Opening up Large Scale Change Initiatives

421 views

Published on

Presentation by Samantha J. Blevins and Jennifer M. Brill, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA at ePIC 2013

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Opening up Large Scale Change Initiatives

  1. 1. Opening  up  Large  Scale  Change  Initiatives     Calling  on  Faculty  Perspectives  to     Develop  a  Framework  for     Organization-­‐Wide  ePortfolio  Implementation     Samantha  J.  Blevins   Ph.D.  Candidate     Jennifer  M.  Brill,  Ph.D.   Associate  Professor   InstrucDonal  Design  &  Technology   Learning  Sciences  &  Technologies   Virginia  Tech,  Blacksburg,  VA,  USA   ePIC  2013   London,  UK  
  2. 2. Purpose  &  Context   •  Develop  a  framework  to  support  electronic  porNolio  (eP)  adopDon   •  faculty/administrator  data  on  adopDon  process  at  large  U.S.  research   university  (≅30,000  students)   •  Diffusion  of  InnovaDon  (DOI)  theory     •  University  ePorNolio  IniDaDve:  2002-­‐present   •  eP  Office  IntenDons:   •  •  •  •  •  strategic  alignment  to  department,  college,  and  insDtuDonal  goals   key  stakeholder  partnerships   pilot-­‐tesDng   faculty  development  opportuniDes   inform  with:   •  Concerns-­‐Based  AdopDon  Model  (CBAM)     (Hord,  Rutherford,  Huling-­‐AusDn,  &  Hall,  1987)   •  Ely’s  Eight  CondiDons  of  Change   (Ely,  1990)  
  3. 3. Research  Questions   •  What  strategies  and  resources  are  used  by  a  large  research   university  to  assist  faculty  with  eP  implementaDon?   •   To  what  extent  do  these  strategies/resources  reflect  DOI  theory?     •  How  do  faculty  perceive  the  current  eP  adopDon  support   process?  What  about  the  process:   •  is  successful?   •  is  lacking  and  requires  improvement?   •  reflects  DOI  theory?     •  What  features  of  DOI  theory  should  be  included  in  an  eP   adopDon  framework?  
  4. 4. Methodology:  Development  Research   Developmental  (Type  2)  Study   Analysis   •  Faculty/Admin   • RIPPLES  Survey:   52/144  (36%)   • Follow-­‐up   Interview:  12/12     • DOI  literature   review   Development  &   EvaluaDon   •  Framework   developed   •  Under  review   by  two  external   DOI  experts   Revision   •  Suggested   revisions  to  be   incorporated  in   a  revised   framework   Design  &  Development  Research:  Methods,  Strategies,  &  Issues     Richey  &  Klein  (2007)  
  5. 5. Design  &  Development  Research   Richey,  R.  C.,  &  Klein,  J.  D.  (2005).  Developmental  Research  Methods:  CreaDng  knowledge  from   InstrucDonal  design  and  development  pracDce.  Journal  of  Compu?ng  in  Higher  Educa?on,  16(2)  23-­‐38.  
  6. 6. Participant  Demographics   General   •  Age  Range:  20s-­‐70s   •  Gender:  62%  female;   38%  male   •  Professional  PosiDon:     •  Faculty:  67%   •  AdministraDve:  29%   •  Other:  4%   Teaching  &  ePor0olio   •  Years  teaching:     •  0-­‐10:  35%   •  11-­‐25:  40%   •  25  or  more:  25%   •  Years  using  ePs:   •  <1:  23%   •  1-­‐3:  35%   •  4+:  42%   •  %  Abandoned:  42%   •  Purpose  for  using  ePs:   •  Track  learning:  46%   •  Assess  learning:  60%   •  Support  professional   development:  40%  
  7. 7. Findings:  Participant  Perceptions  on  RIPPLES  Elements   RIPPLES  Elements   Straight  Ranking   Importance  to  eP   Implementa;on   (%  SA/A)   Themes  related  to  University’s  eP  Implementa;on   1.  Resources          (money  &  Dme)   92%   •  Time  rated  higher  than  money   2.  Support            (admin,  technical,                        pedagogical)   85%   •  eP  office  found  to  be  exemplary  and  essenDal   •  AdministraDve  support  reported  as  important  but   lacking   3.  People                (communicaDon;                      shared  decision-­‐                making)   52%   •  Need  a  more  unified  culture  of  support  at  the   department/program  level   4.  Infrastructure              (technological                    backbone)   94%   •  Overall  university  infrastructure  viewed  posiDvely   •  eP  technology  viewed  less  posiDvely   5.  Policies   60%   •  Policies  in  general  are  viewed  posiDvely   •   eP  policies  are  lacking/not  communicated   6.  EvaluaDon   66%   •  EvaluaDon  viewed  as  important   •  Liple  has  been  done  to-­‐date  and/or  reported  on   7.  Learning          (user  learning                  outcomes)   87%   •  OpportuniDes  offered  for  user  learning  are  exemplary  
