Author: Joyce

Figure 1. 2019 Results from Interviews conducted by J. Wimmer for LRNT 525 (Infographic link)

“Change occurs more consistently … when those undergoing change understand the need for it and have a desire to change” (Bates, 2016). Interviews were conducted with two leaders from different programs in the college to discuss successes and challenges (if any) when implementing a change. Although they come from different professions, their thoughts on change management in the digital learning environment (DLE) were quite similar. The results demonstrate a five-step process: (a) analysis, (b) share the vision, (c) implementation plan, (d) assess and evaluate and (e) celebrate the success (see Figure 1). This process and possible alignment with established change models and theories will be explored.

In the analysis stage, both leaders felt it was important to identify the gap in learning and teaching and to take the opportunity to act. One recommended, a usability study be done with a few faculty to ensure a digital resource will be easy to use by everyone. These individuals (change agents) will later be involved with the design and implementation of the resource (Kanter, Jick & Stein, 1992, as cited in Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). Another recommendation is to perform a literature review to identify possible challenges that may arise when implementing a digital resource. If challenges are known ahead of time, then this can be addressed prior to implementation. This point is supported by Luecke’s method which suggests identifying both the issues and the solutions leads to a shared vision (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). Furthermore, Judson method (1991) considers possible barriers at each phase to ensure success (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). Supported by Al-Haddad and Kotnour’s (2015) statement of “[p]roper planning and analysis help identify the gap between where the organization is now and where it wants to be” (p. 243). Talking to the leaders about beginning this process, they both indicated it is important to have senior management’s commitment and support to maintain the vision.

According to the interviewees, vision should be shared by the leaders and change agents to ensure faculty buy-in. This is where transparency, openness and good communication of a leader plays a key role. This is supported by Kotter’s Leading change method (1996) as well as Luecke’s method (2003) where they state, a team develops and supports a shared vision in the process (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). The leaders felt, when the rest of the faculty are on board and share the same vision and values, the implementation of the change would be smoother.

The implementation plan involves everyone. The leaders agreed faculty must be included in the creation and the decision-making processes. “Faculty have a wealth of knowledge and are self-directed; therefore, leaders must allow them to go through the learning and discovery process when working with the consultants”, said one leader. “Having faculty in the decision-making process as opposed to being told what to do, makes a big difference”, said the other. Leucke claims a strong leadership plays an important role in change support and individual motivation (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). Both interviewees conclude that leadership trust and support, and the provision of the necessary resources and technologies is required to have a successful outcome.

As change is implemented, it is important for leaders and the team to continually “review and make necessary adjustments according to faculty and student feedback” (as cited in Figure 1). The Insurrection model emphasizes that change goes through a cycle of “imagining, designing, experimenting, assessing, scaling innovative ideas” (Hamel, 2000, as cited by Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015, p. 250). Leucke (2003) also affirms “monitoring and adjusting strategies” (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015, p. 250) is needed in the change process. This phase addresses the ever-changing needs of students and faculty in the DLE.

Celebrating a successful change outcome is key to the growth of the teams and the organization. One leader stated that “[s]uccessful change leads to other changes” (as cited in Figure 1). This is supported by Galpin’s (1996) Wheel change method and Luecke’s claim of considering and motivating the people (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). When people feel that they are supported and recognized for the hard work, it will motivate them to continue a task and achieve a goal.

Through leaders’ experiences in each phase, it was demonstrated there were a few established change methods and theories that correlated; however, the overall process was strongly aligned to Luecke’s Change method (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). When examining the five-step approach of the interview participants, one can conclude that strong leadership is important throughout the whole change process in a DLE.

References:

Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 234-262.

Bates, A. W. (2015). . BC Campus. Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/

In Unit 1, we were asked to reflect on leadership theories and the qualities of an effective leader in the digital environment. For Unit 2, we are asked to summarize our thoughts on our readings. One of the topics that I would like to further discuss is the change management for learning in the digital environments in the college setting.

