Change is difficult and projects are no exception. Some of the stats shared in by Knolscape (2013) were quite surprising, only around 25% percent of new product projects actually make it to market or 31% of IT projects are canceled before being completed. My team recently participated in large project transitioning to a new web conferencing tool and I’m happy to share it has been mostly successful. The stakeholders for this project were potentially all faculty, staff and students tied to our institution. The tone of our project was well captured by Conway et. al. (2017),  a project, innovation or change won’t necessarily create a huge impact on it’s stakeholders. That is to say, in this project’s context, we already had the technologies and processes that fit our requirements and it’s replacement would fall roughly into the same range of capabilities. In hindsight of  our project’s completion, there was still great benefits to the users and administrative processes with this project, but these were highly dependent on the service we chose and weren’t necessarily the primary focus. 

If compared to the PMBOK 10 knowledge areas shared by Watt (2014), the initiating concern of our web conferencing project was managing cost.  During COVID19, the use and demand of web conferencing definitely increased and with our web conferencing contract ending it was important to review other options. Our current service provider drastically increased prices to continue our contract which made continued use of the service unlikely. Switching services required a lot of time commitment beyond the technical implementation of the new web conferencing tool. A couple items my team was responsible for were creating new support materials/workshops and developing an account creation process. We were able to collect relevant information from the vendors, other institutions already using the web conferencing tool and utilizing internal expertise. A benefit of this web conferencing project occurring during COVID19, almost all stakeholders had recently used a similar service and were familiar with core functionality. One strategy we implemented early in the project was to include a vast range of stakeholders to test the new web conferencing tool immediately after we selected one. This provided great guidance in our tasks and capturing potential issues that may not have been obvious when first approaching the project.

With potential issues in mind, our web conferencing project definitely had barriers. Specifically in the aspects of integrating into existing systems and accounts posed a challenge that is continually being worked on beyond the project. As Conway et. al. (2017) described, supporting changes in complex environments requires flexibility as a seemingly static project are almost always dynamic. What was initially evaluated as a simple step in implementation, ballooned into one of the larger issues that needed to be addressed. Luckily to combat these type of hiccups, there was a long enough grace period where both services were available simultaneously which really alleviated time pressure and minimized stakeholder impact. In any future system transitions I would try to maintain this strategy to ease users into the change and provide a backup if things go wrong early in the project.

I would consider our project a success and any barriers highlighted items beyond the scope of this project we may be able to work on soon. An additional project is already planned and will be commencing soon to address some better integration solutions. Ideally this could have been done all together, but the reality of budgets, employee time and other obligations created the need for separated projects. As long as we strive for continual learning and improvement, I’m confident we will continue to deliver great results with projects.

References

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.

Knolscape. (2013). Introduction to Project Management. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOU1YP5NZVA

Watt, A. (2014). Project Management. Victoria, BC: BCcampus. https://opentextbc.ca/projectmanagement/

The 4Cs of Change (4Cs) is a diagram to prompt how change is addressed in digital learning environments (DLEs), applied to my personal context as a Learning Technologist at a post-secondary institution.  The displayed 4Cs version below captures the specific context of a recent web-conferencing tool replacement project. As noted by Al-Haddad and Katonour, change leaders should be able to use the best compatible methods for change when the type of change is clear (2015). It’s also worth noting, to avoid duplication I’ve put specific considerations in one phase only, when an example like cost could likely be present in all phases. Make sure to check out the full version of my 4C diagram which has some specific examples.

The four phases of the 4Cs are cyclical and broken down as follows:

• Catalysts: The initiating force of change being wanted or needed
• Considerations: Variables, identified requirements, or specifics to meet before creation
• Cultivation: The process in which to prototype, test, build and deliver
• Continuation: Supporting long-term use, maintenance and lessons learned

The cyclical nature of the 4Cs helps support an environment of continuous change and increases organizational readiness (Weiner, 2009). Striving for change as a normal state helps stay current and supports life-long learning (Al-Haddad,& Kotnour, 2015). Discussing with my colleague, there was an emphasis on the importance and challenge of change, specifically in prioritizing what to do first (Course Development Manager, personal communication, February 15 2022). Requests or realizations for initiating change can occur in a wide range of methods. From personal research, complaints, broken systems, conferences, vendors and more, it’s generally not difficult to develop a list to explore potential changes in my context. With constant opportunities for change at our disposal, bringing further considerations greatly helps in determining the importance and feasibility of future changes.

