Images

Which framework(s) will provide the backbone?

 

In the first Padlet exercise of LRNT 622 I listed a few overarching goals, one of which described that findings should be applicable to an adult learner group, making Adult Learning Theory seemingly a good fit. Ruey (2010) explores how using Knowles’ contract learning concept can help learners plan experiences based on their needs, prior experiences, goals, interests and self-concept. Doing so can increase learner self-awareness around their preferred learning style, which can help the learner assume more responsibility for their own learning. Since the model I hope to evaluate would include on-demand learning, this theoretical framework should help to provide a backbone of known information off of which my research will build.

The second framework that seems like it may be valuable to bound the research is Engagement Theory, which also focuses on experiential and self-directed learning (Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1993). Bonk and Khoo (2014) suggest that learner engagement is manifested through behaviour, and that “when it comes to achievement, involvement in the learning process matters” (p. 209).

A couple of questions popped up for me to consider:

  1. I wonder if the fact that the professional development I am exploring is mandatory and tied directly to the learners’ ability to sustain their professional designation will have an impact?
  2. I wonder how or if a learner’s ability and comfort level with using technology will factor in when evaluating strategies for online professional development?

References

Bonk, C. J., & Khoo, E. (2014). Adding some TEC-VARIETY: 100+ activities for motivating and retaining learners online (pp. 1-368). OpenWorldBooks.com and Amazon CreateSpace.

Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning. Educational technology, 38(5), 20-23.

Ruey, S. (2010). A case study of constructivist instructional strategies for adult online lea rning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 706-720. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00965.xv

Activity 3 – Developing a Design Plan

Purpose

To support new members in navigating the suite products and services provided by the professional organization, the new member orientation will be refreshed to provide a more flexible approach. The proposed delivery model, designed to be framed within a continuous improvement mindset, will allow the organization to be more nimble and proactive in training delivery. As a part of the continuous improvement framework, capacity including an annually reviewed budget allocation and timeline of review procedures will be established.

Over the next year the organization plans to operationalize multiple new products and services, all of which will require strong communication and on-going training. The new format will allow training lessons to be continually improved as new products or services are introduced, or as shifts in the industry occur.

Learning Goals

The new member orientation will:

  • Provide an orientation to industry and organizational rules, regulations, professional standards and by-laws.
  • Deliver an overview of each of the products and services provided by the professional organization in a blended model of on-demand lessons and quarterly in-person sessions.
  • Chunk materials into topic-based lessons, which can be accessed when needed or through suggested learning paths.
  • Provide quarterly in-person sessions that allow members to access timely information delivered by subject matter experts, and to network with members from the industry and from supporting industries.
  • Increase members’ confidence that they understand the key learning deliverables of each lesson through the administration of a knowledge check at the end of each lesson.

Intended Audience

The intended audience for this digital learning resource is new members of the professional organization but will also provide existing members with opportunities to access help when they need it, as access will be housed on the organization’s secure member page.

Rationale

Based on feedback gleaned from a human-centered needs assessment, the new member orientation must accommodate the needs of learners from multiple backgrounds and levels of experience. Some learners are experienced in the industry, yet they lack the ability to navigate the suite of available products and services efficiently, and require an understanding of the organization’s policies, procedures, rules and regulations. Other learners are new to both the industry and the organization, so require additional support around the industry’s policies, procedures, rules and regulations.

Members of the professional organization are all cooperating competitors who earn a commission-based pay structure. To that end, their business activity cannot always be planned, as activity must be planned according to the schedule of members’ customers. In the current iteration of the new member orientation, members must block an entire day out of their calendars, to get a crash course on all the benefits of membership, including a content-driven overview of everything they need to know to get up and running in their professional practice. In the refreshed model new members are provided an in-person, 30-minute orientation which includes support in accessing the new member orientation program, after which lessons can be accessed in an on-demand model.

Tools

The refreshed design follows a blended approach, including a series of on-demand lessons and, at least quarterly, face-to-face networking sessions each of which includes a discrete learning opportunity. Examples of quarterly sessions include: access to a panel of experts on a practice-specific topic, co-sponsored events with members from supporting industries, or technology labs where members can access one-on-one support.

Criteria Required

  • To support a continuous improvement framework, tools must allow content to be further developed as the organization shifts and grows.
  • To support accurate and current content, course development must include the ability to collaborate with subject matter experts.
  • As the course will be mandatory for new members, tools must allow a way to track course completions.
  • To provide broader access to existing members who may wish to access the course topics in an on-demand model, tools must allow learners to access specific topics as needed.
  • To allow members to have confidence that they understand the key learning deliverables for any topic, tools must allow for an assessment component.