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything” –  George Bernard Shaw

According to Weller (2011), some of the challenges encountered for learning in the digital environments in higher education are the application of social media in curriculum, the use of academic blogging to publish thoughts, the use of open data in research, and the sharing of open education resources.  To address these issues, the resilience framework as introduced by Weller and Anderson (2013) can be applied. When the authors examined open access by using the four factors of resilience (latitude, resistance, precariousness and panarchy), this really interested me because it is relatable to our situation at the college. Weiner (2009) stated “the more organizational members value the change, the more they will want to implement the change” (para. 14). Furthermore, Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015) add that the human element of team dynamics and the consideration of the different perspectives and cultures of people in the organization is what helps change to succeed. Our program has recently introduced the use of e-textbooks and have found that most of the students really like using them; however, there are a few who would still rather use a hard copy book to make notes in the margins. Some of our dental hygiene faculty have started to explore the use of open textbooks and electronic databases with the librarians to retain, reuse, revise, remix and redistribute resources (Stacey, 2018), but others are not on board yet. Our program compared to others in the college is quite behind with the implementation of open resources. Therefore, our dean decided to assemble the Digital Transformation Committee. The members will help to motivate our faculty and align them to the organization’s digital transformation goal by explaining the “why”, “how” and “what” this will look like in the future. We are on the road to organizational change. Are you? Or have you already implemented a change and how did you implement it successfully?

Cheers!

References:

Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 234-262.

Stacey, P. (2018). Diversity, Equity, Inclusion – Building a Global Learning Commons. In E. Childs (Chair), MALAT Virtual Symposium – Lay of the Land. Symposium conducted at the meeting of Royal Roads University, Victoria, B.C.

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

Weller, M. (2011). The Digital Scholar: How Technology is Transforming Scholarly Practice.Basingstoke: Bloomsbury Academic.

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

 

                                             Photo by Ian Schneider on Unsplash

While reading through the suggested readings, doing the activities and finding my own articles about leadership in our LRNT 525 – Leading Change in Digital Learning course, I found myself contemplating on what type of leader I see myself being, the types of leaders I admire and what traits are needed when working in a digital environment.

First, when thinking of a leader, I think about someone who is more than just managing or supervising a team. As Peter Senge describes in the video, leadership is not about the role, it is about how we create something with passion and having the human contributions to achieve a purpose. His definition of human contribution is the “capacity of a human community to shape its future” (Sarder, 2015). Senge studies “decentralizing the role of leadership in organizations, so as to enhance the ability of employees to work productively toward common goals” (Sarder, 2015, para. 2). This concept relates to what Huggins (2017) describes as building leadership capacity. A leader develops leadership in others by giving them the opportunity and/or the right tools and then letting them take over the project or initiative. For example, positions were delegated to my colleague and I by one of the professors looking after the community field placements for our students. She felt that since I had the experience of working in a hospital, I would be suitable in working with our offsite clinics located in community health centres. My colleague was given the responsibility to look after the elementary school settings. At the onset of the projects, short overviews which included the history, expectations and goals of the partnerships were given. She also taught us to self-assess and self-reflect on what we are doing, what is working for us, what is not working for us and what needs improvement. Through this practice, we will learn more about ourselves as an educator and as a person. Since then, she has encouraged and supported us and has recognized and shared our accomplishments with the rest of the faculty. She is a leader that I would like to emulate.

I have had the opportunity to work in a few different settings: dental offices, hospitals and educational settings and encountered many leaders who had different approaches and various qualities. Some of the characteristics that come to mind are supportive, passionate, fair, trustworthy and good communicator. The leaders that have these traits are people that I admire and consider them as role models. Nonetheless, as I read more on leadership, I realize that there is more to learn. Castelli (2016) introduces the term, reflective leadership, which depends on intrinsic leadership traits such as self-awareness, mindfulness, wisdom and good judgement. Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee (2002) claim that emotional intelligence is needed in complex environments and add that leaders who “are aware of their own emotional makeup” (as cited in Fullan, 2002, p. 3) can inspire and are able to handle issues as they arise. This is supported by Khan (2017) where she describes adaptive leaders as being flexible and supportive as situations change or are complex. Alternatively, both adaptive and reflective leadership has been known to “challenge beliefs, assumptions, values and norms” (Yukl, 2010, as cited by Khan, 2017, p. 179; Castelli, 2016) which may have people oppose concepts and changes made by using these approaches. When a leader challenges their own beliefs and assumptions, it gives them the chance to look at what is working and what is not and shows that they are willing to change (Castelli, 2016). This provides an opportunity for them to grow as a leader.  All things considered, we must keep in mind that not everyone will like a leader’s approach. So, when things don’t go well in any given situation, a leader should aim to be fair, transparent and accountable. A leader should also be willing to learn from others and from their own mistakes. When looking at these values and characteristics, would this be enough in a digital environment?

