Change is rarely easy, and universities are notoriously
conservative institutions which are inherently cautious. The implementation of a
change programme involving technology requires a delicate balance in order to
bring about genuinely new ways of working whilst endeavouring to address the
understandable concerns of staff. What approaches actually work?
At the University of Westminster we are embarking on a
wide-ranging programme known as ‘Learning Futures’ which aims to
transform the student and staff experience by creating a streamlined,
forward-looking and engaging curriculum. The programme comprises a range of
parallel projects which address themes such as curriculum and assessment,
learning and teaching, academic support, employability, internationalisation,
and sustainability. I’ve been involved in the learning and
teaching strand of the Learning Futures programme since the start, specifically
in relation to the promotion of technology-enhanced learning and blended
learning approaches.
The proposed changes have all emerged from staff themselves
in a ‘bottom-up’ approach, albeit with the full support
of the senior management of the university. The enthusiasm of staff in
generating new ideas and their continued commitment in developing the projects
has been a revelation. However,
up to now it has largely been driven by a relatively small proportion of staff – the so-called ‘early adopters’– the committed minority who are willing to experiment and keen to
innovate. As we move towards the implementation phase of the programme it
will be critical to maintain momentum in the face of the resistance to change which
is bound to emerge.
What resistance?
It is
inevitable that there will be resistance to change, particularly change which
involves the introduction of new technologies. As
Wheeler (2014a) points out, there is a perception amongst some academic staff that technology
will undermine their role and require the investment of a lot of time learning
new skills. If there is resentment or distrust, this can be transmitted to
students.
Marshall (2010) suggests that the resistance to change may be borne out of a perceived lack of
convincing evidence that technology actually benefits the students
’
learning, despite the fact that, as
Garrison and Vaughan (2013) point out,
“this is not a defensible position
”.
Nevertheless, such resistance patently exists, and this invariably makes it
difficult to get buy-in from the
remainder of the staff.
Implementation
We have a clear vision about where we want to be. We are
obviously not starting from scratch, since technology is already used widely
throughout the university and there are many examples of highly innovative
practice. What we are seeking to achieve is a much more integrated approach to
technology-enhanced learning where the technology is seamlessly embedded in our
courses and both staff and students are comfortable with technology.
So, we’ve generated the ideas, we have the
approval of senior management to proceed, and we have project structures in
place. But now we actually have to move from the strategy to the tactics. Where
do we start?
I’ve been doing quite a lot of research
around this, and there are obviously loads of issues to consider, but three
immediate questions emerge:
1. Should
we assess the extent to which the institution is ready for change?
I have mixed views on this issue. I can see that there would
be some value in assessing institutional readiness, but given that the decision
has been taken to go ahead with the change programme are we just wasting
valuable time? There is obviously a certain appetite for change, as
demonstrated by the ideas and proposals already generated in the early stages
of the programme. We could carry out an audit of existing practice, but this
will probably take a long time and all it is likely to tell us is what we already
know: that there are pockets of innovative practice involving technology but
the majority of courses are delivered primarily through traditional means. What
else could we do to assess our readiness?
There are tools available which are specifically designed
for this very purpose. For example:
- ELTI (Embedding Learning Technologies Institutionally) A JISC audit tool which is “designed to inform the process of
embedding learning technologies, assist in developing institutional structures,
culture and expertise and to encourage cross boundary collaboration and
groupings”.
- The eMM Framework (E-Learning Maturity Model) which is designed to measure “the
capability of institutions to sustainably engage in
technology-supported learning and teaching”.
Has anyone got experience of using these tools and if so,
were they useful?
2. How
do we ensure that staff have the skills and confidence necessary to adopt
technologies more widely?
It is highly likely that only those
‘early adopters
’
will feel comfortable working extensively with new technologies.
Wheeler (2014b) highlights the importance of universities providing high quality, sustainable
support to academics to ensure that they see the relevance of new technologies
and gain confidence in using them. The recently published
NMC Horizon Report2014 identifies the challenge of
‘low digital fluency of faculty
’
and proposes professional development for academic staff, not just in digital
media skills, but also in the underlying concepts of digital literacy (Johnson et al., 2014).
Garrison & Vaughan (2008) indicate that the most common form of professional development involves skills-based
training in specific techniques or software. However, they suggest that such an
approach rarely has sufficient follow-up and ongoing support for academic
staff, and thus the impact is minimal. They propose an alternative approach
based around the idea of a
“Community of Inquiry
”
in which local faculty groupings of eight to twelve staff engage in a
continuous process of reflection and discourse about teaching problems where
there is a focus on getting things done. The communities adopt a blended
learning approach which combines face-to-face and online activities.
What approaches have been used at other institutions?
3. What
are the mechanisms needed to actually implement change?
What structures need to be in place to promote the
widespread adoption of technology in learning and teaching? What does the
change programme actually involve? Are there tools and techniques we can adopt
as a vehicle for change. For example:
- Peter Reed (University of Liverpool) suggests a ‘spine’ of core technologies used across the
institution with, for example, baseline standards for the use of the VLE
together with online assessment, lecture capture and ePortfolios
- Keith Smyth and colleagues at Edinburgh Napier
University have developed the 3E Framework to support the meaningful
incorporation of technology into learning, teaching and assessment
- York St John University has published a
Technology-Enhanced Learning Quality Framework (which incidentally is based on Edinburgh Napier’s 3E Framework) which sets out ‘minimum
expectations’ in a university policy document which all members of staff
are expected to adhere to.
What other mechanisms have been used, and how effective have
they been?
Your views?
I would be really interested in hearing from colleagues at
other institutions who have been through similar change programmes and have experience
of implementing change. Please feel free to add your comments or contact me
directly.
Author’s note: I should stress that I am just a
member of the Learning Futures team at the University of Westminster –
I am not leading the programme. I should also add that the views expressed
above are my personal reflections, and do not necessarily reflect the policy of
the University of Westminster.
References
- Garrison, D. and Vaughan N. (2008) Blended Learning in
Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass
- Garrison, D. & Vaughan, N., (2013) “Institutional change
and leadership associated with blended learning innovation: Two case studies”,
in Internet and Higher Education Vol. 18, July 2013
- Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., Freeman, A.
(2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education Edition [Online] Available
from http://www.nmc.org/publications/2014-horizon-report-higher-ed
- Marshall, S(2010) 'Change, technology and higher education:
are universities capable of organisational change?', Research in Learning
Technology, 18: 3, 179 — 192
- Wheeler, S. (2014a) The Survival of Higher Education (5):
Recommendations http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/the-survival-of-higher-education-5.html
- Wheeler, S. (2014b) The Survival of Higher Education (4) 5 Key Objectives http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/the-survival-of-higher-education-4-5.html
