Burbules v. Carr
Google connection brilliance?
Or cognitive schmutz?

This will be the lens through which I view everything we discuss in the course this semester.

Empirically, the field of education increasingly relies on technology of all types, from using computers for word processing to electronic library resources and multimedia creation. This policy analysis paper offers a historical look at the educational technology framework, through the lens of the different focus and recommendations of the Office of Educational Technology in the 2000 and 2010 National Educational Technology Plans (NETP).

The policy problem

Since the year 2000, the number of students participating in fully online and technology-enhanced learning has risen dramatically.  According to a 2009 report by the Sloan Consortium, over 4.6 million higher education students were taking at least one online course during the fall 2008 term. These numbers represented a 17% increase from the previous year and far surpassed the 1.2% increase seen in face-to-face classes. (Allen and Seaman, 2009). K-12 districts are offering online options as well. As of 2006, 57.9% of school districts, or 700,000 students had one or more students enrolled in a fully online course (Picciano and Seaman, 2006).

Research shows that students are not only taking online and technology-enhanced classes, but also benefitting from them. The Sloan Consortium report found that that online learning in K-12 is connecting with students who need extra help or wish to take more advanced courses (Picciano and Seaman, 2006). While technology-enhanced teaching seems to be working for its demographic at all levels, implementation and policy varies from state to state, even institution to institution. In 2000, educational technology goals focused on access to technology and getting students literate in basic technology skills, the 2010 National Educational Technology Plan devised by the United States Department of Education’s Office of Educational Technology aims for a broader goal of addressing the inconsistencies found from state to state, district to district and grade to grate.

According to the 2010 plan, “state and local public education institutions must ensure equitable access to learning experiences for all students and especially students in underserved populations – low income and minority students, students with disabilities, English language learners, preschool-aged children, and others.” (U.S. Department of Education, p. 9, 2010)

The primary problem in attainment, according to the NETP is need for a cost-effective strategy that improves learning outcomes and graduation rates, powered by technology. Missing in the recommendations, however, are suggestions regarding the attainment of funding to sustain the initiatives as well as suggestions concerning the means to facilitate sweeping collaboration and consensus. The significance of this problem is that society is rapidly changing and education must follow suit to produce well-prepared and productive citizens. Social networking and mobile phones have become not only social norms, but tools students expect to be utilized. The social networking site Facebook passed 500 million users in 2010 (Facebook, 2010), and Twitter has had over 190 million unique visitors, and its registered users are posting 165 million tweets per day (Schonfeld, 2010). Both are being used for educational purposes, as well as providing the potential for distraction. In this highly connected world, we communicate instantly with global stakeholders, and technology advances require skills and training.

Historically, the impetus for technology integration has been centered on the individual classroom and instructor. The problem is that since the early days of classroom technology, some teachers have considered Internet searching to be technology-enhanced learning, while others focus on higher-level activities such as multimedia production. (Cuban, Kirkpatrick &Keck, 2001) 21 teachers were interviewed in 1997, and 13 said that their teaching had changed due to use of the technology. Lesson planning and communication, however were the two most commonly cited changes. However, of these 13, only four said they had modified their classroom in major ways, such as transforming their instructional practice to student-centered strategies. (Cuban, Kirkpatrick &Keck, 2001) Inconsistencies like these are what the 2010 plan and its proposed solutions aim to address.

With all of the conveniences and enhancements technology has the potential to provide, there are drawbacks that may seem less evident. While technology is frequently seen as a great equalizer, the digital divide is a very real problem. Robinson, DiMaggio and Hargittai say that the term “digital divide” implies “that significant minorities of the population are effectively denied access to a technology that, like other public facilities like libraries and superhighways, is thought to be open to anyone” (p. 2, 2003) The digital divide, however, can refer not only to Internet access itself, but also to what is accessed, as well as knowledge of search methodologies for locating valuable information. Individuals in higher educational attainment and income strata are more likely to have the needed Web experience to locate information quickly and are better able to harness the power new technologies offer (Robinson, DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2003)

This digital knowledge divide applies to teachers and faculty members as well. A 1999 study found that, though educational technology was being implemented in line with the 2000 recommendations, the infrastructure was changing faster than the instructor skills needed to teach in the newly wired environment. Additionally, instructor skills were on par with those of their students. (Moursund & Bielefeldt, 1999) While the results of the 2000 plan were that infrastructure was developing so fast that teacher skills could not keep pace, in 2010 the infrastructure is not being widely utilized in classroom practice. In this regard, the 2010 plan builds on that of 2000 to include connection and expansion of the personal learning networks of instructors in order to leverage collective knowledge as a form of training. The 2010 plan focuses more on the problems of personal infrastructure than the 2000 plan, which focused on the infrastructure of hardware and software.

Examination of the approach or approaches meant to resolve the problem

Both the 2000 and 2010 plans point to a sweeping transformation of not only the technical infrastructure of American K-16 education, but of the teaching that is taking place within the system. “Just as leveraging technology can help us improve learning and assessment, the model of 21^st century learning calls for using technology to help build the capacity of educators by enabling a shift to a model of connected teaching” (NETP, p. 6, 2010).  At a high level, the 2000 and 2010 educational technology plans are very similar in structure, with both focusing on effective teaching and learning with technology. However, where the 2000 plan was more interested in building a technical infrastructure providing basic technology access to students and teachers alike, the 2010 plan is focused more on leveraging technologies for the purposes of connecting students to content and the classroom to the home. This section focuses on the similarities and differences of the two similar but different plans, and the problems they were meant to resolve.

Access and Infrastructure: 2000 and 2010

Perhaps the starkest difference between the 2000 and 2010 educational technology plans is the approach to funding for access and technology infrastructure. While both plans address the need for a solid technical and knowledge base upon which to build, the 2000 plan speaks to making federal funds available, while the 2010 plan speaks only to what has been done with individual state funding, and recommendations about how to structure the spending streams feeding educational technology innovation. The 2000 plan states a primary goal should be to “ensure sustained and predictable funding,” and that “for states, districts and schools to engage in effective planning and realistic budgeting for the effective use of technology, sustained and predictable funding sources are needed.” (U.S. Department of Education, p. 37, 2000)

Contrast this with the 2010 plan, which places funding impetus on state and local governments. Aside from mention of federal grant funding such as Investing in Innovation (i3), the funding terminology of 2010 focuses more on smaller grants, data-driven decision-making and broadly implementable services. Interestingly, in April of 2010, the State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) released a report identifying five key trends in educational technology spending. These trends were:

“(1) Creating student-centric, research-based, technology-rich learning environments (2) Enhancing professional development opportunities (3) Supporting the effective use of data (4) Increasing academic achievement and (5) Exploring innovative education models such as online learning, open and digital content, and Web-based teaching and learning communities.” (SETDA, 2010) None of these trends mirror the 2000 report’s goal of making technology available, rather they focus more on 2010 concerns of student-centered teaching with technology and innovation. Though largely due to “markedly increased federal, state, local and private investment in technology for education,”  (U.S. Department of Education, P. 6, 2010) that may or may not still be available beyond 2010, this changing focus and expectation of technology access points to a measure of success in the 2000 plan’s aims to modernize and equip schools with technology and in the commitment to eliminate the digital divide. Note, however, that this does not speak to how technologies are being used in teaching, rather to the presence of the technologies themselves.