In my context, I am primarily focus on the technical specifications of change, but we must always incorporate external aspects and stakeholders. This compliments well with Khan’s description of adaptive leadership, which allows for the flexibility needed when there are so many catalysts for change (2017). With the example of replacing a web-conferencing tool, it also relates well to Complexity Theory. Our changes will have intricate implications to many systems and processes, but will essentially continue to promote the same simple behavior from users (Biech, 2007). My colleague further explained, the considerations for a web-conferencing change had finally “tipped the scale” to prompt the change, even if the user experience would arguably be very similar (Couse Development Manager, personal communication, February 15 2022). With change identified and justified, we begin to formulate how change can occur.

When developing change, we must meet certain standards so that a wide arrange of stakeholders can maintain needed functionality (Feldstinen, 2017). The phrase cultivation was chosen as building a solution will grow as more prototypes and implications are identified. Cultivation strives to create the most effective implementation of all the information gathered so far. Ideally anyone could produce the perfect, robust, elegant solution, but sometimes we can’t make the most optimal choice, because there are limitations we can’t currently overcome (Feldstinen, 2017). Once implemented, we must not forget to maintain and support our changes.

Continuation shares similarity to the last step in Ulrich’s Seven-Step Model, make change last (Biech, 2007). We must not end the project once implementation is complete, but rather continually engage and challenge our systems and processes. As emphasized by Biech, you must go through all phases of your plan for successful change (2007). Given the cyclical nature of 4Cs, there is no end and we must continually attempt to improve. My colleague further commented it is nearly impossible to achieve every change we want due to various constraints, but having an organizational culture ready for change makes the process a lot simpler (Course Development Manager, personal communication, February 15 2022). As Weiner described, group members are more likely to initiate, support and cooperate with a culture of organizational change readiness which in turn increases effective change (2009).

In conclusion, using the 4C’s can help provide prompts to successfully implement and continue change. When the success rate of organizational change can be considered more difficult than calling a coin toss, it’s best to incorporate as many perspectives, methods, people, and resources as possible (Al-Haddad,& Kotnour, 2015). The challenge of change management is persistent but, using the 4Cs can keep us persistently changing.  

Full Online Version

To access full online version of the 4Cs of Change Diagram in a new tab, please use this link.

Compact Image Version

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.

Biech, E. (2007). Thriving through change: A leader’s practical guide to change mastery. American Society for Training and Development.

Feldstein, M. (2017, May 28). A flexible, interoperable digital learning platform: Are we there yet?.

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.

Weiner, B.J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Sci 4, 67 . https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-67

We participated in a group activity where we individually ranked  20 common leader attributes from least to most important. After reading various resources, our team met synchronously to discuss a group order of attributes. Common themes that arose in our discussions were the importance of context and telling stories of each others experiences and leadership preferences. After enjoying this surprisingly challenging activity, I chose a prompt provided to reflect on the activity and leadership:

What you think are the most important attributes of a leader working in digital learning environments?

Communicator

After my initial thoughts, readings and discussions I’ve developed a greater appreciation for several aspects of leadership I may not have particularly identified before. As mentioned by Sheninger, communication is a key pillar for leaders, especially in the context of digital learning environments. Many of us in MALAT are so used to digital communication, amplified by COVID-19, but purposeful strategy and considerations from leadership’s communication is imperative (2019). From personal experience, great communication can go basically unnoticed, while poor communication completely stops  you in your tracks. This shares a lot of similarities to adaptive leadership outlined by Khan (2017), as leaders must have the capacity to consider external factors and communicate in a consumable format for those they are collaborating with. I loved an example shared by Julien highlighting good communication, the vice-president of the company communicated his answer to a subordinate’s question through a allegory with a spider web (2010). It was a well-thought out and meaningful response that help support his colleague. 

