Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Organizational readinesss
Organizational readinesss
Organizational readinesss
Organizational readinesss
Organizational readinesss
Organizational readinesss
Organizational readinesss
Organizational readinesss
Organizational readinesss
Organizational readinesss
Organizational readinesss
Organizational readinesss
Organizational readinesss
Organizational readinesss
Organizational readinesss
Organizational readinesss
Organizational readinesss
Organizational readinesss
Organizational readinesss
Organizational readinesss
Organizational readinesss
Organizational readinesss
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Organizational readinesss

1,828

Published on

Determinants of Organizational Readiness for Distance education and distributed learning CNIE2008

Determinants of Organizational Readiness for Distance education and distributed learning CNIE2008

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,828
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
32
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Transcript

    • 1. Institutional Readiness Questionnaire Bonnie Luterbach, Raymond Guy, Kathleen Matheos Funding for this study was provided by HRSDC and CNIE
    • 2. CADE/AMTEC 2007 <ul><li>Presented Initial Stages of this Study </li></ul><ul><li>Literature review and interview findings </li></ul><ul><li>Indicators, Barriers </li></ul><ul><li>Sought Feedback from participants </li></ul><ul><li>Synthesized the findings and input </li></ul><ul><li>Bilingual questionnaire </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional Readiness Questionnaire </li></ul>
    • 3. Indicators of Organizational Readiness <ul><li>Pervasive institutional adoption of technologies (online, interactive and user-based systems) for: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Administration (e.g., finance, human resources); </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Student affairs (e.g., registration, student portals); and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Educational support services (e.g. library. LMS). </li></ul></ul>
    • 4. Indicators of Organizational Readiness <ul><li>Educational technology is: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In place and financially supported and renewed; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is part of strategic plan, mirrored in departmental plans; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Linked to student engagement in learning (e.g., qualities of a graduate) as a way to improve teaching and learning. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>New ways of teaching and learning are part of the strategic academic plan (e.g., use of asynchronous technologies, blended learning). </li></ul>
    • 5. Indicators of Organizational Readiness <ul><li>Appropriate leadership </li></ul><ul><li>New policies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Transfer credits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Residency </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tenure and promotion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technology support </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Project-based funding leading to sustained funding </li></ul>
    • 6. Questionnaire <ul><li>Questions were built on the literature review and the interview findings with input from CNIE Board members </li></ul><ul><li>Online survey </li></ul><ul><li>Pilot tested with 24 institutions (Anglophone and Francophone) </li></ul><ul><li>Complete responses received from 12 institutions (50% response rate) </li></ul>
    • 7. Demographics <ul><li>Sample </li></ul><ul><ul><li>7 medical doctoral </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>4 comprehensive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1 undergraduate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1 college/CEGEP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>included open, dual mode, traditional face-to-face </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Student population </li></ul><ul><ul><li>31%  Greater than 30,000 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>23%  20,000 – 29,999 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>23%  15,000 – 19,999 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>23%  Under 15,000 </li></ul></ul>
    • 8. Key Findings <ul><li>Administrative Applications </li></ul>Provide online bookstore services Over 70% Accept admission and registration payment online 90% Allow submission of applications for employment online 90% Access forms, financial records, and employment opportunities 100%
    • 9. Key Findings Continued <ul><li>Educational Technology </li></ul>Provide internet connectivity in at least 50% of the classrooms Over 80% Require faculty and staff to use of an institutional portal Over 50% Allow faculty and staff to access class lists and enter grades online 100% Support a single commercial product Over 80% Support a LMS 100%
    • 10. Key Findings Continued <ul><li>Student Services </li></ul>Provide on-campus wireless services and an email address 90% Provide computing facilities 24/7 50% Require students to use the portal 70% Have a student portal 80% Provide students with virtual library services, and help desk support in the use of technology 100%
    • 11. Key Findings Continued <ul><li>Student Services (continued) </li></ul>Students can access grades online 100% Students can submit assignments online 80% Provide computing facilities in campus residences 45% Students can access class lists on line 60%
    • 12. Anticipated Barriers <ul><li>Rapid technology change </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of funding </li></ul><ul><li>Appears from the data that these barriers have been ameliorated. </li></ul>
    • 13. Key Findings <ul><li>Strategic Planning and Leadership </li></ul>Have an institution wide inventory of blended and online courses 75% Educational technology is a component of the strategic plan 50% Senior administration promotes the use of technology in teaching and learning 75%
    • 14. Anticipated Barriers <ul><li>Varied definitions, even within an institution – hard to get an inventory of what is really happening </li></ul><ul><li>Legal issues (e.g., copyright) </li></ul><ul><li>Governance and cultures of universities (not colleges) </li></ul><ul><li>Changes in roles and responsibilities of units </li></ul><ul><li>Constant need to change administrative structure </li></ul>
    • 15. Key Findings <ul><li>Teaching and Learning </li></ul>Provide incentives for the development of online and technology-enhanced teaching 75% See teaching with technology as a major component of teaching services 40% Have a teaching with technology centre 80%
    • 16. Key Findings <ul><li>Pedagogical Practice </li></ul>Have reduced face to face teaching time with the integration of technology Less than 40% of courses Have interactive components in less than 60% of the courses across institutions 90% Over half the courses have websites 70%
    • 17. Anticipated Barriers <ul><li>Rapid technology change </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of appropriate monetary compensation </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of time </li></ul><ul><li>Tenure and promotion dilemma </li></ul><ul><li>Teaching as a public versus private activity </li></ul><ul><li>Student Assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Unfamiliarity with the pedagogy of the online learning environment (e.g., concerns about quality, preferred face-to-face, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of technical expertise </li></ul>
    • 18. Overall Assessment <ul><li>Administrative applications 3.64/5 </li></ul><ul><li>Support for Teaching &amp; </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Learning with technology 2.75/5 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Teaching and learning 2.64/5 </li></ul><ul><li>Dedicated resources for Teaching </li></ul><ul><li>&amp; Learning with technology 2.55/5 </li></ul><ul><li>Strategic planning and </li></ul><ul><ul><li>leadership 2.42/5 </li></ul></ul>
    • 19. Unintended Findings <ul><li>Difficult to find one individual in an institution who had overall knowledge in order to answer the survey. </li></ul><ul><li>Nor did some of the respondents know where they could find the answers to the survey questions. </li></ul><ul><li>Technology is pervasive but extremely pocketed within institutions, no common ‘go to’ point for information. </li></ul>
    • 20. Potential Next Steps <ul><ul><li>Increase sample size. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Broaden the scope of the project to all HE institutions in Canada – Need ethics approval. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Request completion by a group of individuals within the institution. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Researchers compile and analyze the data and provide further feedback to CNIE. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Develop and provide a comparison analysis online report so year by year institutions could determine how well they are doing compared to institutions across Canada. </li></ul></ul>
    • 21. Thoughts <ul><li>We probably need to add questions in the survey that actually define what the barriers are. </li></ul><ul><li>What areas do you think HE should pay attention to? </li></ul><ul><li>Are there areas that we have not addressed in this survey that should be included? </li></ul>
    • 22. Questions

    ×