DOHERTY, Iain (eLearning Pedagogical Support Unit, Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning. The University of Hong Kong) http://citers2013.cite.hku.hk/en/paper_587.htm --------------------------- Author(s) bear(s) the responsibility in case of any infringement of the Intellectual Property Rights of third parties. --------------------------- CITE was notified by the author(s) that if the presentation slides contain any personal particulars, records and personal data (as defined in the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance) such as names, email addresses, photos of students, etc, the author(s) have/has obtained the corresponding person's consent.

1. The University of Hong Kong
Achieving Systemic eLearning Change:
A Flight of Fancy or Realizable Reality
Dr. Iain Doherty
Associate Professor
Director eLearning Pedagogical Support Unit
Centre for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning
9th May 2013

2. Overview
• Systemic Change
• Socio-cultural Milieu
• Change Management
• Flight of Fancy of Realizable Reality?
• Running the Risk of Failing to Change

3. Systemic Change
• Systemic change refers to change that effects an entity as a whole. In
the case of an educational institution achieving systemic eLearning
change necessarily entails some sort of fundamental shift in the
nature of the institution.
• However, it is not entirely clear what
this shift would look like. For
example, does systemic change
involve change at all levels of the
organization: people, processes,
systems, structures, Faculties and
Departments (Marshall, 2010)?

4. Systemic Change
• If systemic change does refer to change at all levels of the
organization then what is the nature of the change at these
different levels?
• More specifically, what components or parts of the
institution have to change in order for one to be able to
say that there has been systemic change?
• Finally, when we talk about
systemic change are we talking
about change in which the
change as a whole is greater than
the sum of the parts that led to
the change?

5. Socio-Cultural Milieu
One way to answer the questions in
the previous paragraph is to think of
an institute of higher education as a
socio-cultural milieu that can be
deconstructed into component parts.
These parts can then be analyzed in
terms of their importance in the
process of bringing about systemic
eLearning change.

6. Socio-Cultural Milieu
• In this milieu there are people – the socio
element – along with patterns of beliefs,
behaviors, interactions and affective
understandings – the cultural element – that
are common to the members of the institution.
The cultural element is learned through a
process of socialization.
• If we think about the complexity of the milieu then we can begin to
understand just why it is so very challenging to achieve systemic
institutional eLearning change.

7. Socio-Cultural Milieu
• An example should serve to illustrate the point made in the previous
slides concerning complexity.
• An institute of higher education
consists of a “community” of
individuals at various levels of
seniority, with different responsibilities,
varying attitudes, different career goals
and a range of aspirations. In concrete
terms the implementation of an
eLearning strategy will mean
something different both between
groups and within groups.

8. Socio-Cultural Milieu
• A Vice Chancellor driving an eLearning
strategy will be – or at least should be –
firmly committed to realizing the
strategic goals. The same should be true
of the Pro-Vice Chancellors and the
senior management team. Whilst we
would ideally see the same commitment
from other groups – Faculties,
Departments, Centers etc. – the reality
will likely be that the commitment of
other groups and within the other groups
will differ to one degree or another from
that of the Senior Management.

9. Socio-Cultural Milieu
• Another equally important part
of the strategy consists of
addressing the cultural elements
– beliefs, behaviours and
interactions – of the institution.
These beliefs, behaviours and
interactions are instantiated
across people, processes and
documentation and it is
important that an effort to
achieve systemic eLearning
change address the cultural
norms of the institution.

10. Socio-Cultural Milieu
• Faculties, Departments, Centers
etc. have to report periodically on
their teaching. If these reports
require an update on eLearning
initiatives then, to some degree at
least, eLearning becomes a part
of the reporting culture within the
institution.
• Reporting per se will not bring about systemic eLearning
change. It can however serve to progress the institution
towards embedding eLearning within the institutional culture.

11. Change Management
• Having broken systemic change down
into two component parts – social
change and cultural change – we can see
that a change management process is
required (Kotter, 1995).
• Uys (2007; 2010) has an enterprise wide
change model that conceptualizes the
change process as both top down and
bottom up. From a top down perspective
managers institute change and from a
bottom up perspective the “workers”
contribute to change.

12. Change Management
• However, this model misses
the concept of “middle in”
change. Middle in change can
be thought of in terms of the
“middle managers” who are in
a position to influence the
socio-cultural environment in
which they work.
• For example, Associate Deans Teaching and Learning could be
considered as “middle management” and these Deans are in a position
to influence the culture – the way that things are done – and the
individuals who comprise the community.

13. Change Management
• Achieving systemic change involves a
complex process of transforming the
socio-cultural environment so that
eLearning becomes simply a part of the
way that things are done within an
institution.
• This raises the question whether aiming
for systemic change is a flight of fancy of
a realizable reality.

14. Change Management
• Kotter (1995) argues that transformation
efforts tend to fail when there is an
insufficient sense of urgency.
• A sense of urgency can have many sources
but one of the most potent drivers comes
when there is a sense that “business” cannot
continue as usual.
• University business cannot continue as usual
when something is perceived to be broken.
• Even then effecting change is difficult.

15. Flight of Fancy or Realizable Reality
• Change is nigh on impossible in a university
system that is perceived to have been operating
“effectively” for decades (Katz, 2003).
• In the absence of this sense of urgency we can
suggest that aiming for systemic change is a flight
of fancy because there is no “apparent” driver for
disruptive change.
• Does this mean that change is impossible?
• Depends on the sort of change we have in mind.

16. Flight of Fancy or Realizable Reality
• Change can occur in the absence of a
sense of urgency (Marshall, 2010).
• In this case we are talking about a
transformative change process that takes
a top down, middle in and bottom up
approach.
• This sort of change process can be
thought of as bringing about sustaining
changes that improve the function of the
organization in ways that are consistent
with previous activities (Marshall, 2010).

17. Flight of Fancy or Realizable Reality
• Sustaining changes do not achieve
systemic change.
• We have to consider the possibility of
“the emergence of new institutions
‘where the weight of history does not
condition and constrain technology’s
use’” (Katz, 2010, p.48).
• In other words sustaining changes may simply not be enough.
• Think what MOOCs might mean for the middle to lower tier universities.

18. Flight of Fancy or Realizable Reality
• We can understand the component parts of a university system.
• We see complexity but we can adopt a planned approach to
achieving change.
• Problem is that there is no real sense that the
system is broken.
• Therefore systemic change does not occur.
• Any particular organization might survive for a
while but what are the long term risks?

19. References
• Katz, R. N. (2003). Balancing Technology and Tradition -
The Example of Course Management Systems. Educause
Review, 4(38), 49–59. Retrieved from
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0343.pdf
• Kotter, J. P. (1995). Why Transformation Efforts Fail.
Harvard Business Review, March/April(61), 59–67.
Retrieved from http://hbr.org/2007/01/leading-
change/ar/1

20. References
• Marshall, S. (2010). Change, Technology and Higher
Education: Are Universities Capable of Organisational
Change? ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 18(3),
179–192. Retrieved from
http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/09687769.2010.5
29107

21. References
• Uys, P.M. (2007). Enterprise-Wide Technological
Transformation in Higher Education: The LASO Model.
International Journal of Educational Management.
Retrieved from http://www.globe-
online.com/philip.uys/2006 08 uysLASOmodel.htm
• Uys, Philip M. (2010). Implementing An Open Source
Learning Management System : A Critical Analysis of
Change strategies. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 26(7), 980–995. Retrieved from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/uys.pdf