Presentation by Samantha J. Blevins and Jennifer M. Brill, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA at ePIC 2013

1. Opening
up
Large
Scale
Change
Initiatives
Calling
on
Faculty
Perspectives
to
Develop
a
Framework
for
Organization-­‐Wide
ePortfolio
Implementation
Samantha
J.
Blevins
Ph.D.
Candidate
Jennifer
M.
Brill,
Ph.D.
Associate
Professor
InstrucDonal
Design
&
Technology
Learning
Sciences
&
Technologies
Virginia
Tech,
Blacksburg,
VA,
USA
ePIC
2013
London,
UK

2. Purpose
&
Context
• Develop
a
framework
to
support
electronic
porNolio
(eP)
adopDon
• faculty/administrator
data
on
adopDon
process
at
large
U.S.
research
university
(≅30,000
students)
• Diffusion
of
InnovaDon
(DOI)
theory
• University
ePorNolio
IniDaDve:
2002-­‐present
• eP
Office
IntenDons:
•
•
•
•
•
strategic
alignment
to
department,
college,
and
insDtuDonal
goals
key
stakeholder
partnerships
pilot-­‐tesDng
faculty
development
opportuniDes
inform
with:
• Concerns-­‐Based
AdopDon
Model
(CBAM)
(Hord,
Rutherford,
Huling-­‐AusDn,
&
Hall,
1987)
• Ely’s
Eight
CondiDons
of
Change
(Ely,
1990)

3. Research
Questions
• What
strategies
and
resources
are
used
by
a
large
research
university
to
assist
faculty
with
eP
implementaDon?
•
To
what
extent
do
these
strategies/resources
reflect
DOI
theory?
• How
do
faculty
perceive
the
current
eP
adopDon
support
process?
What
about
the
process:
• is
successful?
• is
lacking
and
requires
improvement?
• reflects
DOI
theory?
• What
features
of
DOI
theory
should
be
included
in
an
eP
adopDon
framework?

4. Methodology:
Development
Research
Developmental
(Type
2)
Study
Analysis
• Faculty/Admin
• RIPPLES
Survey:
52/144
(36%)
• Follow-­‐up
Interview:
12/12
• DOI
literature
review
Development
&
EvaluaDon
• Framework
developed
• Under
review
by
two
external
DOI
experts
Revision
• Suggested
revisions
to
be
incorporated
in
a
revised
framework
Design
&
Development
Research:
Methods,
Strategies,
&
Issues
Richey
&
Klein
(2007)

5. Design
&
Development
Research
Richey,
R.
C.,
&
Klein,
J.
D.
(2005).
Developmental
Research
Methods:
CreaDng
knowledge
from
InstrucDonal
design
and
development
pracDce.
Journal
of
Compu?ng
in
Higher
Educa?on,
16(2)
23-­‐38.

6. Participant
Demographics
General
• Age
Range:
20s-­‐70s
• Gender:
62%
female;
38%
male
• Professional
PosiDon:
• Faculty:
67%
• AdministraDve:
29%
• Other:
4%
Teaching
&
ePor0olio
• Years
teaching:
• 0-­‐10:
35%
• 11-­‐25:
40%
• 25
or
more:
25%
• Years
using
ePs:
• <1:
23%
• 1-­‐3:
35%
• 4+:
42%
• %
Abandoned:
42%
• Purpose
for
using
ePs:
• Track
learning:
46%
• Assess
learning:
60%
• Support
professional
development:
40%

7. Findings:
Participant
Perceptions
on
RIPPLES
Elements
RIPPLES
Elements
Straight
Ranking
Importance
to
eP
Implementa;on
(%
SA/A)
Themes
related
to
University’s
eP
Implementa;on
1.
Resources
(money
&
Dme)
92%
• Time
rated
higher
than
money
2.
Support
(admin,
technical,
pedagogical)
85%
• eP
office
found
to
be
exemplary
and
essenDal
• AdministraDve
support
reported
as
important
but
lacking
3.
People
(communicaDon;
shared
decision-­‐
making)
52%
• Need
a
more
unified
culture
of
support
at
the
department/program
level
4.
Infrastructure
(technological
backbone)
94%
• Overall
university
infrastructure
viewed
posiDvely
• eP
technology
viewed
less
posiDvely
5.
Policies
60%
• Policies
in
general
are
viewed
posiDvely
•
eP
policies
are
lacking/not
communicated
6.
EvaluaDon
66%
• EvaluaDon
viewed
as
important
• Liple
has
been
done
to-­‐date
and/or
reported
on
7.
Learning
(user
learning
outcomes)
87%
• OpportuniDes
offered
for
user
learning
are
exemplary

