I realize that I’m a little late to this party – life has been rather large the past few weeks.
I’ve appreciated the time to really dig into one particular Problem of Practice (PoP) and to dig a little deeper in this course. My particular PoP is:
Students lose access to online resources at the completion of online courses.
This has been an ongoing problem expressed by students over time in our department. I teach in a first-year certificate program, and many students are returning from other careers, not having attended school in (sometimes) decades. They are simply not equipped with the executive functioning organizational skills needed to identify, evaluate, organize and develop an index space for the online resources they will want to have continued access to. Part of the solution to this is the explicit teaching of skills and the building of a customizable framework by introducing students to this in the first few weeks of their school experience.
I worked through the Bates (2015) chapter The nature of knowledge and the implications for teaching and, as good readings tend to do, it changed my thinking about what I’m doing. Originally I expected to come into this using Merrill’s (2002) Principles of Instruction. Working though the chapter reminded me that really, we aren’t using any one of these lenses exclusively, but combinations of them most of the time. It makes sense in my context with these students to do the explicit skill teaching in a more objectivist (Ertmer & Newby, 2013) manner. This will give the students the raw skills to build and expand on as they create their own resources. They’ll be placed in triads as peer support/accountability partners, which will have both the benefit of creating initial social bonds within the student groups, and setting the stage for some of the social constructivist (Ertmer & Newby, 2013) learning that will come later.
Once the students are acquainted with the basic skill set they will need, they’ll be supported to use and expand on those skills in different contexts and courses. I’ve been working with colleagues to design what this can look like.
And, although it didn’t make it into the diagram, Cognitive Load Theory is one of the lenses that I’ll be building this through, as well. Getting them started with discrete, targeted videos allows them to jump in at their knowledge level and not be overwhelmed by both learning how to use the utilities they will need AND using those utilities at the same time.
I was drawn to the CASOCOIME model (Patsula, 2002) of guidelines for selecting media as it includes some pieces that are more targeted towards international and cultural suitability. There are often international and indigenous students in our cohorts, and paying attention to what will work for them will be an important contributor to the success of this Digital Learning Resource.
References:
Bates, A. W. (2015). Chapter 2: The nature of knowledge and the implications for teaching. In Teaching in a Digital Age. Tony Bates Associates Ltd. https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/part/chapter-2-the-nature-of-knowledge-and-the-implications-for-teaching/
Ertmer, P. A., and Newby, T. J. (2013). “Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective.” Performance Improvement Quarterly 26(2):43–71.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505024
Patsula, P. (2002). “Practical Guidelines for Selecting Media: An International Perspective.” Useableword Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.patsulamedia.com/usefo/usableword/report20020201_mediaselection_criteria.shtm).
I was thinking about Lynda Barry (brilliant cartoonist, if you don’t know of her) and a conversation that she had with Tom Power on CBC. She talked about the opportunity she had to write a book, and how hard it was to get any momentum with it. Finally she said to herself (and I’m paraphrasing), “what would this look like if I were to do it?” Then laughed to herself, because, of course she was the one doing it.
Well. I kind of feel that way about this blog.
In one of my other lives, I’m a visual note-taker and graphic recorder. My note-taking is not linear, and much as I love the structure of taking notes in a spreadsheet, I struggle with it.
So, in the spirit of sharing, I offer some notes from this past course. Transformative Pedagogy 1 and 2.
Thanks for indulging me.
Reference:
Slavich, George M., and Philip G. Zimbardo. 2012. “Transformational Teaching: Theoretical Underpinnings, Basic Principles, and Core Methods.” Educational Psychology Review 24(4):569–608.
I’m writing today from this dual perspective that I find myself in – as both instructor and student. The experience of being an adult student working in post-secondary education has, for the first 10 months of the program, been a balancing act.
Please bear with me for the analogy:
Erich Brenn performed as one of the guests on the variety television program, the Ed Sullivan Show. He would come onto a stage pre-set with cloth-draped tables, flatware, tableware, trays of glasses and such, and proceed to do his vaudeville act of spinning bowls on sticks and plates on the tables. Sometimes he would do other, smaller stunts while the plates and bowls were spinning.
