RRU Technology-Enhanced Learning & Design Diploma Activities, Assignments, and Reflections
It was my pleasure to work with Jason Keddie, Laura Stevenson, and Krista Frate on this assignment. We used Zoom and Slack to communicate, collaborate, share links and files, and generally keep on top of our project.
Please see our final submission on Jason’s Blog.
This blog post contains my reflections on my personal leadership. It was written for the first assignment of the LRNT525 Leading Change in Digital Environments. It addresses how I would describe my approach to leadership, how digital technologies have affected how I lead, and which theories of leadership I think work best in leading change within digital learning environments.
The Rational inventor is “non-directive in their handling of others and will take charge of activities only when forced to by circumstance” (Keirsey, 1998).
As long as I can remember, I have been asked to lead; for as long as I can remember, I have done so with reluctance. I prefer to work alone on my own projects or as part of a team to reach a common goal. I will step up to leadership where there is a vacancy and a need; however, as soon as another competent leader shows up I am happy to step aside.
To illustrate, in 2003 I was a Communications Manager who was designated the Acting Communication Director while my boss was away on a four-week vacation. After three days of my coworkers questioning why I had been left in charge, I asked who wanted to be the director and handed the role to the most senior manager. When my boss returned he was surprised that I have given up my role and seat at the Executive table, but also impressed that my actions had calmed the senior manager, raised the morale in the office, and ensured that our department continued to serve the needs of the organization. I avoided an internal power-struggle that would have jeopardized our department’s reputation and credibility.
I doubt that Sheninger (2014) had that scenario in mind when he wrote, “leadership is about action, not position,” however, looking through the lens of values-based leadership, I view my actions as “translating the cacophony of competing interests into a simple harmonious vision of a good end” (O’Toole, 2008). My actions supported the overall goals of the Communication Department and let me focus on my immediate work which was to oversee the creation of content for the organizations’ internal and external websites, including content-management training for 34 employees across the province—training that required employees to use new digital technologies.
It is difficult for me to compare the array of digital technologies available to us in 2018 with the technologies that were available to me in 2003; nonetheless, the new content-management system (CMS) at that time changed the process of managing web content from a centralized model, which required a programmer to update the websites, to a distributed model in which any employee who learned how to use the CMS, and who had the appropriate security permissions, could update the websites.
In my role, I partnered with the web-programmer in the Information Technology (IT) department to research and choose the CMS, create the distributed content-management strategy, and lobby for at least one person from each department to become a content coordinator. We then conducted training sessions via webinars and followed-up with trainees by phone and email.
In 2003, these digital technologies and training methods were innovative; employees were accustomed to travelling to head-office for training or having someone from head-office travel to them. The novelty of learning online was both exciting and disconcerting because high-speed internet was unavailable to offices outside of major urban areas. But we overcame those obstacles to raise the technical literacy in the organization and to give everyone a stake in maintaining the websites.
One leadership obstacle for me was that I was a manager who was lobbying directors to assign one staff member from each department to work with me on the organization’s websites. In other words, while I would manage the website activities I had no actual power over the employees who would work with me and therefore could not use a transactional leadership style based on rewarding employees for their performance (Khan, 2017).
Looking back on this project, I can see that my actions aligned with some of Sheninger’s (2014) pillars of digital leadership. I became a “storyteller-in-chief” (p.3) to share the vision of how the CMS would empower others and gave them a stake in keeping the organization’s websites up-to-date. My IT partner and I focused on “enhancing essential skill sets—communication, collaboration, creativity…critical thinking, and problem-solving” (p.3); we embraced professional growth and development (p. 4) and built a strong community of practice for web-content coordinators, similar to Sheninger’s (2014) personal learning network.
I can also see that my actions aligned with Huggins (2017) distributed leadership: “a purposeful approach to increasing [organization] effectiveness through the involvement of other formal and informal [organization] leaders in leadership activities.” (p.3). The directors (formal) explained the distributed content-management strategy at their staff meetings where they asked for a volunteer to be the content-coordinator or designated someone to that role. Those content-coordinators (informal) then proceeded to lead the process of collecting, editing, publishing, and maintaining content from their departments.
The centralized control of producing web content shifted to the distributed model over eighteen months. During that time, the CMS remained stable, there were no dramatic changes to learning technologies, and mobile devices were limited to palm pilots and flip phones. The media-rich digital learning environments of 2018 were not only out of scope, they did not yet exist.
For now, and for the foreseeable future, building and maintaining effective digital learning environments will require teams of skilled technical experts, instructional designers, and subject matter experts. A distributed leadership model may be appropriate in larger organizations; leaders within that model and lone leaders in smaller organizations may be most effective by using an adaptive leadership approach to understand others’ values, recognizes their struggles, delegate responsibilities, and include others in the decision-making processes (Khan, 2017).
Whether leading from the top or from the middle, whether by choice or necessity, leaders will need to recognize, appreciate, and leverage the wisdom of their teams.
Keirsey, D. (1998). Please understand me II. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis.
Huggins, K. (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). Retrieved from http://journals.sfu.ca/ijepl/index.php/ijepl/article/view/670/169.
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). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3294.
Sheninger, E. (2014). Pillars of digital leadership. International Centre for Leadership in Education. Retrieved from http://www.leadered.com/pdf/LeadingintheDigitalAge_11.14.pdf.
O’Toole, James (2008). Notes toward a definition of values-based leadership. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 1(1). Retrieved from https://scholar.valpo.edu/jvbl/vol1/iss1/10/.
This is probably my last post for LRNT524 (I may add comments to blog posts in the coming weeks, even though this course will be over).
Here is the link to my Design Challenge video.
It is 11 minutes long. The last minute has examples of how to build 3D models of design principles with marshmallows and spaghetti. The original video was 13:38 minutes long; there are some really good moments on the virtual cutting room floor, but at the risk of losing points I chose to include the examples.
I hope you enjoy them. 
In this final week of LRNT524, I find myself wishing that I had written more blog posts and been more engaged online with my peers. The readings have been thought-provoking, and I have enjoyed the assignments…all, except the requirement to blog.
One of the readings that resonated with me was Differentiated Instruction and Implications for UDL Implementation by Hall, Vue, Strangman, and Meyer (2003). Although focused on the classroom, the principles of differentiated instruction apply to online environments, too.
Differentiated instructional (DI) methods” recognize students’ varying background knowledge, readiness, language, preferences in learning and interests” (p.3).
Hall, et al. (2003), identify the philosophy, principles, and practices of DI followed by the elements where instructors may differentiate their methods for different students–content, process, product, and affect/environment. One of the practices that instructional designers (IDs) and instructors keep in mind for DI is “teaching up [which means that] students should be working just above their individual comfort levels” (p. 5).
In this and our previous course, the activity that has been just beyond my comfort zone has been contributing to this blog–which has continued to surprise me given that I have been teaching online since the early 2000s; my area of expertise is interpersonal communication (verbal, nonverbal, written); and, I am extremely comfortable with technology.
It is only in the last few weeks that I have been able to figure out my reluctance to blog: my preference for learning in a closed environment (Moodle forums) has been challenged, and I lack the motivational readiness for writing blog posts which may be discovered, out-of-context, sometime in the near or distant future.
So, I have a design challenge for the MALAT program: use the design-thinking process to create graduate-level online courses that address the challenges of providing differentiated learning activities to meet the “varying background knowledge, readiness, language, preferences in learning and interests” (Hue, et al., 2003) inherent in every cohort.
Knowing what we now do about learning and instructional theories and ID models, a design challenge might be fun. The difficult part for many of us would be to resist the urge to create solutions before spending time in the muddy areas of empathic design where learners interpretations, emotions, and everyday life activities ( Mattelmäki, Vaajakallio, & Koskinen, 2014) underpin the design principles and eventual course design.
