Below are my annotations for Innovation and change: Changing how we change by Dron (2014).
Major Theory
- The terms soft and hard technologies is confusing as compared to software and hardware; I don’t understand why academics insist on creating and using obscure terminology
- “What makes a technology softer or harder is the degree to which humans are colmpelled to, may, or should make creative choices” (p.242). Personal example: my boyfriend and I wanted to create a photobook. I preferred the more restrictive “hard” technology because it enforced graphic design principles, while my boyfriend lamented its restrictions for not enabling his creativity
Open Questions
- “It becomes increasingly difficult to find the most effective and relevant OERs” (p. 248) – Perhaps the educational sector needs a company like Google to help rank and prioritize content. Does Research Gate or do academic journals already fulfil this function?
- “The use of adaptive hypermedia (AH) in which a single set of resources can be adapted to many different user needs” (p. 249) – repurpose contenting is done all the time in marketing by adapting content for different media platforms; the argument that AH is difficult to produce can be flipped to argue repurposing the same content multiple ways is faster than creating new content for each purpose.
- “It is difficult to improve flexibility without also increasing difficulties or at least complexity for learners” (p. 249). The question for designers should be, what will be most effective for learners? An inflexible authoring tool for designers may create the simplest, easier solution for learners. There are always trade offs
- “Their [AH] cost effectiveness remains open to question” (p. 249) – Perhaps designers need to consider how user generated content can be used to reduce costs.
Implications for Practice
- “If it is assumed that change is a good (or at least a necessary) thing, then it is important that an organization designs the processes and procedures to support it (p. 251); this is a big assumption that not everyone may agree with. While change may be inevitable, not everyone will agree that it is good or necessary. Many organizations are resistant to change and would prefer to stick with the status go.
- “even the most well-meaning centralized IT departments are bound by the need to cater for everyone to produce something that is, inevitably, a compromise for some, if not all, who wish to use it” (p. 256). A great example of this is the limitations imposed by RRU on the use of WordPress plugins and other functionality. Additional functionality would benefit learners but could create complications for the IT department.
- “There are no simple answers to this problem apart from careful adherence to standards (as they emerge) for interfaces, coding, and design” (p. 257-258). I would suggest taking a page from the publishing world. Publishers have been relying on editorial style guides for decades, if not longer, to help ensure consistency and enforce standards.
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.
Hi Amber –
I have some comments for your open questions:
“The use of adaptive hypermedia (AH) in which a single set of resources can be adapted to many different user needs” (p. 249) – repurpose contenting is done all the time in marketing by adapting content for different media platforms; the argument that AH is difficult to produce can be flipped to argue repurposing the same content multiple ways is faster than creating new content for each purpose.”
I agree with you completely. I have worked in environments where the same content is repurposed for various outputs, and there’s never been an overt concern over the cost of repurposing vs. the cost of starting from scratch. I don’t think that’s a valid argument, but nor does it require the use of XML proficiency to reuse/repurpose learning objects.
“It is difficult to improve flexibility without also increasing difficulties or at least complexity for learners” (p. 249). The question for designers should be, what will be most effective for learners? An inflexible authoring tool for designers may create the simplest, easier solution for learners. There are always trade offs
On this point, I have to disagree with you. The goal is always the easiest, most effective solution for learners. That doesn’t equate with an inflexible authoring tool in a meaningful way, and I think forcing designers to use a tool that doesn’t support the expected user outcomes doesn’t do anyone a service. Not only is it more difficult to design effective user materials, it may also contribute significantly to the cost if designers have to program/utilize workarounds or work with clunky software. But that’s just the opinion of one designer 😉
“Their [AH] cost effectiveness remains open to question” (p. 249) – Perhaps designers need to consider how user generated content can be used to reduce costs.
I’m sitting firmly on the fence on this idea, and I think the answer is ‘it depends’. If, for example, you want to have samples of a particular type of work, then scouring user content for appropriate examples would be of value. On the other hand, if you’re looking for more in-depth content, the time spent in searching, evaluating, and repurposing user generated content isn’t likely to be financially practical.