(I don’t know why the video won’t embed. You can find the one I’m referring to here.)
He performed on the show a total of 8 times over the years.
The clip above from his 1969 performance strikes me as a good analogy to what life has been like for myself and my students since the outset of the school year. Things for Erich (and for us) started gradually, with keeping one or two bowls in the air. Over time more plates and bowls are started spinning, until there are the maximum number of plates and bowls spinning – with him running frenetically from one to the next to keep each one that is flagging from falling and breaking. By the end of three minutes in this performance he is able to, with care and control, stop each of the plates from spinning and take his final bow.
I see Erich’s plates and bowls as the things in our lives that we are juggling – this degree program, our families, our own jobs (in my case with students who each have their own set of plates to spin), and now, in the context of COVID-19, added changes to our lives.
I like this particular video of him because his first stunt (involving drinking glasses and spoons) doesn’t really work, and he continues on. I see this as resilience and clear priority. He is there to spin plates – the glasses and spoons were a side thing. It’s okay that they didn’t work out because they weren’t his main priority. His smile and wave to the audience tells us that sometimes things don’t work out, and that’s okay. He still has, at that point, capacity to spin more plates.
At the 2 minute mark he drops a plate – but doesn’t have so many spinning that he can’t recover and get to his final goal of keeping all the plates and bowls spinning, which he does, with a flourish and a grin. This is where the analogy with the plate spinner breaks down. I would suggest that, for both myself as a student and for the students of the program I teach in, we are not coming to the end of our act. Rather, we are finding ourselves with more and more plates added to spin.
We know that successful adult learners are more self-directed, that they do best when the learning tasks have relevance in their lives, that they have strong self-monitoring skills, and can manage their time and commitment to their learning (Garrison, 1997). I see in my own students their ability to manage their time and commitment to learning being eroded by the new challenges – the plates that need spinning, if you will – that have come with the COVID-19 crisis and restrictions, the local environmental (flooding) challenges, and current (particularly US) events.
The program that I teach in ascribes to a transformative learning model – we endeavor to support the students to challenge their own assumptions about their communities and open their minds up to change (Mezirow, 2003). Maslow (1987) in his well-known hierarchy of needs, outlines what humankind requires in order to survive, thrive, and flourish. His hierarchy, illustrated as a pyramid, includes as its base psychological needs (breathing, food, water, shelter, clothing, sleep) and as its pinnacle self-actualization (morality, creativity, spontaneity, acceptance, experience purpose, meaning and inner potential). For those unfamiliar with the model, the gist is: without the lower layers being well fulfilled, one can not progress up the pyramid to self-actualization. I would suggest that right now, most of our students (and indeed ourselves) are not operating at the part of the pyramid that we’ve become accustomed. With the advent of COVID-19, many of us are knocked back to places in which we worry about our health, employment, food, shelter, etc. The transformative type of learning that our program asks of our students is simply not possible at this time as our students foundational needs are not being met – they don’t, through no fault of their own, have the capacity to challenge their worldview while they are busy putting food on the table and concerned about the health of themselves and their loved ones.
I recognize that this is a pretty darn privileged place to look from, as well. There are many communities that do not regularly have their base needs met. Here in Canada, our First Nations Communities still do not all have safe drinking water, fundamental to ensuring the security of base needs. Systemic racism challenges and erodes the base levels of Maslow’s pyramid, along with the social instability that we are witnessing in our community and our world right now.
As an instructor, there are a few things I can do to help my students navigate this piece of their education:
Recognize the intersectionality of our student population, and grow in my awareness that there are many pieces of student lives that are informing their behaviour and coping skills and strategies at this time.
Recognize that student ability is not necessarily reflected in their output, and accept different types of demonstrations of learning.
Work with them to create timelines that they can work within, at times advocating for and with them to the College institution, with awareness that institutional timelines are not necessarily built around human need.
Communicate with students regularly to ensure that they are not floundering, and connect them with counseling services, food security services, or other agencies that can help to shore up that base part of their pyramid.
These last few months have seen us all spinning more plates, seen us questioning the assumptions that we’ve had of our societies and communities, and trying to find and use effective coping strategies. Here’s to the continued good, hard work of keeping our own plates and the plates of others spinning until they can be put down with care.