  8. 8. •  eP  system  design   •  Time     •  Faculty  understanding   •  Support  &  training   •  Technology  resources   •  ApplicaDon  beyond   classroom   •  Rewards  &  incenDves   Enablers   Barriers   Findings:  Barriers  and  Enablers   •  Support     •  Technology  capabiliDes   •  Rewards  &  incenDves   •  Faculty  understanding   •  Interest   •  ApplicaDon  aqer   graduaDon  
  9. 9. ePortfolio  Adoption  Framework  
  10. 10. Framework:  Awareness  Component   Component   Selected   Strategies  to   Support   Component   Key  Player   Involvement   •  Web  sites   •  Academic  leaders   •  Newslepers   on  campus  (e.g.   •  ArDcles   provost,  teaching   •  PresentaDons   and  learning   •  Professional   directors)   development     •  Leading  electronic   porNolio  scholars   Professional   and  pracDDoners   knowledge  of   •  Local  faculty   pedagogical   innovators   benefits  of   •  Other  high-­‐level,   electronic   respected  opinion   porNolios   leaders             Awareness           Assessment  of   Current   Implementa;on   Status   Next  Steps  for   Implementa;on   1. Faculty  are  unaware   RaDng  of  1  or  2   of  the  pedagogical   •  IdenDfy  mulDple   value  of  electronic   avenues  for   porNolios.   electronic  porNolio   awareness  building.   2. Faculty  are   •  Plan  a  3-­‐6  month   somewhat  aware  of   awareness  building   the  pedagogical   campaign.   value  of  electronic   •  Reassess  awareness   porNolios.   status  aqer  one  to   two  academic  years.     3. Faculty  are  very     aware  of  the   RaDng  of  3   pedagogical  value  of   •  Reassess  awareness   electronic   status  at  next  formal,   porNolios.     systemic  evaluaDon   of  electronic  porNolio   implementaDon.  (A   systemic  evaluaDon   is  recommended   every  3-­‐5  years.)    
  11. 11. Framework:  Action  Plan   Component   Current   Implementa;on   Ra;ng   Awareness ☐1       ☐2       ☐3     Motivation ☐1       ☐2       ☐3     Commitment ☐1       ☐2       ☐3     …etc…   Next  Steps   Key  Players  to   Involve   Target   Addi;onal   Comple;on   Notes   Date(s)  
  12. 12. Evidence  of  Theoretical  Alignment  with  DOI   Framework  Component   Theore;cal  Connec;ons     Awareness   Knowledge  of  InnovaDon  (r)   DissaDsfacDon  with  Status  Quo  (e)   MoDvaDon   Persuasion  (r)   DissaDsfacDon  with  Status  Quo  (e)   Rewards  and/or  IncenDves  (e)   Commitment   Decision  (r)   ParDcipaDon  (e)   Commitment  (e)   Resources   ImplementaDon  (r)   Sufficient  Knowledge  and  Skills  (e)   Availability  of  Time  (e)   Availability  of  Resources  (e)   Leadership   ImplementaDon  (r)   Leadership  (e)   EvaluaDon     ConfirmaDon  (r)   (e)  =  Don  Ely,  CondiDons  for  Change,  (1976,  1999)   (r)  =    Everep  Rogers,  DOI,  (2003)  
  13. 13. Other  Thoughts   •  Next  Steps:   •  Complete  expert  reviews   •  Revise  framework   •  Test   •  Will  be  using  at  mid-­‐size  university  to  guide  new  eP  implementaDon   iniDaDve     •  LimitaDons:   •  RIPPLES  model,  even  with  adapted  survey   •  too  lengthy   •  acronym  terms  confusing/misleading   •  Development  Research   •  Fuzzy  process   •  Is  it  the  best  approach  to  model/framework  development?  
  14. 14. In  regards  to  “openness”…   •  How  can  such  a   framework  support:     •  community  learning?   •  user-­‐friendly     eP  infrastructure  and   architecture?  
  15. 15. Thank  you.   Samantha  Blevins   sjblevins@vt.edu     Jen  Brill   jmbrill@vt.edu    

×