Course Expert Review

In the course expert review subphase, I consulted with Mr. Patrick Finnegan, CEO of BrightMind eLearning. He is an expert in PowerPoint and Amazon AWS, the main topic of the course, and also experienced in Rise 360, the platform used to develop the course.

I sent him the link to review the course and requested his feedback. He thoroughly reviewed the content, watched the videos, tested the knowledge checks and the summative assessment, among other elements, and shared his comments. He said that the course was excellent and commended me for the overall instructional design.

He suggested two (2) changes. First, he recommended removing the actual AWS credentials from the course, as including them could lead to security issues. Instead, he advised adding a note such as, "If you don't already know the credentials for the AWS login, ask your supervisor." He said that this way, if anyone abuses the process or makes a mistake, someone in charge will know who had access and who to ask about it. He also recommended using the general term supervisor instead of a specific name, so the instruction remains relevant in future years even if the person in that role changes.

Second, he suggested uploading the course to a Learning Management System (LMS), such as Reach 360 or TalentLMS, to gather learner data (e.g., whether learners answered questions correctly or completed all modules) for analysis and future improvement. I took his suggestions into account and made the necessary changes to the course.

From this experience, I gained two (2) important insights.

First, through his suggestion to use the word supervisor instead of a specific name, I realized the importance of evergreening or the process of designing learning materials that remain relevant and valuable over time, even as technology or information change. Though his suggestion was specifically about a login instruction, I was able to apply this concept more broadly across the course, such as avoiding specific dates or instructions that may quickly become outdated.

Second, I realized the importance of setting up a LMS to make data collection more efficient and systematic. By uploading the course to Reach 360, I am able to track learner progress, analyze performance on assessments, and generate useful insights for future improvement. Additionally, learners receive a certificate of completion, which adds a sense of achievement and formal recognition of their efforts.

For this subphase, the main problem I experienced was related to the accessibility and user management of the LMS. If I were to publish the course in an LMS, I would need to create an account for every user. I felt that this requirement could restrict accessibility, especially for future employees, since they might not have the login credentials to access the LMS after the course is officially implemented.

As a solution, only the three (3) participants involved in the implementation phase will have user accounts in the LMS. This would allow me to gather the necessary data for the course evaluation. At the same time, the course will also be published on a website where no login is required to ensure that future employees who join after the project is completed will still be able to access the training materials freely.

One of the main strengths was my responsiveness and ability to implement feedback. I made timely adjustments based on his recommendations, such as removing AWS credentials and evergreening the course. Additionally, I immediately explored which LMS would be best for my use-case.

A minor weakness during this subphase was that I initially had not planned for how the course would be accessed after implementation, especially for future users outside the original participant group. I realized late in the process that relying solely on an LMS might limit future accessibility. However, I was able to resolve this by publishing the course on a public site with no login required to ensure both evaluation needs and long-term access were met.

For future practice as an instructional designer, I recommend carefully evaluating the best method for publishing a course, whether through an LMS, a public website, or a combination of both. This decision should be based on the specific purpose of the course, the needs of the learners, and the project context.

In this case, using an LMS was important because gathering evaluation data is essential for the purposes of this project. The LMS allows me to track learner progress, quiz results, and module completion, which supports data-driven improvements and demonstrates learning outcomes. However, long-term accessibility is also important, because this course is meant to be used by both current and future employees beyond the pilot group. Therefore, the best option was to publish the course in both formats: in the LMS for evaluation purposes, and on a public website for long-term, open access. This approach ensured that I could meet the immediate goals of the project while also supporting future learning needs. 

However, this dual-access approach may not always be the right choice. For example, if the course is designed for compliance training, publishing it solely in an LMS would likely be more appropriate, as it allows for controlled access, data tracking, and formal record-keeping. On the other hand, if the course is intended for onboarding or general skill development, a publicly accessible version may be more practical and inclusive, especially for a continuously growing audience.

Ultimately, the lesson and the key recommendation for future action is to select the delivery method based on the course objectives, the characteristics of the learners, and the needs of the organization, because each context requires a different balance between control and accessibility.