Steve lusherfinalpresentation

Innovation, Motivation, and Change:

An Anecdotal Case

Innovation, Motivation, and Change:

An Anecdotal Case

Stephen E. Lusher, IDT 691West Virginia University

Dr. Ugur Kale

Stephen E. Lusher, IDT 691West Virginia University

Dr. Ugur Kale

Meet Jeff…Meet Jeff…

Not Really…Demonstration Only, Actual Jeff May Vary



•Associate Professor of Philosophy at a Small Liberal Arts College



•Associate Professor of Philosophy at a small liberal arts college

• Spent his summer developing an online course outside of his normal area of teaching



•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

Our Questions…Our Questions…


What motivated Jeff to participate?

What required him to participate?

What prevented him from engaging and feeling rewarded/satisfied with the process?

The Central Argument…The Central Argument…The Institution must focus on team-

building and supporting the development process for online

instruction.

Why is this important?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


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


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…


…THELEARNERS

Jeff’s story shows us…Jeff’s story shows us…


• 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

The Course That Jeff Built…

The Course That Jeff Built…

Applied Ethics for Nursing Professionals

Applied Ethics for Nursing Professionals

Jeff’s Course…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

Jeff’s Course…Jeff’s Course…• The Online Approach

• Allows for flexible scheduling

• Exposure to important learning experiences outside of clinical and medical classes

Jeff’s Course…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)

Why was Jeff chosen for this…Why was Jeff chosen for this…


• 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

Why was Jeff chosen for this…Why was Jeff chosen for this…


• 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

Authority and Rewards…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


• 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


• Primary external incentive for developing/teaching online courses at the school

• In contrast to voluntary or internal motivations for participation in online course development


• 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

The Barriers to Willing Participation…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


• 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?


• Compatibility

• Is the innovation consistent with past practices and experiences?

• Complexity

• Must the faculty member change methodologies or pedagogical approaches?


• 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


• A very real and valid concern

• A valuable viewpoint into Jeff’s dilemma

• A concern that should have been addressed

The Right Questions…The Right Questions…

• Bormann-Young (2008) identifies and recommends three question areas that faculty considering online course development should ask…


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?


These are important questions, however Jeff’s situation did not allow for alternative answers. A third area influences our discussion of motivation.


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.

The Right Questions…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?

The Right Questions…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?"

The Right Questions…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?

The Right Questions…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?

The Right Questions…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?

The Right Questions…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

Recommendations and Conclusions…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

Possible Solutions…Possible Solutions…

• Structuring, monitoring, and managing the development process

• Responsibility should be shared between individual team members


• Philosophy and Nursing faculty could have acted as subject experts and lead designers

• Institutional and Instructional Design support should have been provided


• Collaborative process should be encouraged, bringing multiple strengths and perspectives to bear

• Would have addressed the SME’s need to protect material integrity

Possible Solutions…

Possible Solutions…

• Could have addressed issues of Complexity and Compatibility

• Would also have helped in reducing or eliminating technology and media learning curves

SourcesSourcesSources:

Bormann-Young, C. (2008, August 8). Online Education: Questions Every Faculty Member Should Ask. In FacultyFocus.com. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education-questions-every-faculty-member- 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.

Steve lusherfinalpresentation

Education

Transcript of Steve lusherfinalpresentation