Tools Chosen

Articulate Rise.

The ability to easily collaborate is important as there are subject matter experts for all products and services. Inviting experts to collaborate during course development will allow for the content to be both current and accurate, with Articulate Rise allowing invitations for collaboration to be sent to any subject matter expert. Collaborators can be added and removed from a course as needed, and course ownership can be transferred as needed during development or continuous improvement stages.

Flexibility is a key consideration in the development of the new member orientation and includes that content must be accessible by learners through a wide range of devices.  Articulate’s software allows content to flex seamlessly between device types, allowing learners to effectively access the content on laptops or desktops, iPads or tablets, or any mobile phone.

One challenge that the organization faces is that they do not have an LMS, as current learning activities are only delivered in-person. However, one of the organization’s current strategic priorities is to support professionalism for the members, so decision makers are open to considering an investment into professional development infrastructure.

Articulate Rise does allow that courses are downloaded for off-line viewing, however to access embedded links, the learner would have to be connected to the internet. For this assignment, the course will be shared for feedback using a password-protected weblink.

Piktochart.

Piktochart was chosen as the tool used to develop overview information pages for all topics. Piktochart provides a free version that allows users to access templates that can be customized to meet the user’s needs. Additionally, completed work can be exported as blocks that will be used in the Articulate Rise course so there is continuity in the design approach.

Additional features, such as PDF exports, custom colour schemes, watermark removal and additional security through password protection can be accessed by upgrading the free version currently in use. Upon completion of the pilot lessons, organizational decision makers will consider how future iterations can be improved through the investment of an upgraded paid version of the tool.

Screencast-O-Matic.

Screencast-O-Matic is video recording and editing tool that allows designers to record their screen, while adding voiceovers. Based on feedback from previous attempts at sharing courses through Articulate Rise, an introductory video that showcases how to navigate the course will be provided.

Depending on future needs of the organization, a paid account, such as Solo Deluxe may be purchased, as it will allow the removal of the watermark and access to a full video editing suite.

PowToon.

PowToon is a tool that allows designers to develop videos using templates and to include customized voiceovers to enhance the content.  The organization has a subscription to a PRO account and has used this tool effectively for short explainer videos over the last year.  PowToon will be leveraged again in some of the lessons, to engage learners and to provide content variety.

Feedback and Assessment Plan

Formal assessment will be given through end-of-lesson quizzes, with correct answers provided for incorrect submissions in real time. By providing frequent quizzes, learners will remain constantly engaged with the material (Halpern, Graesser, & Hakel, 2007). For those who choose to retest their knowledge, at the culmination of all lessons a more fulsome quiz is provided, again with incorrect submissions corrected in real time, supporting better long-term retention of the materials (Halpern, Graesser, & Hakel, 2007).

Learning Theories

Motivation theory.

Keller and Suzuki’s ARCS (Attention, Relevance, Confidence and Satisfaction) model principles will support learner engagement (Keller & Suzuki, 2004). At the beginning of each lesson, learners will be engaged with a video overview that will capture their attention and inform them of the relevance of each lesson. Feedback will be provided in end-of-lesson quizzes to engage learner confidence, further supplemented by in-person sessions where learners gain satisfaction by applying “what they learn in real-life situations” (Ally, 2008, p. 29).

Cognitivism.

To help manage cognitive load, lessons will follow both the coherence principle and special contiguity principles (Halpern, Graesser, & Hakel, 2007). Lesson content will be chunked into appropriate size to facilitate effective processing with no more than five to nine items on a screen (Ally, 2008).

The in-person interventions will allow for cognitive flexibility (Halpern, Graesser, & Hakel, 2007) as learners will be encouraged to collaborate with peers and experts to share ideas and viewpoints.

Constructivism.

In constructivism, where the learner is at the centre of the learning, personal meaning is gleaned through active processes (Ally, 2008), where learners are given control of the learning process through a guided process. Collaborative and cooperative learning will be achieved by encouraging learners to participate in face-to-face learning interventions, allowing higher level interaction with peers and subject matter experts (Anderson, 2016).

Instructional Design Principles

The following six design principles work in concert to guide decision points and ensure that the new or renewed approaches taken in developing courses provide a positive learner experience.