Effective Teaching and Learning Through Technology: 2000 and 2010

According to the 2002 Digest of Education Statistics, students’ school computer use the elementary and secondary level increased from 60% in 1993 to 84% in 2001 (Snyder & Hoffman, 2003). While the report points to these numbers as an indicator of strides made in teaching with technology it is important to look at what the data says. The report that computer use is on the rise over this time period, but not what computers are being used for, or the teaching methodologies used.  The 2000 report focuses most of the teaching and learning section on statistics regarding connectivity and infrastructure. While increasing access to technology in both the home and the classroom is an important step in the process of enhancing teaching and learning with technology, the tools alone are not enough to improve student performance. The report does offer some guiding thoughts on how technology could be integrated into a classroom, but again the focus is more on the technical pieces and the task they perform, as opposed to painting larger pedagogical picture of what a classroom well infused with technology might look like, or how a teacher well-seasoned in teaching with technology might approach common classroom problems. Accompanying data charts offer a relatively narrow, number-driven focus on topics such as percentage of students with Internet access and percentage of teachers who feel they are prepared to use certain technologies in assignments. (U.S. Department of Education, 2000)

Figure 1 – U.S. Department of Education, p. 20, 2002

Contrast this graph with the following model included with the 2010 educational technology plan:

Figure 2 – U.S. Department of Education, p. 40, 2010

The 2010 plan focuses on pedagogical thinking and scaffolding the decision-making process more than on data surrounding connectivity and knowledge of technology terms. In the 2010 plan, we see a focus on using technology for connection: students to teachers, students to information, the classroom to the home, et cetera. Where the 1996 and 2000 plans were designed more with the goal of connecting students and teachers to the technology itself, the 2010 plan illustrates a seismic shift in thinking, toward using technology as the connector as opposed to the target of connection. (U.S. Department of Education, 2010)

The focus on enhanced teaching and learning with technology does not stop with students. Both the 2000 and 2010 reports put an emphasis on professional development, and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 made the provision of high quality teacher preparation in technology mandatory. In 2000, the focus in professional development was on preparing new teachers and colleges of education, while 2010 professional development initiatives are focused more broadly and by more application-based means as opposed to the “short, fragmented and episodic workshops that offer little opportunity to integrate learning into practice” (U.S. Department of Education, p. 39, 2010) Recommendations for professional development and teaching with technology in 2010 focus on more than technical skill and individual learning and more on collaboration and connection. In regard to this updated model, the 2010 plan says, “connected teaching…enables our education system to augment the expertise and competencies of specialized of specialized and exceptional educators through online learning systems, online courses and other self-directed learning opportunities” (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).

Connection (2010), Digital Content and Networked Applications (2000)

2009 and 2010 saw a shift toward connectivity with the growth of social media use in the field of education. The growth of social media has forced schools to change curricula to reflect the shift toward connection, with Business Week reporting in July of 2010 that business schools found themselves forced to include social media in their curriculum in order to prepare students for the 21^st century business landscape. (Saadi, 2010) Services such as Twitter and Facebook facilitate a level of one-on-one contact with customers (or, in the case of education, with students) that had previously been left to slower solutions such as e-mail. In 2010, instant answers and close interaction to business leaders, instructors and other individuals became the norm, while the education landscape of 2000 was comparatively slow.

Comparison of the NETP’s definition of connection and networked applications between 2000 and 2010 is an interesting venture, due to the rapidity of technological innovation and development. In 2000, blogs and wikis were yet unknown, both as technologies and as teaching tools, however in 2010 60% of primary and secondary teachers report using blogs, wikis or social media websites in their classrooms. (Gray, Thomas, & Lewis Westat, 2010)

In 2000, the vision of being connected was tied directly to instruction, with digital content and networked applications “supplementary to instruction” (US Department of Education, p. 20, 2000) as opposed to a means of connecting people to resources and each other. 2010’s vision of what it means for teaching to be defined as connected, “classroom educators are fully instrumented, and with 24/7 access to data about student learning and analytic tools that help them act on the insights the data provide. They are connected to their students and to professional content, resources, and systems that empower them to create, manage, and assess engaging and relevant learning experiences for students both in and out of school…connected to resources and expertise that improve their own instructional practices, continually add to their competencies and expertise, and guide them in becoming facilitators and collaborators in their students’ increasingly self-directed learning” (US Department of Education, p. 40, 2010).

Limitations

Both plans, while ambitious, have limitations including professional development and funding. The 2000 plan points to higher funding levels as a driving force in the proliferation of the wired classroom. However, stable funding levels in 2010 are lower in many cases, and the goals of the plan more ambitious. There are multitudes of funding opportunities that can be applied for on a school-by-school or student-by-student basis. For example, 2009 Recovery Act caused the funds available to the Pell Grant program aimed at need-based, low-income students to increase in 2010 (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).  The Race to the Top education reform program is funded for 3.4 billion dollars broken into two phases, aimed at adopting standardization and collecting data (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). These funds improve the big picture but are not focused on the professional development and technology-integrated teaching pointed to in the plan. These things are mentioned as desired outcomes, but the means available to each district, state or institution of getting there are less evident.

Additionally, focus appears to have shifted toward student access and data-driven assessment in 2010 (U.S. Department of Education, 2010; U.S. Department of Education, 2010), but the NETP points to the importance of well-equipped schools and teachers. Brief mention is made in the 2010 plan of funding programs to be pursued, but no mention is made of how schools not obtaining these funds should proceed.  Additionally, funding sources for professional development are largely absent. While much can be done with free technical resources, implementation and training challenges arise as much when free resources are used than when funding is secured and technologies are purchased.

One limitation of this paper is the relative youth of the 2010 NETP. Schools and states are so early in the process of implementation of the plan that it is too early to tell (aside from scattered plans) what progress has been made. Another limitation is that, government sources in the U.S. and State of Michigan Departments of Education were unavailable for comment as to assessment plans or progress made, so most assessment data stems from federal government sources about federal government programs leading to the possibility of skewed perspectives.

Plan for Evaluation and Assessment

While the themes and problems to be addressed were similar in 2000 to what they are in 2010, the evaluation component must be approached differently for each. While success for the 2000 plan might be effectively measured in the number of classrooms containing technology, connected to the Internet and teaching students to use computer programs, evaluation in 2010 must transcend technology literacy and rely more upon learning outcomes, the reach of personal learning networks and the data relied upon for No Child Left Behind standards. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, developing an assessment framework follows a series of steps: “(1) widespread participation and reviews by educators and state education officials, (2) reviews by steering committees whose members represent policymakers, practitioners, and members of the general public, (3) involvement of subject supervisors from education agencies, (4) public hearings and (4) reviews by scholars in the field, by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) staff, and by a policy advisory panel” (US Department of Education, 2010).