(Post Script: I realized after hitting ‘publish’ that this doesn’t even touch on the challenges that have come with moving a face-to-face, practice-based program into an online space, both for instructors and for students. In our rural community, many students do not have access to predictable internet service, updated and/or functioning computers that can handle video-conferencing, etc. The move to online-only teaching has thrown into stark relief the socioeconomic strata of our area and brought to light many challenges inherent in trying to establish student equity. These contexts are the plates that students don’t always show us that they’re spinning – but they’re trying to keep in the air nonetheless.)
References
Garrison, D. R. 1997. “Self-Directed Learning: Toward a Comprehensive Model.” Adult Education Quarterly 48(1):18–33.
Maslow, Abraham, and K. J. Lewis. “Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.” Salenger Incorporated 14 (1987): 987.
Mezirow, Jack. 2003. “Transformative Learning as Discourse.” Journal of Transformative Education 1(1):58–63.
For a full-sized version of our infographic, please click HERE
All four of our team members are instructors and while our teaching environments vary greatly (our students’ backgrounds range from middle school children to post secondary learners to members of the Canadian Armed Forces), we are all facing one common issue relevant to our current situations – preserving academic integrity after being abruptly shifted into online learning environments. As
our shared learning experience, we chose to view online video tutorials provided by Respondus, and the solutions they offer in remote assessment proctoring: Lockdown Browser and Monitor (Respondus, 2020).
Our original assessment of Respondus’s products informed us that with the use of their tools, we can thwart students from accessing restricted content during exams as well as verify student identity. Though these features are beneficial to institutions administering conventional exams to students from their homes, each of our team members’ individual research led us to realize that Respondus’s products may not be an appropriate solution for all digital learning environments or intended learning outcomes, and could be deemed unnecessary, or even intrusive. Should we be more concerned about cheating in a digital learning environment as opposed to in our traditional classrooms? Are online proctoring services and software the answer to these concerns, or are there more suitable solutions?
A study conducted by Watson and Sottile (2010) suggests that academic dishonesty in an online learning environment does not happen any more often than in a face-to-face classroom, thus there is not much cause for concern. Contrarily, one who is determined to cheat can easily access YouTube video tutorials on how to cheat during online exams. A famous YouTuber, Tec4Tric (2017) for instance has had hundreds of thousands of views on his instructive videos, therefore proving that there are in fact students out there currently planning to cheat. Lee (2020) indicates that instructors themselves can foster an online learning community based on honesty and integrity which in turn will curb the learners’ desire to cheat in the first place. She suggests such practices as discussing integrity with the students, building a sense of community and personal relationships through online communications, using various
assessment tools as opposed to just testing, and contemplating open-book assessments instead of memorization testing. When instructors use performance-based assessments in order to appraise learning outcomes, it ordinarily doesn’t make sense to cheat as we are not testing memorization, but rather expecting students to exhibit skills learned throughout the course that may be required in future employment. Harwell (2020) discusses the negative experiences and feelings that post-secondary students have been enduring through the recent transition to online proctored exams. Some students have reported that they are appalled at the level of surveillance and feel that their privacy has been invaded and they are treated as if they are worthy of mistrust. Is this how we want our students to feel?
This leads us to our final thoughts and queries. Are Respondus’s products suitable for online testing? It depends on the learning environment and outcomes. Perhaps the more crucial questions are what do we want our students to learn and how do we want them to learn it? Furthermore, how should our students be assessed on said learning?
