Author: Amanda

Reflecting on the entire LRNT 525: Leading Change in Digital Learning course and the first post that I wrote about being a good versus an admired leader (Dunn, 2019), I was given a few prompts to consider.

1. Think back to your initial post on leadership – has your perspective changed?

My perspective regarding how leadership should be approached within my own context has remained the same. As mentioned in my previous post, utilizing a combination of reflective and distributive leadership would be the best option for my own context (Castelli, 2016).  

1. In your current role, how can you help lead a change within your organization?
   
   One of the main things that I can do to help lead change, is work towards getting myself and other more comfortable with the idea of change. As discussed by (Weiner, 2009), an organization’s readiness for change has a huge impact on if change will be successful. Understanding that we are in a time where change should be expected, we can now start to condition ourselves.
2. What can you envision doing in the future?

For me, I can envision taking leaderships role with more formality. Understanding that the success of changes within organizations are impacted so heavily on the state before the change even begins (Watt, 2014; Weiner, 2009; Weller, & Anderson, 2009). In reflection, I believe I am someone who use to jump right into projects, and did not fully assess the current situation. Throughout this course, it was clear that spending more time laying the groundwork  is beneficial to leading successful change. This can be done by assessing and improving organizational readiness, working on the resilience to change, as well as making sure to have a good understanding of the important areas project management. Lastly, due to my school already utilizing an LMS that gathers data information, it would be interesting to better utilize learning analytics a the potential there seems great (Sclater, Peasgood, & Mullan, 2016).

It is interesting considering leadership traits, as someone who has no formal training in leadership, but often put in those roles, there are some things that I have inherently done, and others I am noticing that I should put more energy into. In your own leadership journey, are there skills/traits that you have always done just because, and then later realized they were part of being a formal leader? If so, what were they?

References

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

Dunn, A. (2019). What makes a good leader versus an admired leader? [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://malat-webspace.royalroads.ca/rru0052/what-makes-a-good-leader-versus-an-admired-leader/.

Sclater, N., Peasgood, A, & Mullan, J. (2016). Learning analytics in higher education: A review of UK and international practice. Jisc.

Watt, A. (2014). Project Management. Victoria, BC: BCcampus.

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

Weller, M., & Anderson, T., (2013). Digital Resilience in Higher Education. European Journal of Open Distance and E-Learning, 16(1), 53-66.

Two separate interviews were conducted with colleagues regarding their recent experience with change. Although both interviewees were from the same organization, they chose to focus on different changes. One (Case A) chose to focus on the implementation of new curriculum, which was changed drastically. The second (Case B) chose to discuss a procedural change that happened at their school. Although they were different in their context and level of organizational readiness for change, both cases resembled Biech’s (2007) CHANGE model and how it can be used to implement change, and both utilized change management Theory O.

One of the main differences between the two cases discussed, was the amount of organizational readiness for change found within the workplace. Weiner (2009) discusses organizational readiness for change and how it is developed. Weiner (2009) explains how change efficacy, “task demands, resources availability, and situational factors” (para. 15), and change valence, the value members place in the change, impact the implementation of change. In Case A, it appeared that there was a lack of organizational readiness, which resulted in issues with implementation, some of which are still being experienced. This was discussed as being due to a lack of time to implement the change, as well as, a lack of understanding of the tasks needed and what impact they would have. In comparison, Case B seemed to have much higher level of organizational readiness. The motivation for the change was discussed well in advance allowing staff to get behind the change, and sufficient resources were given to support the change. This gave staff higher change efficacy, which allowed for a smooth implementation (Weiner, 2009).

Both interviewees discussed how they were motivated and felt proud to be a part of the change that happened. This was a result of using the change management Theory O: “long-term approach that aims to create higher performance by fostering a powerful culture and capable workforce” (Biech, 2007, Theories section, para. 5). In Case A, the teacher was clear that they believed the new curriculum would be a benefit to the students. They were given multiple opportunities to make suggestions and work with leadership to make further changes. In Case B, the procedural change was started by employees and brought to the employer. By utilizing the softer approach with more employee participation, employees were proud of their participation, and their place in the organization (Biech, 2007).