To evaluate the effectiveness of the freshly minted 2010 plan, a widespread reporting mechanism must be implemented in all K-16 institutions.  Following the framework above, the following is proposed for evaluation of the 2010 educational technology plan goals and effectiveness. Federal government should work with state and local entities to develop assessment surveys, and garnering high response rates should be a priority. Measuring the learning outcomes desired in the 2010 plan cannot be done effectively with multiple choice survey questions. A combination of multiple choice questions, open-ended questions and portfolio examples should be sought from all K-16 institutions receiving federal funding at one year and two years intervals following the implementation of the plan.

The one-year surveys would offer insight into what is working and what isn’t, whether the course set by the plan and individual schools’ implementation meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, and allow for adjustments prior to the second year mark. The federal government should work with state and local entities to form a guidance committee representing legislators, teachers or community members from each state, as well as technology leaders in education. Survey results and guidance committee meetings should be open to the public, with a mechanism in place to gather feedback. A panel of educational technology experts and scholars in other, less technical fields of education such as the scholarship of teaching and learning, education administration and educational standardization should review survey results and guidance committee decisions and offer suggestions on course correction to achieve maximum results. Successes and failures should be noted in the Nations Report Card released each year by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

Professional development opportunities needs to be assessed separately, to ensure that teachers, technologists and administrators have the skills needed to successfully integrate technology into their educational goals. While the 2010 plan is better rounded, student-centered and comprehensive than the 2000 plan, it also requires a higher level of technology understanding in relation to pedagogy. The US Department of Education should develop a distributable training package and make train the trainer style courses available, to help ensure that teachers and technologists have the skills they need to succeed in a classroom or institution where the NETP has been implemented.

Summary

In conclusion, educational technology policy in the 10 years between 2000 and 2010 followed similar themes with varying applications. Funding levels have shifted focus from wired to measurement of technology’s success in teaching and learning. While the plans offer an excellent framework for thinking when it comes to educational technology integration and implementation, it is important to note that many questions are left unanswered when it comes to the actual deployment of all aspects of the plan. With time, these questions may be answered by collected data, but for now it seems prudent for states to proceed with caution, using the plan as a baseline guide for technology direction, and not as the answer to all of education’s technology questions.

References

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on Demand: Online Education in the United States, 2009 | The Sloan Consortium. Welcome to The Sloan Consortium | The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/learning_on_demand_sr2010

Archived: National Educational Technology. (2003). U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/national/execsum.html

Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technology in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834.

E-learning  putting a world-class education at the fingertips of all children : the National Educational Technology Plan.. (2000). Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Technology.

Gray, L., Thomas, N., Lewis, L., & Tice, P. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S. public schools, 2009  first look. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Dept. of Education.

Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating Technology into K-12 Teaching and Learning: Current Knowledge Gaps and Recommendations for Future Research – Education News – redOrbit. redOrbit – Science, Space, Technology, Health News and Information. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/959553/integrating_technology_into_k12_teaching_and_learning_current_knowledge_gaps/index.html

Moursund, D., & Bielefeldt, T. (1999). Will New Teachers Be Prepared To Teach in a Digital Age? A National Survey on Information Technology in Teacher Education. Milken Exchange on Education Tech, 0, 1-60.

NAEP – Frameworks. (n.d.). National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Home Page, a part of the U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved November 22, 2010, from http://www.nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/frameworks.asp

Robinson, J. P., DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2003). New Social Survey Perspectives on the Digital Divide. IT & Society, Summer(1.5), 1-22.

Saadi, S. (2010, July 26). B-Schools All A-Twitter Over Social Media. Business Week. Retrieved November 20, 2010, from http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/jul2010/bs20100726_143420.htm

Schonfeld, E. (2010). Costolo: Twitter Now Has 190 Million Users Tweeting 65 Million Times A Day . TechCrunch . Retrieved November 30, 2010, from http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/08/twitter-190-million-users/

Seaman, I. E., & Picciano, A. G. (2007). K-12 Online Learning: A Survey of U.S. School District Administrators | The Sloan Consortium. Welcome to The Sloan Consortium | The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/K-12_06

Snyder, T. D., & Hoffman, C. M. (2003). Digest of education statistics 2002 . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement ;.

Transforming American education:  learning powered by technology : National Education Technology Plan 2010. (2010). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Funding Status – Race to the Top Fund. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from http://www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/funding.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Funding Status — Federal Pell Grant Program. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from http://www.ed.gov/programs/fpg/funding.html

Organizational change comes in many forms, and no single definition or approach can address every aspect of a major strategic initiative such as we see outlined in George Keller’s book Transforming a College: The Story of a Little-Known College’s Strategic Climb to National Distinction. Though the title refers to a college’s transformation, I find the process and leadership to be less transformational than evolutionary.

Too often we mistake change for transformation. In the classroom activities of May 23, we analyzed a series of documents printed from university websites heralding everything from the addition of parking spaces on campus to the elimination of academic departments and upgrade of a computerized budget system (Bruininks, 2005) as transformational change when, in reality, the definition of transactional change as “concern[ed] more [with] the day-to-day operations of the organization” (Burke, 2011, p. 217) encompasses the changes discussed by Keller. Additive change (Gumport, 2000) or Leavitt’s Organizational Systems Model (Burke, 2011) could also apply to the changes Keller describes. While there is much evidence in Elon’s favor when it comes to proclaiming this a transformational change, I challenge this description.

I believe that Elon evolved more than transformed. It would be hard to argue that the culture and environment resulting from the changes made are indeed vastly different than where they began, but this paper discusses how the change process that took place was mostly transactional and evolutionary, with some transformational components, than the sweeping transformational change Keller and others proclaim. Evolutionary theory, as defined by Burke sees the organization as changing much as it does in the biological world, “according to a continuous cycle of variation, selection, and retention among organizations competing for resources in a designated marketplace or environment” (Burke, 2011, p. 162). I feel that this description, built from a series of transactional changes over time, more accurately sums what we see taking place at Elon University.

Changes and Process

It is tempting to take Keller’s title at its word, and look at the changes taking place at Elon as transformational. After all, Elon changed from a college to a university, and saw noticeable cultural and strategic shifts such as a focus on student retention and campus enjoyment and increased attention toward the goal of putting Elon in the upper echelon of academic institutions (Keller, 2004). But, we have to look deeper than that. Elon’s donor recruitment video Ever Elon: The Campaign For the Future of Our University, viewed during class on May 23, 2011 discusses Elon’s dedication to creating global citizens and increasing access to the university for students in need via scholarships (Elon University, 2008).

