Sharing with our regional Virtual Learning Community--trends in comparator research as well as the results of a group survey about attitudes and perceptions at local institutions.

1. Working With (& Around) Your Local
Institutional Culture
Lindsey Freer & Gregory Milton, Program Managers
Instructional Technology Referral Office (InTRO)
March 16, 2015

2. Today’s Topics
• Introduction
– What is InTRO?
– Why “Mindset” Matters
• Research Results & Discussion
– VLC Participant Survey
– UO Comparator Research
• Collaborative Activities
– Organizational Modeling
– Group Brainstorming: Faculty Inclusion
• Conclusions and Reflections
– Resources
– InTRO’s Research Questions

3. Instructional Technology Referral
Office (InTRO) at UO
• Established August 2014
• Mission: Improving faculty
access to educational
technology resources in a
decentralized
environment
• 3 objectives for Year 1:
referrals, partnerships,
reporting
• 2 new-to-UO staff fluent in
both “faculty” and “ed
tech”
• Collaborative partnership
between Academic
Extension, UO Libraries
Lindsey worked across the CUNY system when not fomenting revolution.
Navy veteran Greg arrived via UW-Madison, following a stint at USF.
They are happy to be on the West Coast now!

4. Why Does “Mindset” Matter?
• Dominant attitudes on campus influence our vision of
“what is possible” for online or hybrid/blended learning
• Institutional history informs present-day mission,
audience, and public brand
• The best response to “We’ve always done it this way” is
internal assessment (“Why? Is it still working?”), but the
efficacy of that process can be enhanced or limited by
the people around you
• Working relationships between service providers and
faculty are developed within this local culture, must be
examined in context
• Our institutional culture can prevent us from seeing our
own blind spots or knowledge gaps
Your thoughts, comments, contributions?

5. Research Results and Discussion
VLC Participant Survey
UO Comparator Research

6. VLC Participant Survey: Overview
• Questions derived from InTRO’s research into UO
comparators
• 17 responses by 3/12/15:
– 7 UO
– 9 other
– 1 incomplete
• Still open, if you would like to see our questions/share
your thoughts!

7. VLC Participant Survey: What Is… & What Could Be
1) Which of these terms best describe your institution’s approach to instructional technology today?
UOOther Institutions
2) Which of these terms describe an ideal approach to instructional technology for your institution?
Other Institutions UO

8. VLC Survey: Emerging Trends
• Two-thirds of non-UO respondents noted the existence of a central
online learning unit at their institutions
• 86% of UO respondents describe our service structure as
decentralized, but this was true for merely 11% of non-UO
respondents, with others equally split between centralized/shared-
services and independent models
• 12% of respondents feel there is a clear instructional design
implementation process at their institution
• UO is the sole institution where LMS administration is assigned to a
Library unit; others are split between distance education, central IT, or
central educational technology units
• The impetus for change is split between top-down and grassroots
initiatives, or some combination thereof--except at UO, where it
remains almost entirely grassroots
• 13% of respondents report having dedicated funding for faculty who
want to improve upon or expand their use of technology in teaching

9. Are Teaching and Technology Closely
Linked at Your Institution?
• Most often, no:
– “The faculty run the show here. If an instructor is interested in using technology,
great; if not, no one will force her or him to.”
– “…academic dept’s are running their own show in our decentralized model.”
– “Our schools and colleges are very independent, so centralized services don't get a
lot of traction. Teaching is not as valued as it ought to be.”
• There are roadblocks:
– “No incentive.”
– “I think our online instructors WANT it to be linked, but they frequently cite ‘not having
the time’ to learn new tools and implement them. We also have limited technology
support and IT policies that place certain restrictions on what technology can be used
on campus and online.”
– “…there is not a top down directive making this notion part of our local culture. “
– “Teaching and technology are often separated due to how the organization is
structured.”
– “Faculty…do not always understand the technology.”
– “…there is no centralized way for faculty to receive consistent, well-organized and
effective faculty development so that they feel more confident in using technology in
their courses.”
– “…lack of continuity or standard policy.”
• It’s a process:
– “We are moving towards a more closely linked status.”
– “We are working to get there…there’s always room to improve”

10. VLC Survey: If You Had to Choose…
UO Other Institutions Overall
Instructional technology would be
centralized
71% 89% 81%
Innovation would be prioritized 100% 89% 94%
Change would come from the top 86% 78% 81%
Instructional technology would be a
significant aspect of your institution’s
mission or goals
86% 89% 87%
UO Other Institutions
Most UO respondents would focus
on providing learner support over
instructor support
71% learners 56% instructors
A slight majority of non-UO
respondents would prefer a uniform
approach to instructional technology
71% diversity 56% uniformity
But there would still be some differences…

11. What’s Going Well?
What Are You Most Excited About?
• Improving Faculty Development
– “Institutes for faculty interested in teaching online.”
– “We've begun a series of summer development cohorts for developing new online
courses guided by the Quality Matters rubric.”
– “I'm most excited about a new training program (for new online instructors) that I'm
putting together. My institution is so fragmented and chaotic that I've given up hope
that any large-scale efforts will bear fruit; I just tend my own little garden.”
• Changing Institutional Attitudes
– “I'm most excited that our president has articulated his vision for growth and is trying
to move online education forward rather than listen to naysayers.”
– “Faculty and administration are on board with quality instruction and course design.”
• Organizational and Procedural Improvements
– “We have a fairly well-tuned, high-quality process for development of online courses
and programs.”
– “Cross campus partnerships.”
– “The ongoing building up of the service point collaboration around campus has been
helpful is clarifying where to best find services.”
– “I'm also excited about our move to a new LMS if only to help re-engage faculty in the
process of considering educational technologies and pedagogy.”

