I spent the first three weeks of the project trying to find a partner organization, and honestly, it was pretty overwhelming. I initially reached out to my alma mater, my local barangay, and an organization in UPLB, but none of those worked out due to scheduling conflicts. Since I work the night shift, I’m only available in the evenings, which unfortunately doesn’t align with most office hours. Knowing I’d likely need to make multiple visits, I realized I needed a different approach: one that could better fit my schedule.
That’s when I started focusing on organizations that could work with me remotely. I knew I needed a partner that could respond to inquiries online and meet virtually to help me complete the project. That led me to Kathaang Ugnayan ng Likhain, Talastasan, Obra’t Ulat (KultOU)—an art and writing group based here at UPOU.
Because their members are already used to distance learning and feel comfortable with online collaboration, I decided the best route was to design an online program they could also adapt for future use. To make sure the project would truly benefit them, I reached out to the current officers to see if there was potential for a meaningful partnership.
I conducted a needs assessment survey for the project, which aims to guide members in building careers as indie artists and writers. The responses gave me a clearer view of what they hoped to gain, especially when it came to monetizing their work and making connections in the industry.
I also had an informal meeting with the president and several officers where I presented a draft of the proposal. Sharing the curriculum at this stage was both nerve-wracking and reassuring, since I could finally see how my ideas lined up with what the organization envisioned. Their approval reminded me that the survey was not just a formality but a way to truly listen to what members wanted. It also confirmed that I was heading in the right direction.
I recently pitched the project to the KultOU officers through a PowerPoint presentation of the workshop curriculum. Most of the key officers attended, and this gave me a chance to explain my vision while also listening closely to their reactions. The discussion helped me refine the plan and identify the point persons who would serve as speakers. What stood out to me was the level of investment they showed. It felt less like a presentation to an audience and more like a collaborative session. The curriculum now reflects both the survey results and the officers’ practical insights. Having that sense of alignment gave me confidence that the project is on solid ground.
With the curriculum approved, I began developing the lesson plan. Once I finished drafting it, I presented the proposal to the officers and the designated speakers. Their feedback was encouraging, and I received approval to move forward into creating the modules. At this stage, I felt the shift from planning to actual production. It was exciting to see how earlier groundwork, from the survey to the meetings, was slowly turning into something tangible. I also realized how valuable it was to share my drafts regularly instead of waiting until everything felt finished. The process became less about presenting a polished product and more about building something collaboratively.
I reached out to the Vice President for Internal Affairs to gain insights, since networking is one of the central topics of the workshop. They offered practical advice drawn from their own experiences, which made me rethink how to present this subject to participants. Rather than relying on theoretical explanations, I saw the importance of anchoring the module in lived examples. I also invited them to join as one of the speakers, and they agreed. Bringing them on board gives the workshop stronger grounding in real-world practice, something I know the participants will find valuable.
I next consulted with the Vice President for External Affairs, who has direct experience as an independent artist managing a photo manipulation and editing business. Their perspective on sustaining creative work through consistent income added another layer of depth to the modules. After our discussion, I invited them to serve as a speaker. What struck me was how naturally their story aligned with the goals of the workshop. Their success demonstrated that creative work can be both expressive and sustainable. Including them showed me the importance of representing diverse experiences, since participants will see multiple paths to building a career.
I later met with the President and the Education Committee Head to gather their insights and extend invitations for them to join as speakers. The President’s experience in self-publishing and crowdfunding gave me a new appreciation for the risks and rewards involved in independent projects. The Education Committee Head’s background in portfolio-making and pitching showed me how important it is to connect creative output with opportunities. Their combined expertise gave the workshop more balance, blending both entrepreneurial and presentational skills. This reminded me that the strength of the project lies in drawing from the collective knowledge within the organization rather than just my own planning.
I presented the completed modules to the officers for comments and suggestions. Their feedback highlighted areas where I could make the content more relevant to the members. After revising and resubmitting, I received approval to move forward with the final version. The next step is layout and formatting before the last review. This stage showed me the importance of flexibility. What I thought was already clear sometimes needed adjustments once seen from another perspective. The process of constant feedback and revision was not always easy, but it ensured that the final output was collaborative and aligned with what the participants actually needed.
Today I asked the president for final approval of the Career Toolkit. It felt like a turning point because all the drafts and revisions I worked on were finally ready to be evaluated. I realized that I often hold back out of fear that something is incomplete, which can slow down the process. At the same time, that carefulness helped me make sure the content responded to the needs of creators in the organization.
The challenge I faced was the uncertainty of whether my ideas aligned with the president’s expectations. To manage this, I revisited past discussions and checked whether the toolkit addressed the concerns that had been raised earlier. This step reminded me that approval is not an endpoint but an invitation for dialogue. Moving forward, I plan to see revisions as part of growth rather than a sign that something was wrong from the beginning.
The workshop was held today and I was encouraged by how well it went. The participants engaged with the activities, and I could see the toolkit being applied in practice instead of just existing on paper. Even when a small technical problem occurred, I was able to adapt and use the moment to encourage conversations. This made the session feel more natural and collaborative.
I learned that preparation and flexibility must go together. My earlier belief that participants would hesitate to open up was proven wrong because once they felt comfortable, they spoke honestly about their experiences. My strength was my ability to adapt, while my weakness was that I rushed through certain parts in order to stay on schedule. For future sessions, I want to improve time management so there is more space for dialogue and deeper reflection.
