It All Seems Well
A couple of posts ago, I mentioned a project I had
undertaken at my school( click
here for a synopsis) . Last year we did not meet AYP so the pressure was on
to ensure that students were receiving the help needed. I started a blended
learning class in January which was specifically aimed at improving writing and
some aspects of reading. I had seven weeks until the state test and so I knew I
had my work cut out. We were using the Pearson course management system which
had an interactive writing coach, preexisting grammar material and the ability
for teachers to create and upload their own material. Each student had to be added
individually to the CMS. This was a long process as students had to search through
the district database and then added manually. Since the students were pulled
from different classes, it took a long time. By the second week, it we had
worked out all the kinks and the students had settled in. We had worked out
some of the initial problems with the CMS and the two additional teachers had
played around with the CMS enough to be able to use it and help the teachers.
All seemed well until…
Scope Creep
A “ common source of change is the natural tendency of the
client, as well project team members, to try to improve the project’s output as
the project progresses, a phenomenon known as scope screep” (Portny et al,
2008, p. 346). Three weeks into my blended learning class, I started notice
that some my students had their grade level changed from 10th to
11th. I enquired and was told that these students had enough credits to be
juniors. While they still needed the English II credit, they would be taking
the English III test. Since they had their status changed, they could no longer
stay in my class and to go to a different teacher. I was then given a new
‘batch’ of students, which meant I had to start all over with these students. I
was told that this change needed to happen quickly and smoothly as there was
very little time left; “Project managers must expect change and be prepared to
deal with it. Fighting change is not appropriate” (Portny et al, 2008, p.346). They
had to be added to the CMS and had to go through the orientation. They went
through the same cycle of resistance as the other students. In each class, I
had two groups of students, one that was advanced as they’d been with me for
three weeks and another that was full of novices. It made teaching difficult as
I had to constantly stop and help the new students. The original group of
students was getting frustrated as they felt that they were being held up. I
eventually decided to pair the students so that my accustomed students could
help the new students. This worked out much better.
Better ways to manage the change
“Avoiding scope creep is not possible. However, monitoring
it, controlling it, and thereby reducing some of the pain is possible –if the
project manager follows a few guidelines” (Portny et al, 2008, p.347)
“Include a change control system in every project plan” (Portny
et al, 2008, p.347). When I initially introduced the idea of the blended
learning class to the administration, I should have asked about any changes
that would were likely to occur at the beginning of the 2nd
semester. Status changes are not unusual around that time and so that could
have been easily forecasted. I could have come up with a contingency plan form
the beginning. The other lab had two teachers. We could have used one of the
teachers to take the new students and introduce them to the CMS and help them
to get through orientation.
In my previous post I had mentioned that I did not know how
successful this project had been. We received our results last week. We needed 87%
to make AYP; our results indicated we reached 91% overall. The administration
also runs data per teacher. 97% of my students passed the state test. While
this project was by no means perfect, it helped in many ways. The lessons
learnt in those seven weeks will me prepare for the class next year.
Reference
Portny et al (2008). Project management. Hoboken,
N.J.: Wiley.
