project or have a larger time
span.
Client expectations were vague at
times. (AC)
After the initial client/project
manager meeting, it would have
been beneficial for the whole
group to meet with the client.
The module uniformity was
challenging in the design process.
(AC)
Once templates were created,
the team had a better idea of
how to create a uniform layout
of each module.
Communication is a key success
factor. (Dell)
Timely responses from all
stakeholders are extremely
important, as well as open line
of communication between
group members, especially in
the instructional design process.
Feedback from the evaluators was
sometimes unexpected. (Brouke)
Putting so much of our time into
the instructional design process
was difficult, so when the
evaluators returned with news
that was not favorable, it was
hard to take, especially with a
short revision time. We had to
remember that we want the best
product produced, so pride was
put aside and necessary
revisions were made.
Coursework divided up evenly.
(Brouke)
In the beginning, I was unsure
who exactly was responsible for
each task. I think as the project
grew, everyone found a place,
but as the project manager, I
should have gone through the
schedule better to understand
the job roles and responsibilities
better.
Understanding client expectations
of courses as a whole team.
(Melissa)
Not having the entire team at the
two meetings with the client
where we discussed a lot of the
specifics about the individual
courses caused there to be
confusion when we were
designing the courses. This
caused more work to redesign
modules to meet the clients
expectations, and an uneven
design balance.
Time management. (Melissa)
I think if we had gotten started
earlier on designing the courses,
we would not have been as
rushed to design, evaluate, and
make revisions over the
weekend.
Feedback from evaluators. (Melissa) Some of the feedback was not
received in time for us to make
revisions. I felt like a lot of the
feedback focused on formatting,
grammar, and the LMS, rather
than content. I was surprised at
some things that were
mentioned, and other things that
were not.
LMS (Melissa)
We were holding off to use the
University accounts for Google
Classroom, but this was not
complete in time for the first
evaluations. There was some
confusion on how to upload
things into Google Classroom,
which caused us to have to
delete and repost things multiple
times. The evaluators would have
benefited to know more about
Google Classroom as well before
evaluating the modules.
Team Communication (Melissa)
We started holding weekly
Google Hangout meetings. These
meetings were vital to our
success, planning, and design. I
only wish we had implemented
them earlier.
Formatting Documents (Melissa)
We made a module template for
both the instruction and
assignment documents. Even
after the implementation of
these, there were still a lot of
formatting issues and concerns
about being consistent across all
modules and courses. This took a
lot of time to go back and fix
rather than them being done
during the design process.
References
Lynch, M.M. & Roecker, J. (2007).Project managing e-learning: A
handbook for successful design, delivery and management. New
York:Routledge.
Routledge. Verzuh, E. (2005).The fast forward MBA in project
management: Quick topics, speedy solutions, cutting-edge ideas.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
