In my first post in the course, I stated that digital literacy and fluency are essential for leadership in the digital learning environment (DLE). They speak to competency and forward-thinking leadership qualities, closely linked to intelligence, reflection, self-awareness and caring. I still agree that these qualities are necessary for a leader in a DLE. However, as we went through the scaffolded sections of the course and began to make linkages, I can also see how a forward-thinking leader uses data to inform, lead, and manage change. In this respect, I think forward-thinking is the most critical leadership quality because leaders must be aware of what transpires and flexible to pivot and change when necessary.
The one thing that resonated with me in this course is the pace at which DLEs evolve and the ethical implications of how we use data in a DLE. In particular, how do we perceive and use learning analytics, and what biases are created or used when analysing this data? What is the data even telling us? A topic I will be exploring further. I teach ethics in tourism and hospitality, but this is a new ethical perspective to geek out on.
Where do I see myself in the future- I am unclear. I want to venture into instructional design and/ or learning technology. I learned from this course that I have much more to learn about being involved in educational projects and their system, but I would benefit from hands-on experience and mentorship. I have aligned myself with a few key people to volunteer/shadow on a few projects once I finish this program in August. I believe that will guide me towards what I am best suited for.
When I began working at one institution, some instructors used Zoom (my preference), and some were using MS Teams to operate synchronous lessons. The student body at the time was growing, and the old method of recording attendance was cumbersome. There were new features on MS teams to use for teaching that the school was excited about, including its capacity to integrate into our LMS and track attendance, an essential feature for the school. A third-party tech company had shown the administration multiple options comparable to Zoom that instructors could use; plus, the school was interested in the new features at no cost beyond their existing issued MS Office accounts. Thus, the school instructed everyone to be on MS Teams with one day’s notice, and all Zoom accounts were cancelled. I switched to MS Teams without training or resources.
Switching to MS Teams was not seamless or successful. Students consistently had login issues, especially those dialling in internationally. Multiple new features did not work as they should, and as the student population grew, so did the problems with MS Teams. Instructors reported issues and were referred to our tech support company; they stated it was a user error because everything worked whenever they tried to investigate. To help my students, I undertook some online research to troubleshoot the issues they were experiencing and improve my management of the online classroom. The issue I found was that students dialled in as guests, not registered users under the administration. To have access to the features, they needed to be registered.
When the third-party tech company and administrators trialled the platform, the scenario of unregistered users was not considered despite this being the entire student body.
The time, effort and total costs of implementing and maintaining an MS account for each student were not viable for the school. As such, within a week, the school had purchased a Zoom account for all instructors, and the issue of integrating attendance into the LMS was put on hold. No training or resources were provided for the change in systems. We were given Zoom accounts on Friday afternoon, with compliance expected Monday morning.
Perspectives
The above scenario is from my perspective and experience as an instructor. Lack of training, time to adapt, and overall support hinder most changes I encounter in this context. In this case, the key project from the administration’s perspective was to find a solution to the cumbersome process of keeping track of attendance using the technology we already had, which was unsuccessful and still is to this day.
The issue had been identified from a project management perspective, but those making decisions lacked an understanding of the project environment, including the social and international environments (Watt, 2014). Stakeholders such as the tech company advising the decision makers also did not understand the environment, and the data used to inform their actionable knowledge was skewed because of this. Actionable knowledge is when data users collect and use the information, weigh the options and solutions and apply their judgment to make decisions (Marsh et al., 2006). They understood that MS Teams had features that aligned with the project goal; however, they lacked insight into the project environment, which meant they did not collect data to test for viability within the correct context.
The context of students being logged in as unregistered users could also be a failure in systems thinking, where there was a need to look at the whole system and all its components versus looking at the problem linearly (Conway et al., 2017). To me the greatest barrier to the project being successful was the lack of understanding of the system. Communication and consultation with everyday users before the application was rolled out may have improved outcomes because there would have been a greater understanding of this part of the system. Team members should be involved in project planning and aim to communicate in the same language (Watt, 2014). While the actual change was communicated regarding its occurrence and rationale, when the users shared issues post-implementation, the tech company was not speaking the same language as the users and was deemed incompetent.
From a management perspective, I understand you cannot always involve everyone in decision-making. Still, regardless of context (my past in restaurants or current status as an instructor), when I see change or projects fail, it is because they only consider some parts of the whole, and those making decisions are not the boots on the ground. Thus, the impact is only sometimes understood after the implementation stage. In the future, when dealing with change, I see myself consulting with those who need to execute the change before implementation to be informed by data where possible. If advance consolation is impossible, being flexible, supportive and open to adjusting accordingly is necessary.
Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education. RAND Education- Occasional Paper, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.7249/OP170
For this assignment, we were asked to create a visual document with corresponding text that conveys how leaders in a digital learning environment (DLE) address change. Research, consultation, and consideration of the scope of the task led me to create Figure 1, depicting four common shared themes that contribute to successful change implemented by leaders in a DLE: Communication, Collaboration, Consideration, Contemplation.
Figure 1. Leading Change in a DLE
The Visual Explained
The visual depicts the shared themes as a circular process because I consider change in a DLE an iterative process. Planning is paramount to the success of change efforts (Biech, 2007) and is central to change regardless of the time allowance for enacting change. The Luecke method (as cited in Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015) notes the importance of “monitoring and adjusting” (p. 250) change initiatives in its last step, which integrates into the contemplation theme in the process. This, combined with the dynamic nature of DLEs and conversations about revisiting and revising post-change (N. Kulikova, personal communication, February 10, 2023), contributed to conveying the themes as a process compared to a linear design.
Communication
Communication is essential to change, whether it be communicating objectives, the change itself or using it to engage people. Communication in a change process can be viewed as “open, honest, frequent and strategic sharing of relevant information” (Page, 2011, p. 19), with communicating openly and honestly being an ethical consideration of change (Biech, 2007). Open communication, regular meetings (before, during and after the change), and sharing experiences were part of the change process discussed with my colleague (N. Kulikova, personal communication, February 10, 2023). Al-Haddid and Kotnour’s (2015) overview of change models displays various change management methods that include communication as part of the process, indicating its importance. Communication about how and who communicates what (the chain of communication) is also important in a change process (Boyce & Harrison, n.d.; Page, 2011) to ensure that what is meant to be communicated is accurate and recognised as official. Communication from the leadership of resources (people and technology) being used and the roles that people have in the change can help create community, comfort stakeholders (Page, 2011) and create a space for collaboration.
Collaboration
Collaboration was a consistent theme that came up throughout this research. The Luecke method and Six Step (as cited in Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015) include creating/developing a shared vision which infers collaboration. Creating safe spaces where people “bounce ideas” (Time 2:48) with colleagues and peers (Flynn & Harrison, n.d.), share concerns and make decisions together (Norum & Harrison, n.d.) is essential to the change process to ensure that all outcomes have been considered and encourage endorsement of the change (Page, 2011). My colleague noted that when a particular change was happening in the DLE across the university, they were told what the change was by the administration, but as a team came together regularly to discuss ideas, challenges and pathways to enact change (N. Kulikova, personal communication, February 10, 2023). A leader in a DLE should facilitate and encourage collaboration to ensure that barriers to change are mitigated and that all possible outcomes are considered.
Consideration
Consideration to me includes leadership considering what support systems are needed to facilitate change and the capacity of those involved in the change: skills, access to resources and support needed. Resource availability speaks to the organisational readiness and capacity of those who are part of the change, which can impact change effectiveness (Weiner, 2009). The need to consider inclusion and access of the user in a DLE (Jones & Harrison, n.d.; Norum & Harrison, n.d.) and consider our biases when developing educational tools (Jones & Harrison, n.d) is needed when inciting change in a DLE. Considering the digital literacy of the user and providing support systems to help those who need to be digitally literate (Boyce & Harrison, n.d; Norum & Harrison, n.d.). Ultimately, a leader in a DLE needs to consider the impact of the change on all users and what is needed to mitigate barriers and support all stakeholders to make the change happen.
Contemplation
Contemplating the change’s success and adjusting accordingly is a consistent theme in change models and my colleague’s discussion. The Luecke Method, Jick and Kanter Method Leading Change Method, PAR, Wheel, Lean Thinking and Six Step all contain elements of reviewing and adjusting (as cited in Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). My colleague mentioned that several meetings post-change to monitor change tend to occur: one immediately after to reflect and make immediate changes that are needed; furthermore, one or more as the progress of the change is monitored where potential updates to technology are introduced/ considered or to determine if the same support is needed (N. Kulikova, personal communication, February 10, 2023). This often occurs when the users have surpassed the introduction level support needs of the potential tool being introduced (N. Kulikova, personal communication, February 10, 2023). Leaders in a DLE need to understand that just because a change is “done,” the dynamic nature of technology and a DLE needs to be continually monitored and adjusted when and where needed.