However while these changes, on the surface, may seem to be of a transformational nature, I argue that the change process discussed by Keller is not a transformational one, rather it is a series of transactional changes scaffolding into a larger transformational effect. While outwardly, all of the transformational factors are present: external environment, leadership, mission and strategy, individual and organizational performance and organization culture (Burke, 2011, p. 217), a deeper look at some key details casts doubt on this diagnosis. First, the changes seen at Elon are of a distinct evolutionary nature in selection and competition, and follow a relatively steady trajectory. While it can be argued that the changes seen at Elon do require new behavior from organization members and were the result of external forces as Burke defines in the description of transformational change (Burke, 2011), Keller’s reference to the consistency of Elon’s “addiction to planning” (Keller, 2004, p. 99) indicates a steady, constant, almost cyclical change, weakening the argument that transformative change is taking place.

Transformational change, by nature, is not constant. It involves the entire organization and is “discontinuous and revolutionary in nature” (Burke, 2011, p. 216). Conversely, Burke holds, transactional change is described using terms like “continuous improvement…evolutionary…and selective…rather than sweeping” (Burke, 2011, p. 217). Second, while the changes at Elon were broken up by leadership changes, these changes were not frequent. For example, President J. Fred Young led Elon from 1973 until 1997. In this 24 years, he oversaw a series of changes related to improving the overall quality of Elon’s campus, student life and donor levels. Young began by selecting to focus on the appearance of the campus with a view toward attracting students. This initiative took place from approximately 1974 to 1976 and was followed by a focus on improving instruction that initially spanned the period between 1977 and 1980. (Keller, 2004) Both of these initiatives built toward an aggressive marketing plan beginning in 1980, with an eye toward repositioning Elon in the state, drawing students from wealthier families who were attracted to a smaller, more intimate setting than the larger state campuses, Duke University and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (UNC) (Keller, 2004). Here we see the variation in the campus environment, the selection not only of things needing change to attract wealthier students, but also of the wealthier students targeted, and the wish to retain these students and others. Elon’s survival depends on it.

In 1997, when President Leo Michael Lambert took the reins from President Young, he maintained Young’s dedication to quality, but focused on different variations and retention targets (like faculty). While the focuses may have been different, such as building the prestige of the athletic department, the goals were similar: focus on increasing Elon’s reach, enrollment, prestige and academic ranking (Keller, 2004), continuing to make environmental changes and evolving the campus to meet the demands of its time and the expectations of students in the 1990s, which varied greatly from the expectations of 1973.

To further this exploration of the changes taking place at Elon, I shift now to Eckel and Kezar (2003) and relate this case to their model of structural, attitudinal and cultural evidence.

Structural, Attitudinal and Cultural Evidence

When looking at Eckel and Kezar alone, Elon University’s journey looks more like transformation than when looking through the lens of Burke. However, there are still some key differences, most importantly that of the pervasion of cultural change discussed in chapter two of Taking the Reins, Institutional Transformation in Higher Education.

When President Young took over at Elon College in 1973, he dove into initiatives intended to beautify the campus and draw more student attention. For those at Elon used to President Danieley’s leadership, these changes likely seemed quite transformational. The question is this: was the entire organization affected? Did President Young’s changes touch every individual at Elon University? I argue it is unlikely. While I realize it is extreme to base an argument against transformational change on such a granular argument, there were likely many at Elon who were not terribly affected by or transformed by campus beautification efforts. They may have appreciated the updated look and feel of their environment, but how did they think differently? Additionally, when it comes to the focus on improving the academic curriculum, how affected were unit secretaries and janitorial staff? It may simply be unapparent in Keller’s account of the changes, but the identity building components that Eckel and Kezar point to as key to transformational change are relatively weak, especially in the earlier days of Elon’s new directions.

How did Young and Lambert diagnose the perception of deep and meaningful change? Did professors that started in 1993 feel the changes as deeply as those involved in the fresh academic push in 1977? In this case, time and involvement seem to mitigate transformation factors. According to Eckel and Kezar, “the belief that meaningful change has not occurred may be even more predominant at large, complex institutions, not only because of their size, but also because of the prevalence of strong departmental or college subcultures within the institution” (2003, p. 47) While Elon may be smaller than its neighbor universities UNC and Duke, compared to the broader institutional spectrum it is still relatively large and complex. Did every department feel that meaningful change had occurred? Or did some feel the directions were less meaningful than others? This is likely the case. Some may have already had this instructional focus before the bigger push, while others may have felt the push meant less than those driving the change. The description of subcultures is not explicitly spelled out in Keller’s work which, in some ways, seems oversimplified. If Keller’s account is taken at its word, President Young came in, made changes, had universal buy-in from the campus community and the Board of Trustees, the donors fell immediately into line, and the entire process was carried forward on a wave of success by his successor, President Lambert. While this is indeed a rosy picture, it is also one that is hard to believe in its entirety. Was there no conflict? Do most organizations not consist of a network of subcultures?

Eckel and Kezar discuss the effect subcultures can have on an organization and the pursuit of transformational change which is, in many ways, largely absent from Keller’s description. “When multiple subcultures exist, it is easy for the transformation to make the ideas, beliefs, and priorities of one subculture those of the institution. In these cases…people from the units whose beliefs are now widespread may not realize that the rest of the institution has adopted its ways.”

Even in a small institution, subcultures are inherent in academic environments. Different departments and disciplines, even individuals hold varying values and beliefs. This does not mean that transformational change is impossible, merely more challenging to implement and identify. While the change might be described as transformational to the athletic department with a new stadium, or to the departments in charge of admissions or annual giving, there is a good chance that the changes such as those made to Elon’s academic pursuits were viewed by different departments with differing levels of gravity, transformational to some and nothing new to others, as Eckel and Kezar point out. Keller points to Elon’s engineering department as one that underwent large scale change, but did all departments change at such a pervasive level? Likely not, or if they did they were not mentioned, indicating that the department of engineering may illustrate less of a norm than a model. This may be in the way Keller presents the story, but additional research presents similar findings. I find this to be another argument against Elon’s changes as transformation, pointing more toward evolution.

Leadership

No investigation of change would be complete without looking at the leadership at the helm. The leadership of Presidents Young and Lambert seems more transformational in nature than the changes we see, but it cannot be said that Young and Lambert were strictly transformational leaders. Here, the waters become muddy, more clearly illustrating the complex nature of change and leadership, highlighting that no single model or approach can answer all of the questions that surround change in a complex institution.

