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)
Hi Amanda,
Really good linkage between motivation and change – when you think about it, likely most changes we are either leading or encountering will require learning something new, so using a model like ARCS may be helpful. In your example of the new curriculum implementation what do you think might have been helpful early on to get more teachers motivated? I have heard that there was not enough time or resources dedicated to professional development or time given for people to rethink and plan for the new the curriculum – were there other factors that might have helped as well?
Hi Michelle,
Thanks for commenting on my blog. For many teachers experiencing the curriculum change, they were only changing because they were being told to. Just as Weiner (2009) discussed, being told to change is not going to aid in motivation. To answer your question, I think giving more time, options, and resources would have been helpful and still would be. Most teachers spend their evenings, weekends and holidays on marking and lesson planning, introduce an entirely new curriculum and that is much more of their free time. If there was a better support system for resources to be shared amongst teachers it would have lessened the burden. I could see better change management done on multiple levels (provincially, district, and school wide). One idea is to give teachers more paid collaborative time or prep blocks, so that they can work with other teachers to develop and share ideas. However, this does cost money which gets into a whole other topic.
Reference
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(67).
Thank you for your post, Amanda. As an educator that has been part of the recent curriculum change, I can certainly relate to your thoughts on implementation and wonder if could have been done differently. I have thought about this a great deal, as curriculum change is inevitable and how can it be rolled out differently to have better acceptance by the followers?
I like your question of the potential of implementing a similar strategy that we use with our students. The biggest difference that I see is that the “followers” involve a huge amount of people from varying socio-economic, institutional and cultural difference, that the structure of the ARCS model would be too complex. I wonder if the approach was a bit more streamlined, with the ministry a bit more purposeful with their communication with our institution’s leaders, and from there, the institutions could then follow a model that works for them?
Regardless of the model chosen, it is so important to feel part of the process. If the members feel that they are part of the change process and find value in that change, they will join in implementing the change (Weiner, 2009). If I had felt that I was part of the curriculum change, I would likely have been more excited about the implementation and prepared effectively for the change.
It does make me wonder though, was this communication happening between the ministry and our institutions? Could it have been our own institutions lack a change model system that failed us?
References
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(67). 1-9.
Hi Danielle,
Thanks you for your response. I agree with you that curriculum change is inevitable, and I expect to see more changes come within my career. I just hope that we will be better prepared next time around. One of my main themes throughout this program has been the discussion that my context is diverse, and the issues that can arise when applying certain theories within it. I struggle with knowing how to meet some of the new curriculum competencies when my classroom is an online asynchronous one. I think giving optional resources at the same time of the draft documents would have been useful, so teachers were not left to create or find their own.
Due to the diversity of schools, and just the sheer amount of them, I do think that districts and administrators could have came up with more local ways to support their staff through this change. I think one of the main issues I heard was that most of this development time was during either professional development days, or on our own times. Financially I am not sure if it would have been possible, but allowing for more collaborative or prep time throughout the school day would have been ideal.
You mentioned that if you felt like you were part of the process you may have been more receptive to this change. Do you have any ideas how they could incorporate more teachers in the process? Were you thinking provincially, or locally part of the process?