Supportive

With support in mind, our first choice in our group leadership attributes list was supportive. When we discussed supportive as our top pick, I recognized how valuable it was to me in both professional and personal contexts. Leaders can support you in so many ways, they can empower, motivate, guide, inspire and more (Workman, 2012). Many of the great leaders I’ve encountered had different styles of leadership, but were always supportive when it mattered most. As Khan highlighted, there is “no leadership theory can address all required actions”, so it’s not an exact science in being a supportive leader, but important for the wellbeing of your group and its members (2017). When thinking of support specifically in digital learning environments from personal experiences, leaders have helped with idea generation, clarifications, calling in backup, providing feedback and encouraging further research/professional development. 

Dependable

With the context of digital learning environments in combination of working primarily in a technical role, I would also include dependability as a very important leader attribute. Dependable is described as the quality of being trustworthy and reliable, which sounds simple initially, but can incapsulate so much. I’ve depended on leaders to drive strategy, consider the big picture and capture requirements because as a individual, I likely wouldn’t have the time or knowledge to effectively complete these tasks. Additionally dependable leaders have shared values and will advocate for the group’s vision, mission and people (Workman, 2012). Dependable leaders will trust your expertise and you can trust their recommendations. This mutual dependency drives a relationship of reliability for each other. The reassurance a leader is dependable speaks to their character and competence to help those around them.  

References:

Julien, M., Wright, B., & Zinni, D. M. (2010). Stories from the circle: Leadership lessons learned from aboriginal leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LEAQUA.2009.10.009

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.

Sheninger, E. (2019) Pillars of Digital Leadership International Center for Leadership in Education. http://leadered.com/pillars-of-digital-leadership

Workman, T., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2012). Leadership, personal transformation, and management. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 313-323. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1383

Please see below my poster of my BRIDGE Design Principles for Online Course Development at Scale.

In case you find the image too small for the text below, see the image at this Imgur link that allows for zooming in.

References used in BRIDGE creation

Bates, T. (2015). 8.4 Cost. Teaching in the digital age. BCcampus. 

Cable, S. (2015, June 18). Design Principles – a guide. Cxpartners.

Centre for Teaching and Educational Technologies. (n.d.). Service Levels. Royal Roads University. https://www.royalroads.ca/about/centre-teaching-educational-technologies/design-develop-course/service-levels

Doorley, Holcomb, Klebahn, Segovia & Utley (2018) Design Thinking Bootleg. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57c6b79629687fde090a0fdd/t/5b19b2f2aa4a99e99b26b6bb/1528410876119/dschool_bootleg_deck_2018_final_sm+%282%29.pdf

Naidu, S. (2021). Building resilience in education systems post-COVID-19. Distance Education, 42(1), 1-4.

Rogers, R.R. Reflection in Higher Education: A Concept Analysis. Innovative Higher Education 26, 37–57 (2001).

Alisha and I had a great experience exploring the design thinking process in this assignment. We arrived at a mutually beneficial problem statement as follows:

We need a way to effectively maintain balance and wellbeing in online work and learning because it poses health challenges in multiple facets, including physical, mental, and social/emotional.

Our solution to this problem is illustrated in this prototype publication that we entitled the Health Handbook for the Online World (Health HOW). 

Meyers described my current work context pretty well, a “Learning Technologist is actively involved in understanding, managing, researching, supporting or enabling learning with the use of learning technology” (Meyers, 2020, 17:35). I’m generally focused on the implementation aspects of the design process and work with an instructional designers (ID) and Subject Matter Experts (SME) who come to me with many ideas and reasons to what they are looking to build. With all these ideas presented to me, I need to use a flexible set of tools (programs, processes and strategies) to build and support materials that meet the needs of all stakeholders (Lacheb & Boling, 2018). As I primarily work with a technical focus, I decided to outline some of my design superpowers as gadgets with the image and descriptions below:

3d Printifier: With the 3D Printifier, I build out ID and SME ideas into content, assessments, activities and more. Either direct requests or set timelines on course development spring me into action!

High-Speed Jetpack: This super speed jetpack allows me to provide just-in-time support to upcoming and live courses. Sometimes changes are needed on short notice and I need to respond quickly to ensure a course is setup to run as smooth as possible.

Detail Tracking Goggles: My attention to detail goggles help ensure proper quality assurance standards while building and reviewing courses. This could be related to accessibility, compatibility, or consistency of information.