Start with the case of President Young, when compared to Burns’ look at the differences between transformational leaders and transactional managers (Burke, 2011). While Young’s work and personal life as represented in the book don’t seem terribly distinguishable, he looks toward long-range plans and seems inspire intense feelings in his followers, he seemed to lack an overall vision. We’ve discussed Elon’s addiction to planning, but it was the chairman of the Board of Trustees who asked what Young wanted Elon to become. (Burke, 2011) While the smaller changes were successful, they didn’t add up to a vision. Transformational leaders are visionaries, not managers. After this, Young took a more transformational approach to the leadership of Elon’s changing directions, but still followed some of the standard transactional leadership tactics like raising faculty salaries, or “contingent reward” (Burke, 2011, p. 257) and setting campus standards, or “monitoring of evidence from the standard” (Burke, 2011, p. 257) While Young was undoubtedly the strong administrative leadership (Eckel & Kezar, 2003) needed in a transformational change, in other ways he was as transactional as many of the changes he was facilitating. More transformational in leadership than the evolutionary changes we see in the campus environment, but I still find it a stretch to define him as a transformational leader, rather he was an effective hybrid of manager and leader.

President Lambert, on the other hand, encompasses many of the qualities defined by Eckel and Kezar regarding what makes a transformational leader. Take, for example, Lambert and the leadership of Elon’s goal to elevate their athletic program beyond their conference and into larger athletic waters. Eckel and Kezar’s seven leadership strategies for transformational change are thus: strong leadership, effective communications, collaborative processes, a motivating vision, long-term orientation, reward and support structures (Eckel & Kezar, 2003)

In the case of the athletic department, Lambert worked closely not only with Elon’s athletic director and leadership, but also with other schools in the conference Elon wished to join. When it came to Elon’s potentially controversial identity as the Fighting Christians, Lambert worked with all of the constituents involved, gathering feedback and eventually fighting for and facilitating Elon’s change to the Phoenix. We see here strong leadership, collaboration, communication and a vision motivated by elevating Elon’s stature in athletic competition. We see the new stadium, a renovated basketball and volleyball center, a new gym, a renovated baseball and softball field, and a new Olympic track, as well as an increased athletic budget as support structures. We see long-term orientation and reward. We also see, but cannot parse due to ambiguity, a potential firestorm in the institutional identity surrounding the Fighting Christians. However, this identity change is likely transformational to many, even those unconcerned with athletic pursuits. Lambert seems to have a solid strategic plan, and one that is adhered to. Were this book about Lambert alone, I would change some of my perspectives regarding the transformational nature of Elon’s evolution. When we compare the leadership on Elon’s path toward change, Lambert leans toward transformational, where Young leans more toward transactional. Perhaps this combination has something to do with Elon’s success, though in some ways this proclamation is based on conjecture due to Keller’s relative ambiguity regarding the negative effects of Elon’s changes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the changes outlined by Keller, when combined, offer an example of an effect that is transformative, but when broken down is actually the culmination of a series of changes to everyday processes taking place steadily over time in response to the changing environment, much as cellular organisms evolve to survive and thrive in their surroundings. While the Elon University of 2011 is undoubtedly a vastly different environment from Elon College as it was before when Young took the helm in 1973, I feel that, while many changes were made, much of the difference can be attributed to time and change. For me, it all comes back to vision, the perception of the changes, and the inconsistencies found therein.

The hardest part of this book for me was that Keller makes the change at Elon sound too easy, almost as if there was no unrest, or question about the new directions.  Only surface details were shared. For example, were a similar comparison to be made to Michigan State College and Michigan State University, I hypothesize we would see many of the same changes and initiatives, but see more unrest than was portrayed by Keller. While it would be accurate to say that Michigan State and Elon University have undergone what appears to be transformation, I believe the same could be said for any university in a 40 year period. Had Keller been more descriptive about the struggles as well as the triumphs, or the visionary goals I found when researching Elon and its identity been more consistent, I would be writing a different paper, arguing for this as a stunning example of transformational change. I understand the views I present here counter the findings of experts in the field who see Elon University as an excellent example of transformational change. However, I find that when the details are analyzed, the picture presented is more complicated than the surface appears. As I see it, Elon’s story is one of success, but success of a more evolutionary nature.

References
Bruininks, Robert H. (2005). Transforming the University of Minnesota, 6/10/05 : Office of the President. Twin Cities – University of Minnesota. Retrieved May 23, 2011, from http://www1.umn.edu/pres/02_speeches_050610.html

Burke, W. Warner (2011). Organization change:  theory and practice (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Eckel, Peter D., & Kezar, Adrianna J. (2003). Taking the reins:  institutional transformation in higher education. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.

Gumport, Patricia J. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher Education, 39, 67-91.

Keller, G. (2004). Transforming a college:  the story of a little-known college’s strategic climb to national distinction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Elon University. Ever Elon: The Campaign for the Future of Our University. YouTube – Broadcast Yourself. Retrieved May 23, 2011, from             http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOAoo1aW-Xo

In this portfolio, you will find examples of my work, ranging from graduate school assignments to professional experiences in the field of educational technology and faculty development.  My intent is to offer a look into not only what I have done, but also share all that I plan to do in the future.  The educational world is evolving, and this is an exciting time to be plugged in.

For many women, the romantic gifts that move them to tears involve diamonds, jewelry or surprise flowers delivered on an anniversary.  For me, the deluge came when my husband handed me a silver wrapped box, containing an iPod Nano inscribed with the words “I love you, my sweet girl.”

I am a geek.  I use this word in the context of the definition provided by dictionary.com: “a computer expert or enthusiast (a term of pride as self-reference, but often considered offensive when used by outsiders.)”  I digress from this in that I do not take offense to the reference, but computers, video games and comic books are some of my greatest joys in life, and if I go more than 48 hours without an Internet connection I begin to suffer the symptoms of withdrawal.  From the day I received my first computer in 1992 (an IBM PS2 running Windows 3.0, with a hard drive so small that this paper alone would nearly fill it) I was in love with technology, and before that my Nintendo Entertainment System was my constant companion.

I begin with this description to illustrate the person I was before I began the Master of Arts in Education program.  I was a geek who wanted nothing more than to study technology, how it worked and how it impacted learners and learning.  I had no interest in anything outside of this realm, and believed that here I had found my niche.  I was shocked to discover, as my work progressed, that my real interests fell elsewhere.  I write this paper in a narrative, reflective style to engage you — the reader — in my thought processes and evoke questions regarding your own cognition, learning and hopes for the future.

Feeding the Geek Within

I truly believe in the great power the Internet possesses as a learning tool, but also as a unifier and, in a more sinister fashion, as tool with the potential to do great harm in the hands of those with untoward intentions.  I enrolled in the MAED because my goal in life was to be an instructional designer.  I wanted to take educational technology classes to further this goal.  I looked into the on-campus option, but realized that in taking the online version I would have the opportunity to see professors teaching online “in action” and experience a wide range of online teaching techniques from the student perspective.  From a professional standpoint, it was the best decision I have ever made.  I enjoyed the challenge of graduate-level work, had wonderful, innovative professors, who were always experimenting with new ways of teaching, and new technologies for conveying their material.  From narrated PowerPoint presentations to videos to online museum exhibits to interactive Flash games, to blogs and wikis, I encountered a broad range of content I’d never considered using in ways I’d never seen them implemented.  My eyes were opening to a new way of thinking about pedagogy, and the intersections where content and technologies meet.

