Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Steve lusherfinalpresentation


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Steve lusherfinalpresentation

  1. 1. Innovation, Motivation, and Change: An Anecdotal Case Stephen E. Lusher, IDT 691 West Virginia University Dr. Ugur Kale
  2. 2. Meet Jeff… Not Really…Demonstration Only, Actual Jeff May Vary
  3. 3. Meet Jeff… Not Really…Demonstration Only, Actual Jeff May Vary •Associate Professor of Philosophy at a Small Liberal Arts College
  4. 4. Meet Jeff… Not Really…Demonstration Only, Actual Jeff May Vary •Associate Professor of Philosophy at a small liberal arts college • Spent his summer developing an online course outside of his normal area of teaching
  5. 5. Meet Jeff… Not Really…Demonstration Only, Actual Jeff May Vary •Associate Professor of Philosophy at a small liberal arts college • Spent his summer developing an online course outside of his normal area of teaching •Was miserable throughout the process
  6. 6. Our Questions… Not Really…Demonstration Only, Actual Jeff May Vary What motivated Jeff to participate? What required him to participate? What prevented him from engaging and feeling rewarded/satisfied with the process?
  7. 7. The Central Argument… The Institution must focus on team-building and supporting the development process for online instruction.
  8. 8. Why is this important? To us, as Instructional Designers… • We may work in a variety of fields (K-12, Corporate, Higher Education) • We work with faculty and subject matter experts • We must form mutually beneficial, amiable, and effective working relationships
  9. 9. Why is this important? To us, as Instructional Designers… • We are representatives of the importance and value of our field • SME perception of ID professionals affects our efficacy, agency, funding, and ultimately our jobs
  10. 10. Why is this important? To us, as Instructional Designers… • Satisfaction with the design process leads to better outcomes for all stakeholders • Effective communication and positive relationships lead to better products for the ultimate beneficiaries…
  11. 11. Why is this important? …THE LEARNERS
  12. 12. Jeff’s story shows us… Not Really…Demonstration Only, Actual Jeff May Vary • Where it can all go wrong • What could have been done to make it better • What we can learn from this and apply to other situations
  13. 13. The Course That Jeff Built… Applied Ethics for Nursing Professionals
  14. 14. Jeff’s Course… • Provides exposure to principles of ethical decision-making in an important and rapidly expanding field • Philosophy is the department traditionally associated with the abstract and applied issues of ethics as a discipline
  15. 15. Jeff’s Course… • The Online Approach • Allows for flexible scheduling • Exposure to important learning experiences outside of clinical and medical classes
  16. 16. Jeff’s Course… • Garland (1995) writes, “technology can be used to individualize lessons, thus improving the quality of learning and for some students increasing the amount of education in a given time frame” (In Anglin, p. 283, 1995)
  17. 17. Why was Jeff chosen for this… Not Really…Demonstration Only, Actual Jeff May Vary • Involuntary, as Jeff expressed his reluctance and unhappiness • Philosophy and Nursing are not commonly associated in the university • Top Down Decision Making • Need was recognized, administrative decision to develop the course
  18. 18. Why was Jeff chosen for this… Not Really…Demonstration Only, Actual Jeff May Vary • Limited departmental faculty resources • Three professors in the PHL department, senior faculty member otherwise engaged, junior faculty member occupied with manuscript preparation • Course development delegated to Jeff
  19. 19. Authority and Rewards… • Dormant (1986) wrote, “The key factor is who controls the rewards.” • Institutional hierarchy determined who and what would be involved in the development process
  20. 20. Authority and Rewards… • Other incentives: • Financial • Jeff also participated due to a stipend paid during course development •Additionally, the course enrollment would be “capitated”, or paid per student enrolled
  21. 21. Authority and Rewards… • Primary external incentive for developing/teaching online courses at the school • In contrast to voluntary or internal motivations for participation in online course development
  22. 22. Authority and Rewards… • Sahin (2006) writing on Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations Theory, states that financial incentive is a valid structure to support adoption of innovation • Extra effort meets extra rewards • So we can assume that Jeff was well compensated
  23. 23. The Barriers to Willing Participation… • Garland (1995) identifies a group he calls “the buyers of instructional technology” • a.k.a. the constituents of the institutional system
  24. 24. The Barriers to Willing Participation… • The "Subject Expert...interested in protecting the integrity of their material” • "They will need to be won over and convinced...that their material will be easier to learn...” • Were Jeff's possible concerns about the benefits of the course to the learner addressed?