The digital environment as we have learned in our previous courses is quite complex and is ever-changing due to factors such as diverse instructional designs, diverse learners, various development models, and faculty and learner engagement. Reiser (2001) supports this by stating that “technological advances, new ideas and theories regarding the learning process, and new views of how to promote learning and performance in classrooms and in the workplace” (p. 53) has influenced the field and demonstrates the ever-changing environment. When thinking of an appropriate leadership style in digital environments, Castelli’s (2016) thoughts of establishing safe environments where open communication is valued, and confidence and supportive relationships are developed. Leaders must also respect diverse cultures and challenge beliefs and assumptions. This coincides with Sheninger’s (2014) thoughts on digital leadership which entails a leadership style of trust, support, empowerment and acceptance – all of which are essential for sustainable change and a tolerance of risk. Therefore, a leader in this environment must have the ability to adapt and be flexible to this change.

There are many different values and characteristics of a leader. The leader that I admire possesses the following qualities and values (which are not in an order of importance): supportive, passionate, trustworthy, fair, good communicator, flexible, inspiring, transparent, emotionally intelligent, risk-taker, accountable, respects diversity, reflective, willing to learn from others and willing to learn from their own mistakes. A leader should not be afraid to give someone an opportunity to lead. This shows the element of trust in the team and will develop into respectful and supportive relationships. This, in turn, will have a positive impact on achieving the goals of a project/program. These qualities tie in with the adaptive and reflective leadership styles which work best in leading change within the complex and ever-changing digital learning environments.

 

References:

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

Fullan, M. (2002). Principals as Leaders in a Culture of Change [Special Issue]. Educational Leadership

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).

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).

Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 53-64.

Sarder, R. (Producer). (2015). What makes a great leader?  [Video File]. Retrieved from YouTube https://youtu.be/1aYaj2-GZqk

Sheninger, E. (2014). Pillars of digital leadership. International Centre for Leadership in Education.

 

When reflecting on the readings that we had for our present course, I found that the article by Linda Vann really resonated with me. Considering empathy during instructional design is an important concept especially when designing a digital learning environment (DLE) for adult learners.

Vann (2017) questions, “How can you insure quality when you don’t know the end user unless you build in multiple pathways for people, different types of people, different types of backgrounds, different types of purposes?” (p. 237). This reflects the type of learner that we not only see in post-secondary settings, but in the workplace settings as well. We have to consider that not all adult learners will be comfortable with technology and social media. To demonstrate empathy during instructional design, we need to ensure that the learning needs of the participants/students are addressed. When designing the activities for the DLE, we cannot rely on just one model. We should be familiar with the different models/methods available to deal with any issue that may arise. One model that works for one activity or group of students, may not work for other activities or students. Vann (2017) also suggests that educators need to experience online learning themselves to fully understand the challenges that students may encounter.

We have to remember that like technology, teaching and learning is always evolving because our type of learners in the post-secondary setting is always changing.

Reference:

Vann, L. S. (2017). Demonstrating empathy: A phenomenological study of instructional designers making instructional strategy decisions for adult learners. International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 29(2), 233-244.

Before thinking about what innovation is, I would like to first look at a definition for innovation. According to Merriam Webster (n.d.), an innovation is “the introduction of something new; a new idea, method, or device”.  However, during the Collaborate session, Deborah Carter (2018) explained that innovation doesn’t have to be new, it could simply be renewed. Other points that she made were (a) a concept could be used in a different way, with a different strategy or with new terminology and (b) new management and new technologies in an organization may change things to be innovative. This to me, made the definition of innovation broader.

After listening to the Collaborate session and reading some of the resources, I started thinking about innovation in education. I believe that to keep our students engaged, take intellectual risks and enjoy their learning journey, educators must stay relevant and be innovative by incorporating new learning concepts and technology. This is supported by the article by Dron (2014), where he described how the pedagogies and technologies evolved throughout the years to address the different learning needs of students as well as the faculty.  Dron (2014) stated that, “[t]o learn is also to learn to learn, and learning to learn is thus, more often than not, to change how we go about changing” (p. 261). This statement is one that really resonated with me. Another quote is from Goldman et al. (2012), where they mention that “[d]esign thinking, as a mode of inquiry that puts “doing” and “innovating” at the centre of problem-solving, promises to address future needs of the globe. It has the potential to engage students in ways that are inclusive of their diversity, makes school learning relevant and real…which can enhance one’s motivation to learn” (p. 19). There is a lot to consider when designing to ensure that the student or faculty experience is successful and fulfilling. What are your thoughts on innovation and change in education or your workplace?

 

References:

Carter, D. (2018, December). In Collaborate Ultra. Retrieved from https://ca.bbcollab.com/collab/ui/session/playback.