  1. Honour learner diversity.
  • Use gender neutral language and mindfully include a variety of examples to resonate with learners from all backgrounds and levels of experience.
  • Use Mattelmäki et al’s (2014) four layers of sensitivity for consistency in empathetic design: sensitivity towards humans, sensitivity toward design, sensitivity toward techniques and sensitivity toward collaboration.
  1. Make time for collaboration.
    • Encourage the sharing of perspectives in everything we do and with stakeholders from all levels.
    • Be solutions-focused. Our shared actions help us reach our shared vision.
  2. Use plain language.
    • Employ readability tools to ensure content is written at an appropriate level for learners.
    • Explain jargon, culture-specific language and limit use of acronyms.
  3. Remember pedagogical frameworks.
    • Use a consistent template throughout materials and chunk knowledge into building blocks to decrease cognitive load for learners.
    • Consider Keller and Suzuki’s (2004) ARCS motivation model throughout design, including all four sub-sets: attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction.
    • Allow collaboration and cooperation by including opportunities for learners to work together.
  4. Support knowledge retention.
    • Provide opportunities for continuous reinforcement and self-assessment throughout learning interventions.
    • Stay with the learner; don’t jump ahead of their readiness. Provide learners with opportunities to self-assess, self-reflect, consider feedback and collaborate with fellow learners.
  5. Embrace a continuous improvement mindset.
    • Measure learner satisfaction and evaluate responses for on-going improvement opportunities.
    • Be committed with capacity and resources to evaluate and support feedback into meaningful improvements.

Instructions for Use

New members.

New members are currently provided with package of both paper and digital resources and are invited into the organization’s office to retrieve it. Members are then invited to participate in a one-day in-person workshop where they receive a high-level overview of the products and services provided by the organization.

In the refreshed approach, the Member Orientation team will connect with the new member to arrange a 30-minute in-person introduction to the organization. During this introduction the staff member will sit beside the new member in front of a work station to walk through the new member package and to provide a guided tour of the available resources, including lessons and a calendar of networking and learning opportunities. Members will be invited to bring along their preferred device, if they wish, so that they can customize their learning experience.

Existing members.

Proven communication protocols to existing members have been established, with 87.5 per cent of members reporting that they are satisfied with the organization’s communication in an April 2018 member satisfaction survey. To ensure deep message penetration, the launch of the program will be added to the content calendar as an on-going event, so that all members know when they can access training.

Plan for Use

The proposed refreshed approach to delivery supports only members of the professional organization, as membership fees fund the program and the information provided is proprietary. Due to these considerations, I will use an “All Rights Reserved” copyright (Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation, 2009) to protect the content.

Future Iterations

The tools and approach chosen for the new member orientation uncovered multiples ideas for improvement of the learner experience and for the addition of additional audiences, as follows:

Access to more feedback.

To include informal feedback, each lesson of a future iteration will include pre- and post-self-assessments that allow members time to uncover their learning gaps and reflect on their learning.

Learning paths.

In a future iteration of the project learning paths will allow learners to choose to participate in a curated curriculum but can still engage with ad hoc topics that are timely for their practice.

Interactive PDFs.

In each lesson, members will have access to interactive PDFs that summarize key processes and information and provide space for members to take notes in their own words.

Increased access to content.

One of the organization’s strategic priorities includes work to help positively shift the public’s perception of members. In a future iteration, the materials provided to members can be refreshed to align with the needs of a new audience, the public. Doing so may help to inform members of the public of the benefits of working with a member of the organization and may help to provide information that will support more seamless transactions. If this iteration does occur, I will use an “Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works” (Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation, 2009) license.

Added opportunities to continue professional development.

Learners who choose to continue their learning will have access to continuous development activities such as: community-based or organizational board member opportunities, options on becoming an instructor, procedures on how to develop a course, ideas on how to become more involved in committees or taskforces, etc.

Networking opportunities may be augmented by the addition of facilitated round tables that are either community or topic-specific. Round tables will provide learners with problem-based learning, wherein communities of practice may emerge (Halpern, Graesser, & Hakel, 2007).

 

References

Ally, M. (2008). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (pp.15-44). Edmonton, AB: AU Press.

Anderson, T. (2016). Theories for learning with emerging technologies. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emergence and innovation in digital learning: Foundations and applications (pp. 35 – 50). Edmonton, AB: AU Press.

Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation. (2009). Which Creative Commons License is right for me? Retrieved from http://creativecommons.org.au/content/licensing-flowchart.pdf

Halpern, D. F., Graesser, A., & Hakel, M. (2007). (25) Learning principles to guide pedagogy and the design of learning environments. Washington, DC: Association of Psychological Science Taskforce on Lifelong Learning at Work and at Home.