After the workshop, I distributed the feedback forms together with worksheets. At first some participants seemed hesitant, but once I explained that their answers would help strengthen the toolkit and also allow them to reflect on their own careers, they took the task seriously. The responses were detailed and sincere, and the worksheets encouraged them to think more deeply about their personal goals and challenges as creators.
I realized that pairing feedback with worksheets created more than just an evaluation process. It became a way for participants to learn while also guiding the improvement of the project. A strength of this step was the richness of the insights I received, which went beyond surface comments and gave me a clearer picture of what matters to them. A weakness was my reliance on written feedback alone, since some ideas might still be better captured in open conversations.
This experience reminded me that feedback is not simply about assessment but about creating opportunities for reflection. For future sessions, I plan to refine the worksheets further and also include short dialogues so that participants have more ways to express their thoughts.
After reviewing the feedback forms and worksheets, I began creating the Indie Creator Career Toolkit as a supplement to the main Career Toolkit. The responses made me realize that while the original toolkit was comprehensive, there were specific needs among independent creators that deserved focused attention. Many of them expressed concerns about navigating careers without the same structures and support systems that larger groups enjoy.
This step gave me the insight that a single resource cannot fully capture the diversity of creative careers. The main toolkit works as a general guide, but the supplement allows me to address the unique challenges of those working independently, such as finding resources, sustaining motivation, and building networks on their own. A strength of this process was my ability to listen closely to what participants emphasized and turn their input into actionable content. A weakness I noticed in myself was that I initially thought one toolkit could serve everyone equally, which limited how I framed solutions.
Through this process, I saw how assumptions about shared experiences can overlook important differences. From one perspective, I wanted uniformity for the sake of simplicity. From another perspective, diversity in resources actually makes the project stronger.
As I look back on the entire process of creating, presenting, and refining the Career Toolkit and its supplement, the Indie Creator Career Toolkit, I feel a sense of fulfillment that goes beyond completing a requirement. Each stage, from securing approval, to implementing the workshop, to gathering and analyzing feedback, has taught me how reflective practice can guide the growth of both the project and myself as a future professional.
One of the most valuable insights I gained is that instructional design is never finished at its first version. Every tool, activity, and reflection can be improved, and each interaction with participants reveals new needs and perspectives. This made me appreciate the importance of staying open, listening carefully, and allowing the project to evolve.
I also recognize how much this experience has shaped my confidence. I learned how to handle challenges, analyze feedback critically, and transform ideas into practical resources that can support others. More importantly, I discovered that creating learning tools requires humility and a genuine desire to serve.
I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to carry out this project. It gave me a chance to apply what I learned in my BES courses and to see how theory and practice come together in a meaningful way. I know that the lessons I gained here will influence the way I design and deliver educational projects in my future career.
This may be the end of the project in its current form, but I do not see it as a conclusion. I plan to continue updating and expanding the toolkits so that they remain relevant for future creators. In that sense, this project is only the beginning, and I look forward to how it will grow alongside my own professional journey.
Looking back on the implementation of this project, I can clearly see how much it has been a learning process for me as an instructional designer. While the Career Toolkit and the workshop were well-received and sparked meaningful engagement, there are several things I would change if I were to create Version 2.0.
The first and most important improvement I would make is delivering physical copies of the modules in addition to the digital versions. I realised that while having an online resource is useful, it is not always accessible for every member. Internet access can be inconsistent, and some participants may prefer tangible materials they can hold, annotate, and refer to without relying on a screen. Physical copies would also make the learning feel more concrete and enduring. This would strengthen the accessibility of the toolkit and align more closely with my goal of creating a resource that lives beyond a single workshop event.
Another adjustment I would make is refining the pacing and schedule of the workshop. One clear piece of feedback was that time management could be improved. In Version 2.0, I would plan for longer breaks, more space between modules, and possibly spread the workshop across more days. This would allow participants to digest the information more deeply, have more energy to participate in activities, and reduce the sense of rush that occasionally affected engagement.
I would also make improvements to the interactive components. While activities such as pitching simulations and group discussions worked well, some participants expressed discomfort with speaking in live sessions. I would incorporate more low-pressure practice spaces, such as small peer groups or asynchronous sharing options, so participants can build confidence without feeling performance pressure. I would also provide clearer guidelines and examples for certain modules, especially for topics such as crowdfunding, where some participants found the content dense.
From a materials perspective, I would revise the booklet to include a table of contents for easier navigation, as well as more contextual examples tailored to Filipino creators. I would expand sections on legal considerations, financial planning, and practical networking tips, since these are areas that many participants found particularly valuable but wanted more of. I would also add an option for offline access so that participants can refer to the materials without needing internet access.
Another important change I would make is strengthening the evaluation component. While the reflective worksheets and feedback forms were useful, in Version 2.0 I would integrate more real-time reflection checkpoints throughout the workshop. This could be done with quick surveys or informal discussions after each session to capture immediate responses and adjust delivery dynamically.
Version 2.0 would be a more accessible, flexible, and participant-centered experience. The project taught me that designing for a creative community means recognising the diversity of needs, learning styles, and circumstances. It means thinking beyond the delivery of content and focusing on creating a resource and experience that adapts and grows. The workshop showed me what worked and where there is room for growth, and Version 2.0 would take those lessons to heart, making the Career Toolkit stronger, more inclusive, and more sustainable for the future of KultOU members.