References
Harwell, D. (2020, May 9). Mass school closures in the wake of coronavirus are
driving a new wave of student surveillance. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/01/online-proctoring-college-exams-coronavirus/
Lee, C. (2020). How to Uphold Academic Integrity in Remote Learning. Retrieved
from
https://www.turnitin.com/blog/how-to-uphold-academic-integrity-in-remote-learning
Respondus. (2020. May 9). Retrieved from https://www.respondus.com/products/monitor/Tec4Tric. (2017). Cheat online exams like a boss! Part-1 [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yay-gjyZ10
Watson, G. & Sottile, J. (2010). Cheating in the Digital Age: Do Students Cheat More in Online Courses? Retrieved from https://mds.marshall.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=eft_faculty
The current global pandemic and resultant restrictions on gatherings, has challenged educational institutions to rapidly transition from in person, to remotely delivered courses. Among the challenges this type of transition presents is how to preserve academic integrity in a remote, uncontrolled setting, particularly considering assessments. Respondus (2020) offers solutions for remote assessment proctoring. For our shared learning experience, our team selected video tutorials created by Respondus (2020) about two of their products; Respondus Monitor, and LockDown Browser. After viewing all of the available videos and conducting further research, we have gained an understanding of how this software works and some of the rationale driving institutions to adopt it. Each team member agreed that the products could be a user-friendly and straightforward proctoring solution for both institutions and students alike.
Respondus Monitor and Lockdown Browser provide “cost effective, scalable, and convenient solutions for protecting the integrity of online exams” (Respondus, 2016, 3:10). Essentially, Lockdown Browser works by preventing learners from accessing unauthorized content or resources during their exam, while the companion Monitor feature offers a means of authenticating a user’s identity via facial recognition and then monitoring their behaviors during an exam by use of a webcam (Respondus, 2020). Teclehaimanot, Hochberg, Franz, Xiao and You (n.d.) noted that in order for educators to prevent the issue of academic dishonesty, student identification and authentication is vital. Both Lockdown Browser, and Monitor are available to be used within many popular Learning Management Systems (LMS) (ex. Brightspace, Blackboard etc.), which renders these tools as accessible solutions which are easily integrated into existing LMS’s. The Respondus company offers easy-to-understand arguments and pitches for how and why to use their software.
Not all online assessments require protective software measures and programs, such as those provided by Respondus. Some even feel that businesses in this industry “are selling a narrative that students can’t be trusted” (Harwell, 2020, pp.9), however, summative assessments that require high academic standards and integrity are arguably definitive candidates for such programs. Particular summative assessments must take verification of student identity and technical issues, such as student hardware usage, software, and bandwidth into consideration (Benson & Brack, 2010). The tests given must be fair, meaning the test environment and restrictions associated must also demonstrate equality to all students taking the exam. This can be a challenge when students are not co-located in the same classroom. The Respondus Monitor program tutorial particularly sought to address the above issues of students taking an examination from different locations. The tutorial program did an exceptional job of visually and cogently describing how the specific monitoring software addresses potential issues of students taking an exam from greater distances; and to give the software credibility, the company was not haughty when describing the fact that students may require greater bandwidth, combined with an adequate internet connection, in order for the software to be trustworthy (Respondus, 2016).
The clear and concise arguments for how-and-why a particular learning provider should use this software, combined with the user-friendly online tutorial environment to navigate the potential software, makes the overall potential of using these softwares a real contender within a plethora of potential learning environments.
References
Benson, R., & Brack, C. (2010). Online assessment. Online learning assessment in higher education: A planning guide (pp. 107-151). Whitney, UK: Chandos Publishing Oxford. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/lib/royalroads-ebooks/reader.action?docID=1582338&ppg=128
Harwell, D. (2020, April 01). Mass school closures in the wake of coronavirus are driving a new wave of student surveillance. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com
Respondus. (2016). Respondus monitor: Protecting the integrity of online exams [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=197&v=hv2L8Q2NpO4&feature=emb_logo
Respondus. (2020. April 16). Retrieved from https://www.respondus.com/products/monitor/
Teclehaimanot et al. (n.d.). Ensuring Academic Integrity in Online Courses: A Case Analysis in Three Testing Environments. Retrieved from https://members.aect.org/pdf/Proceedings/proceedings17/2017/17_12.pdf
This course has been unexpectedly timely. Our cohort has looked at our own experiences with leadership, learned about leadership styles and theories while watching local and world leaders navigate health care and associated crises brought on by the COVID-19 virus.
I’m looking through new lenses, thinking about leadership from new angles with a better understanding of the attributes of effective leaders. While I still have deep appreciation for Reflective leadership (Castelli, 2016) with its grounding in values and flexibility in looking to the future, I’m gaining a better working understanding of distributed leadership (Julien, Wright, and Zinni 2010) as the institution where I work (like many) is thrust into an online-only course delivery model.