Keller, J., & Suzuki, K. (2004). Learner motivation and e-learning design: A multinationally validated process. Journal of educational Media, 29(3), 229-239. doi:10.1080/1358t65042000283084

Mattelmäki, T., Vaajakallio, K., & Koskinen, I. (2014). What Happened to Empathic Design?. Design Issues, 30(1), 67-77. doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00249

Accessing the Hidden Knowledge of the User

As I began this activity, I was reminded of a story told to me by a good friend who was a book binder with over 30 years of experience working for the same employer. In his story, my friend shared how his employer was making a substantial capital investment into their infrastructure which would allow them to diversify and provide book binding services for additional types of books, thereby providing the organization with the ability to bid on more jobs. It was great news, as everyone working for this employer would have enough work to sustain their jobs on a full-time basis.

On his first day back to work with the new equipment, my friend found that the physical location of the equipment did not allow the operator to work effectively, as there was not enough room to control the equipment safely. The only tangible solution was to remove the equipment and rotate it by thirty degrees, thereby allowing enough room to operate the equipment effectively and safely.

As I reflect on this story through the lens of “designing products that fit the user’s life” (Kouprie & Visser, 2009, p. 438), I realize what went wrong. In reading more about using an empathic framework in design, I am beginning to realize the importance of understanding the end user’s needs. I appreciated Seelig’s (2013) examples of the benefits of reframing a problem. Instead of focusing on what we think members need to know to be successful in their professional practice, I will reframe my problem to explore how members access the products and services that we provide to support them in their professional practice. My desired outcome is to reframe our approach so that the training we provide around products and services proactively meets the needs of our end users, instead of taking our current reactive approach to solving problems as they arise.

My Empathetic Framework

In my design challenge I have decided to explore our new member orientation, which is a mandatory course that is designed to help new members better understand the products and services we provide. I chose this particular course because it has remained almost unchanged for over a decade, coupled with the fact that the metrics collected from our help desk uncovered gaps in the training and led us to wonder if we could be doing a better job of on-boarding our members. I liken the current orientation to drinking from a firehose, with so much information provided in a short time that it seems impossible to remember it all. I wonder if we are providing the right level of training, too many topics or if our scope is too narrow.

I plan to start building out my empathetic framework by using an experience prototype (Kouprie & Visser, 2009), wherein I will step into the member’s experience by simulating the user’s experience in accessing our products and services. Having never been in professional practice in this industry, I realize that my experience will be different than that of the end user. However, our suite of products and services perform discrete functions, the outcomes for which I am very familiar.

I started by mapping out a typical day-in-the-life of a member as they perform the core tasks required in their profession. Doing so allowed me to experience both bottlenecks and seamless experiences, thereby allowing insight into which topics need to be fleshed out and which can remain static – at least from my experience as a user.

To further validate my findings, I have reached out to a new member who I already have a relationship with as I coached them around using a core tool during their first week. By observing this user in their environment, I will “stay beside” (Kouprie & Visser, 2009, p. 443) the user and be drawn into their experience. I imagine I will gain insight into whether the challenges they face are the same that I faced during my experience prototype. This work should allow me to have a more “comprehensive objectification” (Kouprie & Visser, 2009, p. 443) of the member’s experience, leaving me with a more fulsome understanding of their experience.

Potential Challenges:

Challenges I expect include that my experience prototype will not accurately reflect the needs of all users as each individual has their own unique experience (Kouprie & Visser, 2009). However, even with a small sample size to build from, I will gain the ability to step outside of my own perspective and see the existing design through the eyes of our member (Matthews, Williams, Yanchar, & McDonald, 2017).

Another challenge I anticipate is balancing the tension of multiple stakeholders (Matthews, Williams, Yanchar, & McDonald, 2017). How will we provide the same quality of learning provided by our new member training to existing members? We typically onboard about 80 members per year, with each member having unique challenges, whether they be understanding the rules, regulations and bylaws (which are written in complicated language) or whether they lack the digital technology skills to effectively manage the various technology products. I hope that uncovering bottlenecks and seamless experiences will help bring an empathetic perspective to our work, helping us to achieve a broader range of goals (Matthews, Williams, Yanchar, & McDonald, 2017), including an improved experience for all members.

I know that I am not the first person to experience these challenges and look forward to your insights and ideas on how I can face these potential challenges.

References

Kouprie, M., & Visser, F. S. (2009). A framework for empathy in design: stepping into and out of the user’s life. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), 437-448.