The CHANGE model, or a variation of it, was used in both cases as the step by step structure of the change. Case B was more in-line with the CHANGE model, and used a combination of attitudinal, informational, and facilitation strategies in their approach (Biech, 2007). Case A lacked an attitudinal strategy at the school level, which resulted in some push back and issues raised by members. The CHANGE model is broken up into 6 steps starting at C (see Figure 1). In Case A, the first 3 steps  were not taken at the school, but instead at a ministry level. This left the leader of the implementation at the school starting at step 4. Although the previous 3 steps had been taken, they did not include leaders at the school levels. Biech (2007) discussed how this is a common step organization start on, but can often lead to challenges, which was seen in this example. In contrast, Case B successfully followed the CHANGE model. It started at the school level with one member challenging the current way of handling paperwork (step 1). Significant time was taken to get both members and leadership on board (steps 2 and 3). Support process were created before implementation to ease the transition (step 4) and the change was successfully implemented (step 5). The reasons given for the change were enough that when the change was finally implemented, the organization was ready, motivated, and properly supported. Both cases are still relatively new, and thus still experiencing modification to their designs. However, both of them are accepted as the new reality within the organization and any further change would be seen as moving forward (step 6).

Even though both cases experienced different changes, their approach to change was similar. DL environments are often tasked with fitting in to a world designed for traditional face to face schools. As education changes, it is important that DL environments are ready for these changes, and are able to successfully implement them. By following the CHANGE model, or adapting it for their specific needs, they will be able to stay current and adapt to the new world, and be prepared to handle the next organizational change that may come their way.

References:

Biech, E. (2007). Models for Change. In Thriving Through Change: A Leader’s Practical Guide to Change Mastery. Alexandria, VA: ASTD [Books24x7 database]

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

As LRNT 525- Leading change in Digital Learning moves on from the traits of leadership towards leading change, I am left thinking about how change is handled within my own context.

Weiner (2009) discusses organizational readiness and uses motivation theory and social cognitive theory to demonstrate how organizations can be prepared for change. The readiness to change is dependent on the demanding nature of the task, the availability of resources, and specific situational factors (Weiner, 2009). Having previously read about these theories in LRNT 522, I was very much intrigued on how motivation theory, which is individualized and based on intrinsic motivation, can be applied to the entire organization (Keller & Suzuki, 2004). My original thought was echoed by Weiner (2009) discussing how commitment to change is more successful when individuals want to, and not because they are feeling told to or have to as a job requirement.  This is an interesting concept for me to consider, because unless you have full autonomy in your give job, there will be some aspect of change because you are told to.

As someone who works for in public education in BC, we are at the end of a major change to our curriculum. So when Weiner (2009) discusses the “internal political environment” (para. 16) and how that can have an impact on implementation, I think of some of the polarizing discussions that have come out of the new curriculum change. It is safe to say that within the entire province, not every teacher agreed with the curriculum change. Furthermore, much like discussed by Weiner (2009), the time given to implement these changes was not adequate and resulted in more dissent and delays to final implementations (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2017).

This lead me to consider the following prompt: What role does leadership play in managing change?  

If leaders are to manage change, and therefore motivate followers to change, can we use similar motivation theories that are applied to learning?

When previously discussing motivation, teachers motivating learners were discussed, not leaders motivating followers. For example, the ARCS model (attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction) can be used to develop motivation for e learning ( Keller & Suzuki, 2004).  By using this model, the leader should focus on specific aspect, such as overall job satisfaction, in the hope to increase motivation. 

Considering what we know about motivation and how teachers motivate students to learn, can leaders use the same model to implement change in the workplace? Could you see yourself using this model to manage change?

Amanda

References

British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2017). New curriculum transition extended for graduation years. Retrieved from https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2017EDUC0103-001803.

Keller, J., Suzuki (2004). Learner motivation and E-learning design: a multinationally validated process. Journal of Educational Media, 29(3), 229-239.  