Within the distributed model, leadership is thought to lie within every member of the community, and that when it is their time and space to emerge as leader, they do. When their time is over, someone else emerges as leader. This most closely resembles the relay-like passing of the baton that is happening within my work spaces currently. Instructors are consulting with instructors from different schools in silo-breaking collaboration. Groups of faculty are working with traditional, hierarchical leadership to brainstorm and build new initiatives that will enable our students to complete the programs they are currently in. Everyone is bringing their own strengths to bear in problem-solving, and willingly sharing their resources. The multiplicity of change that we’re navigating together is benefiting greatly from a better understanding of the complexity of our organizational systems (Weiner 2009), and how one change within the system has cascade effects to other parts of the system.
Within my work spaces the traditional leadership has been clear and communicative of the day-to-day things we have needed to know to navigate the rapid changes over the past few weeks. It is interesting to note that Sheninger’s (2019) first pillar, Communication, is central to effective leadership at this time. Communication is being done through a variety of digital media simultaneously in an effort to reach as many people as possible with good, reliable information. We’re watching digital communication methods for work proliferate daily as all people, not just leaders, explore the flexibility and efficacy of digital communication.
While the timing couldn’t be better for our cohort to participate in and observe leadership through these new lenses, it’s been a difficult time to implement planning and project management as many changes are being rolled out without planning, but out of necessity. There simply hasn’t been time to create the scale of change that we’ve undertaken with any forethought. It’s times like these where the strength of our leadership is what makes and breaks the changes. We have to have trust in our leaders as they ask us to implement change. We have to trust in our own ability to be leaders when it is our turn.
References:
Castelli, P. A. (2016). Reflective Leadership Review: A Framework for Improving Organisational Performance. The Journal of Management Development; Bradford35(2):217–36. doi:10.1108/JMD-08-2015-0112
Julien, M., Wright, B., & Zinni, D. (2010). Stories from the Circle: Leadership Lessons Learned from Aboriginal Leaders. The Leadership Quarterly 21(1):114–26. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.0009
Sheninger, E. (2019). Pillars of Digital Leadership. International Center for Leadership in Education. Retrieved February 1, 2020 (https://leadered.com/pillars-of-digital-leadership/).
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A Theory of Organizational Readiness for Change. Implementation Science 4(1):67. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-67
Group E, comprised of myself, Sandra Kuipers, Leigh McCarthy, Mark Regan and Lorne Strachan are happy to present our toolkit for change. Please take a few moments to view the video above (thanks, Mark!) and the linked document below (thanks, Sandra!).
About 10 years ago I became involved in the ShelterGuides project. Our 6 person team was carefully composed through a variety of metrics (including the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Edward de Bono’s 6 Thinking Hats). The project was intended to become an accessible, blended delivery training to ensure the safety and quality of life of individuals with disabilities in the new expansion of home share as a housing option in BC.
We (the team) had, at the outset, a sense of urgency in line with Kotter’s Leading Change method (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015), knowing that this housing change was coming into practice without home share providers undergoing comprehensive training.
Home Share is a residential option for adults under the care of CLBC in which the individual shares a home with a Home Share provider who provides ongoing, individualized support. … The individuals within the home not only share their living space, but also their lives (John Howard Society, BC)
Devastatingly, the worst can happen if people aren’t trained, or if agencies leave vulnerable people with someone who does not care for them appropriately. A shattering example was in the news recently, with Florence Girard dying this past October of malnutrition. Her caregiver is now being charged with criminal negligence causing death (CBC article). She was living in a home share setting.
Knowing what we wanted to accomplish, we commenced working in an adaptive leadership style (Khan, 2017) conducting focus groups to understand the scope of what we should include in the course.
Development followed the Leading Change Method steps right through to delivery of pilot, rewrite, re-delivery (Kotter’s steps Consolidate Improvements and Produce More Change, Institutionalize More Changes as cited in Al Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). The final product after 2 years of development was a blended delivery course with three face-to-face days (beginning, middle and end) with the bulk of the content delivered online.
We had full cohorts initially, with current home share providers and interested people taking the course. By student response, the course was a success. By community response, the course was a success. People who didn’t previously have jobs got jobs caring for people in their home and existing home share providers who took the course told us that they learned things that were improving their lives daily.
And yet – no one past the initial offerings took the course.
Why?
We missed some key stakeholders at the outset. We had done focus groups of individuals needing support, and of people already providing home share services. Missing from that table were the licensing bodies and the governmental agencies that require (or in this case, don’t require) training.
The simple fact is, that people with very few qualifications are granted contracts to do home share. They are well-meaning, kind people, possessing clear criminal record checks. They participate in a series of intake interviews, learn some basic non-violent communication skills and basic first aid. Our focus group interviews with home share providers had shown that people felt overwhelmingly under prepared on welcoming someone to live with them, and that more training would have prepared them better for the realities of the lifestyle of home share.
In retrospect, data would have been useful. Relevant data would include the statistics of placement breakdown as relates to training levels. These data would have allowed us to approach different contract-granting bodies to ask that the training become mandatory.
A factor that would have promoted success would have been to have agreements with contract-granting bodies before or during the development of the course to ensure that our course would have ongoing enrollment.
While there were many successes in the construction of the course (looking at it today, it still reflects best practices in the field), the biggest obstacle has consistently been motivating people to take it. Without government or agency mandating training, people do not see the value taking the time to learn new skills. Lesson learned? Ensure there’s an audience for the project. Anyone can build a beautiful, useful and relevant, thing, but if there’s no end user the project itself gathers dust.
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. Retrieved from https://doi-org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1108/JOCM-11-2013-0215\
Khan, Natalie. 2017. “Adaptive or Transactional Leadership in Current Higher Education: A Brief Comparison.” The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 18(3).
Six common areas were identified through consultation with two colleagues (A & B) about successful change in digital spaces. The commonalities have parallels in Lewin’s Method (1946), Luecke’s Method (2003) (as cited in Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015) and the Change model (Biech, 2007). The commonalities (identify problem, create resource availability, invitation, train, support and review) can be used to guide change in digital contexts, and are illustrated in the diagram Leadership for Change in Digital Environments (figure 1).
The colleagues (D. Leeming, personal communication, February 20, 2020; J. Lavack, personal communication, February 19, 2020) consulted are in different fields, both implementing different digital tools into the daily use of large numbers of stakeholders over large geographic areas. Colleague A (A) was part of the implementation of a tool for student use (TextHelp Read&Write plugin to Google Chrome) across School District 8 (SD8). SD8 has 5,314 students and a large geographic footprint, at 15,000 square km (School District 8, n.d.). Colleague B (B) facilitated the adoption of a new Multiple Listings System® by 350 REALTOR® members and stakeholders over a geographic area which spans from Rock Creek to the Alberta border and from Golden to the American border (Kootenay Association of REALTORs®, 2019). A & B both responded via email to the questions:
Can you provide an example of an organizational change related to digital learning that was successfully implemented?
What role did leadership play and what were some important steps that a leader or leaders took within the process?
what challenges did they (or you) need to overcome?
To understand the parallels between their experiences, I created a table and populated it with information they provided. Next, the table was cross referenced with change management theories and methods, having the most in common with Lewin’s Method (1946), Luecke’s Method (2003) (as cited in Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015) and The Change model (Biech, 2007). It became evident that none of these were a point-for-point fit, but that the two experiences had common themes at different points in the process. From this grew the diagram Leadership for Change in Digital Environments (figure 1) with six areas: identify [the] problem, create resource availability, invitation, train, support and review.