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.

Innovation. (n.d) In Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation#other-words.

 

Authored by Gwen Bourque and Joyce Wimmer

While working on this design challenge, we found that we come from different backgrounds and fields; however, our practices intersect at the post-secondary setting. We have a variety of students coming from different backgrounds, experiences and ages.  We both require a way to engage diverse groups of students who could be coming straight from high school to those who are mature learners.

Through feedback and feed forward responses, we edited our problem statement to reflect that these students have many different needs. Thus, our new problem statement is:

Because we, Gwen and Joyce, work at post-secondary institutions where students have many different learning needs, we need a way to engage a variety of learners, those coming straight from high school to those who are mature learners that have a degree or in pursuit of a second or third career.

Our solution involves a blended learning environment which incorporates online synchronous discussions and includes all students and the facilitator.  The facilitator will have a presentation on the topic of discussion.  Throughout the presentation, online polls will be conducted by the facilitator to engage all students. The students will be able to use their devices (i.e. phones, computers) to answer the multiple-choice questions. The results will be displayed immediately and anonymously which gives the facilitator an opportunity to discuss the correct and incorrect answers.  Because the polls are anonymous, students will feel more comfortable and will take an intellectual risk. According to Wiley Education Services (n.d.), polls are effective tools that will help to connect students with each other by sharing their thoughts, and by guiding students to focus their learning. Additionally, the polling software, such as Socrative or Poll Everywhere, is easy to access and is used at both of our institutions.

Throughout the learning session, the facilitator will also incorporate blank screens in the presentation where students could post questions about the content which would enable them to suggest what they would like to learn more about.  This will help to demonstrate student engagement and accountability for their learning.

Furthermore, students could use a social networking forum such as Slack to create a social space to work in. This platform offers a way for students to interact with and get to know each other to develop a safe online community where they are comfortable to ask questions, to clarify assignments, to share thoughts and feelings and to celebrate accomplishments.

If we are to describe our solution to our trusted colleagues, we believe that they would find our solution very interesting and engaging for students. Our solution follows the empathetic design in Mattelmäki, Vaajakallio & Koskinen (2014) where they suggest that the design focuses on four layers of sensitivity: (1) toward humans, (2) toward design, (3) toward techniques and (4) toward collaboration.

Overall, it can be said that we developed a solution to engage and build confidence in intellectual risk taking for a diverse group of students coming straight from high school to those who are mature learners that have a degree or are in pursuit of a second or third career. As both of our practices are within the post-secondary setting, we have a variety of students coming from different backgrounds, experiences and ages who may or may not be comfortable with technology use and who have many different learning needs. This approach addresses our needs in our workplace environment. Is this a method that you could incorporate in your own setting/industry?  Lastly, do you see this as an empathetic design?

We will be replying to your comments, thoughts and advice until December 4, 2018 at 10 pm EST. Thank you!

References:

How to Increase Student Engagement in Your Online Course with Polls. (n.d.). Wiley Education Services. Retrieved from https://edservices.wiley.com/increase_student_engagement_online_with_polls/

Mattelmäki, T., Vaajakallio, K., & Koskinen, I. (2014). What happened to empathic design?. Design Issues, 30(1), 67-77.

               CCO Retrieved from https://pixabay.com/en/interaction-social-media-abstract-1233873/

“Technology is serving you, you’re not serving it” (Hodson, 2018)

Social media has helped turn communications into an interactive dialogue. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat are just a few of the popular social media tools available. With its growth, comes the questions of ‘what is the impact of social media on society’ and ‘how is it changing the way we communicate’? Dr. Jaigris Hodson is someone who can help shed some light to these questions. Her research has brought insight and understanding on social media and how it’s changing the way people communicate and interact by using computer-assisted discourse and content analysis of large multi-modal online and digital texts (Academia, n.d.).

I was first introduced to Dr. Hodson on April 16, 2018 when I watched her virtual symposium session entitled, “Navigating a Dangerous Landscape”. Dr. Hodson had suggested that to be “SM/indfulness”, we, as educators, must keep the following three points in mind: (1) “You need to be the expert”, (2) “You need to provide options”, and (3) “You must be the most critical” (Hodson, 2018). These points have resonated with me.

Dr. Hodson is an educator, a speaker, a social media consultant, a digital researcher and research collaborator on The Social Media Lab team. She has published research in a variety of academic and non-academic publications and has recently been featured in the news with our professor, Dr. George Veletsianos, on the topic of online harassment of women in higher education.

