Keynote 1 meeting the challenge of technology


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Keynote 1 meeting the challenge of technology

  1. 1. COHEREBlended learning: a strategy for online higher education research Calgary, October 17-19, 2012MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF TECHNOLOGY: ARE WE FAILING AS MANAGERS? Dr. Tony Bates, Tony Bates Associates Ltd, Vancouver, BC, Canada 1
  2. 2. Overview1. Introduction2. Why managing LTs is important but difficult3. Research: lessons from 11 case studies of LT management • Leadership and planning • Quality • Resources • Training • Governance4. Supporting innovation5. Questions/discussion
  3. 3. IntroductionHow many of you think that the current model of post-secondary education is sustainable? 3
  4. 4. Why managing learning technology is important• Not a „side-issue‟ any more• Effective use of LTs key to • innovation • productivity • 21st century skills development • blended learning Virtual border crossing: Loyalist College • flexible learning • lifelong learning 4
  5. 5. Changing modes of delivery distributed learning blended learning hybrid fully online face-to- classroom (reduced f2f + (distance) face aids online)no e-learning fully e-learning
  6. 6. What kind of institution?where on the continuumshould the institution be?what factors should influencethis decision?how do we turn goals intoreality?who should decide?
  7. 7. QuestionDoes your institution have a plan for learning technologies, or flexible delivery, or innovation in teaching? (or is currently developing one)? Is it any good? 7
  8. 8. Why managing learning technology is difficult• universities/colleges difficult to manage• all management is messy (Mintzberg)• LT only one, new aspect of management;• academic + technology + management• rapid technological change• culture: fear of managerialism; resistance to change 8
  9. 9. What do we know about managing learning technologies?• Less than 10% of publications on topic• Ontario: few institutions have a plan for LTs; need help• So: Bates and Sangrà (2011): 11 case studies: 6 in Europe; 5 in North America• Changes since then: more institutions now doing serious LT planning (e.g. UBC, Saskatchewan)• Results from case studies still apply 9
  10. 10. Measuring/evaluating learning technology integration: some criteria1. Central in strategic plan2. Good technology infrastructure3. Digitalized admin/student services4. Strategic rationale for use of LTs5. % faculty and students using LT6. Innovative uses of LT7. Support/training in use of LT for teaching8. Better learning outcomes as a result 10
  11. 11. Leadership and planning• Institutions with LTs in strategic plan did better• Strengthens change agents• Main goals for technology in case studies: • „modern‟ infrastructure • digitalize administrative services • enhance quality of classroom teaching• „Weak‟ goals: rarely innovation, flexible learning, new markets, never productivity 11
  12. 12. The importance of strategic thinkingstrategic thinking more important than plan, focusing on: Being clear on the broad goals for LTs How best to achieve these goals in teaching and learning through faculty: visioning discussing planning programs designing courses 12
  13. 13. Set clear goals for online learningFor example:1. increase flexibility of access for diverse student body2. increase personalization of learning and interaction3. develop 21st century skills4. develop hybrid learning5. increase cost-effectiveness (better services; lower cost) 13
  14. 14. MEASURABLE GOALS (after strategic thinking) Academic Performance indicators Strategies Intended outcomes goal (within 5 years)Flexible 1.Offer online a. Increase lifelong learning 1. 5 online masters inlearning professional market development masters b. Develop self-financing 2. Target programs enrollments/revenues c. Retain alumni achieved d. Increase links with 3. New research faculty employers hired 4. 10 organizations contributing to programs (cases, hiring grads, adjuncts, etc.) 2. More hybrid 1. Increased interaction with 1. Survey of faculty + learning in instructors students undergraduate 2. Improved cognitive skills 2. Better student teaching 3. Improved student assessments/grades satisfaction 14
  15. 15. Quality assuranceApproach of „best‟ case studies:• Standard program approval processes• Learning design, project teams, IDs to ensure quality• Formal QA processes NOT used• Lack of evaluation/research of LTs at strategic level 15
  16. 16. ResourcesNo institution knew the real cost of e-learningFew institutions knew where the money would comefromAccounting/budget processes do not capture „true‟technology costs in teachingIncreased spending on LT support unitsUnintended consequences: larger classes, morecontract instructors, increased faculty workloadImportant to replace activities (or increase revenues) 16