Seelig, T. (2013). How reframing a problem unlocks innovation. Extracted Sept.

Matthews, M. T., Williams, G. S., Yanchar, S. C., & McDonald, J. K. (2017). Empathy in Distance Learning Design Practice. TechTrends, 61(5), 486-493.

Leading Through Change

Personal communications with my seven network participants uncovered three trends that align with established change management models and theories:

1.     Leaders must be passionate, engaging and committed to change.

2.     Leaders must prioritize change as a team activity.

3.     Leaders must spend time planning and preparing for change.

Leaders Must Be Passionate, Engaging and Committed to Change

Kuipers et al. (2014) describe leadership as “an important driver of change” (p. 23). When asked to choose one word to describe a change leader from their past whom they admired, 57 per cent of network respondents contributed ideas around passion, commitment and an ability to engage the team. Weiner (2009) agrees that building organizational readiness for change requires that leaders engage participants in sharing a commitment to implementing change and in believing that they will succeed. By inspiring a shared vision, participants gain clarity on how their commitment will contribute to achieving successful change outcomes (Graetz, 2000).

When developing organizational readiness for change, Jaskyte (2004) found that leaders must motivate their teams to commit to change by supporting the development of shared values and practices that support innovation. Themes of leading with passion, commitment, and engaging the team again emerged when participants described strengths in their leadership approach, such as: model the way, instill confidence that you won’t give up, and be present and ready to support the team. These leadership approaches demonstrate passion for the proposed change and a commitment to engaging in following it through to success.

Along with being passionate, engaged and committed to change, network participants agree that collaboration is a key success determinant when leading through change.

Leaders Must Prioritize Change as a Team Activity

Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015) state that strong collaboration by all stakeholders can support successful outcomes when leading through change by encouraging teams to participate and become active contributors. When reflecting on the strengths they adopted during a successful change they led, participants shared examples of behaviours that support collaboration. Responses including encouraging all perspectives, co-designing the implementation plan, working to gain buy in through collaboration, listening to feedback, being persistent and following up, all encourage the team to share their perspectives. As Weiner (2009) found, when participants value the proposed change, they exhibit high efficacy are more likely to demonstrate behaviours required to support the change initiative.

Part of supporting their teams to participate actively requires that leaders also demonstrate commitment by effectively planning and preparing for change.

Leaders Must Spend Time Planning and Preparing for Change

Planning and preparation are common components in the examples shared in Al-Haddad and Kotnour’s (2015) exploration of successful change models. Six of seven network respondents agree that planning and preparation are important considerations when leading through change. Examples of leadership strengths that network participants have successfully leveraged to support them through change that relate to planning and preparation include: provide training materials ahead of time, keep focus on providing support throughout all stages, and be as transparent as you can. 

When reflecting back on leaders they admire, 29 per cent of participants described organization as a key success factor. One network participant contributed an idea that change leaders must be patient and remember that people can be slow to change. Another shared a best practice was to admit when you don’t know something and commit to finding an answer. Both responses highlight that today’s ever-shifting environment demands that change leaders must also engage change methods which also continuously evolve (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015) and plan and prepare to flex their approach when the environment shifts.

Conclusion

In 2000, Graetz stated that implementing change successfully is the primary task that all leaders of face. Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015) share that “change leaders are people with creative visions, who are able to foresee a new reality and how to get to it” (p. 239). Leading with passion and commitment helps to engage  participation in the change process and works to develop a shared vision of success.

Using a collaborative approach also engages teams, especially when, as one participant shared, leaders lead with empathy. When change leaders design strategies with an empathetic approach, participants are encouraged to view the change through different perspectives, permitting openness and creative exploration (Mattelmäki, Vaajakallio, & Koskinen, 2014).

In today’s ever-changing environment, change leaders must plan and prepare not only for a successful implementation, but to make on-going changes in their approach when the environment shifts. By leading the team with a focus on being prepared for these shifts, a leader establishes change as an opportunity to continually strive for an established shared vision of success.

References

Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 234-262.

Graetz, F. (2000). Strategic change leadership. Management decision, 38(8), 550-564.

Jaskyte, K. (2004). Transformational leadership, organizational culture, and innovativeness in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(2), 153-168.

Kuipers, B. S., Higgs, M., Kickert, W., Tummers, L., Grandia, J., & Van der Voet, J. (2014). The management of change in public organizations: A literature review. Public administration, 92(1), 1-20.

Mattelmäki, T., Vaajakallio, K., & Koskinen, I. (2014). What Happened to Empathic Design?. Design issues, 30(1), 67-77.

Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation science, 4(1), 67.

Leading with Energy and Enthusiasm

Continual technological advances permeate everything we do, in work and in play. By continuing to accept a “head in the sand mentality” (Sheninger, 2014, p. 1) toward implementing new or renewed approaches in digital learning environments (DLEs), leaders deny their teams the ability to the develop the capacity needed to succeed when technological advances shift their environment. For teams to be successful in today’s ever-changing environments, they need leaders who collaborate to create a shared vision of success, who model open communication and who embrace a continuous improvement mindset.

My Leadership Approach:
Early in my leadership journey I was introduced to Simon Sinek’s (2011) “Golden Circle” concept, which guides leaders to inspire action by helping teams to articulate not just what they do every day, or how they complete tasks in their role, but why their work is important within their organization’s context. Although I didn’t realize it at the time, I can now see that Sinek’s work introduced me to one of my core leadership approaches, wherein I start work with a new team by encouraging collaboration. By teasing out and exploring individual perspectives, I support the team to shape a compelling shared vision of the future, resulting in team members who are united by a common purpose (O’Toole, 2008).

Much of my leadership experience has been gained through project-based work, wherein I parachute into an existing team to lead the implementation of a new or renewed approach to service delivery. By consistently modeling open communication, individual team members are motivated to contribute, as they trust that their perspectives will be valued (Castelli, 2017). This helps to set the foundation of a safe environment.

Throughout my leadership experiences, I have consistently found that some of the best ideas arise through ongoing environmental scans that include the divergent perspectives of all team members, (Huggins, Klar, Hammonds & Buskey, 2017) and that valuable lessons can be uncovered from feedback during or after project implementation. Co-owning triumphs and challenges supports a shared approach that promotes trust, values open communication, connects work to the organization’s mission, and builds self-esteem and confidence in the workforce (Castelli, 2016). I believe that debriefing what was learned throughout the life-cycle of a project further supports the continual development of a shared vision and demonstrates a commitment to continuous improvement.

Since organizational priorities shift, core to my leadership approach is supporting my team members to develop confidence in their individual leadership capacity. This takes an enthusiastic commitment to mindfully create “leadership opportunities” (Huggins et al., 2017, p. 8) for all team members. Doing so follows a distributed leadership approach and requires sustained energy and a tolerance for risk. Although it is true that a team member may make mistakes, which could negatively reflect on my leadership, my experience in distributing leadership across all desks has led to innovative ideas for program or service delivery.

Leading in Digital Environments:
I agree with Sheninger (2014) when he states that “leaders need to be the catalysts for change” (p. 4), especially when leading in digital learning environments. Leaders must also realize that each team member is different, with resistance to embracing technology running along a continuum from those who refuse to participate to early adopters. Like Sheninger (2014) describes, leading through technology changes requires that leaders understand that learners may have a fear around using technology to complete tasks. By encouraging collaboration, team members share their collective knowledge and are better able to adapt in changing environments (Khan, 2017).

Technology changes rapidly, so leading in a digital learning environment requires leaders to prioritize the development of agile teams. Leaders who work with their teams to set a shared vision help to support ever-changing DLEs by developing ongoing team capacity, as evidenced in Castelli (2016), where “the legacy of the leader’s influence is perpetuated through the followers’ incorporation of legacy principles into their lives as they become leaders” (p. 220).

Building leadership capacity at all levels helps to increase organizational capacity and tolerance to change. Sustainable change in DLEs requires that leaders empower teams and embrace technology through a strategic mindset that improves desired outcomes by leveraging available resources (Sheninger, 2014). By working to engage all stakeholders of an organization through open communication, collaboration and a commitment to continuous improvement, leaders in digital environments lay the groundwork for teams to share leading practices and to work with a common purpose. Doing so helps individuals to confidently make decisions in their work, as all decisions are framed within a shared compelling vision, regardless of shifts in technology or organizational priorities.

Conclusion:
Successful leaders adopt the approaches that their teams need to succeed. Using a values-based leadership framework supports the development of a team’s leadership capacity. When leaders support decisions that are important to members of the group, team members are motivated, as the leader helps “them to realize the things they hold most dear, that which they value” (O’Toole, 2008, p. 2). Values based leadership creates a common language of behaviour that cements the team’s purpose, setting the vision of how work is completed and how services are delivered.