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

Education and technology have both changed drastically over time. Small isolated classrooms and chalkboards are now replaced with online classrooms and smart boards. For these changes to have happened, pioneers of education technology (edtech) have had to lead the change. One of these periods of change is now known as the visual instruction movement (VIM) and took place in the United States (US) during 1918-1928 (Johnson, 2008). Anna Verona Dorris was an irreplaceable leader to the VIM and believed that “interest is the key to knowledge” (Dorris, 1930, p. 201). Not only did Dorris write the first comprehensive instructional manual on teaching with visual aids, but she did so in a time where females were significantly underrepresented in leadership roles and edtech (Doyle, 2016; Johnson, 2008). Dorris’ approach to education was cutting edge for the time, and helped mold the VIM landscape; furthermore, by putting the students’ interest first her ideas are still relevant to education today.

The VIM’s intent was to utilize visual aids to broaden and deepen education (Johnson, 2008). Societal changes such as increased access to technology, compulsory education laws, and schools becoming responsible for social progression lead to an evaluation of current public education (Dorris, 1928). It was the intent of forward thinking educators, like Dorris, to use visual aids to meet these new challenges. The visual experiences and aids used in classrooms could be broken up into four different categories: actual reality, artificial models and exhibits, pictorial realism, and pictorial symbolism (Dorris, 1928). The specific technology at the time included photographs, prints, exhibits, graphic art, globes, maps stereographs, stereopticon slides, and excursions (field trips).  Pictures of animals, history, or different parts of the world could be used to enhance learning since the students would not have the opportunity to see these otherwise (Dorris, 1928; Dorris 1930). The impact of using these aids would hopefully broaden the students’ views and opening them up to a larger world. The inclusion of visual aids allowed for students to better understand their learning material, have a more immersive experience, and better prepare them for the technology in their new world.

Dorris was instrumental to the VIM and contributed to it in many ways. At the beginning of the VIM, she chaired a committee that set out to rationalize visual instruction (VI) in education and concluded that there were many areas of modern life that VI was already crucial to, such as the promotion of national unity (Johnson, 2008). These findings helped to exemplify why VI was such an important addition to education. Dorris created a survey to determine how many universities, colleges, and normal schools were teaching VI techniques to new teachers, a task that had not yet been done (Johnson, 2008). This showed that this educational movement was not isolated to just the California area. Furthermore, as director of VI for Berkley public schools, Dorris was also responsible for setting up the distribution centre (Johnson, 2008). Near the end of the VIM, Dorris authored a book that was the first of its kind and filled a much needed gap on VI (McClusky, 1929). The examples that Dorris used showed that she had “intimate knowledge of working conditions in the schools” (McClusky, 1929, p. 468). This book helped to not only explain the purpose of visual aids, but gave concrete examples of how to implement visual aids in classrooms. Dorris’ roles and contributions allowed for her to bridge the gap from the theory used in the committee/university, to what was actually happening in the classrooms, and share her knowledge with others.

Not only was Doris a pioneer for the VIM, she was a pioneer for women in edtech and leadership.  In 1927, Dorris became the first female president of the National Education Association’s Department of Visual Instruction (now known as the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT)), only four years after it was founded (Doyle, 2016; Johnson, 2008). To date, the AECT has had 88 presidents, with only 17 of them being women and 11 of which has come after 1982 (Doyle, 2016). At the time when she was president, women were widely underrepresented in leadership roles. Dorris was president four years before the first female was elected to the senate, and six years before one was appointed to the cabinet (Doyle, 2016). She chaired a committee in a field that was dominated by men and was often more educated than her male colleagues in similar roles (Johnson, 2008).  By having numerous leadership roles and accomplishments, it demonstrates not only that Dorris was a strong leader, but she was well received and respected within her field and is remarkable role model for women in edtech.

