Artefact 1: MDDE603 Group Project

Overview

In this project, our team assessed an existing distance education course. We reviewed the skeleton of the old MDDE604 course, considered the learning theories we had studied in the course up to that point, evaluated the effectiveness of the current models in use in the MDDE604 course, and then suggested changes intended to improve the quality of the course.

My primary task on the project was to develop a portion of our recommendations. Approximately 80% of my project time was devoted to recommendation development and writing. 

My secondary tasks on the project team were to manage the project group and coordinate all activities in order to ensure the submission of the project by the due date. While I had led project activities before, I had not previously managed at a distance. 

Analysis of the learning process

In MDDE603, we participated in a variety of learning activities, including the TPI (Teaching Perspectives Inventory). This activity was likely the most profoundly and lastingly impactful activity for me within the MDDE program; I came to recognize through this exercise that my views on teaching and learning were neither the “right” views, nor the only views. The TPI activity laid the groundwork to open my mind to the perspective of teaching as means of creating social change or social justice. In the years after taking this course, I have regularly retaken the TPI, and have seen noticeable changes in my teaching perspective. My apprenticeship score has slightly reduced, while my developmental and social scores have grown tremendously. 

Core concepts that emerged within this course were epistemology (our understanding of knowledge), and the idea of “lenses” that colour our view of the world. The concept of “lenses” recurs in all aspects of my life, from dealing with social issues, to leading our board of directors in the ski club, to navigating the waters of a corporate office.

By discussing in forums and completing a series of activities, I acquired a broad understanding of three learning theories: behaviourism, cognitivism, and constructivism.
When it became time to set up our working group, several of us in the class had identified each other as top performers. With the fresh eagerness of a new cohort, we set about exploring the assignment.

Project work and attainment of competencies

Part of my learning in this course was around group management at a distance. At the start of the project, I took steps to assemble our team. Perhaps because of this action (and with a bit of reluctance on my part), the various members voted for me to lead our group in the activities. I suggested early in the process to our group that we apply project management best practices; one of these practices was to identify the standards and practices we would follow to enable effective collaboration (4.7). As the project manager, I shepherded our team into creating a project schedule to enable all participants to plan out their workloads (6.5).

Leveraging my background in remote work, I recommended a few tools for us to use to communicate; these tools included Skype for synchronous discussion, and a project wiki and the discussion forums for asynchronous communication (3.1). The wiki itself proved to be invaluable in collaboration as it enabled all team members to edit our content without worrying about versioning issues.

Our first step in assessing the course was to review the existing course content (1.5). As a group we decided to review the course through lenses of behaviourism, CIP (cognitive information processing), and constructivism; each team member chose one theory to apply in their assessment. I took accountability for finding ways to apply cognitive information processing in the course.

To conduct my review, I made a schema of all the CIP theories identified in the course, and then I mapped these schemas to the sections of the course that would benefit from adding the theory (for example, including advance organizers at the beginning of each module) (1.6). Through the course of several discussions led by web chat and in the discussion forums, we presented evidence in favour of our preferred changes (1.7) and came to consensus through a rough "voting process" on the core changes to implement in the curriculum (any member could veto a point, but in most cases we sorted out disagreement through discussion and compromise) (1.8).

We then provided suggestions grounded in learning theory to improve the course. An example improvement was to apply the concept of scaffolding by adding learning maps, providing regular examples within the program, and including unit overviews. 

Throughout the process, team members documented their suggestions in the wiki. I and the other participants spent time peer reviewing other’s content to either support or refute our peers' recommendations (4.8). By reviewing my colleagues' recommendations, I was able to see how they interpreted the course learnings.  

The final step in the process involved editing the final paper (4.1). This activity was perhaps the most challenging, as content was written in four distinct voices and perspectives. Two people were identified as leads for editing, though as expected, all members wanted a voice in the editing process. After multiple rounds of edits, our team settled on the wording of the final paper.

Post-Activity Analysis

In terms of attaining the program objectives, most of my development in the course came through reviewing content followed by conducting deliberate practice (through the course exercises) and receiving feedback. The act of producing the assignment, both through construction of our training strategies and reviewing peer materials, reinforced class learning.

Retrospectively, from a technology selection perspective, I can see that most our technology choices were appropriate, as we were successfully able to use our tools for synchronous and asynchronous communication. I was also reminded by this project that asynchronous communication is not effective in all situations; while asynchronous communication allows for greater thought to be put into outputs, the technologies at the time got in the way of two-way communication. Synchronous mediums, on the other hand, resulted in a quick exchange of ideas (3.2). At the time, our team was not aware of the presence or functionality of Google Docs, which provides a superior interface for identifying changes.

Our project was heavily backloaded (meaning that much more work was conducted toward the conclusion of the project than upfront); our team spent too much time conducting planning activities rather than executing work. The lesson I took away was to strike a balance between planning and production (6.5).

As I reflect five years later upon this experience, I realize that this activity laid the groundwork for how I would study in all future courses. During and after this activity, I embraced creating mind maps and schemas as a study aid. I also began exploring new knowledge through a systems inquiry lens (2.2), which helped me attain deeper understanding of concepts. For example, when I was later introduced to the SECTIONS model in the MDDE610 course, I was able to picture an organizational system and recognize how a SECTIONS assessment helps to ensure that a technology is the right fit within that system.