12. Digital Education at UO Comparators:
Early Findings
• 20 University of Oregon peers/comparators (large, public,
research-focused institutions)
• Distributed services and technology implementation were
common elements at some point in time
• A significant majority of our peers have centralized
technology-related services, to varying degrees, over the
last 10 years
• The “leading” innovators implemented their programs within
clearly defined strategic visions, plans, and objectives

13. Digital Education at UO Comparators:
Emerging Trends
• Mission- and service-oriented internal frameworks:
– 85% central distance education unit
– 80% central faculty development unit
– 55% central online education unit
– 55% central educational technology unit
• LMS administration: 75% central IT, 25% unique ed
tech unit
• Two-thirds of our peers implemented their current
models from provost, president, or statewide initiative

14. • Data-Driven Strategic Planning and Coordination at
the University of Michigan
• Comprehensive Extended Campus: University of
Missouri
• Robust Faculty Development at the University of
North Carolina
• Unique Content from the University of New Mexico
Digital Education at UO Comparators:
Notable Examples

15. Collaborative Activities
Organizational Modeling
Group Brainstorming

17. Lindsey’s Activity Results: Thinking about ways to standardize the UO faculty experience…

18. Activity Results: Show off your visions of “what could be” on this slide… (Add more slides as needed to capture all our ideas!)

19. Improving Faculty Inclusion
• Group Brainstorm: How can we better integrate faculty
perspectives in all aspects of digital education?
– Consider the full range of faculty working conditions: Tenure-
Track, NTTF, adjuncts, GTFs, course loads, teaching at multiple
institutions, research/service expectations ….
– Faculty working conditions are student learning conditions!
• Kick-off ideas:
– Establish faculty-led, cross-disciplinary learning communities.
• Include both faculty and service providers.
• Ensure that faculty voices are prominent in the conversation.
– Create clear, focused events with flexible scheduling.
• Time is everyone’s most precious resource. We must use it
wisely.
More ideas? Let’s generate a LONG list…

20. Concluding Questions / Reflections
• How would you describe your institution’s culture or
“mindset”?
– Lindsey: Public brand is both a curse and a blessing. Distributed
resources, everyone has their own “turf.” Too few see the value of
online education.
– Greg: Resistance to change, especially regarding one’s own
activity, is common across campus for faculty and staff.
• What is one thing you’d like to change about how your
institution functions?
– Lindsey would like UO to establish strategic goals for online
education that are informed by learning objectives.
– Greg would like UO to stress team-work and collaboration as
necessary values and practices within the UO community.
• What is something you could do in your daily work to make
progress on that one thing?
– Lindsey will advocate for backwards design practices when
speaking with administrators, service providers, and academic
units
– Greg will advocate for resources to further cross-unit collaboration

21. • Institutional Cultures and Organizational Structures
– Boston Consulting Group, “The Five Faces of Online Education”
– Marc Bousquet, How The University Works
– John Lombardi, How Universities Work
– Eric Stoller, “8 Ruminations on Leadership and Organizational Culture”
– UPCEA and NASPA, “Thoughts From Higher Education Leaders:
Challenges and Emerging Trends in Online Education”
• Faculty Attitudes and Inclusion
– Marisol Brito, “Advice from a Luddite”
– Eagan et. al, “Undergraduate Teaching Faculty: The 2013-2014 HERI
Faculty Survey”
– ECAR 2014 Student and Faculty Technology Research Studies
– “A Bill of Rights and Principles for Learning in the Digital Age” (from Hybrid
Pedagogy)
– Elizabeth Osika, Rochelle Johnson, and Rosemary Buteau, “Factors
Influencing Faculty Use of Technology in Online Instruction: A Case Study”
• Others? Please add!
Resources

22. InTRO’s Research Questions
1. What services does this institution’s continuing education
unit provide to campus partners?
2. Where is digital education housed? Are there separate
units for online learning and blending or hybrid courses?
Are technology and pedagogy combined or separate? How
much of this effort is centralized?
3. What structures, formal or informal, are in place to
encourage pedagogical innovation on campus? Is there
any effort to centralize such activity?
4. Where are instructional design and instructional technology
housed? What pathways exist to guide faculty to
instructional technology services? Is access to instructional
technology support uniform across different faculty groups
at the institution?
5. At what administrative level are digital education initiatives
endorsed, supported, or made a fundraising priority?

23. Thank You!
intro@uoregon.edu