Application Belt: This belt contains all the applications I have at my disposal. While certain ones like Moodle may see the most use, there are many others available for the specific needs of different course and project contexts.

All in One Communicator: With stakeholders around the globe I am constantly communicating through text, audio and video. The all in one communicator keeps me connected and ready to collaborate at any moment.

References

Lachheb, A., Boling, E. Design tools in practice: instructional designers report which tools they use and why. J Comput High Educ 30, 34–54 (2018). https://doi-org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1007/s12528-017-9165-x

Meyers, Melanie. (2020, April 17). Many Hats: Why Flexibility and an Open Mind Matters  [Video]. https://ca.bbcollab.com/collab/ui/session/playback

Design is a very new topic for me to explore so I’ve used the questions provided to help guide my thoughts!

What are some things to consider when selecting a design model?

When considering a design model such as ADDIE, I reflected that I find myself working primarily in the “DIE” (Develop, Implement, and Evaluate) aspects of the process. As such, I definitely feel uncomfortable “getting the ball rolling” in the Analyzing and Designing phases. To paraphrase, it’s made me feel like a builder with no blueprints!

Regardless of what design model is chosen, a theme that has arisen for me is the importance of understanding your learning environment’s context. The who, what, where, why, when and how of your learning environment undoubtedly guides your design choices and can result in vastly different results even when using the same design models.  

How do you make design decisions? What role do design models and innovation play in this process?

Given my unfamiliarity with design in general, I definitely approach any design choices by reviewing what has been done previously and understanding why that was the case. That then creates an opportunity to ask if there any changes that could improve the learning environment. As much as I love the idea of big, disruptive, “game changing” innovation, I think you can innovate in small ways too. I’ve seen simple changes such as reordering of content or rewording alleviate frustrations in previous course offerings.

The learning design is obviously critical to building a learning environment, but I know it’s also a necessity to meet the needs other course stakeholders (program staff, registrar, laws, students) as well. This can sometimes be an additional challenge when you attempt to provide what you to believe is a best practice, but isn’t possible in certain scenarios.    

Are there any design models have you found especially useful when making design decisions?

Given I have the pleasure of working at RRU as a Learning Technologist in addition to being a MALAT student, I’ve had exposure to many aspects of the RRU’s Learning Design Process. It closely resembles the ADDIE method, just phrased and organized to address some specifics to RRU. This is provides me a clear pathway and standards expected for design in courses. Interestingly you will still see vastly different courses throughout program areas because of their different contexts and needs. With that said, I’m excited at the prospects of trying completely different design approaches through this course!

The year is 2030 in this speculative future and post-secondary institutions are losing potential learners to private and corporate offerings of Alternative Digital Credentials (ADC) (Matkin, 2020). Sparked by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, large corporate entities with powerful networks were able to implement long-term agendas to capture and further control the lucrative education market (Moore et al., 2021). Both in standalone offerings and in partnerships with public post-secondary institutions, ADCs are increasingly acknowledged as a valid method of e-learning (Lemoine & Richardson, 2015).  The ADCs come in various forms such as micro-credentials, digital badges and industry-recognized certificates to meet demands of a continually upskilling and reskilling workforce (Kato et al, 2020). There is criticism of the privatization, data collection and business values over learning values in education, but most learners perceive great benefits in taking ADCs (Moore et al, 2021). ADCs may be seen as more accessible with less required time commitment, no physical location and cheaper monetary cost (Lemoine & Richardson, 2015).  ADCs serve all manner of needs for “skill identification, assessment, verification and distribution” (Matkin, 2020 p. 61). Although increasingly popular and having overall positive reception, this future with ADCs likely has more positive and negative implications that have not been fully realized by 2030.