CEP 817, Learning Technology Through Design with Dr. Punya Mishra, changed my thinking in this realm, showing me that where content and technology comes together, there is a design to everything we do, and in every place we look.  Everything is aesthetic, from the meeting agenda we outline, to the watercolor we paint.  In designing a technology plan for a classroom, be it K – 12 or higher education, this aesthetic is especially important.  A computer alone will not facilitate learning; rather what we do with the technology is what matters.

This course taught us to challenge our preconceptions, and to think about technologies in new ways.  We worked in groups which we named and created logos for which gave us a sense of ownership to our groups, and a sense of responsibility to each other.  In designing the logos, we used not only our design skills, but also technology skills to create them.  My favorite assignment of the course, however, was called “Subversion” and asked us to subvert the norms of PowerPoint in creating a presentation.  No bullets, none of the standard PowerPoint tricks; the assignment was to be something completely innovative created using the PowerPoint program.  Breaking convention in this way is always a challenge, and this assignment proved to be both interesting and exciting as I worked to think of new ways to implement a relatively old program.  There is beauty in the way we think about technology, and in the ways we weave it into our daily lives like threads in an intricate tapestry. I thank Dr. Mishra for helping me find the aesthetic there is to be had in the logical.

Here is where my story shifts, away from technology and into what was, for me, uncharted territory.  If the transition seems abrupt in this narrative, it may be because it was an almost instantaneous shift in “real life” as well. I took my first educational administration class in the spring semester of 2007, and it carried me, as if by fate, down the path that leads to where I am today both cognitively and personally.

The Big Shift: From Technology to Leadership

“You can’t bulldoze change.” This phrase, written by Michael Fullan in his book Leading in a Culture of Change Personal Action Guide and Workbook and encountered in EAD 801, Leadership and Organizational Development, has stayed with me throughout the completion of my coursework.  In group work, when things were not going well, or members were not participating well, I would repeat these words almost as a mantra.  In my job, when tackling a large project that I wished was going faster, or better, or in a different direction, again I would channel this wisdom.

Dr. Nancy Colflesh taught me a lot about myself, bringing me to reflect upon the world around me, and where I fit into it as a learner and as a leader.  I have always tended toward leadership (though some might say I have tended toward bossiness).  I have gravitated toward leadership positions and taking on the role of facilitator in group work situations.  If things are not moving forward, I become unhappy very quickly.  If the work produced is not of what I consider to be excellent quality, the same applies.  This course taught me how to harness these tendencies, and channel them into not only learning, but into teaching as well; how to lead without bulldozing.

In this, Dr. Colflesh taught me to step away and view the world from a larger perspective than the relatively small personal sphere that I operate in.  She taught me about emotional intelligence, what my learning style is and how to identify and work with the learning and management styles of others.  She taught me to reach out in the smallest ways, but in ways that make the biggest difference to those around me.  These lessons are some of the most important I have learned in the program, in that they have changed how I operate both as a student and as a professional.

While Dr. Colflesh was teaching me to look within myself in order to communicate with, and reach others, Dr. John Dirkx was challenging my mind in ways it had never been challenged before.  EAD 861, Adult Learning, is by far the most challenging class I encountered in the Master of Arts in Education program.  Much of the work done in the course was done in groups, giving me the opportunity to use what I had learned from Dr. Colflesh, especially since my group mates and I each came from vastly different backgrounds.  I was an instructional designer and project manager, another colleague was a nurse and nursing educator, and the third worked in parks and recreation.  We were each in different time zones, had different perspectives on learning and adult learning concepts, and brought different talents to the group work dynamic.

In this course, I had to learn to “let go,” in many regards, as my work was no longer my own, it was owned by the group.  I could not “bulldoze change,” and I was put to the test in how well I would be able to cope with this concept as a concrete reality.  It would be deception on my part to say it was easy.  However, as Dr. Dirkx taught us about the aging process and its effect on cognition, about the effects of globalization on the population of adult learners, and introduced me formally to andragogy and the concept of lifelong learning (to which I was already an unwitting subject), the group work and discussion of the challenges within helped to solidify the concepts we were learning.  The conflicts we worked through forced us to learn more about the facts in order to state our cases clearly and, in letting go, I learned from my classmates as well as from Dr. Dirkx.  His feedback was immensely valuable, and I still refer to his comments in papers I write.  Am I making my case strongly?  Am I referring to enough of the resources, and stating clearly why I am doing so?  What is the “bigger picture” of what I’ve presented, and what are the implications of what I have said?  Am I thinking deeply enough here and, if not, why?  All of this I learned from Dr. Dirkx’s rigorous grading and high expectations.

Upon turning in the final exam for EAD 861 course, I took to my bed with a headache that lasted two days.  The 4.0 I received in return for  my work is one of my proudest academic accomplishments to date.  I find that when presented with high expectations, I strive harder to meet them, and expect more from myself than I necessarily know that I am capable of achieving.  As a result of this course, I think in more detail, and far more critically than I did before I took it.  Pedagogically, I refer to Knowles, et al’s tenants of andragogy (including self-motivation and work that is centered on tangible problems pertinent to the work) in my job daily, as professors are the perfect audience for the “guide on the side” teaching, and active learning activities we encountered in the Vella and Merriam and Cafarella texts presented in the course.  It is another perfect example of a course that transformed my learning as well as my practice.

Moving on, this next section may sound more like a fan letter than a recap of learning in a course.  However, I believe in every program, a student encounters a professor who completely changes the way they look at learning, and for me that professor is Dr. Steven Weiland.  While online learning is a perfect fit for my learning style, it is often easy in the online environment to overlook the classical elegance of a lecture style course.  I have had many courses where professors subscribed so thoroughly to the “guide on the side” concept that they did not lecture at all and all the learning that took place came from course participants sharing their experiences.  I found in these courses that I learned virtually nothing in the course work that could not have been looked up in a book or found on Google, and my satisfaction levels were comparatively very low.  To me, this is frustrating, as I look to professors for guidance, expertise, opinion and, at times, someone to debate with on concepts I may be grappling to understand.  In this regard I may be old-fashioned, or perhaps I have unrealistic expectations for what I hope to gain from an instructor in the modern educative realm.  However, all of these expectations and more were met in EAD 864, Adult Career Development.

Dr. Weiland seamlessly blends lecture and reading material with multimedia and exploration.  The attention he gives each student’s work, and the feeling he puts into his teaching are unmatched in my time at Michigan State University.  Each lecture is crafted from his own experiences, and it is not uncommon to see materials evolve over the span of the course as he makes new discoveries he wants to share.  His opinions are often evident, and he encourages students to disagree with him should they choose, but expects that they will have put enough thought and effort into the material to state their case.  He asks questions throughout each unit to encourage broader thinking in regard to what is being said, drawing on the resources as well as his own knowledge of each subject.  In EAD 864, I learned the difference between a job, a career and a calling, and discovered why the term “calling” is used entirely too frivolously in most conversation.  In viewing the movie Contact, we explored the concept of a calling, what it means to have one and how different people react to different career choices and philosophies.