Dorris’ educational beliefs were revolutionary at the time, and still hold relevance today. With the end of the world war I, the 19th amendment, new technology, and other societal changes, the youth were different:

 A new civilization has dawned; new problems confront us; a new type of youth with different standards, with different ideals, and with different ambitions greets us here, there, and everywhere. (Dorris, 1930, p. 201)

Dorris believed that education needed to change to keep up with its current civilization (Dorris, 1928; Dorris, 1930; Johnson, 2008; McClusky, 1929). This equally rings true today, and Dorris’ quote above could easily be applied to the youth of the twenty first century. With the advancement of technology in the past years, and the presence of it in the classroom only growing, it is important that we hold on to Dorris principle that technology is not to replace instruction but to support and elevate it. Even as late as 1928, Dorris had to defend her reasons for using technology in classrooms as some teachers could not differentiate between education and entertainment (Johnson, 2008). However, Dorris believed it was the job of the teacher to discriminate between which material was entertainment and which was for learning, and was adamant that teachers need to be properly trained (Dorris, 1928). The discussion around relevance, impact, and training is still discussed today as new technology is being introduced to school. Students interest was a key factor to Dorris, and she believed that the use of VI could help spike interest in pupils (Johnson, 2008).  By allowing students to use visual aids and explore areas they were interested in in more detail, they were able to have a more personalized experience. Educators in the 1920’s were facing the problem of teaching for world peace and international consciousness, and Dorris stressed that books alone would not be able to accomplish that (Dorris, 1930). That topic is still relevant in today’s education, and using technology to assist in the learning process allows for the world to become a smaller place. We still need to use technology to enhance our students’ learning and to introduce them to a possibly unfamiliar world, much like Dorris instructed.

Dorris was an amazing educator and truly had the intentions of students at heart. Her contributions to education were numerous, and many of her beliefs are applicable today. As technology continues to evolve and we wait to see what is next, it is important to remember that technology needs to be correctly implemented. For this to happen teachers need to be correctly trained, the technology needs to supplement the instruction, and the technology needs to be relevant to world outside of school. Dorris’ legacy is one that should not only be studied, but be learned and applied to today’s classrooms.

References

Dorris, A. (1928). Visual instruction in the public schools. Boston: Ginn.

Dorris, A. (1930). Educating the Twentieth-Century Youth. Junior-Senior High School Clearing House, 5(4), 200-204.

Doyle, R. G. (2016). Paralleling women as presidents of aect with changes in u.s. laws and social norms. In J. A. Donaldson (Ed.), Women’s voices in the field of educational technology (pp. 155-164). Switzerland:Springer International Publishing.

Johnson, W. G. (2008). Making Learning Easy and Enjoyable: Anna Verona Dorris and the Visual Instruction Movement 1918-1928. TechTrends, 52(4), 51-58.

McClusky, F. D. (1929). Review (untitled) of visual instruction in the public schools. The Elementary School Journal, 29(6), 467-468.

Technology-e-learning-school break lunch (c) Rawpixel.com, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

As a group, we (Anita Fahrenbruch, Amanda Dunn, Jeff Clemens, Joyce Wimmer, and Alastair Linds) reviewed four current articles focused on the technology benefits in the classroom and opportunities they use to leverage those in education. Each article chosen offered new perspectives to dispute the concepts proposed by Clark (1994) that media has no impact on learning and that the medium of which learning is delivered cannot influence learning. We note that Clark wrote his article in 1994 and the articles we chose are from 2015-2018, offering new insights into technology use which may not have been present during Clark’s article.The articles we chose are the following: (1) ‘Gamification for Learning’, by Tu, Suji-Montes, and Yen (a chapter from Media rich instruction: Connecting curriculum to all learners, 2015), (2) ‘3 Ways Video Games Can Help Students Thrive’ by Cortez published by EdTech Magazine, (3) ‘Cutting Edge Education’ published by Forbes Technology Council, and (4) ‘A Principal Shares Tech Benefits for the 1:1 Skeptic. Technology Solutions That Drive Education’ by Renwick. We will provide a brief summary of each article and use their concepts to offer a different view to Clark’s statements.

