Growing Community Models
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
5 gefällt mir•1,214 views
Amber D. Evans-Marcu (Virginia Tech, rSmart) presents information obtained in her dissertation research regarding how awareness and adoption are often hindered by assumptions, misconceptions and a general lack of knowledge regarding any innovation. During her research, she unearthed a trove of adoption models specifically for use in higher education. In this session, she will explain how her experience and knowledge to apply a particular diffusion of innovation model, the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM), came to fruition during the VT Transition from Blackboard to Sakai. She will also explain how other models can prove effective against significant resistance that can often arise across campuses from non-technical stakeholders, especially those unfamiliar with the open source ecosystem. In this session, Evans-Marcu will explain: * The importance of models * Selecting a model * Applying the CBAM model * Pitfalls to avoid
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie Growing Community Models
Ähnlich wie Growing Community Models (20)
Mehr von Amber D. Marcu, Ph.D.
Mehr von Amber D. Marcu, Ph.D. (12)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Growing Community Models
- 1. Amber D. Evans-Marcu Virginia Tech, rSmart June 10-15, 2012 Growing Community; Growing Possibilities
- 2. In this session, I will explain: • The importance of models • Selecting a model • Applying the CBAM model • Pitfalls to avoid • Bonus – OSS Adoption! June 10-15, 2012 Growing Community; Growing Possibilities
- 3. Strategy 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 3
- 4. Suppose you had a classroom in which you had everything necessary for learning to occur. What’s in it? The Importance of Models Strategy 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 4
- 5. 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 5
- 6. Now, suppose you had NO curriculum. No framework to: organize those lesson plans, know what to teach, or in what order. The Importance of Models Strategy 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 6
- 7. Effectively, no strategy. The Importance of Models Strategy 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 7
- 8. What effects do you suppose NO STRATEGY would have on the success of the learning experience in the classroom by the end of the year? The Importance of Models Strategy 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 8
- 9. The Importance of Models 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 9
- 10. Universities, Institutions, & Orgs know this. 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 10
- 11. The Importance of Models 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 11
- 12. General process: ◦ Reference SWOT ◦ Identify need for [new] LMS ◦ RFP ◦ Test, Examine, ―Kick the wheels‖ ◦ Select an LMS – (Yay!) 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 12
- 13. The Importance of Models 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 13
- 14. A Taxonomy of Change Models Based on Common Questions in Practice 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 14
- 15. ―Grandpa‖ of innovation-diffusion models. 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 15
- 16. ―The broadest & most far-reaching of models.‖ There must be The things needed dissatisfaction with to make the the status quo. innovation work The people who will should be easily ultimately accessible. implement any Implementers must innovation must have time to possess sufficient learn, adapt, integr knowledge and ate, and reflect on skills to do the job. what they are doing. 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 16
- 17. Rewards or An unqualified go- incentives must ahead and verbal exist for support for the participants. innovation by key Participation in the players and other change process stakeholders is must be expected necessary. and encouraged. Leadership must be evident. 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 17
- 18. ―Stakeholder-as-change-agent‖ 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 18
- 19. ―Change agent’s guide to the change process.‖ ―C-R-E-A-T-O-R‖ 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 19
- 20. Interested in personal change over time. 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 20
- 21. A Virginia Tech Case Study 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 21
- 22. Interested in the personal, affective barriers. Stage 4-6: Impact concerns Stage 3: Task concerns Stages 0-2: Self concerns 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 22
- 23. 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 23
- 24. Pitfalls to Avoid & What to Do 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 24
- 25. Successful campuses and adoptions occur when a compelling case for the need is made. Believe in the innovation. Acknowledge shortcomings (don’t lie). ◦ Develop a way to address the shortcomings. Recruit PASSION. Showcase and Share success. Continuously explore and evaluate what lies ahead. 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 25
- 26. Don’t implement change just because you think it would be better. Conduct the analysis, study the data. Test and Discuss ◦ If no better fit and no immediate need, skip it! ◦ If potentials exist, investigate. Use collaboration and collaborative words to describe the endeavor. Take a multi-disciplinary (or multi- departmental) approach to solving problems. 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 26
- 27. Include the stakeholders. ◦ Advisory boards work well for quieter participants. ◦ Quarantine—but spend quality time with—the loud, ―squeaky wheels.‖ Leverage technology ◦ Survey your stakeholders ◦ Communicate clearly and consistently ◦ Be accessible (Help Desk, Faculty Center, IT, etc.) ◦ Make learning easy to access. 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 27
