In this activity for LRNT524 in the Master of Arts in Learning and Technology program at Royal Roads University, we were directed to read Dron (2014) and Goldman et al. (2012) and post our thoughts, concerns, and questions.
In running an educational institution with hundreds of courses, running the courses efficiently is, in my opinion, absolutely critical. Dron (2014) makes the following point:
The more we embed processes and techniques in our tools, be they pedagogies or machine tools, the fewer choices are left to humans. The price we pay for the efficiencies and capabilities offered by hardening our technologies is therefore the loss of capacity to make changes, but the price we pay for softening our technologies is in effort, speed, and potential for error. A central theme in the evolution of distance learning is thus a tension between creativity and efficiency. It is usually easier to adopt a soft technology in the short term, but more difficult to sustain it in the longer term. (p. 242)
In the real world where there are finite resources, each course usually cannot have its own custom learning technology solutions. It is not scalable. There is a limited amount of resources that can be put towards supporting courses, and these resources may be utilized elsewhere with greater benefit. There needs to be a careful allotment of resources. Do you ever see huge amounts of resources used on a single course or module and thought they could have been used more effectively had resource allocation been more carefully considered?
According to Dron (2014) “disruptive technologies are innovations that at first may result in worse product performance than what came previously” (p. 245). I think this is important to keep in mind. Existing technologies may have had decades of refinement. It helps to have a broad understanding of technology to be able to examine a new technology and predict how it might be improved in the upcoming years. It may make sense to pick a technology that is slightly inferior today because it is believed that it will be better than the alternatives in the near future. In my experience, institutions select technologies and stick with them for a while. Ideally selected technologies will be the best over the duration that the institution is using the technology and not necessarily what is currently the best. Do you have any experience with selecting learning technologies and having them either turn out to be good or poor choices in the long run?
In reference to LMSs, Dron (2014) states that “unfortunately, they have proven to be hard technologies, brittle and inflexible, creating a strong set of path dependencies and proprietary lock-in, even when implemented through open source tools” (p. 255) and references Lane (2009). I read over Lane and do not believe that this statement is accurately paraphrasing Lane. Lane (2009) argues that instructors teaching online tend to be web-novices and will usually use the defaults in LMSs, and that these defaults strongly guide the pedagogical approaches employed by these instructors. Lane concludes that “with web novices, pedagogy must be emphasized before features and tools. Starting with the CMS [LMS] features creates a backward process” (p. 4). This is something that people in my department are keenly aware of and is believed to be true for all learning technologies. How much of a problem do you think this is? Do you commonly see instructors using learning technology tools without starting with or considering the pedagogical underpinnings?
Dron (2014) also states that there is significant complexity in making changes to an LMS when the sought after functionality is not built in to the LMS, and that Moodle is flexible through plugin modules, that programmers can develop. This ignores the fact that Moodle is a web platform that can link or embed resources or activities on the web, which is the World Wide Web’s raison d’etre (Berners-Lee et al., 1994). Instructors using Moodle, at my institution at least, have the freedom to link to or embed the numerous web-based activities and resources available to add extra functionality to their courses. If an institution does not allow this then it is an issue with the institution’s policy and not the LMS, since this is a default feature of Moodle. Do you agree that linking or embedding external activities and resources opens up a huge amount of flexibility to an LMS such as Moodle? Is the idea of an LMS being a walled garden a myth?
Goldman et al. (2012) states that post-secondary students need more development in critical thinking and problem solving and that Goldman et al. believe that design thinking has the potential to improve critical thinking and problem solving. I strongly agree that critical thinking and problem-solving skills in post-secondary students need improvement and would expect that design thinking would help. What do you think?
References
Berners-Lee, T., Dimitroyannis, D., Mallinckrodt, A. J., & McKay, S. (1994). World Wide Web. Computers in Physics, 8(3), 298-299.
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.
Lane, L. M. (2009). Insidious pedagogy: How course management systems affect teaching. First Monday, 14(10).
Hi Jason!!