  25. 25. The Barriers to Willing Participation… • Compatibility • Is the innovation consistent with past practices and experiences? • Complexity • Must the faculty member change methodologies or pedagogical approaches?
  26. 26. The Barriers to Willing Participation… • Was Jeff concerned that the mode and method did not fit the content? • Garland writes of the possible concerns that changing from traditional instruction risks losing fundamental human interactive elements
  27. 27. The Barriers to Willing Participation… • A very real and valid concern • A valuable viewpoint into Jeff’s dilemma • A concern that should have been addressed
  28. 28. The Right Questions… • Bormann-Young (2008) identifies and recommends three question areas that faculty considering online course development should ask…
  29. 29. The Right Questions… First to themselves: 1. What qualities and interests should I possess as an educator? 2. What technological knowledge and resources should I have access to in order to teach online?
  30. 30. The Right Questions… These are important questions, however Jeff’s situation did not allow for alternative answers. A third area influences our discussion of motivation.
  31. 31. The Right Questions… The third area… 3. “What questions should I ask of my institution?” The answers to these questions could have been addressed up front to Jeff.
  32. 32. The Right Questions… Course Support • Are there adequate training and support resources available? • Is there a template or standard for developing online courses? • Is there external support for the students? • How many students will take the course?
  33. 33. The Right Questions… Ownership • Who owns the content? The intellectual property? • Is development time compensated? • "Is an instructor permitted to teach the same course at another institution?"
  34. 34. The Right Questions… Instructor Evaluation • What performance standards is the instructor held to? • Who will evaluate the course design and the instruction quality? • What administrative bodies have access to the content?
  35. 35. The Right Questions… Compensation • During content and material development? • During instructional periods?Over time? • Will compensation increase with repetition, additional sections, or as student performance increases?
  36. 36. The Right Questions… Training • What pedagogical and theoretical strategies work best in this online environment? • Are there professional development opportunities to explore these approaches? • Can the instructor experience the course from a student perspective?
  37. 37. The Right Questions… Providing Jeff, and other faculty, with answers to these questions up front might have increased the potential for a positive development experience and lowered the barriers to participation
  38. 38. Recommendations and Conclusions… We have seen that… • Institutional structure determined the development need • Responsibility was delegated • Authority alone did not guarantee willing participation • Financial incentive was given • Also failed to generate a satisfactory experience
  39. 39. Possible Solutions… • Structuring, monitoring, and managing the development process • Responsibility should be shared between individual team members
  40. 40. Possible Solutions… • Philosophy and Nursing faculty could have acted as subject experts and lead designers • Institutional and Instructional Design support should have been provided
  41. 41. Possible Solutions… • Collaborative process should be encouraged, bringing multiple strengths and perspectives to bear • Would have addressed the SME’s need to protect material integrity
  42. 42. Possible Solutions… • Could have addressed issues of Complexity and Compatibility • Would also have helped in reducing or eliminating technology and media learning curves
  43. 43. Sources Sources: Bormann-Young, C. (2008, August 8). Online Education: Questions Every Faculty Member Should Ask. In Retrieved November 30, 2010, from should-ask/ Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High Access and Low Use of Technologies in High School Classrooms: Explaining an Apparent Paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834. Sahin, I. (2006) Detailed review of Rogers’ Diffusion of innovations theory and educational technology related studies based on Rogers’ theory. TOJET, 5(2), 14-23. Dormant, D. (1986). The ABCDs of Managing Change. In Introduction to Performance Technology. Washington: National Society for Performance and Instruction. Chapter 17, pp. 238-256.