By consistently acting on behalf of the team, a leader provides the conditions and resources that the team needs to succeed, but that they couldn’t provide on their own (O’Toole). Distributing leadership throughout a team also helps to develop the team’s leadership capacity, building each person’s confidence to share leading practices and to support one another. As Huggins et al (2017) describe, leadership development is a process that requires leadership capacity builders to direct, monitor and provide feedback. Leaders that consistently practice reflection ask what was learned throughout and after project completion.

As I continue my leadership development journey, I will be mindful to continue focusing on encouraging collaboration, practicing open communication and embracing a continuous improvement mindset. These core principles, coupled with mindful implementation of values-based, distributed and reflective leadership practices will work in concert to provide the foundation that our teams need to successfully sustain technological and organizational shifts.

References

Castelli, P. (2016). Reflective leadership review: a framework for improving organisational performance. Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 217-236.

Huggins, K., Klar, H. W., Hammonds, H. L., & Buskey, F. C. (2017). Developing Leadership Capacity in Others: An Examination of High School Principals’ Personal Capacities for Fostering Leadership. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 12(1).

Khan, N. (2017). Adaptive or Transactional Leadership in Current Higher Education: A Brief Comparison. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3).

O’Toole, James (2008). Notes Toward a Definition of Values-Based Leadership. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 1(1).

Sheninger, E. (2014). Pillars of digital leadership. International Centre for Leadership in Education.

Sinek, S. (2011). Start with why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action. Penguin.

Embracing Outliers in Learner Experience

Advances in digital technology tools have significantly impacted learning and teaching processes in the last few decades. Each day there seems to be a new tool which promises to improve the learning environment or learner experience, and I find myself tasked to evaluate which of the available tools are most effective in positively impacting how our learners embrace and experience the courses we design.  While maintaining a realistic focus on organizational priorities and capacity, I find myself balancing using efficient, harder learning interventions compared to allowing for softer interventions.

Currently we are working to implement a blended learning approach in our organization. This renewed approach will include both on-line and in-person components, which is in contrast to existing practices where learners are required to choose between either on-line or in-person learning interventions. When viewing our proposed renewed approach through a learner’s lens, I can empathize that using non-routine, disruptive technologies that may be unfamiliar may be perceived as unnecessary. Will the learning experience be improved by using a blended approach and will it meet the needs of all of our learners?

I appreciate Dron’s (2014) suggestion that technologies can be perceived as hard or soft, depending on the learner’s digital technology competency. For some learners, accessing a self-paced course allows access course materials when their schedule permits, thereby allowing them to set their own pace for learning. For others, accessing unfamiliar technology is stressful, as they lack digital literacy skills. As Dron (2014) outlines, core to the success of instigating innovation is determining the best time and method to implement a new or renewed idea so that it is adopted seamlessly into the learning environment and becomes routine. I am left with the task of further exploring this core consideration as we move forward in implementing our renewed, blended approach.

Dron (2014) suggests that changes in distance education occur due to a complex set of conditions. The condition that resonated with me was “path dependencies caused by earlier decisions” (Dron, 2014, p. 238). In our learning environment we have used the same set of principles and tools for about a decade. By reducing learner choice through continually developing courses using an inflexible set of design principles and processes, our learners may be left with less choice, which could reduce “opportunities for creativity, innovation and change” (Dron, 2014, p. 241).

Motivating factors are linked directly to learner success, with a common motivation linking the investment of time and money to the expectation of career progression or increased occupational opportunities. Our learners are mandated to complete learning interventions so that they can maintain their professional designation. However, each learner works in a unique business model and has different needs and motivation for attending learning interventions.

The core goal that I take from Dron’s (2014) article is that our organization should further explore trends in the experiences shared by study participants with the intention of identifying the most effective intervention tools, supports and resources used. Perhaps by mindfully exploring outliers in learner feedback data sets, as opposed to commonalities, we may uncover evidence that refutes our preferred design practices. From there, we can consider the best approach in designing and implementing new or renewed approaches to course development.

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.

A timeline of social collaboration tools.

I used Sutori to create this timeline that explores the social collaboration tools that I have used in the past.  Although it’s not an exhaustive list, I chose to explore tools that I had used in the past.

Check it out by following this link.

I’d appreciate it if you add any other tools that you find valuable in the comments.

Links between learning and technology throughout history.

The relationship between technology and learning goes back 2,500 years, (Bates, 2014) from the use of rudimentary tools and paints by earth’s earliest inhabitants, to the expanse of digital platforms and technology tools available today. The concept that recurred for me as I researched the history of technology in the education field was a simple one: the effective transfer of knowledge requires mutually accessible and adopted communication tools.