‘Gamification for learning’ by Tu, Sujo-Montes, & Yen (2015) strives to answer three questions; what is gamification and how does it support learning and education, how do game dynamics and game personalities relate to gamification design, and how is effective gamification created to support learning (p. 203)? The authors discuss the merits of gamification and two categories of game attributes: game mechanics and game dynamics. Game mechanics is described as “principles, rules, and/or mechanisms that direct a desired behavior through a system of incentives, feedbacks, and rewards with reasonably predictable outcomes” (p. 204). Whereas game dynamics are described as the “when and how these incentive [motivators] should be presented” (p. 204).  Gaming dynamics, which is part of game theory, impact the engagement, behavior, emotion, socialization, and exploration of a learner. The authors discuss two frameworks of which gamification can be applied; Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Fogg Behaviour Model (FBM). SDT are based on “human motivation and personality” (p. 208) where the motivations of the learner come from within and are not motivated by external factors such as reward, badges, or other game mechanics. FBM is a model that bids to understand a balancing relationship between what learners perceive is boring and what is motivating and comparing that to what is difficult to what is simple. This balance is called the activation threshold where the motivation is enough to take on more difficult learning but the difficulty is enough to not become boring or frustrating. Whether or not this threshold is achieved may be influenced by gaming personality (Socializer, Achiever, Explorer, and Killer). These four gaming personalities are compared to four spectrums of gaming motivators: Player, Acting, World/Content, and Interaction. Of course learners are not affixed to these gaming personalities and most are multidimensional. By combining these concepts, Tu et.al develop a model for constructing gamification which supports educators in the design of gamification to be added to their instruction. This is based on four main dimensions; goal setting, player engagement, progressive design and environment building. Taking into consideration how the gaming personalities influences motivations within gaming theory, educators can determine which game dynamics they can use with gaming mechanics to add gamification to their existing lessons.

The article written by Cortez (2016) summarizes the outcomes of game-based learning implemented at a Quest to Learn (Q2L) grade 6 to grade 12 school in New York City as well as uses both quantitative and qualitative data from research to demonstrate her observations. The author found that social skills such as communication, cooperation and collaboration, literacy, personalized learning and motivation flourished in this type of learning environment.

The blog post by Forbes Technology Council (FTC) (2018) offers member opinions on how technology can be best utilized in education. The results are shared in a comprehensive list detailing technology use to personalize a student’s learning and the use of  Hutchin’s theory of distributed cognition (dCoG), which offers a framework to understand media, how this media interacts with individuals and the environment in which an activity takes place (Liu, Nersessian & Stasko, n.d.); dCoG is used in the design of digital learning environments. The blog post continues with suggested reasons for augmenting traditional teaching with technology, addressing how technology use can lower costs in education and affect the student experience through instant feedback, increased accessibility to and participation in online classrooms. Furthermore, the interviewed members suggested opportunities afforded by technology, such as the lowering of workload for teachers through automated test scoring, increased data protection and the opportunity for industry to participate through internship programs offering students real world and research based learning experiences.

Renwick’s (2015) article discusses the primary goal of a school, “to ensure that students benefit from the connections they develop” (para. 13) and outlines the positive role that technology has in enhancing students’ learning. With the presence of technology seemingly everywhere, it is only natural that questions arise regarding school’s protocols. Renwick begins by discussing some of the negatives implications that studies have shown when people’s communication are done primarily with phones: reduced empathy, self-reflection, and open mindedness. He then uses three examples, the ability to help with Learning disabilities, assisting English language learners, and giving students to ability to learn by distance education, to dispute these implications and show the benefit technology has on learning. Renwick offers examples of how different medias can impact and benefit learning, as opposed to the arguments presented by Clark.

In the article, “Media Will Never Influence Learning”, Clark (1994) outlines a set of rules or reasons why media must be separated from instructional design which determines his stance that media has no impact on learning. These rules are as follows: the selected learning method must be cost effective but also have the most learning efficiency; if the learning attribute in one form of media is found in another, then the attribute must be a proxy for another design outside of said media; if two media achieve the same result then an unknown variable exists which hasn’t been measured, that can disprove media impact; motivation must come from internal beliefs in regards to external events; and quantitative data must exist for the media to be proven to have an impact. Clark made “the explicit and clear claim that there were no learning benefits” (p. 22) to be had through the use of media in education.