No change process can be planned successfully without first identifying the institutional gap that needs to be addressed. A works as a technology teacher and librarian in SD 8, and is on the vanguard of local districts in the implementation of Chromebooks and Google Classroom. His familiarity with Chrome tools was instrumental in the decision to use Read&Write throughout SD8 to support students at all levels of learning. Adoption of Read&Write supports students with learning disabilities, giving them fluency in a tool that promotes their independence, will be available to them after graduation, all while reducing stigma (by having it available for all students, no students are singled out as deficient). For B, the challenge was shifting the whole population of REALTORs® from a set of old, individual softwares to a new, all-encompassing, completely integrated system. This first commonality, identify problem, has parallels in Lewin’s (1946) unfreeze, Luecke’s (2003) mobilize energy and commitment by jointly identifying problems & solutions, and develop a shared vision of how to organize (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015), as well as challenge the current state (Biech, 2007)
The second commonality, Create resource availability, is a leadership-based step with parallels in both Luecke’s (2003) identify the leadership (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015) and Biech’s harmonize and align leadership and guide implementation (2007) and overlaps somewhat with the following commonality, discussed below. Both A & Bs contexts needed financial and human capital resources made available to address the change. In the case of A, leadership aligned with the change made funding available and shifted job expectations for teachers and EAs to accommodate the building of the training. In B’s experience, the leadership made funding available and offered guidance and feedback, creating capacity in the existing staff to build the training. It was at this point in both processes that the training itself was developed.
Both A & B shared that an important success factor in the change was their recruitment of high-level users of the software distributed across multiple locations to become champions of the change. In B’s case, these users were offered perks (mugs, chance to win an iPad) for their advocacy. Both A & B consulted with their stakeholders to gain understanding of the technological capacities of multiple schools/offices, who would be natural supports within each site, and who should be offered early, more comprehensive training to become champions. This commonality, Invitation – recruitment from within, overlaps somewhat with the previous commonality.
The next part in each A & B’s process was the large-scale training of stakeholders, train, with parallels to Lewin’s (1946) act and move (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015), and Beich’s guide implementation. With A, training was done primarily in face-to-face sessions. With B, training was done sequentially: home study, face-to-face training, and live webinar. The success of this piece relied heavily on the groundwork laid previously. Weiner (2009) in his paper about organizational readiness for change, discusses the complexity of organizational change in which stakeholders must have both “shared resolve to implement a change (change commitment) and shared belief in their collective capability to do so (change efficacy)”(p. 1). The first three commonalities are how organizational capacity was built, how individuals were aligned with the change and grew the resolve to make it happen. Both A & B attribute this groundwork as leading to large-scale adoption of each change with success.
The fifth commonality is support, which parallels with Lewin’s (1946) refreeze, Luecke’s (2003) instil success through policies, procedures and systems (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015), and Beich’s evaluate and institutionalize the change (2007). For both A & B, this is about ensuring the institutional change is implemented on an ongoing basis. For A, in addition to peer mentorship, SD8 will have ongoing offerings of training on professional development days, ensuring that as new Education Assistants are hired and existing ones need refreshment that training is available. For B, the ongoing support of champions in various offices around the region will offer peer support, and online training will continue to be available.
The sixth commonality, while not having parallels with any of the previous theories or methods, was identified by both respondents as being important. Review has allowed both parties to see gaps in their planning and circumstances where unanticipated problems arose. Both respondents pointed to individuals with low computer competency skills as challenging throughout their training process. B shared that a large challenge for them was the system they were changing to being unavailable for testing until roll-out, necessitating all users being trained at the same time. Both respondents identified individuals who are resistant to change or technology as needing extra support throughout the change and on an ongoing basis, but that these are edge cases.
These two successful change processes, while in disparate fields, had six commonalities with each other and many with Lewin’s Method (1946), Luecke’s Method (2003) (as cited in Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015) and the Change model (Biech, 2007). Leadership in both situations was involved at a high level, in guidance of the processes, provision of financial and human capital, and at an interpersonal level in the creation of peer mentors and office champions. Both situations saw preparation within the organizations before the training was implemented, preparation that helped create change commitment and change efficacy (Weiner, 2009). Through preparation, planning and careful implementation, both organizations brought about change that is sweeping and successful.
References:
Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). “Integrating the Organizational Change Literature: A Model for Successful Change.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 28(2):234–62.
Biech, E. (2007). Thriving through change: A leader’s practical guide to change mastery. American Society for Training and Development.
Kootenay Association of REALTORs®. (2019). “Contact Us.” KAR. Retrieved February 23, 2020 (https://www.kreb.ca/contact-us).
School District 8. (n.d). “Board of Education.” School District 8 Kootenay Lake. Retrieved February 23, 2020 (https://www.sd8.bc.ca/board).