I also learned about Ryff and Keys’ dimensions of well being, and how our jobs/careers/callings can affect these.  In this unstable economic time, how many of us are feeling that our well being might be at stake?  How does this make us feel in other aspects of our lives?  Perhaps most importantly, I was engaged in the conversation about “what is worth knowing,” and revisited formal, non-formal and informal schooling.  Indeed, how do we know what is worth knowing, and how do we make that determination?  Can it be made for us?

Dr. Weiland taught me the importance of close analysis, of spending time to get to know the work and not rushing constantly to finish in order to move onto the next project.  In the world of multimedia, it is easy to get caught up in this multitasking, in always wanting to move on.  In Dr. Weiland’s courses, he has crafted what I would term a masterpiece, and I use them as an illustration of best practices at work in my meetings with other faculty members who are beginning the process of teaching online.

Finally, we come to the ED 870, the Capstone Seminar, with Dr. Patrick Dickson and TA Penny Thompson.  Dr. Dickson has taught me the value of constant revision, constant questioning and constant improvement.  I have now re-engineered my portfolio twice, both of which are vast improvements from the version I had been keeping throughout my graduate school career.  His gentle critiquing, often in the form of questions, makes me re-think what I’ve already done, with the ultimate goal of creating something I can be truly proud of.  Penny has been a source of support throughout, checking in, synthesizing and pointing out items of interest across groups as we move forward through our processes.  She has kept us connected as a whole, allowing us to feel as though our small groups are not the only interaction we have in the course.  As I put the finishing touches on this, the completion of my Masters degree, I will keep the questions encountered in this course with me as I move forward, constantly striving to be just a little better than I already am.  In some ways, it is maddening to constantly strive for something better than what is already complete.  However, the feeling that your work is never good enough, and can always be better is a good feeling to carry forward through life if success is the ultimate goal.

The Saga Continues

To conclude, the Master of Arts in Education program taught me more than Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, Erikson’s eight stages of development, Csíkszentmihályi’s flow, Knowles’ andragogy and the works of Piaget.  It taught me about me: what motivates me intrinsically and extrinsically, who I am as a student as well as a person, and where I want to go from here.  I am a leader, I am motivated and I am a hard worker.  I plan to apply for admittance to the PhD in Higher Adult and Lifelong Education in December of 2008, where I hope to study adult learners in the online realm, bringing together my two greatest educational passions.  From there, I will work toward becoming a professor or a coordinator of an online program somewhere, putting to use the skills that I have gained in my studies.  However online education is perceived by standard academia, I vigorously fight anyone who told me my experience here has been less than rigorous.  I wish I had a comprehensive snapshot of myself two years ago that we could compare to the snapshot of today; you would see two vastly different individuals.

Note: I have included a references section below, should additional exploration of the books or topics mentioned in this paper be desired.

REFERENCES:

Fullan, Michael G. Leading in a Culture of Change Personal Action Guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003.

Merriam, Sharan B., Caffarella, Rosemary S. & Baumgartner, Lisa M. (2007).  Learning In Adulthood A Comprehensive Guide.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ryff, Carol D., Keys, Corey Lee M. (1995). The Structure of Psychological Well-Being Revisited.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4): 719-727.

Smith, Mark K. (2002, 2008) ‘Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences’, the encyclopedia of informal education, http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm.

Smith, M. K. (2002) ‘Malcolm Knowles, informal adult education, self-direction and anadragogy’, the encyclopedia of informal education, www.infed.org/thinkers/et-knowl.htm.

Vella, Jane (2002).  Learning to Listen Learning to Teach The Power of Dialogue in Educating Adults.  San Francisco, CA:  Jossey-Bass.

I do not fit easily into this assignment, as I am not a teacher in the traditional sense.  I do not awaken each morning to a classroom of eager minds, nor do I face the challenges of classroom management and state and federal standards of education that K-12 teachers do.  My challenges differ but, to me, are no less perplexing.

My students are faculty members and, by proxy, the undergraduates they serve.  With K -12 institutions ever-increasingly wiring their students for online education, incoming college freshmen have expectations that universities must meet.  My job is to prepare faculty members to do so.  A quality online course is more than posting readings and administering exams, it reaches out to students and creates a sense of presence despite the possibility they will never see their instructors or cohorts face-to-face.  How to achieve this?  How can I prepare the instructor who is time strapped and ill-equipped?  How can we work together to craft a course that is not only enriching, but is within the instructor’s technological abilities to administer?  These are my challenges.

Online education has grown greatly, even as I have been a student at Michigan State University.  I remember Dr. Byron Brown’s Economics 201 class, using Telnet to connect to CAPA to complete problem sets, using my 14.4 baud modem.  He had set up an e-mail address eohr@msu.edu (pronounced Ee-yore, an abbreviation of electronic office hours) that we could e-mail for help when we were stuck.  This was 10 years ago, and I found myself excited by this new learning format.  While my grade in the course may not have reflected this interest, this was all so new to me, and his genuine concern for the students, and the work he put into making the experience a good one reflected his care that we learn the material.  To this day, his problem sets about pizza and beer stay with me.  Whether or not he knows it, Dr. Brown will always be the professor who awakened my interest in, and gave me my first exposure to the realm of online learning.

In the past ten years, the geography of online learning has changed drastically, not only at MSU but worldwide.  Entire programs are available online, including our own MAED.  Commercial course management systems like ANGEL, Desire2Learn and Blackboard are rivaled by open source projects like Moodle, Sakai and MSU’s own LON-Capa.  Online learning is no longer an idea, it is a reality.  ANGEL processes millions of log-ins per year and is now a mission-critical service on MSU’s campus.  Thousands of students are online at any given time, and even a small interruption in service causes untold grief to faculty members and students attempting to complete their work.  This, too, has changed from my course ten years ago when I might send a request to eohr@msu.edu and receive a reply hours or even a day or two later.  Now, access is instant, and expectations for quick feedback are heightened more than ever before.

How has this instant access changed our learning?  Think, for example, of Google.  When I was in third grade and needed an answer, I would ask my parents, or get a ride to the library where I would shuffle through the musty-scented card catalog in search of the book I needed, locate it on the shelves, and find my answer within.  Today, answers are often a Google search away.  Entire libraries are online, and for those without computers or Internet connections, most local libraries have these resources on-hand.  Learning is more open than it once was.  This August, I had the opportunity to see Dr. Curt Bonk of Indiana University give a keynote lecture at the Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning in Madison, Wisconsin.  In this lecture he discussed how the Web is opening education to the world, so that “now we all learn.”  This mantra was repeated over and over: “now we all learn.”  For those interested in watching, the link to the video is here http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/bonkkeynote.cfm, but the important takeaway is that, as lifelong learners and teachers, be it at the K – 12 level as many of my cohorts, or in higher education as I am, the Web has shifted us beyond the walls of the classroom and put the world at our fingertips.