Great post, I like the questions you pose! I think we’re all in such different situations it is hard to compare. I wouldn’t say I’m an educator; I run technical support for an LMS and schedule courses. I apply the LMS, but I have no input as to the LMS. It’s inflexible, definitely. The roles, the functions, WHY CAN’T WE OPEN LINKS IN A NEW TAB!! AHHHH!! We will continue using it until someone who isn’t involved in the weeds decides we should change and changes us without discussion. A component of my work is simply making solutions for the things we can’t do on the LMS.
I think one of the big differences is that we can’t use open-source anything. I imagine there is much more flexibility where technology isn’t as limited, and, honestly, ego isn’t so important.
Hi Krista,
Open source is only more flexible if the institution is willing to pay people to develop and support it, which can be very costly. It sounds like in your situation that you don’t have the permissions to change much in the LMS and don’t have the support to be able to request changes to the LMS? Maybe there just isn’t a precedent for requesting changes but you could try?
Thanks for your comment!
Hello Jason,
Thanks so much for asking the question regarding instructors using learning technologies without considering the pedagogical underpinnings! I work for a community college, in a funded program, that relies heavily on part-time faculty, who work full-time in a particular field, to deliver college courses to in-risk high school students both on and off-campus. A unique beast to say the least! The benefits of relying on faculty who are employed outside of education is the real-life perspective they provide. Many of them completed a college diploma and are able to speak first-hand to their experiences and pathways, which is critical to transition these students to post-secondary. The disadvantage is that many have not had any formal training in teaching and learning. Until recently, I would argue this has been the case at many community colleges across Canada. In short, I think that the problem of implementing technology without considering pedagogy may be considerable at many colleges, depending on their hiring processes and the training and support they offer to their new faculty.
In a reading I did for a previous course, the authors provided an excellent example of this challenge which I would like to share with you:
When you go to the hardware store to buy a drill, you don’t actually want a drill, you want a hole, they don’t sell holes at the hardware store, but they do sell drills, which are the technology used to make the holes. We must not lose sight that technology for the most part is a tool and it should be used in application which address educational concerns. (Okojie, Olinzock & Okojie-Boulder, 2016, p. 68).
Okojie, M., Olinzock, A. & Okojie-Boulder, T. (2016). The pedagogy of technology integration. The Journal of Technology, 32(2), p. 66-71. doi:10.21061/jots.v32i2.a.1
Hi Sue,
Love the quote. Great analogy.
We also hire many instructors who are experts in their fields but don’t necessarily have much or any teaching experience. We have instructional designers who work with subject matter experts to develop courses and course activities with (hopefully) pedagogical underpinnings.
What a brilliant analogy! I have never thought of the issues involved with implementing technology from the perspective of drilling holes before, but it is so succint, so illustrative, and so memorable. Thanks.
Hi Jason,
I am curious are these SME’s mandated to work with the instructional designers? We have a Jumpstart program that runs at the beginning of each semester for new faculty. It is a two day training (Saturday and Sunday) and faculty receive remuneration for attending but it is not mandatory. The training covers pedagogy, technology, our LMS system etc. We also have a Centre for Academic and Faculty Enrichment (C.A.F.E.) that can assist faculty in the afore mentioned areas. Again, faculty are not required to meet with any of the C.A.F.E. staff. We encourage our faculty to attend Jumpstart and provide information on the C.A.F.E. services, however there has been little buy-in. I think this is a problem at many colleges across Canada.
Hi Sue,
In our process it is assumed that the instructional designer will be involved in course development and act as what I might call a mini-project manager to try to keep the development of the course on track. Most institutions don’t have enough instructional designers to do this. SMEs can opt-out of having this support if they’d like, so it’s not mandatory. It sounds like your process is opt-in, which will make a huge difference. We offer a number of workshops for staff. Whether workshops are mandatory is up to the schools, and some schools do make certain workshops mandatory.
Hi Jason,
We also offer workshops, but again they are not mandatory. In most cases faculty are responsible for designing the course outline, which is vague at best. At no time unless it is requested does an instructional designer become involved. Even though the Jumpstart workshops are paid they are not well attended. My feeling is that they should be mandatory for all new staff. Curious if anyone has experience with mandatory training and what their experience has been.