Final Reflection on 531

There are three themes for my thoughts here at the end of the class:

--immediate changes in practice as a result of this course

--the promise for future application of lessons learned

--the disconnect between what this course promised and what it delivered.


First, as I have described on this blog and in our class discussions, I have been able to immediately implement some of the web 2.0 technologies we learned and used in this course. I started a regular Skype call with my undergraduate distance composition students. I also explored the virtual world for its applicability to my own organization's work in continuing medical education. And as a result of the exposure gained in this class, I began a collaboration with a company specializing in this kind of work, developed a program to apply virtual training to the oncology world, and responded to a request for proposals issued by one of my organization's funders.

This immediate application naturally leads to thoughts of future uses of some of the tech tools we used and learned about. In January I will start teaching my F2F university grant writing courses for the year (spring and summer semesters). I plan to integrate the Google Doc into my courses (and can't quite believe I haven't used it before!).

Despite the immediate and future applications of DE tech learned in this course, the great team of colleagues I worked with, and the attentive and enthusiastic guidance of PSU faculty, I have been extremely disappointed with what I call the disconnect between what the course title and even objectives promised and what it has turned out to be.

The course titles is "Course Design and Development in Distance Education."

The objective for the course was:

Participants should increase their knowledge regarding:
1. Organizing human and other resources needed for designing and delivering courses.
2. Issues arising from delivery in different learner contexts.
3. Principles and procedures for structuring and organizing content.
4. Issues in preparing for both package methods and interactive delivery methods.
5. Design and delivery of learner-instructor and learner-learner interaction.
6. Designing and implementing an evaluation and monitoring system.
7. Potential of Web 2.0 technologies for teaching and learning.


Frankly I expected a course in DE instructional design--that's what the title led me to believe and what the objectives (especially #3, 5 and 6) also led me to believe.

Unfortunately the course seemed to have spent so much time on objective #7 that it left out many of the other objectives. Did we discuss the issues mentioned in the other objectives? Yes. Did we have some course assignments and readings that addressed them? Yes.

But I do not feel that the course structure emphasized them enough nor required enough rigor and work and detail to truly allow for accomplishment of objectives 1-6.

So much of the information was vague, outdated, and "big picture" that I do not feel that I know any more about objectives 1-6 than when this course started. Did this course really teach me (or provide the opportunity for me to learn) how to design a DE course? NO.

I hope others' experiences were more positive and if anyone has time and is reading these last posts (!), I look forward to your comments.

Best wishes to all in the future and I hope to "see" you again.

Dierdre

More on Cost for DE (Unit 12)

I had actually read Chapter 4 of our text earlier in the semester, and found that it offered good information about cost issues for DE. I think getting a handle on fixed and variable costs is hugely important.


As I was finishing my paper for this course (since I have another I am working on too!), and writing the budget for my program, something else that became very clear to me was upfront costs versus ongoing costs. My program represents an expansion in an organization's (the Grant Professionals Association, a member organization for grant writer people like me) already existing DE, which would require significant development--up front costs. I was thinking about how I would justify this initial investment to my organization and so found myself budgeting out a couple years in the future. With the right tuition model, it seemed that the GPA could break even after 2 years and finally bring some real revenue in after 3 years. I wonder if many nonprofit organizations or even companies would be willing to get involved in that kind of investment. Of course I am advocating for it, but I just wonder what the real response would be.


This relates, it seems to me, to my post below about my grant submission for the Virtual Oncology Practice. As I said, the budget was about $675K and half was for the tech part. Funders are always looking at cost per learner. So if we have 2000 people complete the activity, then that amounts to $337.50 per person over the year--not too bad.

And while we are seeking grant support to get the project going, we are also seeing it as an investment. So if this request goes through and we get to do this project in 2011, then in 2012 we can get support to expand into more content areas. This would result in a lower budget, since the tech is built and would only need to be updated/expanded (but not started from scratch all over again). This might result in a budget of only $350K and with 2000 learners that's $175 per person. So over time the cost per person goes down, but that is only possible with the investment up front.

Organizations have to be willing to make the investment and take the time that goes into reducing costs and ultimately, eventually (hopefully!) result in cost savings. I think it's important, but hard.

Virtual Training Proposal - In!

Yesterday I submitted a grant request to support my organization's "Virtual Oncology Practice". This will be an animated, simulated oncology office where physicians and nurses interact with simulated patients with non-small cell lung cancer and must make treatment decisions that are appropriate for them based on the type, status and progression of their disease.

The project, if funded, would begin development in January and launch live on the web in May. Then it would be up and live for the oncology community for one year. The budget is about $675,000 (more than half that is the pass-through cost for our tech partner who will create and run the simulation for us).

Aside from the fact that this would be a wonderful, innovative new way for my organization to provide in-depth education on a serious, serious disease (number one cause of cancer deaths in the US), I am extremely happy about this submission because it grew directly out of this course. If I were not taking this course and had not had the Second Life experience (good, bad, etc.), I would not have been prepared for this RFP and probably would not have championed this project to my senior management.

So thanks to you all and this course for having an immediate impact on my adult ed practice and my organization. And of course, if the project gets funded, then the impact will ripple out to several thousand oncology clinicians and the many thousands of patients they serve. And those are the people I am in all this for! :)