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.
Sheila to Munira:
ReplyDeleteI really admire you for this undertaking. I know how difficult it can be to implement anything technological into a unit of learning. “The importance of risk identification, response planning, and monitoring cannot be trivialized…however, this process cannot be allowed to assume too high a priority – the results of this could keep an organization from ever completing a project…the project manager walks a fine line here” (Lynch & Roecker, 2007, p. 105). I applaud you for moving forward even though your project incurred some unseen risks. But you initiated this successful endeavor and learned from it enough to tweak your processes for next year. Congratulations!
References
Lynch, M. M., & Roecker, J. (2007). Project managing e-learning: A handbook for successful design, delivery, and management. London: Routledge. Copyright by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. (chapt. 5, pp. 94-108).
Hi Munira, I love your post a lot because I can relate to it. Administration does tend to change the plan on one and usually we're left with the choice of whining about the situation or making the best of a bad situation. I however like your third possibility which is to expect and anticipate the change/ scope creep and have a contingency plan in place for that situation whanit occurs. Bimbola.
ReplyDeleteMunira,
ReplyDeleteI have never worked in an educational setting but have heard my share of horror stories regarding the demands of meeting state and national testing requirements. It sounds as though you certainly made the most of a difficult situation and actually managed to develop some unique solutions to your problems, thus preventing scope creep to effect the project too dramatically. Nice post!
Hi Munira,
ReplyDeleteFirst, congratulations on such an outstanding score. Not only did you reach the overall goal but also you surpassed the goal (rather substantially) for your students. You handled the need for changing plans without sacrificing the quality of the program. This is very much in keeping with the suggestions for dealing with variances as described by Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, and Kramer:
• If the variance results from a one-time difficulty, try to take steps to get back on the plan.
• If the variance suggests a situation that will lead to similar variances in the future, consider modifying the plan accordingly.
(Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, & Kramer, 2008, p. 344)
When you reorganized your groupings so that the more experienced students could help the newer students, you accomplished the first step by trying to get back to the plan. As you conducted your postmortem analysis and recognized the need to consider changes at the second semester, you accomplish the second step by considering modifying your plan.
Thanks again for an excellent blog.
– jeff
Reference:
Portny, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer, B. (2008). Project Management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
It sounds like not only did your students learn a lot - youdid as well! Great work!
ReplyDelete