Here are some other links to Dr. Jaigris Hodson:

Twitter

RRU profile   

LinkedIn 

TedX Talk in Victoria, 2012   

 

References:

Academia. (n.d.). Jaigris Hodson. Retrieved from https://royalroads.academia.edu/JaigrisHodson.

Bio (Jaigris Hodson ). (n.d.). In Royal Roads University. Retrieved from http://www.royalroads.ca/people/jaigris-hodson

Hodson, J. (2012, December). Life Lessons Stripped Down [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT-vV1s4b-8

Hodson, J. (2018, April). Navigating a Dangerous Landscape. In E. Childs (Chair), MALAT Virtual Symposium – Lay of the Land. Symposium conducted at the meeting of Royal Roads University, Victoria, B.C.

Veletsianos, G., & Hodson, J. (2018). Social Media as a Weapon to Harrass Women Academics. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2018/05/29/dealing-social-media-harassment-opinion

Some authors call her an activist, while others call her the “mother” or the “Joan of Arc” for educational television (O’Dell, 1997, p. 143; Beadle & Stephenson, 1997, p. 46). When studying her career, one can say that she paved the way for women in the broadcasting industry and developed educational television as it is known today – the public broadcasting system. Nevertheless, it seems that her value was not showcased by most and was “reduced to a single line or footnote in many textbooks (Head, Sterling, & Schofield, 1994, p. 464, as cited by Beadle & Stephenson, 1997, p. 45). Brinson (2002) researched Ms. Hennock for several years and uncovered that she was a woman guided by her desire to serve the public and her desire to fulfill her personal interests (p. 6). Frieda Hennock proved to be a leader.

Frieda Barkin Hennock was the youngest of eight children and immigrated to the United States with her family from Poland. Although she was a very talented musician, she went against her family’s wishes of pursuing music and became the youngest female lawyer to join the New York Bar Association in 1926 (O’Dell, 1997, p. 135; Brinson, 1998, p. 412). She practised in both criminal and corporate law, which later gave her the poise to be in politics. She became a strong campaigner and fundraiser for Mayor William O’Dwyer, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman, and then a strong supporter of the Women’s Division of the Democratic National Committee who pushed the Truman office to put more women in government positions (O’Dell, 1997, p. 137). She later became the voice for women’s rights when she led women through the “front doors of the Union Building at the University of Michigan” in the 1950’s (Beadle & Stephenson, 1997, p. 45). Ms. Hennock had accomplished many “firsts” in the so called “man’s world” (Brinson, 2002, p. 2). Her accomplishments are the outcome of her upbringing and personal drive – being the youngest of all her siblings, growing up as a Jewish female during her time, making her voice heard, having a public image, and having the desire to serve the public. She was a politician.

All authors noted that the achievement that Ms. Hennock was most known for was her appointment by Truman as the first female commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This is where she made her mark in the public eye. She was the only female among the group of commissioners; she was the only Democrat; and she was the only one who lacked knowledge of the broadcasting industry. She would be able to provide a fresh perspective to the organization. Ms. Hennock saw her role as “representing the women of the country who make up 90% of the radio listeners” (Roth, 1948, p. 278, as cited by Beadle & Stephenson, 1997, p. 46) and worked hard to learn about the technical information that she would need to know in all aspects of broadcasting for both television and radio. She did not know what she wanted to accomplish as the commissioner until she found her cause in educational television.

Educational television was on the back burner and was an idea that the FCC and commercial broadcasters resisted for many years (Beadle & Stephenson, 1997, p. 46); however, Ms. Hennock brought it to the forefront. She saw how the issue of educational television served both public and personal interests especially if she wanted to show her integrity and “establish her political recognition” (Brinson, 2000, p. 249). Prior to the FCC allocation hearings to determine channel assignments, Ms. Hennock spoke to educators, women’s organizations and the public to raise the awareness of educating many children and adults using the technology of television. She displayed her political finesse through her eloquent speeches. “Television can operate for the common good and be an important part of our educational system and not just a money-making medium, if educators take an active role in its use” (Beadle & Stephenson, 1997, p. 49). She also stated, “Insofar as adult education is concerned; television will provide a classroom without physical boundaries” (Brinson, 1998, p. 417). She rallied educators and the public to support her. The educators managed to submit over 800 sworn statements and exhibits to advocate for educational television (Beadle & Stephenson, 1997, p. 47). At the allocation hearing, she was the only dissenting opinion to reserve television channels to “meet the present and future needs of education” and “provided the legal and moral platform on which the educational movement” would stand (Hull, 1962, p. 340, as cited by Beadle & Stephenson, 1997, p. 46). By her actions, she wanted to ensure that the channels were used for only educators and not for commercial use. She devoted two years of her time to create educational television. While putting so much effort into her cause, she opened herself up to criticism, did not really listen to others’ opinions and made “possible” mistakes.