From the learner’s perspective, ADCs have numerous advantages after or in lieu of a traditional post-secondary degree. In the 2020s, a large percentage of post-secondary graduates continued to have difficulties finding full-time work in their field of study (Lemoine & Richardson, 2015).  Post-secondary transcripts continually became irrelevant to employers in a job candidate’s eligibility (Matkin, 2020).  In contrast, ADCs are able to certify a skillset or competency to be “market ready” for jobs (Wheelahan & Moodie, 2021). This has been taken negatively from the perspective that corporations are offsetting training costs to the learner and creating a labor market increasingly dependent on casual work instead of full-time employees (Wheelahan & Moodie, 2021). There is partial “gigification” of the work force as digital platforms and services are able to mediate various forms of labour with customers on demand (Wheelahan & Moodie, 2021). Examples can be found in the early 2020s, such as Microsoft’s advertised partnership with Upwork directly on the Microsoft Certifications page (Microsoft, n.d.). The joint ad explains “Do you want to earn additional income? We’re partnering with Upwork to connect Azure certified freelancers with customers”. Regardless of the criticisms there is still significant financial incentive for learners to take ADCs to complete a program and get hired. Another example of financial incentive of ADCs can also be seen with a micro-credential offered for a specific software service. This credential can be counted as 15 credits toward a MBA at a university in London (Wheelahan & Moodie, 2021). The financial cost of it is around 1,000 dollars and allows for significant savings when compared to if the learner continued through the traditional course offerings. Large corporations such as Google even offer free programs through public institutions (Porat, 2021). These ADCs simultaneously create potential employees and customers to a corporation’s ecosystem of services where learners are happy to join. They boast statistics such as “History majors who also get data analysis skills can increase their entry level salary by 38%” to instill that their ADC brings credibility, value and prestige (Porat, 2021). Learners can then easily share these ADCs through social and professional networks to gain recognition for their new skills (Young et al, 2019).  Additionally, the flexibility in location and time commitment are a key advantage for learners taking ADCs (Kato et al, 2020). ADCs provide access to education from virtually any physical location at any time of day that works best for the learner. ADCs are also shorter in overall length to provide specific knowledge quickly (Matkin, 2020). When factoring in specific subject matter, flexible and reduced time commitment, lesser financial costs and affiliation to prestigious large corporations, it’s easy to see why learners are increasingly attracted to ADCs for their education needs.

From the corporate perspective, ADCs are a huge business opportunity. Post-secondary institutions continued to lose their relevance to fit the needs of the workforce and private corporations were ready to fill any gaps (Matkin, 2020).  Corporate curriculum control allows education to instill values of efficiency, accountability through data tracking, and managerialism that is able to monitor employee output (Moore et al, 2021). With continued year over year growth in the education sector in almost all indicators (employees hired, revenue, courses offered, number of learners learners), there is long term potential for profit and growth (Shad, 2020). Additional value can be also be gained by gathering and selling data (Moore et al, 2021). ADCs provide a means of marketing to help recruit, maintain and develop the work force (Young et al, 2019).  This extends workplace learning beyond initial onboarding and provides incentive for employees to stay (Gamrat et al. 2014). ADCs also minimized chances of applicant fraud through metadata confirmation instilling a sense of value and trust (Matkin, 2020). With so many perceived benefits to corporations, there is little deterrent for them to pursue ADCs. A quote from Moore et al’s (2020) writing highlights the corporate desire to control education:

When Apple founder, Steve Jobs knew he was dying of cancer, Bill Gates had one last visit with his long-time business competitor. In that meeting, they both discussed education as an untapped frontier for their corporate futures. Historically, there has been resistance to Mac and Microsoft infiltrating the classrooms; however, COVID19 has opened the floodgates.

In this speculative 2030, ADCs will continue to grow and find their place in the education space. Some post-secondary institutions will reimagine their programs to meet the more accessible and workforce focused demands of employers and learners. Large corporate entities still hold the advantage with their capital and perceived prestige, though startups actively join and try to disrupt the education space as well. ADCs are primarily focused on the technology and information sectors, but with advertising and incentives aimed at other fields of studies, there is potential for further expansion. Regulatory government bodies will need to further examine ADCs as they become a more significant part of education. Untangling the complex relationships between public and private entities will prove to be a challenge in education for the foreseeable future. It’s too soon to determine if these changes will bring unseen consequences, but there are undoubtedly shifts in how education is delivered to millions of learners.     

References

Gamrat, C., Zimmerman, H.T., Dudek, J. and Peck, K. (2014), Digital badging as teacher professional development. Br J Educ Technol, 45: 1136-1148. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12200

Kato, S., V. Galán-Muros and T. Weko (2020), “The emergence of alternative credentials”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 216, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b741f39e-en.