The concern in this technologically wired world becomes: how do we sort it all out?  How do we ensure that we, as educators, are not allowing the content of our teaching to be overruled by the flair of the technology we’re implementing?  As Robin Smith says in Conquering the Content: A Step-by-Step Guide to Online Course Design “gratuitous use of technology is not impressive to students.”  It is increasingly important that we consider the why’s behind our teaching decisions, and carefully consider the choices being made.  Do I need to use a Flash application to convey this point?  Should this lecture page be animated?  How would a game work here?  In some cases, these ideas will work well to convey the content at hand, in others it would be overkill.  As I move forward, how can I help people make these decisions wisely?

These are the questions I ask as I move forward, the questions that define my path forward as a “learner in an increasingly online world.”  Perhaps the most exciting thing about the online world is: there are always more questions to be asked.

Original Statement Written and Submitted: July 6, 2005 (PDF)
Reflection Written and Submitted: October 3, 2008

My goal statement was written in July of 2005.  In June of 2006, my mother died of heart disease.  In April of 2007, I began work as a producer at Virtual University Design and Technology at Michigan State University, the dream job I began the MAED program in the hopes of one day obtaining.  As I’ve navigated this twisted, tumultuous journey of change, my interests have shifted, my thought processes have sharpened, and I approach things from a different perspective than I could have imagined three short (long?) years ago.

Losing my mother after my first semester in the program was difficult, the beginning of fall semester 2006 brought with it grave concerns about my ability to perform.  For the first time in my life I doubted myself, as she had always been my staunchest supporter.  I felt as though concentration was unattainable and I was unsure of where I placed my priorities in general.  What I didn’t count on, however, was how losing her forced me to mature mentally, and the welcome cognitive reprieve my courses gave me.  To concentrate on my studies was almost like an excuse to think about something else for awhile, and while it was my lowest scoring semester, I still performed well.  Additionally, in fighting to prove myself TO myself, I gained an inner strength I never knew I possessed.  In retrospect, I believe it was a turning point for me, proving to myself that if I could survive that semester, I could survive anything the graduate program, indeed life, could throw my way.

In the spring of 2007, I began the EAD component of my work, marking the most profound educational change in thinking from the goal statement as written in 2005.  2005 saw me focused solely on educational technology aspects, and interested broadly in its application to education as a widely defined concept.  Spring semester 2007 changed this, as I entered into the Educational Administration courses, as well as my new job at vuDAT. My interests shifted from “everything ed tech” to educational technologies and how they apply to adult education, primarily faculty development, quality course design and implementation and online teaching of graduate students like myself and my MA ED colleagues.

Professors Dirkx, Wieland and Colflesh opened my eyes to this new educational niche in courses such as EAD 864, 801 and 861, exposing me to the concepts of lifelong learning, the learning society and how we learn as adults.  I felt as though suddenly, I was more in tune with the interactions of my colleagues, and where their needs were and were not being met in courses.  Certainly this change wasn’t as sudden as it felt, but as I began implementing these ideas into my work, and encouraging others to do the same, I saw the benefits that embracing change brings.  The risk and the reward, as it were, and the results have been incredible so far.

In meeting with faculty members campus-wide, I find that many are interested in online teaching, many are looking for input, and many are unsure of where to start.  I see brilliant innovators, stars in their field, and find myself in the position of determining how best to reach them and help them to attain their teaching and learning goals.  It can be daunting, but has also been amazing to see true scholars at work.  In attending faculty seminars and participating in a Faculty Learning Community, I’ve been able to address my goal of seeing what’s out there, and learning what is needed, while at the same time developing a new goal: filling those gaps.  It has been such a valuable perspective, to be on both sides of the fence, student and designer, that I would make the same decision regarding the online program, given the opportunity.  In this, I have again reached my goal.

While my interests have shifted from my original goals statement, uses of technology and quality course design are my life’s passions.  My goals remain the same in that I still wish to be an educator, pursue a PhD and investigate technology’s role in why we do what we do in higher education, I’ve just shifted my focus in who I want to study from K – 12 to graduate level higher education.  I want to give back that which has been given to me, by researching programs like the one I am about to complete.  I have achieved many of my 2005 goals, and am about to embark upon many more.  I firmly believe this would not have been possible without the MAED program, and for that I am profoundly thankful.

To illustrate the differences between my old and new goals in a visual way, I created wordles to show how many times particular words were used. They are included in the text above. Create your own wordle at: http://wordle.net/create.

Table of Contents

• Abstract
• Research Question
• Research Review
• Research Design and Data Collection
• Data Analysis
• Conclusions

Project Abstract

The technology boom of the late 1990s placed an emphasis on technology previously unparalleled.  The dawn of the 21st century has seen an explosion in technology-based solutions and an extension of this revolution into the realm of education.  In K-12 schools and universities, while technical solutions are expanding exponentially and an emphasis has been placed on being “wired,” technical skills are not developing rapidly enough.  Colleges of education are not focusing as much on technology skills as other sectors and teachers find themselves lacking the basic technological understanding and skill needed to operate at the expected levels.  This project focuses on teachers, their fears and concerns, the skills they have, the skills they need and how they can get the resources they require to ride this technological wave in their classrooms.

Research Question
Overcoming Technophobia:
Challenging Technological Prejudice and Providing Technological Resources
How can I help educators (all grade levels, but primarily focusing on higher education) to stop fearing and resisting technology?  What causes the fear?

Sub questions-

How will the preconceived notions of “academia” hinder me in this quest?

How can I help overcome the view of technology as “dangerous?”

What are the potential social ramifications of using technology in the classroom?

How many educators fail to distinguish between “computers” and “technology?”

How could the K-12 and higher education communities benefit from sharing technologies, ideas about technology, etc?  (A good example is how Louisville Public Schools and Kentucky Virtual University utilize ANGEL and work as a team in its development.  How does this work?  What benefits do they see?)

How do we eradicate fear of the unknown?

Research Review
Fear + Roadblocks = Resistance

“Calls for change of any kind are seen as an attempt to change the rules in the middle of the game.” – Steven Hodas, “Technology Refusal and the Organizational Culture of Schools”

Fear of technology is not new.  Embracing technology involves changing routines and opening oneself to risk.  Several classmates responded that the fear of technology is often more the fear of change than of technology itself.  Research seems to support this assertion.

Teacher disposition and views on technology play a large role in whether the technology is adopted in the classroom (Vannatta, Fordham). In Technology in the Classroom: The Role of Teacher Dispositions in Gatekeeping, John Saye outlines five different “teacher types” and ranks them according to their tolerance for risk.  They are (in order of most willing to least):

• Trailblazers
• Pioneers
• Settlers
• