The readings for this week Assessing d.learning: Capturing the Journey of Becoming a Design Thinker (Goldman et al., 2012) and Innovation and Change: Changing How we Change (Dron, 2014) both had a lot of food for thought.
In the first article, Goldman et al. (2012) show how design thinking can be assessed. Their journey through various assessment types showed that you really have to think outside the box. Standard assessments would typically be able to adopt a form of a rubric, but when looking at mindshifts as described by the authors the type of rubric needed was a quandary. The changing viewpoints were best captured through action and therefore performance-based assessment was tried. The idea of the mindshift is something that resonates with me as I do not believe in the hard-wiring of individuals, but we all have our own personal skills and tasks with which we excel at. Intellectual risk taking is also another term that comes to mind and relates closely. An intellectual risk taker will experience mindshifts which will hopefully spur innovation and new thinking. The challenge with assessment comes with how do you know whether the process has been successful or not? How do you measure ingenuity? How much does the process matter?
The second article titled Changing How we Change (Dron, 2014) reminds me of why change is difficult. The barriers to adoption of new technology mentioned: resources, institution, subject culture, attitudes/beliefs, knowledge/skills, and assessment are all prevalent in my organization. I felt that Dron was channeling my thoughts and I found out why since as I read I found that the example used was in relation to K-12, which is where I’m currently employed in (seems like it is the same everywhere). Disruption in of itself is going to ruffle some feathers. Technology is meant to change things. Institutions are not open to change, but run the risk of being left behind. Of course there needs to be a plan of transition and plenty of supports to go with it. First it all begins with a change in mindset towards technology, or maybe a mindshift…
References
Dron, J. (2014). Innovation and Change: Changing how we Change. In Zawacki-Richter, O. & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda. Athabasca, AB: AU Press.
Goldman, S. et al. (2012). Assessing d.learning: Capturing the journey of becoming a design thinker. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel & L. Leifer (eds). Design thinking research: Understanding innovation. (pp. 13-33). Berlin: Springer.
Hi George,
I enjoyed reading your post. I too felt that parts of the Dron reading fell very close in line with how things are going where I work. Have you noticed a lot of resistance to tech integration where you work? How was this handled? I am always looking for new ideas on easing the integration of tech.
Steve
Hi Steve, thanks for the comment. As a researcher, I’m not the lead in terms of tech integration but I’m definitely exposed to the resistance by both staff and students. To be honest I also think a big part of the resistance stems from failings at the integration part of the process. Too often a new tech comes along that sells itself as the greatest thing since sliced bread and poor integration and consultation as to what instructors need leads to technical problems and lack of proper training. For example, we only have a 2 day training session for teachers to learn our LMS. Also when we first rolled out our LMS, it was prone to technical issues such as students not being able to log in and teachers not being able to load course material.
I would say due diligence needs to be done at the integration stage to make sure everything is working properly (alpha or beta testing is a necessity). Also ensure that instructors are comfortable with using the tech. It doesn’t hurt to give concrete examples on why their lives would be easier teaching with the tech. If you’re not able to give any, then you may want to rethink if the tech is suitable for your organization. I think Brand says it best that “high-road magazine architecture tends to be beautiful but inflexible, failing to adapt to changing needs and circumstances” (as cited in Dron, 2014, p.253). What looks good on paper may not be best in practice. I would consult on needs to help determine what’s required. Then at least the instructors who are stakeholders would feel included in the process and be more open to adopting new tech.
Of course, this is in an ideal situation.
George