Do you think we could TAPPA, TAPPA, TAPPA an awesome course for a future cohort? Does anyone want to do this design challenge with me? Perhaps after we have graduated ;-).
Hall, T., Vue, G., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. (Links updated 2014). Retrieved from http://aem.cast.org/about/publications/2003/ncac-differentiated-instruction-udl.html
Mattelmäki, T., Vaajakallio, K., & Koskinen, I. (2014). What happened to empathic design?. Design Issues, 30(1), 67-77.
Alfonso MacGregor & Fiona Prince
For this LRNT524 assignment, we used design thinking to develop a prototype of an elearning course that will help students begin to create a sense of inclusion in their new online learning community, encourage students to engage in intellectual risk taking and become actively engaged in their online learning.
Context
Since we (Alfonso and Fiona) do not work for organizations, we created the fictitious Tremendous Travel Agency for this assignment.
Using the d.school design thinking template (Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, 2013), we interviewed each other concerning our own challenges with booking flights, cars, hotels, tours, and so on. We shared ideas about types of travellers who might need and want our services and our course.
Using Keller’s four stage ARCS model (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction) we structured a 4-6 week course to include the following stages:
Video demos with transcripts and self-test quizzes on how to navigate the online learning platform and use the course applications/tools. This stage captures the learner’s attention, generates curiosity, heightens perceptions and encourages inquiry (Thomas, 2010).
Learners build digital scrapbooks of their ideal travel experience. This activity ensures the content is relevant to the learner (Thomas, 2010). It aligns with empathic design which “focuses on everyday life experiences, and on individual desires, moods, and emotions in human activities, turning such experiences and emotions into inspiration,” (Mattlemaki, Vaajakallio, & Koskinen, 2014, p. 67).
Learners comment on each other’s scrapbooks, ask questions, and update their scrapbooks based on feedback. This intellectual risk taking through feedback prepares learners for the next step and instills confidence in the learning process.
Learners create scrapbook pages with the challenges that prevent them from achieving their ideal travel experience. This activity keeps the learning relevant and reinforces what it is the learner is trying to accomplish. “Adults desire to be competent in matters that are valuable to them and necessary for their personal or professional growth and development,” (Thomas, 2010, p. 211).
Learners review their peers’ scrapbooks, then suggest options to each other for facing challenges and overcoming obstacles. This peer coaching keeps the learners’ attention and boosts their confidence as they discover relevant solutions to their travel fears.
Planning to TravelWith guidance from the instructors, learners plan their ideal travel, including how they will book their travel and accommodations, what they will pack, who will look after their home while they are gone, and other travel essentials. This final activity “provides meaningful opportunities for learners to use their newly acquired knowledge/skill,” (Thomas, 2010, p. 213) which leads to satisfaction.
By the end of the course, each learner will have developed a scrapbook of their ideal travel, the challenges they face, and solutions to those challenges.
We (Alfonso and Fiona) will reveal pages of our own scrapbooks throughout the course to create connections with the learners and demonstrate empathy (Mattlemaki, Vaajakallio, & Koskinen, 2014) for the process they will go through to become confident travellers.
We would love to read your comments, questions and suggestions! Travel with us and be our critical friends. 🙂
Hasso Plattner Institute of Design. (2013). An introduction to Design Thinking. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4302-6182-7_1
Mattelmaki, T., Vaajakallio, K., & Koskinen, I. (2014). What Happened to Empathic Design? DesignIssues, 30(1), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI
Thomas, P. Y. (2010). Learning and instructional systems design. In Towards developing a web-based blended learning environment at the University of Botswana. (Doctoral dissertation).
Travel Agency image attribution: Source: https://blog.itravelsoftware.com/2012/10/travel-agency-system-5-things-it-must-have/
Scrapbook image attribution: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7e/66/20/7e6620b70509f667f3c3ae09e7454cd8.jpg