Brinson (2000) discussed that Ms. Hennock did not see obstacles that arose in the development of the educational television movement due to her political agenda (p. 248). Some of the obstacles, such as the deficiencies in the range and picture quality of ultra-high frequency (UHF) and the “FCC policies governing their [UHF] use” (p. 249), were quite complicated for one person to address. Although this was Brinson’s finding, she still felt that if Ms. Hennock placed more effort into learning about the issues, then the development of educational television and UHF would have been stronger and perhaps progressed differently (p. 265). This is quite a critical assessment of Ms. Hennock’s actions; however, in her defense, having no prior knowledge of the broadcasting industry and its technical difficulties that even the experts had issues with, Ms. Hennock did her best and did try to improve the situation when she realized that it was affecting the growth of educational television. Beadle & Stephenson (1997) felt that “[s]he correctly anticipated the problems ahead for the UHF stations” (p. 48). By this time, politics was no longer in the equation for Ms. Hennock. According to Brinson (1998), she removed her name as a nominated candidate for a federal judge position and educational television became her personal interest for the next four years (p. 423).

 

I share the gratefulness of your host of friends for the splendid contribution, which you have made to the cause of educational television. You [Ms. Hennock] would be the first to argue that there is still a long way to go to attain the status which educational television rightly deserves, but you most certainly can, with pardonable pride, claim to be the most outspokenly constructive crusader in the history of the entire educational television movement (Dameron, 1955, as cited by Brinson, 1998, p. 423).

 

Although Ms. Hennock made some controversial decisions and made herself unpopular with her fellow commissioners and others from the broadcast industry, she did obtain the support from many others and managed to see her vision become a reality when the first educational television station, KUHT-TV in Houston, began broadcasting in June 1953 (O’Dell, 1977, p. 145). Although Ms. Hennock expressed concerns of “lack of funding, UHF reception and the influences of commercial interest” (Beadle & Stephenson, 1997, p. 49), these concerns became important factors that helped to shape educational television, as we know public broadcasting today. Ms. Hennock was an activist, a leader, a politician. Although it started as a political agenda, educational television became her purpose.

 

 

 

References:

Beadle, M., & Stephenson, A. (1997). Frieda Hennock: Leader for educational television. Techtrends, 42(6), 45-49.

Brinson, S. (1998). Frieda Hennock: FCC activist and the campaign for educational television, 1948-1951. Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, 18(3), 411- 429.

Brinson, S. (2000). Missed opportunities: FCC commissioner Frieda Hennock and the UHF debacle. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(2), 248-267.

Brinson, S. (2002). Personal and Public Interests: Frieda Hennock and the Federal Communications Commission. Westport, CT: Praeger.

O’Dell, C. (1997). Women Pioneers in Television: Biographies of Fifteen Industry Leaders. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?id=74fnsRmeeZcC

 

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 behaviour through a system of incentives, feedback, 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, behaviour, 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 learnings, 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 behaviour 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

 

NEW YORK – OCTOBER 10: Frieda B. Hennock (the first female commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, FCC). Hennock is at the twenty-first anniversary of the National Business Womens Week, in New York, NY. Image dated October 10, 1948. (Photo by CBS via Getty Images)

Some authors call her the activist, the advocate or “mother” of educational television (O’Dell, 1997, p. 143) while others call her the “Joan of Arc for Educational Television” (Beadle & Stephenson, 1997, p. 46). When looking at her career, one can say that she truly paved the way for women in the broadcasting industry as well as developed educational television which is now known as Public Broadcasting today. I am looking forward to sharing more information on this broadcast icon on October 14, 2018.

In the meantime, I will be sharing Part 1 of my assignment which is the annotated bibliography. I found it a little challenging, but I like a challenge! Please click on the link below to view my spreadsheet.

Cheers!

Frieda B. Hennock – annotated bibliography

 

References:

Beadle, M., & Stephenson, A. (1997). Frieda Hennock: Leader for educational television. Techtrends, 42(6), 45-49.

O’Dell, C. (1997). Women Pioneers in Television: Biographies of Fifteen Industry Leaders. Retrieved September 20, 2018, from https://books.google.ca/books?id=74fnsRmeeZcC