The introduction of the printing press in the 15th century allowed increased access to written knowledge, thereby backing-up standard oral communication practices (Bates, 2014). Advances to transportation infrastructure in the 19th century further facilitated information sharing through improved channels such as the postal system. As new technologies including radio in the 1920s and television in the 1960s emerged, so did new opportunities for education. However, just as the lack of transportation infrastructure limited the exchange of knowledge before the 19th century, many challenges restricted pervasive uptake of radio and television as education tools, including the lack of available electricity, high costs and local language and cultural issues (Bates, 2014).

World War II significantly impacted uptake in use of technology in education through the development of audiovisual devices, widely used by governmental agencies to train troops both during the war and later in the workplace (Reiser, 2001). The launch of the World Wide Web in 1991 and improvements to user experience provided by search engines such as Google in 1999, further shifted the adoption of technology, both in education and in daily life (Bates, 2014).

In reflecting on this research, the posts of fellow cohort members and my own experiences using technology for learning, I grow to appreciate that technology-based learning environments are not effective on their own. As the field continues to grow, learners must be supported to adopt technological advances in relation to their abilities, communication styles and perspectives around technological learning environments (Lowyck, 2014). Instructional designers must also continually consider and incorporate evolutions in learning theory, with the goal of supporting learners to success.

References
Bates, T. (2014). A short history of educational technology. In Online learning and distance education Resources. Retrieved from https://www.tonybates.ca/2014/12/10/a-short-history-of-educational-technology/

Lowyck, J. (2014). Bridging learning theories and technology-enhanced environments: A critical appraisal of its history. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 3-20). Springer New York. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_1

Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: a history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 53–64. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504506

What makes a good research question?

Your research question provides a path to follow when you start to conduct your research and describes the desired outcomes of your study. This question, in combination with your chosen approach, helps to narrow the focus of your topic of interest and guides the structure of how you choose and analyze data.

To start, ensure that your topic can be studied. Ask yourself if there is enough research available to draw from or if you will need to design a study to collect the needed data.  From there, you develop your question to narrow your focus. For example, if your research will use a quantitative approach, then your question will focus on the relationships between the variables in your study data.

Next, ensure that your question is clear and simple. Clear, simple questions help to focus the discussion and to provide various viewpoints to consider. A key component of effective questions is that they help to narrow your topic. Here are some resources that help you to narrow your topic so that you build effective research questions:

  1. A great video which explores the use of mind maps when breaking down your main area of focus into sub-topics.
  2. Another resource that I would recommend can be found here. It describes both narrowing your focus and developing clear, focused and simple research questions.
  3. Lastly, the RRU Writing Centre has lots of resources on writing thesis statements. One resource I found especially helpful was Research Questions and Hypothesis by John Creswell.

Primary vs. Secondary Research: which should I use?

How can you decide which type of research to include when you are working to answer a research question? Is one better than the other? Read on to review a short overview of what I think are the core differences between the two.

New or existing data?

Primary research involves gathering new information directly from a participant group, thereby working to generate new data. Secondary research involves gathering data from existing research and does not generate new data. In comparison, primary research is based on raw data, whereas secondary research uses existing information that has already been analyzed and interpreted.

Data sources:

Primary is based on raw data, whereas secondary is information that is analyzed and interpreted from original sources. Primary research can include any originally made artefact, such as diaries, photographs, questionnaires, observations or interviews, whereas secondary research focuses on the findings of other researchers. Primary research does not include review articles, as they are summaries of existing research literature or articles which analyze existing data through meta-analysis.

Which should you use?

Primary research is conducted if no existing data exists for your research question, leading you to design a study to create the data you seek. Usually researchers of primary data usually have some preexisting information about the subject, which has made them curious and causes them to explore further. The data collected in primary research is specific to the needs of the researcher, whereas in secondary, it may or may not be specific to the needs of the researcher. The amount of time and cost invested is a key factor to consider when choosing which research you will use.  Primary research tends to be very involved and so has highs cost and is time consuming.  With secondary research, the costs are lower and the time commitment is shorter, which may be appealing if the researcher aims to gather a broad understanding on a topic.

Ethical approval required?

Since human subjects may be directly impacted by the study, primary research often requires ethical approval. Conversely, secondary research does not involve interacting directly with human subjects, ethical approval is not required.

When deciding which type of research to use, perhaps you can consider completing a systematic literature review to explore existing thoughts and theories related to your subject.  Then, if your question remains unanswered, you can build out a plan to conduct primary research of your own to gather the data required.