Designing five courses for the TecNM Virtual initiative was a source of pride for everyone involved. For me, leading this project meant more than coordinating schedules or tracking tasks—it was about translating my empirical experience into a structured methodology, building a roadmap with key phases, and guiding a team through the pressure of creating something unprecedented for the institution.
Phase 1 had laid the groundwork. We presented the experts, assembled work teams, distributed the syllabus by expertise, introduced templates and workflows, and held one-on-one sessions between experts and instructional designers to shape the curricular design of each activity. It was the scaffolding: clear, logical, and full of potential. Yet the real challenge came in Phase 2, when ideas had to become tangible resources that would eventually be placed in the hands of thousands of students.
This stage was both exciting and daunting. Experts began developing original resources, such as texts, guides, questionnaires, and reference materials for projects, experiments, and practices. Then, instructional designers transformed the experts’ Phase 1 creations and inputs into fully fleshed-out activities. This involved defining the activity’s name and number, evaluation moment, Moodle tool, score, estimated time, learning objective, introduction, precise and clear instructions, resources, competency indicators, APA references, and evaluation rubric. This phase was the heartbeat of the project, where curricular blueprints became living learning experiences.
But reality tested us quickly. Experts, carrying heavy workloads at their home institutions, often delivered materials late or incomplete. Some provided documents overloaded with information, instructions that were too vague, or images of poor quality. Others struggled to adapt resources designed for face-to-face teaching into a virtual context. The delays rippled down the line, threatening our carefully built calendar.
We needed to respond fast and smart. To support the experts, we developed tutorials on creating high-quality resources and held review sessions where we tagged specific comments in their documents, pointing out exactly what needed revision. Some experts responded eagerly, improving their materials significantly; others resisted or simply left gaps. In those cases, we as instructional designers stepped in, reworking resources ourselves to ensure no student would later face confusion or poor-quality learning materials.
As project leader, my role was both managerial and profoundly pedagogical. I did not limit myself to oversight—I immersed myself in the process. From the very beginning, I trained the instructional designers in how to conduct effective one-on-one sessions with experts, how to scaffold activities, and how to connect every assignment with Bloom’s and Marzano’s taxonomies. I built master presentations, video tutorials, and consultation documents to guide them. This work allowed us to standardize activities across courses, ensuring that every unit—whether in physics, operations research, or digital circuits—shared the same rigor and coherence.
I also insisted on something often overlooked in online learning: the quality of instructions. A single missing step or poorly worded sentence could turn a simple activity into a source of deep frustration for students and teachers. To prevent this, I reviewed the first activity of every unit myself, identifying areas for improvement and explaining to each designer why changes mattered. Once they understood the rationale, they gained confidence and independence, which reduced the need for constant oversight. To avoid bottlenecks, I created a “checklist” document that designers could use to validate their own deliverables before submitting them for review.
This process was not easy. Experts balanced their teaching and research duties, while instructional designers carried their usual workload plus the intense rhythm of this project. Pressure was high, deadlines tight, and the risk of burnout real. Yet what impressed me most was the spirit of collaboration. Even when overwhelmed, the team showed resilience and commitment. I made it a priority to acknowledge achievements—big or small—in every one-on-one session, reminding both experts and designers that their contribution was essential. Recognition was not just motivational; it was a survival strategy.
Of course, there were difficult moments. Conversations with experts who resisted feedback had to be handled with tact. We often reminded them that this was a chain of work, a cascade methodology where one late or incomplete delivery delayed many other steps. Sometimes, when persuasion wasn’t enough, I absorbed the missing work myself, reconstructing resources to keep the flow going. Leadership, I learned, is not only about guiding but also about carrying the weight when necessary.
Despite the setbacks, Phase 2 accomplished its goals. We delivered complete units, transferred resources to graphic design, and documented every step, leaving behind a clear methodology for future iterations. More importantly, we built a culture of rigor, adaptability, and empathy under pressure. This phase demonstrated that the quality of virtual education does not come from perfect conditions, but from teams willing to adapt, leaders willing to listen, and a collective belief that students deserve clarity, precision, and meaningful learning.
As I look ahead to the next four courses already scheduled, I see Phase 2 not only as a milestone but as the moment TecNM Virtual became real. It was no longer a project in planning—it was a reality shaped by human effort, negotiation, creativity, and resilience. And it left us with a conviction: building education at scale demands more than templates and deadlines; it requires leadership rooted in empathy, systems thinking, and the courage to transform obstacles into opportunities.
As I look ahead to the next four courses already scheduled, I see Phase 2 not only as a milestone but as the moment TecNM Virtual became real. It was no longer a project in planning—it was a reality shaped by human effort, negotiation, creativity, and resilience. Yet this experience also revealed something deeper: building online education at a national scale is a learning process for everyone involved. The transition from face-to-face teaching to the creation of self-directed resources suitable for students without direct expert intervention is not a simple adjustment—it is a paradigm shift. What lies ahead is completing this leap into true virtuality, where learning spaces integrate collaborative tools like Padlets, forums, or DDS cards to foster dialogue, cooperation, and active formation. We are all in this process of learning together, discovering that meaningful virtual education requires not only high-quality content, but also the courage to rethink how knowledge is shared and communities of learners are built.
Thanks for your time reading this experience.
If you want to check our tracking presentation, just click here!