INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN PORTFOLIO

This is a completed project charter proposal for a fictional company. Produced in a group project, the end goal of the proposed training product is to improve customer service in the company’s call center.

Reflecting on the final project has revealed the eclectic approach our team used to tackle each individual assignment. By working on assignments in Microsoft Teams, we were able to contribute collaboratively in real time and provide feedback on each other’s work. The division of work was decided upon as a team based on the task at hand, the challenges each assignment presented, and the strengths and skills of each team member.

                For the Gap Analysis, our team completed the table as a hive mind, each adding and upvoting bullet points to determine the final content. We identified Key Performance Indicators we thought were most urgent to address and collaborated on ideas for improvement. For the Project Charter, we chose to divide the work into two teams: a pair of members to complete each performance objective. From there, we further divided the work between each partner for completing specific sections of the document. Each member was able to provide feedback on the whole document before submitting. With a well-constructed charter, we were ready to move into the planning phase.

                As we examined the Project Plan, we agreed to divide the assignment into manageable sections for each member. The contributions of each member resulted in a document that provided a high-level view of the scope of the project, the division of labor, time and expenses, and how to deal with necessary changes along the way. Smartsheet proved valuable for visually representing the project.

                The completion of the Instructional Design Document was achieved with a return to the division of work used for the Project Charter. Working in pairs, we focused on the two performance objectives. The pairings were chosen based on member strengths and comfort levels with synchronous and asynchronous learning settings. We described the assessment summary with relative ease, but required dialogue and feedback about the evaluation plan, specifically what constituted the confirmative assessment. With input from the entire team, we were able to successfully navigate the challenge.

                The Facilitator Guide focused on the first performance objective. Accordingly, the lead for writing the lesson content was taken by the pair that focused on that objective for the Design document. I was given the Quality Assurance rubric to complete. This was a new skill for me to learn. I researched existing QA rubrics and gathered elements from each example to influence my own. The biggest challenge was determining the weighted value of each rubric statement. Ultimately, the most weight was given to statements that evaluated clarity of communication and objectives.

                In the execution phase, I found it challenging to distinguish between concept mapping and action mapping. I volunteered to create the map with my MindMeister pro account, but struggled with the line between big-picture mapping of course objectives/activities and flowcharting the Reusable Learning Object. Should I be involved in future instructional design projects, I will need to develop a better understanding of when to use each type of map. Another challenge was deciding on a storyboard template. I volunteered one I used in a previous class which was based on the template used by a colleague working in an ID setting. I was able to brand it for our team and prepare it so that other members could easily contribute content.

                In reflecting on the Cooperative Learning Project Squad, Candice, Lena, Paige and I were able to work collaboratively and effectively to produce a successful project. Though the division of work was not equal each week, each member contributed and took a turn carrying assignments to fruition. There were road bumps along the way, but they were navigated with minimal complication and without breaking the terms of our collaborative agreement. Our biggest challenges to collaboration were the result of two factors: disparate skills and experience and disparate schedules and obligations outside of class.

                The selection of a project leader was done collaboratively. As the only male member of our team, I thought it inappropriate for me to be project leader. Though I did not state this as the reason, I preemptively requested I not be considered for the role. Lena also expressed reluctance for the role without giving a specific reason. Both Candice and Paige were willing, with Candice expressing a stronger desire to do so. Paige acquiesced, and Candice was chosen to lead the team.

                Candice contributed a wealth of content to each project assignment. She sought feedback from team members, collaborated to determine assignment responsibilities and considered members’ concerns about assigned tasks. She was professional and respectful to all team members, working to solve problems with consideration and kindness. My constructive feedback is that Candice, while a valuable contributor, was perhaps not best suited to be project manager. Between travel and commitments with her children, she was not consistently able to prepare for Tuesday meetings. Though she politely asked for volunteers and listened to team preferences, Candice hesitated to assign tasks to team members when no preferences or objections were presented to her. These were minor challenges to overcome, but the result was that other members occasionally took the team lead in her stead.

                Lena’s greatest strength was engaging with team members. She asked questions and expressed interest in everyone on the team. Her concern was not just producing good work but learning about team members’ jobs, interests and life experiences. Lena redirected us with details and parameters from assignment directions and rubrics to help us accomplish tasks. She was willing and able to partner with each member to complete assignments. Her biggest challenge was language barrier. English is not her first language, and she sometimes expressed frustration at not understanding if the team moved too quickly or did not communicate clearly. Members, especially Paige, took care to slow down and restate ideas so Lena could better absorb them. While this was a challenge for her, it was our responsibility to make communication accessible to her. I believe the team did this well, and Lena’s kindness made it easy to put forth extra care to meet her needs.

                Paige’s contributions are nearly immeasurable. She had the most corporate experience amongst the team members and has honed her communication and technology skills to make herself a valuable collaborator. I had the pleasure of partnering with her in the previous class, so I was already aware that she communicates clearly, provides tools and resources, and offers advice and help. She prepared in advance for meetings and regularly volunteered to take the lead on weekly assignments. In short, Paige embodies the knowledge and skills of an accomplished project manager.