Anda di halaman 1dari 11

EDUC 6145-3 PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Designing Learning Objects for Primary


Learners
Case Study 1: Scott Allen
Lauren Wagner
6/20/2015

Statement of Work
I have chosen to base my Project Plan on Case Study 1, Scott Allen: Designing Learning Objects for Primary Learners. In this case study, Scott
Allen and his team won a bid for a major project with SchoolsOnline, a national initiative to develop online resources for primary and secondary
schools (Ertmer, Quinn, and Glazewski, 2014). I was drawn to this case study because I am currently a sixth grade teacher with a degree in
Elementary Education. I have a few years of experience also teaching second grade. At this point, I havent made any assumptions for the case study.
SchoolsOnline is a national initiative to develop online digital learning resources (i.e., learning objects) in specified curricular areas. This project
focuses on Our Nation and Society for years K-12. Within this initiative, the features of online content are expected to: engage students in
meaningful, interactive learning experiences, relate to intended outcomes and link to national, state, and territory syllabi, support students learning in
new and effective ways, exploit the potential of new media and technologies for promoting learning experiences not otherwise available, cater to
individuals or small groups, adapt easily to a range of learning contexts, support concept development, transfer of skills and understandings to and
from real world domains, and connections within and across learning areas, support the development of lifelong learning skills, encourage students to
question and investigate, provide real-life contexts and scenarios, and support literacy and numeracy development. (Ertmer et al, 2014, p. 23)
Purpose:
For this project, there are three teamsWriting Team, Design Team, and Development Team. Plus there is a Project Manager, Review Panel (subject
matter and educational experts), and Project Steering Committee. There are three people on the writing team; they have experience in technical and
creative writing, but dont have backgrounds in education. The subject matter experts on the steering committee made suggestions to the writing
team, and the role of the writing team was to capture the ideas produced by the steering committee, document these, and research additional content,
as required. The learning outcomes and intended pedagogical approaches originated from the steering committee, as did decisions about what content
each learning object should focus on. (Ertmer et al, 2014, p. 16)
The writers had prepared 32 draft briefs and the design team must choose the best 15 of these ideas to develop further, and then the writing team will
revise the briefs and prepare the content needed. (Ertmer et al, 2014, p. 16)
There are reviews and sign-off points between each of the stages. After the writing team prepares the content for the briefs the design team has
chosen for further development, the briefs come back to the design team and they develop the full design specifications, which would then be
reviewed by the panel of subject matter and educational experts. Their feedback would be returned to the design team as the basis for revisions to the
designs. The final design specifications would then go to the steering committee to be signed off on prior to any development. Everything will go
through the Project Manager. (Ertmer et al, 2014, p. 17)
After the design specs are approved by the steering committee, they go to the development team from ScarletMedia, which is a company the design
team hasnt work with before. After that point, the design team would no longer be involved. (Ertmer et al, 2014, p. 17)
Objectives:
Students will: 1.) identify the needs and wants of a community; 2.) distinguish between needs and wants; 3.) recognize healthy and unhealthy choices

The learning object will develop students understanding of values, sustainability, and dimensions of well-being. The purpose of the learning activity
is for K-2 learners to identify and understand the difference between their own needs and wants and to think about the needs and wants of others.
(Ertmer et al, 2014, p. 26-27)
Constraints:
In terms of the learning objects, SchoolsOnline wants fairly small-scale resources that are flexible enough for a teacher to use with a whole class or
for a student to work on independently. By small, they mean focused on only one or a few objectives and also small in file size. All of the learning
objects will need to be developed in Flash for a particular set of end-user specifications. They also want a particular pedagogical approach to be
takenconstructivist. Another constraint is young children have a fairly limited attention span. In addition, interactivity between Scotts design team
and the other teams will be very limited. The total timeline for the design work is three months. (Ertmer et al, 2014, p. 15, 17, and 19)
Assumptions:
The aim of the project is to make something for Australian students, so the main point is that the objects should be reusable within the scope of this
project. Therefore they do not need to be concerned with contexts outside of Australia. (Ertmer et al, 2014, p. 16)
They used the whole-team approach in an earlier round of projects and they werent convinced that provided the best combination of people to do the
job well. They set up the project this way (Writing Team, Design Team, Development Team, Project Manager, Review Panel, and Steering
Committee) so they have more say over who is involved. (Ertmer et al, 2014, p. 17)
References
Ertmer, P., Quinn, J. (Eds.) & Glazewski, K. (2014). The ID casebook: Case studies in
instructional design (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc

Project Scope
Justification:
I have chosen to base my Project Plan on Case Study 1, Scott Allen: Designing Learning Objects for Primary Learners. In this case study, Scott
Allen and his team won a bid for a major project with SchoolsOnline, a national initiative to develop online resources for primary and secondary
schools (Ertmer, Quinn, and Glazewski, 2014). I was drawn to this case study because I am currently a sixth grade teacher with a degree in
Elementary Education. I have a few years of experience also teaching second grade. At this point, I havent made any assumptions for the case study.
Purpose:
SchoolsOnline is a national initiative to develop online digital learning resources (i.e., learning objects) in specified curricular areas. This project
focuses on Our Nation and Society for years K-12. Within this initiative, the features of online content are expected to: engage students in
meaningful, interactive learning experiences, relate to intended outcomes and link to national, state, and territory syllabi, support students learning in
new and effective ways, exploit the potential of new media and technologies for promoting learning experiences not otherwise available, cater to
individuals or small groups, adapt easily to a range of learning contexts, support concept development, transfer of skills and understandings to and
from real world domains, and connections within and across learning areas, support the development of lifelong learning skills, encourage students to
question and investigate, provide real-life contexts and scenarios, and support literacy and numeracy development. (Ertmer et al, 2014, p. 23)
Scope:
Scotts design team will work primarily on the design specifications while collaborating with two other small teams: one that would be responsible
for proposing and researching the content for design briefs and another that would do the development work. They will be creating learning objects,
as opposed to a full DVD or web-based project. (Ertmer et al, 2014, p. 14)
Stakeholders and Roles:
For this project, there are three teamsWriting Team, Design Team, and Development Team. Plus there is a Project Manager, Review Panel (subject
matter and educational experts), and Project Steering Committee. There are three people on the writing team; they have experience in technical and
creative writing, but dont have backgrounds in education. The subject matter experts on the steering committee made suggestions to the writing
team, and the role of the writing team was to capture the ideas produced by the steering committee, document these, and research additional content,
as required. The learning outcomes and intended pedagogical approaches originated from the steering committee, as did decisions about what content
each learning object should focus on. (Ertmer et al, 2014, p. 16)
The writers had prepared 32 draft briefs and the design team must choose the best 15 of these ideas to develop further, and then the writing team will
revise the briefs and prepare the content needed. (Ertmer et al, 2014, p. 16)
There are reviews and sign-off points between each of the stages. After the writing team prepares the content for the briefs the design team has
chosen for further development, the briefs come back to the design team and they develop the full design specifications, which would then be
reviewed by the panel of subject matter and educational experts. Their feedback would be returned to the design team as the basis for revisions to the

designs. The final design specifications would then go to the steering committee to be signed off on prior to any development. Everything will go
through the Project Manager. (Ertmer et al, 2014, p. 17)
After the design specs are approved by the steering committee, they go to the development team from ScarletMedia, which is a company the design
team hasnt work with before. After that point, the design team would no longer be involved. (Ertmer et al, 2014, p. 17)
Objectives:
Students will: 1.) identify the needs and wants of a community; 2.) distinguish between needs and wants; 3.) recognize healthy and unhealthy choices
The learning object will develop students understanding of values, sustainability, and dimensions of well-being. The purpose of the learning activity
is for K-2 learners to identify and understand the difference between their own needs and wants and to think about the needs and wants of others.
(Ertmer et al, 2014, p. 26-27)
Constraints:
In terms of the learning objects, SchoolsOnline wants fairly small-scale resources that are flexible enough for a teacher to use with a whole class or
for a student to work on independently. By small, they mean focused on only one or a few objectives and also small in file size. All of the learning
objects will need to be developed in Flash for a particular set of end-user specifications. They also want a particular pedagogical approach to be
takenconstructivist. Another constraint is young children have a fairly limited attention span. In addition, interactivity between Scotts design team
and the other teams will be very limited. The total timeline for the design work is three months. (Ertmer et al, 2014, p. 15, 17, and 19)
Assumptions:
The aim of the project is to make something for Australian students, so the main point is that the objects should be reusable within the scope of this
project. Therefore they do not need to be concerned with contexts outside of Australia. (Ertmer et al, 2014, p. 16)
They used the whole-team approach in an earlier round of projects and they werent convinced that provided the best combination of people to do the
job well. They set up the project this way (Writing Team, Design Team, Development Team, Project Manager, Review Panel, and Steering
Committee) so they have more say over who is involved. (Ertmer et al, 2014, p. 17)
References
Ertmer, P., Quinn, J. (Eds.) & Glazewski, K. (2014). The ID casebook: Case studies in
instructional design (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc

Responsibility/Accountability Matrix
Tasks

Person

Determine
Learning
Outcomes
Generate
Design Briefs
Choose
Design Briefs
to be
Developed
Further
Revise
Briefs/Prepare Content
Needed
Develop Full
Design
Specifications
Review
Design
Specifications
Revise
Designs
Approve Final
Designs
Develop
Design Specs

P = Participate
A = Accountable
R = Review Required
I = Input Required
S = Sign-off

Steering
Committee

Review
Panel

P, A
I

Project
Manager

Writing
Team

Design
Team

Development
Team

I
I
R

I
I

P, A

P, A

I
I
I
I

P, A

P, A

P, A
P, A

WBS

Project Schedule and Resource Allocation Plan


Tasks

Person
Responsible

Duration

Start
Date

End
Date

Resource
Cost

Total
Cost

5 hours

6/1/2015

6/1/2015

$75/hr

X 5 people = $1,875

5 hours

6/2/2015

6/2/2015

$75/hr

X 5 people = $1,875

Choose intended pedagogical approaches


Choose what content each learning object should focus
on

Steering
Committee
Steering
Committee
Steering
Committee

5 hours

6/3/2015

6/3/2015

$75/hr

X 5 people = $1,875

Document and research ideas

Writing Team

10 hours

6/4/2015

6/5/2015

$60/hour

X 3 people = $1,800

Generate design briefs

Writing Team

60 hours

6/8/2015

6/16/2015

$60/hour

X 3 people = $10,800

Choose design briefs to be developed further

Design Team

20 hours

6/17/2015

6/19/2015

$90/hour

X 4 people = $2,400

Revise draft briefs chosen by design team

Writing Team

10 hours

6/22/2015

6/23/2015

$60/hour

X 3 people = $1,800

Prepare content needed

Writing Team

10 hours

6/23/2015

6/24/2015

$60/hour

X 3 people = $1,800

Develop full design specifications

Design Team

200 hours

6/25/2015

7/31/2015

$90/hour

X 4 people = $72,000

Review design specifications

Review Panel

10 hours

8/3/2015

8/4/2015

$75/hr

X 5 people = $3,750

Revise design specifications

Design Team
Steering
Committee
Development
Team

40 hours

8/5/2015

8/11/2015

$90/hour

X 4 people = $14,400

1 hour

8/12/2015

8/12/2015

$75/hr

X 5 people = $375

200 hours

8/13/2015

9/18/2015

$90/hour

X 3 people = $18,000

10 hours

9/21/2015

9/22/2015

$75/hr

X 5 people = $3,750

40 hours

9/23/2015

9/30/2015

$90/hour

X 3 people = $10,800

Sign off on final learning objects

Review Panel
Development
Team
Steering
Committee

1 hour

10/1/2015

10/1/2015

$75/hr

X 5 people = $375

Keep everything on track throughout project

Project Manager

720 hours

6/1/2015

10/1/2015

$120/hr
Total Cost:

X 1 person = $86,400
$234,075

Choose learning outcomes

Sign off on final design specifications


Develop design specifications into learning objects
Review learning objects
Revise learning objects