Change in My Context
These themes are part of successful change based on research and my experience working in a DLE. One workplace has supportive leadership that embodies all that is in the model. I see change being implemented smoothly when it is communicated to instructors and students. Conversely, another workplace has a top-down approach where change is implemented in a DLE with limited digital literacy (both leadership, staff and students) and users with multiple access issues that are never considered. Change here is never smooth, well-received or successful, but without contemplation, there is no space for feedback or improvement.
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. https://doi.org/10.1108/jocm-11-2013-0215
Biech, E. (2007). Thriving through change: A leader’s practical guide to change mastery. Association for Talent Development.
For this task were asked to discuss our views on what we think are the most important leadership qualities of a leader in a digital learning environment (DLE). According to Peter Senge, leadership is the “capacity of a human community to shape its future”(Sarder TV & Senge, 2015, Minute 2:44). In the context of a DLE and higher education (HE) in which I work, I perceive this notion of leadership as a person or group of people who aim to support faculty and students to foster a supportive learning environment that prepares students for the real world by building their capacity to function in a technology-filled world.
Digital leadership is about embracing the current changes in technology and establishing the pathway for change that enhances “school culture through the assistance of technology” (para. 5) and anticipating sustainable changes that contribute to the school’s success (Sheninger, 2022). To me, digital literacy and fluency are essential attributes of leaders in a DLE because, in the context of education, digital leadership is the integration of a series of technologies, tools and instruments (Antonopoulou et al., 2020). Digital literacy is understanding how to use technology and digital tools, while digital fluency is about leveraging those tools to create new knowledge and solve new problems (Sparrow, 2018). One would have to understand the systems and technologies being integrated and be aware of the immediate and future impact of the decision they make regarding technology integration.
Without digital literacy and fluency, it is hard to imagine a leader in a DLE being forward-looking or competent in their role as a leader. Both qualities are rated in the top four qualities of admired leaders in several surveys conducted in 1987, 2002, and 2010 (Kouzes & Posner, 2011) and speak to elements of Sheninger’s (2022) 7 Pillars of Digital Leadership in Education . A leader in this context must be forward-looking and competent to implement these pillars and consider the sense of direction needed for the future. In this instance, competency is implementing sustainable change (Sheninger, 2022) and technological competency. It is also the competency to lead change in an educational setting away from the limiting traditional transactional leadership style Khan (2017) notes that we commonly see in HE and aim to change the traditional view of a learning space (Sheninger, 2022).
In my group’s discussion on admirable leadership qualities, we pondered the concept of competence and leadership. We considered it more of a managerial need/ value than a leadership quality; however, as I consider a DLE and the different environments I work in, the presence of digital literacy and fluency or lack thereof directly relates to what I feel is the competency of leadership. One has a team of professionals who specialise in digital learning and encourages faculty to enhance their professional practice working in DLEs. While the other has very few people on staff that are digitally literate or fluent despite offering programs in a DLE. The leadership focuses on increasing enrollment by offering online courses without the knowledge or training behind the differences between an in-classroom experience and a DLE or recognising that support and training are needed for the faculty. One institution considers the students’ future and prepares them for life beyond the classroom, while the other considers the number of enrolled students.
Other attributes closely tied to competency and forward thinking are intelligence and self-awareness, which are needed in leadership for a DLE. Admittedly, they were not attributes high on my list of leadership qualities in the class activity. Still, as I read more about reflective leadership, I believe it is directly related to digital leadership in DLEs because it “is needed to build cultures that expand human potential” (Castelli, 2016, p. 218). Aligning with earlier mentions of what digital leadership is (Sheninger, 2022). Furthermore, to be a reflective leader, one must have self-awareness (Castelli, 2016), while being reflective is part of the attribute of intelligence (Kouzes & Posner, 2011). Thus, I believe that intelligence and self-awareness are attributes needed by a leader in a DLE.
Lastly, I believe caring is a quality that is needed and closely tied to a forward-thinking leader in a DLE. I envision caring leaders in a DLE as concerned for their students and their future by seeking ways to provide them with opportunities and digital skills. To me, caring leaders find ways to provide a learning environment that fosters learning for all students and their challenges while preparing them for the real world.
References
Antonopoulou, H., Halkiopoulos, C., Barlou, O., & Beligiannis, G. N. (2020). Leadership types and digital leadership in higher education: Behavioural data analysis from University of Patras in Greece. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(4), 110–129. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.4.8
Castelli, P. (2016). Reflective leadership review: A framework for improving organisational performance. Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 217–236. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmd-08-2015-0112
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). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i3.3294
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2011). In Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Sarder TV & Senge, P. (2015, June 9). What makes a great leader? by Peter Senge, Author of The Fifth Discipline [Video]. YouTube . https://youtu.be/5wvJRL0a1Cg