  17. 17. Resources• Few administrators understood fully the cost implications or main cost drivers• Technology too often an added cost for no measurable benefit• The time of the instructor is main cost; need course design models that control time and costs in using technology 17
  18. 18. It‟s the teaching, stupid! (or: Human resource development)‘There is increasing empirical evidence…that prevailingpractices in higher education do not encourage the sort of learning that contemporary society demands…However, there is an impressive body of evidence on how teaching methods and curriculum design affect deep, autonomous and reflective learning… Yet most faculty are ignorant of this scholarship, andinstructional practices are dominated by tradition rather than research evidence.’ Knapper, 2010 18
  19. 19. Training• Instructors in most institutions were not adequately prepared to teach well (with or without technology)• Training of all instructors in teaching should be systematic and compulsory (especially in universities)• „Core‟ pedagogical training needed• Systemic difficulties in doing this 19
  20. 20. Training• Academic administrators in most institutions were not adequately prepared to make good decisions about technology• Administrators on appointment need special orientation for technology decision making• An online course for administrators? 20
  21. 21. GovernanceCase studies:• Growth of LT support units• Growth of technology committees, but no clear mandates/decision-making authority• Duplication and gaps in technology support/decision-making• Need for a clear governance structure for technology that includes teaching and learning 21
  22. 22. What is governance?Kezar and Eckel (2004: 371-398):a multi-level concept includingseveral different bodies andprocesses with different decision-making functionsWho makes decisions about what? Different models of governance for non-How and where are they made? profit organizations (Gill, M. 2002)Who is responsible once adecision is made?
  23. 23. Functions of governance (for learning technologies)• Set mission/goals/direction• Assign responsibilities• Determine decision-making authority• Manage (LT) resources• Manage risk• Evaluate results• Others? (ethics, ......)
  24. 24. Why is governance an issue?• Good governance leads to a better institution• Provincial governments showing greater interest in technology governance• Many institutions do not have clear governance structures for learning technologies: gaps/overlap, e.g. should IT dept support mobile learning?
  25. 25. Areas of governance InstitutionalAcademic Admin Technology LT IT
  26. 26. Two ways of looking at governance Managerial by position Board President VP Academic VP Admin/FinanceAVP Academic Dean Dean Director, IT Registrar Director, Centre forTeaching/Learning/Technology
  27. 27. Two ways of looking at governance Functional: where decisions are made about learning technologies Board Strategic plan IT governance Executive team Academic plan Technology committee IT/admin. plan Technology plan Departments Programs IT Services Centre forTeaching/Learning/Tec Courses h. influences Instructors Plans Service units Students + clients
  28. 28. Governance F Governance of learning technologies (From Bates and Sangrà, 2011) 28
  29. 29. Governance• Needs to be formalized• Responsibility of institutional executive• In universities, decisions taken throughout institution• Important to have right people at the table• Integrated planning essential 29
  30. 30. Innovation in teaching as a strategic direction• Knowledge-based work: Ontario: 70% with post-secondary education• Mass higher education• Advances in teaching methods• Impact of technology• Fiscal constraint: more with less• Not changed teaching models from 19th century 30
  31. 31. What kind of innovation?• Improvement or change?• Disruptive (new markets) e.g. MOOCs• Sustaining: evolves existing market with better value (e.g. hybrid courses)• Sustaining to maintain core values: knowledge preservation and creation; rationality; evidence-based research; +21st century skills: clarity essential 31
  32. 32. Strategies to support innovation• Leadership is critical• Make innovation in teaching a strategic priority• Innovation too often in pockets• Resource and reward• Evaluate and disseminate across relevant areas 32
  33. 33. Institutional strategies for innovation Strategic thinking (planning) Governance(decision-making structures)Development of human resources (training) 33
  34. 34. QuestionsDo we need to disrupt or sustainhigher education?Can you plan for innovation?Are we using learning technologiesstrategically?Why do blended learning?Is it possible to make the necessarychanges? If not, why not? 34
  35. 35. ReferencesBates, A. and Sangrà, A. (2011) Managing Technology in Higher Education: Strategies for Transforming Teaching and Learning San Francisco: Jossey-BassKezar, A., Eckel, P. D. 2004. “Meeting Today‟s Governance Challenges.” The Journal of Higher Education Vol. 75, no. 4: 371-398. 35