The project: Implementing Google Classroom as a Learning Management System for K-8 during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The problem: How schools facilitated the transition from in-person to virtual teaching and learning through the use of a virtual learning management system.
Was it successful?
It was incumbent upon the school administrative team to establish clear parameters for staff to carry out the project with the end goal of meeting the project’s objectives (Watt, 2014), in this case the successful implementation of Google Classroom as a Learning Management System (LMS). Ultimately, success depended on teacher capacities (Bates, 2015) and change readiness, and failed to consider concerns such as staff willingness, confidence, and comfort levels implementing new technologies. Unaddressed, staff were left to implement a project based on prior knowledge and personal experience. There was no clear plan for the transition, only expectations and outcomes for teachers. The urgency existed, but the system itself failed to develop and implement a structured plan for teachers.
The overall goal of establishing a virtual LMS for students was clearly articulated by both the ministry and the board, but the potential for unsuccessful implementation was high due to various factors. Firstly, implementation lacked direction, as school-level leadership struggled to juggle the various expectations along with teachers. Secondly, the project did not engage all stakeholders. While it centred the student and the facilitator, it did not provide training nor structured resources. Thirdly, scope management (Watt, 2014) was non-existent. For example, considerations for the diverse needs of students would require time set aside for team planning and collaboration to distribute shared knowledge, and these considerations depended on the school.
In my experience, the successful transition from in-person to virtual was dependent on specific sites (the school administration), instructor capacities (teachers and support staff), and access (to technology, internet, and resources). This problematized both theoretical and equitable assumptions of the transition: that schools could support students, their families, and staff needs. Exacerbating these assumptions was the lack of systems view, one that missed the mark of intersections, interconnections, and intricacies of the many actors involved (Conway et al., 2017). In essence, the successful implementation of a LMS would entirely depend on the individual facilitating the course as well as student engagement.
Barriers to successful project implementation included access, effective communication, and environmental readiness (Khan, 2017). How and when devices were distributed, and to what extent resources were implemented, depended on the school and instructors, and communication was fragmented due to ongoing information regarding health and safety changes from public health. When messaging was shared by administration, it was generalized to support all staff, from Kindergarten to Grade 8. Communication was often ineffective as the collaborative piece was missing, resulting in teachers working in silos. In my experience, groups with strong adaptive leadership (Khan, 2017) were successful during the transition to emergency remote teaching and learning because they had the necessary skills to adapt.
Overcoming these barriers is a tall order for large school boards, however, at the school level, creation of a shared goal (Watt, 2014) and metrics would provide staff with measurable outcomes. Practical design, such as an Agile course design could help facilitate change as the iterations would be useful in an authentic context (Bates, 2015). In this process, the group collaboratively engages in the creation of a project life cycle that includes a linear and sequential progression of “initiation, planning, implementation, and closure” (Watt, 2014, ch.3). In the case of implementation of a virtual LMS for K-8 school, staff were not a part of the initiation and planning stages, but were expected to effectively implement the LMS by assuming a shared goal (Watt, 2014). To overcome these barriers, K-8 schools can employ systems thinking to develop better understanding of the inner workings and complexities of a school (Conway et al, 2017) in order to support the implementation of Agile design.
In my experience, employing a systems view to design thinking, specifically implementing an Agile design model, would effectively support the virtual LMS project implementation in K-8 schools. As Conway et al. (2017) note, “appreciating factors like power dynamics, competing incentives and cultural norms, innovators can prepare themselves for barriers to change, and find the entrepreneurial routes around them to successfully affect system change” (p.3). In this case, the system change is the consequential by-product of a global pandemic. However, the timely and effective implementation for both short-term and long-term systems change can take place if school teams to engage entrepreneurially. In the case of implementing a virtual LMS, it can mean engaging in reflective practice through ongoing collaborative inquiry, such as assessing the various factors that limited or inhibited change during the transition to virtual teaching and learning, and to learn from mistakes made.
References:
Bates, T. (2015). Chapter 4.7 ‘agile’ design: Flexible designs for learning. In Teaching in the Digital Age. BCcampus. https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/chapter/6-10-agile-design-flexible-designs-for-learning/
Conway, R., Masters, J., & Thorold, J., (2017). From design thinking to systems change: How to invest in innovation for social impact. Royal Society of Arts, Action and Research Centre. https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/reports/rsa_from-design-thinking-to-system-change-report.pdf
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), 178-183. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3294
Watt, A. (2014). Project management. (2nd ed.). BCcampus. https://opentextbc.ca/projectmanagement/
March 8, 2022 at 7:21 pm
Angela what you described in this post where you have a top down directive that you described as one “with no clear plan for the transition, only expectations and outcomes for teachers. The urgency existed, but the system itself failed to develop and implement a structured plan for teachers.” really speaks to what I see happen so often with initiatives at my institution that come from the top as a directive to the faculty.
We often hear announcements, then varying degrees of success from those announcements. There are often times we only hear the announcement and then the idea goes somewhere and disappears, never to be heard of again.
I will share that this happens so often there are sentiments being shared in my institution ( and particularly post pandemic) that the organizational structure of our school, may not make sense any longer. It makes me ponder how the hierarchies we have in place actually deeply reinforce the barriers that repel change innovation as Conway et. al discuss in their report (2017). The forces that repel change include cultural norms and the structure of our organizations with their hierarchies seem to deepen those cultural norms that repel and work against change. It is interesting to me to imagine what would have to happen for us to rethink those organization structures and what the results could be in terms of responsiveness to change while still maintaining ethical and academic integrity. Something will have to give because relying on individuals to make change alone in silos, such as implementing an LMS that are directed from the top down doesn’t seem sustainable.
Thanks for the thought provoking post.
Conway, R., Masters, J., & Thorold, J., (2017). From design thinking to systems change: How to invest in innovation for social impact. Royal Society of Arts, Action and Research Centre.