Date post: | 13-Jan-2015 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | europortfolio-epic |
View: | 116 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Opening up Large Scale Change Initiatives
Calling on Faculty Perspectives to Develop a Framework for
Organization-‐Wide ePortfolio Implementation
ePIC 2013 London, UK
Jennifer M. Brill, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Samantha J. Blevins
Ph.D. Candidate
InstrucDonal Design & Technology Learning Sciences & Technologies Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
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)
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?
Methodology: Development Research
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
Developmental (Type 2) Study
Design & Development Research: Methods, Strategies, & Issues Richey & Klein (2007)
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.
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%
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
Findings: Barriers and Enablers Ba
rriers
• eP system design • Time
• Faculty understanding • Support & training • Technology resources • ApplicaDon beyond classroom
• Rewards & incenDves En
ablers
• Support
• Technology capabiliDes • Rewards & incenDves • Faculty understanding • Interest • ApplicaDon aqer graduaDon
ePortfolio Adoption Framework
Framework: Awareness Component Component Selected
Strategies to Support Component
Key Player Involvement
Assessment of Current Implementa;on Status
Next Steps for Implementa;on
Professional knowledge of pedagogical benefits of electronic porNolios
• Web sites • Newslepers • ArDcles • PresentaDons • Professional development
• Academic leaders on campus (e.g. provost, teaching and learning directors) • Leading electronic porNolio scholars and pracDDoners • Local faculty innovators • Other high-‐level, respected opinion leaders
1. Faculty are unaware of the pedagogical value of electronic porNolios.
2. Faculty are somewhat aware of the pedagogical value of electronic porNolios.
3. Faculty are very aware of the pedagogical value of electronic porNolios.
RaDng of 1 or 2 • IdenDfy mulDple avenues for electronic porNolio awareness building. • Plan a 3-‐6 month awareness building campaign. • Reassess awareness status aqer one to two academic years.
RaDng of 3 • Reassess awareness status at next formal, systemic evaluaDon of electronic porNolio implementaDon. (A systemic evaluaDon is recommended every 3-‐5 years.)
Awareness
Framework: Action Plan Component Current
Implementa;on Ra;ng
Next Steps Key Players to Involve
Target Comple;on Date(s)
Addi;onal Notes
☐1 ☐2 ☐3
☐1 ☐2 ☐3
☐1 ☐2 ☐3
…etc…
Awareness
Motivation
Commitment
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)
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?
In regards to “openness”…
• How can such a framework support: • community learning? • user-‐friendly eP infrastructure and architecture?