8. • eP
system
design
• Time
• Faculty
understanding
• Support
&
training
• Technology
resources
• ApplicaDon
beyond
classroom
• Rewards
&
incenDves
Enablers
Barriers
Findings:
Barriers
and
Enablers
• Support
• Technology
capabiliDes
• Rewards
&
incenDves
• Faculty
understanding
• Interest
• ApplicaDon
aqer
graduaDon

9. ePortfolio
Adoption
Framework

10. Framework:
Awareness
Component
Component
Selected
Strategies
to
Support
Component
Key
Player
Involvement
• Web
sites
• Academic
leaders
• Newslepers
on
campus
(e.g.
• ArDcles
provost,
teaching
• PresentaDons
and
learning
• Professional
directors)
development
• Leading
electronic
porNolio
scholars
Professional
and
pracDDoners
knowledge
of
• Local
faculty
pedagogical
innovators
benefits
of
• Other
high-­‐level,
electronic
respected
opinion
porNolios
leaders
Awareness
Assessment
of
Current
Implementa;on
Status
Next
Steps
for
Implementa;on
1. Faculty
are
unaware
RaDng
of
1
or
2
of
the
pedagogical
• IdenDfy
mulDple
value
of
electronic
avenues
for
porNolios.
electronic
porNolio
awareness
building.
2. Faculty
are
• Plan
a
3-­‐6
month
somewhat
aware
of
awareness
building
the
pedagogical
campaign.
value
of
electronic
• Reassess
awareness
porNolios.
status
aqer
one
to
two
academic
years.
3. Faculty
are
very
aware
of
the
RaDng
of
3
pedagogical
value
of
• Reassess
awareness
electronic
status
at
next
formal,
porNolios.
systemic
evaluaDon
of
electronic
porNolio
implementaDon.
(A
systemic
evaluaDon
is
recommended
every
3-­‐5
years.)

11. Framework:
Action
Plan
Component
Current
Implementa;on
Ra;ng
Awareness
☐1
☐2
☐3
Motivation
☐1
☐2
☐3
Commitment
☐1
☐2
☐3
…etc…
Next
Steps
Key
Players
to
Involve
Target
Addi;onal
Comple;on
Notes
Date(s)

12. Evidence
of
Theoretical
Alignment
with
DOI
Framework
Component
Theore;cal
Connec;ons
Awareness
Knowledge
of
InnovaDon
(r)
DissaDsfacDon
with
Status
Quo
(e)
MoDvaDon
Persuasion
(r)
DissaDsfacDon
with
Status
Quo
(e)
Rewards
and/or
IncenDves
(e)
Commitment
Decision
(r)
ParDcipaDon
(e)
Commitment
(e)
Resources
ImplementaDon
(r)
Sufficient
Knowledge
and
Skills
(e)
Availability
of
Time
(e)
Availability
of
Resources
(e)
Leadership
ImplementaDon
(r)
Leadership
(e)
EvaluaDon
ConfirmaDon
(r)
(e)
=
Don
Ely,
CondiDons
for
Change,
(1976,
1999)
(r)
=
Everep
Rogers,
DOI,
(2003)

13. Other
Thoughts
• Next
Steps:
• Complete
expert
reviews
• Revise
framework
• Test
• Will
be
using
at
mid-­‐size
university
to
guide
new
eP
implementaDon
iniDaDve
• LimitaDons:
• RIPPLES
model,
even
with
adapted
survey
• too
lengthy
• acronym
terms
confusing/misleading
• Development
Research
• Fuzzy
process
• Is
it
the
best
approach
to
model/framework
development?

14. In
regards
to
“openness”…
• How
can
such
a
framework
support:
• community
learning?
• user-­‐friendly
eP
infrastructure
and
architecture?

15. Thank
you.
Samantha
Blevins
sjblevins@vt.edu
Jen
Brill
jmbrill@vt.edu