- 28. Seek out your users (faculty & staff): ◦ Dept & College Meetings ◦ Local Sakai Advisory Board ◦ Communicate: Email, Blog, Twitter, Facebook, mailbox fliers, etc. Research your users’ needs Review Tier 1, 2, 3 Help Desk questions Collect & review workshop evaluations / feedback Conduct a change study* 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 28
- 29. Faculty and Staff get ―stuck‖ at Stage 3: Task. DON’T wait for them to come to you. GO to THEM. ◦ Their instruction depends on it! 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 29
- 30. Barriers, Remedies & Models? 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 30
- 31. 1. Knowledge 1. Educate internal staff 2. Use middleware solutions 2. Legacy integration 3. Self-resolving with 3. Forking standards developed 4. Consider open source in 4. Sunk costs areas without proprietary 5. Technological software & compare future cost streams of immaturity maintaining proprietary versus open source software 5. Evaluate open source software maturity models and case studies. Barriers Remedies 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 31
- 32. People will change in their own time and with effective and timely interventions. Just keep at it and apply the model that suits the need and/or enlist the services of knowledgeable, outside help.* Always remember our REAL clients - the students. 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 32
- 33. Amber D. Evans-Marcu Ph.D. Candidate, Instructional Design & Technology Informatics Instructor, Methodist College Academic Technology Consultant, rSmart adevans@vt.edu (Virginia Tech) amarcu@rsmart.com (rSmart) Twitter: AmsDiane4Tech Contxt: Text ―AmsDiane‖ to 50500 LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/adevans/ 2012 Jasig Sakai Conference 33
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Room:Conference Center Room 2 (7th Floor) Time: 1:15 PM - 2:15 PM Title: Effective Models for Adoption in Higher Education Date: 06/13/2012 Presenter(s):Amber D. Evans-Marcu (Virginia Tech) Description: Amber D. Evans-Marcu (Virginia Tech, rSmart) will present on information obtained in her dissertation research regarding how awareness and adoption are often hindered by assumptions, misconceptions and a general lack of knowledge regarding any innovation. During her research, she unearthed a trove of adoption models specifically for use in higher education. In this session, she will explain how her experience and knowledge to apply a particular diffusion of innovation model, the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM), came to fruition during the VT Transition from Blackboard to Sakai. She will also explain how other models can prove effective against significant resistance that can often arise across campuses from non-technical stakeholders, especially those unfamiliar with the open source ecosystem. In this session, Evans-Marcu will explain:* The importance of models* Selecting a model* Applying the CBAM model* Pitfalls to avoid
- ReferencesEllsworth, J. B. (2000). Surviving change: A survey of educational change models. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, Syracuse, NY.
- What’s in it:Kids eager to learn.Textbooks and lab suppliesComputers, Internet, softwareWell-crafted lesson plans w/balanced, effective learning activities (that aligned learning objectives to learning outcomes)Paper, pencils, office suppliesA comfortable, SAFE environment Trained, qualified, dedicated, innovative teacher (like our TWSIA winners!)ReferencesEllsworth, J. B. (2000). Surviving change: A survey of educational change models. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, Syracuse, NY.
- ReferencesEllsworth, J. B. (2000). Surviving change: A survey of educational change models. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, Syracuse, NY.
- ReferencesEllsworth, J. B. (2000). Surviving change: A survey of educational change models. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, Syracuse, NY.
- ReferencesEllsworth, J. B. (2000). Surviving change: A survey of educational change models. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, Syracuse, NY.
- This is no different when affecting change into an existing system. You can have all of the necessary tools—heck, even enthusiastic participants!—but without a clear strategy and a plan for implementing the change, “What effects do you suppose NO STRATEGY would have on the success of adopting something by n time?”
- Definitions: “SWOT analysis (alternately SLOT analysis) is a strategic planning method used to evaluate the Strengths, Weaknesses/Limitations, Opportunities, and Threats involved in a project or in a business venture. It involves specifying the objective of the business venture or project and identifying the internal and external factors that are favorable and unfavorable to achieve that objective. The technique is credited to Albert Humphrey, who led a convention at the Stanford Research Institute (now SRI International) in the 1960s and 1970s using data from Fortune 500 companies.” (Wikipedia, “SWOT analysis,” 2012)ReferencesBergen, R. J. ePortfolio: Strategic Planning and Transformation at University of Michigan: https://ctools.umich.edu/osp-presentation-tool/viewPresentation.osp?id=27EF7F1C6CD6FED3A4BCAB1A00930929. Accessed June 12, 2012.
- ReferencesEllsworth, J. B. (2000). Surviving change: A survey of educational change models. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, Syracuse, NY.
- ReferencesAl-Kazily, B. “STRATEGY 101: SPOT TECHNOLOGY EXPECTATION GAPS VIA TECHNOLOGY LIFE CYCLE.” Blog entry at http://blog.kitetail.com/2010/11/03/strategy-101-spot-technology-expectation-gaps-via-technology-life-cycle/. Accessed December 10, 2011.