Project Monitoring Matrix


Tasks
Choose learning outcomes
Choose intended pedagogical
approaches
Choose what content each
learning object should focus
on
Document and research ideas
Generate design briefs
Choose design briefs to be
developed further
Revise draft briefs chosen by
design team
Prepare content needed
Develop full design
specifications
Review design specifications
Revise design specifications
Sign off on final design
specifications
Develop design specifications
into learning objects
Review learning objects
Revise learning objects
Sign off on final learning
objects
Keep everything on track
throughout project

Scheduled Start/End
Dates
6/1/15 - 6/1/15
6/2/15 - 6/2/15

Actual Start/End Dates

Status *(see key)

6/1/15 - 6/1/15
6/2/15 - 6/2/15

C
C

6/3/15 - 6/3/15

6/3/15 - 6/4/15

6/4/15 6/5/15
6/8/15 6/16/15
6/17/15 6/19/15

6/5/15 6/8/15
6/9/15 6/18/15
6/19/15 6/23/15

C
C
C

6/22/15 6/23/15

6/23/15 6/25/15

6/23/15 6/24/15
6/25/15 7/31/15

6/25/15 6/29/15
6/30/15 8/7/15

C
C

8/3/15 8/4/15
8/5/15 8/11/15
8/12/15 8/12/15

8/10/15 - ??
NA
NA

IP
N
N

8/13/15 9/18/15

NA

9/21/15 9/22/15
9/23/15 9/30/15
10/1/15 10/1/15

NA
NA
NA

N
N
N

6/1/15 - 10/1/15

6/1/15 - ??

IP

*Status: C = complete, IP = in progress, N = not yet complete

Notes

Communication Plan
Who
(Receiver)
Writing Team

What
Information

When

How

Who Creates
and
Publishes

6/3/15

Email and web


conference

Steering
Committee and
Project Manager

Design Team

Learning
Outcomes,
Pedagogical
Approaches, and
Content
Design Briefs

6/17/15

Email

Writing Team

Draft Briefs

6/22/15

Email

Design Team

Revised Briefs

6/25/15

Email and web


conference

Review Panel

Design
Specifications

8/4/15

Email

Design Team

TBD

Email and web


conference

Steering
Committee

Changes to
Design
Specifications
Final Design
Specifications

TBD

Email

Development
Team

Final Design
Specifications

TBD

Email

Review Panel

Learning
Objects

TBD

Email

Development
Team

Changes to
Learning
Objects
Final Learning
Objects

TBD

Email and web


conference

TBD

Email and web


conference

Writing Team
and Project
Manager
Design Team
and Project
Manager
Writing Team
and Project
Manager
Design Team
and Project
Manager
Review Panel
and Project
Manager
Design Team
and Project
Manager
Design Team
and Project
Manager
Development
Team and
Project Manager
Review Panel
and Project
Manager
Development
Team and
Project Manager

Steering
Committee

Notes

*not yet
complete
*not yet
complete
*not yet
complete
*not yet
complete
*not yet
complete
*not yet
complete

Team Members/Stakeholders: Steering Committee, Review Panel, Writing Team, Design Team, Development Team, Project Manager

Project Close-Out Checklist: Designing Learning Objects for Primary Learners


Team Members/Stakeholders: Steering Committee, Review Panel, Writing Team, Design Team, Development Team, Project Manager
I have reviewed the following finished deliverables as of the date identified below:

Choose learning outcomes, intended pedagogical approaches, and content each learning object should focus on (Steering Committee)
Document and research ideas, generate design briefs, revise draft briefs and prepare content needed (Writing Team)
Choose design briefs to be developed further, develop full design specifications, revise design specifications (Design Team)
Develop design specifications into learning objects, revise learning objects (Development Team)
Review design specifications and review learning objects (Review Panel)
Sign off on final design specifications and final learning objects (Steering Committee)
Work with all team members/stakeholders to keep project on track (Project Manager)

I have found these finished deliverables to meet with my approval, with the following exceptions:

Still waiting for the copyright approval of the final learning objects
Follow up meeting scheduled with client for next week
Costs ran about 10% over budget
Close out meeting not yet held due to distance and scheduling conflicts

_________________________________________________________ (Signature)
Scott Allen, Project Manager
Date:_________________________