Weiner, Bryan J. 2009. “A Theory of Organizational Readiness for Change.” Implementation Science 4(1):67
Change is everywhere in education right now, especially as relates to technology use, online course development and availability. Each individual change case is unique with different stakeholders and contexts. Both Al-Haddad & Kotnour (2015) and Weiner (2009) make a case for ensuring that organizations undergoing change have alignment with the change process that they undertake, and stakeholder engagement in order to ensure higher levels of success. Al-Haddad & Kotnour share a startling statistic, that <30% of change processes are unsuccessful. Al-Haddad & Kotnour discuss the idea that superimposition of change from above is less effective than the engagement of stakeholders, who then become the drivers of change. Weiner refers to this engagement as the change valence, with the individuals seeing that the change is needed, important and worthwhile and themselves then becoming the drivers of change.
Change is less successful when it is imposed from the top down. Currently, we in BC are watching Ontario’s recently announced mandatory online course requirements for secondary school students. This is a top-down change imposed without talking to the stakeholders (teachers, students, administrators) about what will work for them, leaving the people who are going to be responsible for the change disenfranchised and angry. At this time, the provincial government of Ontario has mandated that each student will complete at least 2 online courses during their high school career, starting in grade 9. This change was announced before public engagement (CBC News, 2019) and before a framework was created for how the change will be implemented, without consultation of e-learning specialists, or a plan for how vulnerable learners will be included. I’m finding it hard to imagine how this can be a successful change (and how that will be measured) when the main change enablers (Weiner, 2009) are not aligned in support of the change: the content, the people and process.
I work in a post-secondary context in which our staff is experiencing change at many levels (managerial, faculty, and individual). As a college we are currently transitioning from old, siloed digital systems for tracking student records, finance, staff recruitment, and various other systems to a fully integrated, unified application portal that will allow us to do all previous tasks through a single sign-in. The leadership in our school has shown from the outset that this has been a thoughtful and systematic change that began with participatory action research (French, 1969; Helmich and Brown, 1972; Schein, 1969, Tichy, 1974 as cited in Al-Haddad and Kotnour, 2015), moved to ongoing development, and continues in semi-incremental cycles (Miller, 1982, as cited in Al-Haddad and Kotnour, 2015) as each new piece is rolled out. The leadership in this case appears to be aligned with a reflective model of leadership (Castelli, 2015) in that the environment is a safe one, promoting trust and confidence, there is ample opportunity for two-way communication, that the changes connect to the strategic plan commitments, and that there is training available to ensure the growth of individual staff members and the building of individual capacity with the new system. The change valence in our organization is high.
Leadership at our college has several roles within the change, not all of which can be captured here. They are responsible for building the framework of what change looks like in our context, and having the larger vision to see where we are going and why. Our leadership is in place to manage the process, look to the constituents to understand how well the change is progressing, and to take and incorporate feedback. In our school in particular there is an emphasis within the culture on Dweck’s (2007) concept of growth mindset. The leadership is responsible for building and finding ways to maintain and direct the culture and identity of the school, and creating an environment in which innovation, growth mindset and risk tolerance are part of the culture, creating a context that is more receptive to change (Weiner, 2009).
I recognize that they are not the same scale or category of change, but can’t help but compare the two change scenarios somewhat. I wonder at the Ontario government’s seeming lack of planning and engagement, what I see as a lack of leadership around mandatory 2 online course requirement. I am pleased when I look at our little community college, at the way our leadership is striving for best practices, doing what they can to keep the staff involved and motivated for this change that most of us believe will be in our best interest. It’s obvious to me that our college has a plan, whereas it appears that the situation in Ontario will plunge forward regardless of plan.
References:
(please note: I’ve tried to reformat the references but they keep showing up without spaces between them on publishing. My apologies.)
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. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-11-2013-0215
CBC News, November 21, 2019 2:55 PM ET | Last Updated:, & 2019. (2019, November 21). Ontario high school students must take 2 mandatory online courses before graduation | CBC News. CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/high-school-students-mandatory-online-courses-graduation-1.5368305
Dweck, C. (2007). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (2nd ed.). Ballantine Books.