Each article offers a unique opportunity to view Clark’s arguments. As the members of FTC voiced, technology is able to adjust to a student’s individual needs using their best “modality” for learning and adjusting the learning experience as the student is engaging with the technology (Forbes Technology Council, 2018, para. 2). This point was also reiterated by Renwick and Cortez with using technology to assist students with different learning styles and abilities. There are many ways that games have allowed for new creative lessons; for example, a game where the students become scientists travelling through the human body. Without the inclusion of media this would be impossible to recreate in a reasonable manner (Cortez, 2016). Another concept which was introduced in one of the articles, is that of gaming personality. Gaming personality is a change in socialization behavior and emotion that is brought upon strictly by gaming. Within the interactive environment personalities change and cannot be replicated by other forms of media (Tu et.al 2015, p. 209). As instructional designers we can use this information to create effective learning using gamification. This satisfies Clark’s position confirming that an attribute is not found in another source of media, nor are the results shared by another as the results are determined by the gaming personality which are only found in the gaming context. Furthermore, the ability for technology to enhance the learning of students, such as predictive speech and read and write, gives the student independence to learn on their own and at their own pace. Clark argues that “only the use of adequate instructional methods will influence learning” (p. 27) but the use of technology has now allowed students to be able to not only complete learning outcomes, but to do so in a more personalized manner.  

Although not directly stated, games today are relatively inexpensive and many provide online educational gaming for free online such as the Khan Academy (https://www.khanacademy.org/). Considering the ubiquity of computers we can assume that such learning methods as these are indeed cost effective, even though Clark argues that the investment in media outweighs its gains in learning (p. 27). The FTC’s and Renwick’s articles point to the societal gains that have been afforded through accessibility to education, enhancing learning outcomes globally (Forbes Technology Council , para. 9; Renwick, para 11). Furthermore, technology has allowed the education industry to be more cost efficient and, by passing on savings to the learner as scholarships, media use has contributed to accessibility financially as well as socially (Forbes Technology Council , para. 6).

Cortez adds, students who need to work together more, increase their ability to communicate and collaborate, allowing them the ability to improve social skills above and beyond their peers. This insight has been noticed and discovered outside of the realm of education in students who also participate in casual gaming and disputes one of the main concerns expressed by Renwick.

Clark states that quantitative data must exist for media to be proven to have an impact. Tu et.al (2015) use primary research to help form define different aspects of gamification in order to create a model to support educators in how to best implement gamification into their educational practices. Additionally, Cortez collected quantitative evidence showing that more Q2L students scored at proficient levels, demonstrating that increased learning had taken place. We may argue that quantitative data does exist.

When talking about motivation Tu et.al refer to Self Determination Theory (SDT) and Fogg Behaviour Model (FBM) in order to determine where motivation comes from and how to best utilize and foster motivation in a gaming environment. Gamification is described as being at the center of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation determined by SDT and of motivation, ability and trigger as stated in FBM. SDT and FBM determine that motivators come from within the learner and use in game environmental events as a catalyst. This now fulfills Clark’s rules on motivation that must come from internal beliefs in regards to external events.

We believe media and instructional design can be one of the same and comparing some of the views from different sources has provided a useful counter argument to Clark’s claim that media use does not afford learning, as all of our authors have provided a comprehensive list of several reasons to think otherwise. We want to reiterate Renwick, who agrees that it is important to use media wisely in the classroom, but once used wisely, it is clear it is beneficial to learning environments.

 

References:

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.

Cortez, M. (2016). 3 Ways Video Games Can Help Students Thrive. EdTech        Magazine. Retrieved from https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2016/09/3-ways-video-games-can-help-students-thrive

Forbes Technology Council (2018, March 28). Cutting-Edge Education: 13 Ways To Leverage Technology For Learning [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/03/28/cutting-edge-education-13-ways-to-leverage-technology-for-learning/#7c3e495c3919

Liu, Z., Nersessian, N., J. & Stasko, J.,T. (n.d.) Distributed Cognition as a Theoretical Framework for Information Visualization. Retrieved from https://www.cc.gatech.edu/~stasko/papers/infovis08-dcog.pd

Renwick. (2015). A Principal Shares Tech Benefits for the 1:1 Skeptic. EdTech Magazine. Retrieved from https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2015/12/principal-shares-tech-benefits-11-skeptic

Tu, CH., Sujo-Montes, L.E. & Yen, CJ. (2015). Gamification for Learning. In: Papa R. (eds) Media Rich Instruction. Springer, Cham