- ReferencesEllsworth, J. B. (2000). Surviving change: A survey of educational change models. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, Syracuse, NY.
- ReferencesEllsworth, J. B. (2000). Surviving change: A survey of educational change models. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, Syracuse, NY.
- DefinitionChange agent: 1. People who act as catalysts for change. 2. The individual or group that undertakes the task of introducing and managing a change in an organization.Stakeholders as change agent, plus 2 from outside the community: Teacher, Principle, Student, District Administrator, Consultant, Parent & Community, Government, Teacher-Educator (Faculty Development).ReferencesEllsworth, J. B. (2000). Surviving change: A survey of educational change models. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, Syracuse, NY.
- Definition“The change agent is ready to consider both the cares that motivate the system (or some of its members) to want change and those that can serve to alert change agent to potential obstacles at each stage.” (Ellsworth, 2000, p. 115).Not rigidly linear, although does approach it in a hybrid linear process:Stage 0: Care (“There’s something wrong here, or something could be more right!”Stage 1: Relate (“Who and what make up this system? How are they interconnected?”)Stage 2: Examine (“What is the true nature of the problems and opportunities at hand?”)Stage 3: Acquire (“What information or other resources are available? How do I get them?”)Stage 4: Try (“What solutions will really work here, and how might I need to adapt them?”)Stage 5: Extend (“How do I solidify adoption or diffuse the change to other populations?”)Stage 6: Renew (“How do I develop a capacity for self-renewal in the client system?”)ReferencesEllsworth, J. B. (2000). Surviving change: A survey of educational change models. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, Syracuse, NY.
- “CBAM recognizes that “the effective change facilitator [must] understand how his or her clients (e.g., teachers) perceive change and adjust what he or she does accordingly” (Hall & Hord, 1987, p. 5). By focusing on the adopter’s perceived needs, CBAM seeks to prevent a common shortfall noted by the authors: ‘change facilitators [basing] their interventions (i.e., what they did) on their own needs and timelines rather than on their client’s needs and change progress” (Hall & Hord, 1987, p. 5)” (Ellsworth, 2000, p. 146).Stages of Concern (SoCQ)Consists of a 35-item questionnaire that surveys which affective issues is the adopter focused on.Stage 0: Awareness (“I am not concerned about the innovation”)Stage 1: Informational (“I would like to know more about it”)Stage 2: Personal (“How will using it affect me?”)Stage 3: Management (“Just using it is taking all of my time!”)Stage 4: Consequence (“What effect is my using it having on students’ learning?”)Stage 5: Collaboration (“How might I integrate my use with other teachers’ use?”)Stage 6: Refocusing (“I have some ideas about something that might work even better!”)Levels of Use (LOU)What are the adopters actually doing regarding the innovation?Level 0: Non-use (neither using it nor taking any action to get involved.)Level I: Orientation (learning what the innovation is about)Level II: Preparation (getting ready to use the innovation for the first time)Level III: Mechanical (focused on the rote aspects of use, driven by own convenience)Level IVa: Routine (use has stabilized and few if any changes are considered)Level IVb: Refinement (changes are considered and made to improve learning outcomes)Level V: Integration (use is coordinated with colleagues to improve learning outcomes)Level VI: Renewal (use is reevaluated and new innovations examined for better options)Innovation Configuration Component ChecklistWhat does “use” look like?A table listing the innovation’s key components (such as technology, pedagogy, and behavior)Next column to the right describes ideal implementation of each componentSuccessive columns represent increasingly flawed implementations.Many may still be “acceptable” if they satisfactorily implement critical componentsLast column or two at right may represent common unacceptable implementations.ReferencesEllsworth, J. B. (2000). Surviving change: A survey of educational change models. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, Syracuse, NY.Schaafsma, H. & Athanasou, J. (1994). "Concerns about Innovations in the Workplace,” Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 15 Iss: 8, pp.16 – 23.Hall
- Stages of Concern (SoCQ)Consists of a 35-item questionnaire that surveys which affective issues is the adopter focused on.Stage 0: Awareness (“I am not concerned about the innovation”)Stage 1: Informational (“I would like to know more about it”)Stage 2: Personal (“How will using it affect me?”)Stage 3: Management (“Just using it is taking all of my time!”)Stage 4: Consequence (“What effect is my using it having on students’ learning?”)Stage 5: Collaboration (“How might I integrate my use with other teachers’ use?”)Stage 6: Refocusing (“I have some ideas about something that might work even better!”)Administered over time in a longitudinal format, it can clearly show how perceptions are changing (or not). Watch out for “stagnation”—many users will stop at Stage 3: Task if you let them. This is where faculty or staff know enough to get by, but are no longer being challenged to do more. If you want to change instruction, you have to help them move up and out of Stage 3: Task Management!Limitation: “the intrusiveness of the original 35-item SOCQ is often cited as a limitation. The ability to obtain similar reliability with a significantly shorter instrument would be an important advantage” (Ellsworth, 2000, p. 157).My dissertation is attempting to do exactly that – create a VERY short, timely survey to produce results that is both informative (of potential barriers) and may act as a predictor of a readiness for change (and thus success).ReferencesEllsworth, J. B. (2000). Surviving change: A survey of educational change models. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, Syracuse, NY.Schaafsma, H. & Athanasou, J. (1994). "Concerns about Innovations in the Workplace,” Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 15 Iss: 8, pp.16 – 23.
