Learning from a Project “Post-mortem”

Posted: March 9, 2012 in Uncategorized


As an educator, I do not have much experience with projects.  Most of my projects involve creating effective lessons and teach students content.  I decided to look at my course project from my last Walden course.  The course project for the Distance Learning course required me to use a Course Management System (CMS) to develop a hybrid course.  A hybrid, or blended course teaches the majority of the content online, but there still are traditional classroom meetings (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2012).  I chose to use Course Sites by Blackboard as the CMS for my Orientation for the Philosophy of Education course.  I was required to develop three modules for the potential students to work on each week.  The first module introduced the students to the technology tools they needed to understand how to use for the course.  The second module explained how students could be successful in the Orientation course.  The third and final module provided an annotated list of resources that will help the students throughout the course.  The project scored a 3 out 5.  Not the best score, but it did have areas of success.


When thinking about the most gratifying or satisfying part of the project, I feel that the video mashups had the biggest area of success (Greer, 2010).  The video mashups gave me the option to differentiate the instruction and add more interest and variation to the course.  Students often get bored with text, and could use alternate ways to learn the content.  It would be hard to keep learners motivated by just using text.  I also believe the project was successful in the fact that it was created to develop the students skills and knowledge that they must have to be successful (Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, & Sutton, 2008).  The project was created with the assumption that the learners are new to online education, and it helps them become familiar with the technology tools, successful attributes, and important resources.


There were also processes and artifacts that were not included that could have made the project more successful.  The biggest part of the project that was not included was content knowledge.  I briefly touched upon different content areas, but the instructor expected more.  To make the project more successful I should have paid a closer look to the grading rubric, and reviewed it multiple times to ensure I have all the areas covered.  The instructor could have also made the project easier to understand by providing a few project examples that show what he was looking for.  That way I can compare performance, and with plans, and fix problems that came up when the instructor reviewed the project modules (Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, & Sutton, 2008).



Greer, M. (2010). The project management minimalist: Just enough PM to rock your projects! (Laureate custom ed.). Baltimore: Laureate Education, Inc.

Portny, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer, B. E. (2008). Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.






Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s