Lemoine, P. A., & Richardson, M. D. (2015). Micro-Credentials, Nano Degrees, and Digital Badges: New Credentials for Global Higher Education. International Journal of Technology and Educational Marketing (IJTEM), 5(1), 36-49. http://doi.org/10.4018/ijtem.2015010104

Matkin, G. W. (2020). The Challenge of Digital Credentials: How Should Universities Respond?. In Radical Solutions and eLearning (pp. 51-61). Springer, Singapore. Retrieved from: https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TjTnDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA51&ots=6xeRtf04AT&sig=uFJOepmX8oPLLxhNN0YgVJvES8Q#v=onepage&q&f=false

Microsoft (n.d.) Microsoft Certification. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/learn/certifications/

Moore, S. D. M., Jayme, B. D. O., & Black, J. (2021). Disaster Capitalism, Rampant EdTech Opportunism, and the Advancement of Online Learning in the Era of COVID19. Critical Education, 12(2). Retrieved from: https://ices.library.ubc.ca/index.php/criticaled/article/view/186587

Porat, R. (2021).  Expanding pathways into higher education and the workforce. Grow with Google. Retrieved from: https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/grow-with-google/higher-education-partnerships/?utm_source=gdigital&utm_medium=ownedsocial&utm_campaign=certs&utm_content=he

Shah, D. (2020). Coursera’s 2020: Year in Review. The Report by class central. https://www.classcentral.com/report/coursera-2020-year-review/

Wheelahan, L., Moodie, G. Gig qualifications for the gig economy: micro-credentials and the ‘hungry mile’. High Educ (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00742-3

Young, D., West, R. & Nylin, T. (2019). Value of Open Microcredentials to Earners and Issuers: A Case Study of National Instruments Open Badges. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(5), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.4345

The readings for this unit were quite a fun and sometimes an alarming read similar to episodes of the show Black Mirror. All scenarios presented were in the realm of possibility and brought positive and negative aspects to that reality. The combination of readings and seeing many badge/credential posts on LinkedIn, my potential future idea was that of badges, microcredentials and internal accreditation swallow and control a large portion of ed-tech.

In this potential future, large FAAMG (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and Alphabet’s Google) corporations have seized more educational “market share” by creating corporate specific education aimed at creating a productive and specifically skilled workforce. The internal education somewhat constrains you into this work environment as it’s only used in that institution or any competitors are too small to realistically compete. The term “golden handcuffs” can be used in that these large corporations have the control, knowledge and capital to keep you locked into their ecosystem (and we as an individual might be happy with that!).

This is a somewhat pessimistic future that assumes the continued dominance and growth of large tech firms. Given the COVID-19 pandemic undoubtedly sparked numerous discussions across all institutions, the training and hiring/retaining a productive workforce is being carefully formulated. For some perspective, a good yearly turn overrate would be anything below 10%. For Google at ~140,000 employees that is 14,000 new hires needed yearly in a good case scenario before including any expansion. With continued year over year growth it is in their interest to retain talent and train efficiently when recruiting. By internally training credentials directly they control quality and get the learners ready to create value for their corporation.

Although we would view this as potentially detrimental to post-secondary institutions, as mentioned above many individuals would likely praise this change.  Given the prestige and incentives generally associated with these large corporations it’s a potential challenge ahead to maintain broad education availability that is wanted by employers and society.

Collaboratively written by Melissa Miller & Zac MacDonald 

Wong, W. (2018, April 2). School STEM Labs Inspire Students, Power Innovation. Ed Tech Magazine. https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2018/04/school-stem-labs-inspire-students-power-innovation

The Bullis School in Maryland opened a $25 million-dollar STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) center in 2017. The state-of-the-art building includes Creston control panels in each classroom, a 3D VR computer lab, a digital media room, and a maker space with robotics and 3D printers. The facility was built to facilitate the growth of STEM course offerings for students from K-12.

Unique classroom setups in the Bullis School allow students to collaborate in groups and share their screens with their groups by plugging into a shared display screen. The school claims that the setup allows for collaboration and project-based learning, specifically for subjects that are not usually associated with project-based learning, such as math (Wong, 2018).