- Regarding stakeholders, the “squeaky wheels” are the ones you should keep close to you. Not only are they potentially infectious to your innovation, but you need to realize that you actually WANT to hear what they have to say. Sure, they may “complain about everything,” but they’re complaining because whatever they were doing wasn’t easy, timely, or intuitive. Turn their dissatisfaction into a series of JIRAs, get them connected to others who have figured out other solutions, and help them learn how to prioritize their own complaints (this last part takes patience!). It pays off, though. When they see that you’re turning their complaints into action, they actually complain LESS about “the little things.” It is also a great Segway for YOU to begin seeding the idea of having them join the larger community.
- * rSmart can help with that. Contact our Services department for information about conducting a bona-fide research study conducted by an academic whose dissertation covered the adoption of ePortfolio at Virginia Tech. Information conducted in a study at your institution will provide a snapshot of your users and recommendations for effective and timely interventions/solutions.
- Stagnation! Faculty and Staff get “stuck” and are complacent at Stage 3: Task Management.Stage 3: TASK – Management: “The individual focuses on the processes and tasks of using the innovation and the best use of information and resources. Issues related to efficiency, organizing, managing, and scheduling dominate” (George, Hall, Stiegelbauer, 2006, p. 8).ReferencesGeorge, A. A., Hall, G. E., & Stiegelbauer, S. M. (2006). Measuring implementation in schools: The stages of concern questionnaire. SEDL, Austin, TX.
- “theories and arguments on the adoption of OSS are seldom substantiated by empirical data, and the available data are patchy, difficult to replicate and quantify, and unsuitable for deriving generally useful theories and prescriptive results” (Spinellis & Giannikas, 2011, p. 667).“Many organizations have caught on to open source software and realized significant cost savings in technology expenditure as a result. … Though the basic open source software is free, the prospect of paid ancillary products and services such as hardware and consulting has motivated many erstwhile proprietary technology vendorssuch as Hewlett-Packard, IBM, and Sun Microsystems to embrace open source software and offer value-added services based on such software” (Nagy, Yassin, Bhattacherjee, 2010, p. 148).ReferencesNagy, D., Yassin, A. M., & Bhattacherjee, A. (2010). Organizational adoption of open source software: Barriers and remedies. Communications of the ACM. Vol. 53(3). Accessed from http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1670000/1666457/p148-nagy.pdf. DOI: 10.1145 /1666420.1666457.Spinellis, D., & Giannikas, V. (2011). Organizational adoption of open source software. The Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 85(3). Pgs:666–682. Elsevier.
- Description:Knowledge - lack of awareness of software availability or relevance, technical knowledge needed to implement and use it, or business knowledge needed to customize it.Legacy integration - lack of ability to connect to existing legacy systems.Forking - open source software is written by different groups and may not interoperate with each other or to other applications.Sunk costs - Prior investments in proprietary software. “[M]any organizations are unwilling to bear this cost [of dropping software previously invested into], and hence cannot adopt open source systems on an enterprise wide scale” (Nagy, Yassin,Bhattacherjee, 2010, p. 151).Perception of Technological immaturity – non-professional development with considerable variation in available support. “There is a common perception among many organizational managers that open source software is an immature technology and not yet ready for commercial use. Many also believe that goods available for free, such as open source software, are probably of inferior quality than those that are paid for, such as proprietary software” (Nagy, Yassin,Bhattacherjee, 2010, p. 151).ReferencesNagy, D., Yassin, A. M., & Bhattacherjee, A. (2010). Organizational adoption of open source software: Barriers and remedies. Communications of the ACM. Vol. 53(3). Accessed from http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1670000/1666457/p148-nagy.pdf. DOI: 10.1145 /1666420.1666457.
- * rSmart can help with that. Contact our Services department for information about conducting a bona-fide research study conducted by an academic whose dissertation covered the adoption of ePortfolio at Virginia Tech. Information conducted in a study at your institution will provide a snapshot of your users and recommendations for effective and timely interventions/solutions.