Likely, Kozma would argue that the technology is part of the learning process. Kozma shared this quote in his 1994 article,

Rather, learning is an active, constructive, cognitive, and social process by which the learner strategically manages available cognitive, physical, and social resources to create new knowledge by interacting with information in the environment and integrating it with information already stored in memory (Shuell, 1988, as cited in Kozma, 1994, p. 3).

Kozma’s perspective would likely be that the technology is part of this process and therefore is influencing learning.

Clark, would likely make the “replaceability” argument that the same instructional methods could be used with learners collaborating and sharing their work without the technology therefore the media is not influencing learning the instructional methods are.

The school’s STEM Coordinator states that “It’s making sure that technology is not the thing that takes over. The priority is the pedagogy and ensuring that we have the technology to support what we are trying to accomplish” (Wong. 2018, Discovery Center Lets Educators and Students Explore section, para. 8). Clark would appreciate this acknowledgment by the school that the technology is there to support learning and the technology without the pedagogy would not accomplish the learning goals.

Babich, N. (2019, Sept 19). How VR In Education Will Change How We Learn And Teach. XD Ideas. https://xd.adobe.com/ideas/principles/emerging-technology/virtual-reality-will-change-learn-teach/

Adobe is a large computer software company that creates a multitude of programs, many of which are used in Ed-Tech. How many times have we seen job posts in the Ed-Tech field noting you must know Adobe Captivate? Adobe’s XD Idea site is an article space focused on the practice, business and impact of design. In the article the author stated the bold topic “How VR In Education Will Change How We Learn And Teach”.

The author makes multiple claims regarding Virtual Reality (VR) and that it is the next natural step in the evolution of education. VR is generally used in the form of a motion-tracking headset with video display and handheld controllers to create a simulated environment. They preface this idea that as a society we are always striving for the easier, quicker and more efficient ways of transferring knowledge in teaching and learning. They go further to say most technology helped in enabling access to information, but did not fundamentally change the way in which it was consumed. 

Virtual Reality (VR) was boasted to allow both visual representation and the ability to interact with the content in a new way. The role of the instructor will shift from “content delivery to content facilitation”. This allows near realistic conditions in digital spaces that may not exist anymore, are inaccessible, or break rules of reality to allow for teaching and learning. 

They claim there are 5 properties of good VR learning experiences, 

• Immersive: create an experience to bring the subject to life
• Ease of Use: use simplistic design choices to reduce the need for VR skills
• Meaningful: develop stories to spark more than understanding, spark interest and inspire
• Adaptable: give learners control to pace learning and adjust difficulty
• Measurable: instructors should have measurable criteria for success

Kozma would likely argue the use of VR fundamentally changes the process in how we learn. The use of this technology is a different experience and environment for teaching and learning to occur in a new way. The abilities of this digital format allows for events that cannot occur in an interactable 3D space as accurately or practically.

Clark would likely argue this is just another vehicle in which to deliver learning experiences. It may provide economic benefit in the means of being less expensive or the most cognitively efficient way, but it may not pass the replaceability test as there is likely another method available.

Looking at these articles through the media debate lens, we are able to identify techno-deterministic claims and critically evaluate how and where the technology effectively fits into the learning experience. Adobe’s claim that “VR will change how we learn and teach” immediately solicits a critical response. Perhaps, Adobe would be more accurate to claim, VR can support learners by providing real-life examples or VR will support teachers in problem-based learning scenarios. Although their claims likely have some merit, there is still a potential bias for the technology itself as the “next step in evolution for education”. Adobe does not directly produce VR gear (yet) but financially benefits from VR use as their software is used in the planning, design, and implementation of VR environments. Knowing what we do about the media debate, reading the Bullis School article, it can be appreciated that the school acknowledges that pedagogy is the priority and the technology is there to support it. This provides credibility to the school and the programs offered using advanced technology to facilitate learning. 

In conclusion, we agree both perspectives of Kozma and Clark can have merit when applied to several scenarios. Clark and Kozma seem to agree that the technology itself will not be the determining factor of successfully meeting learning outcomes, how the teacher uses the technology to support meeting the learning outcomes will be (Clark, 1994; Kozma, 1994).  We think the recent advancements in technology make it easier to argue in favour of Kozma’s stance today versus the time of the debate. 

References

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

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning: Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.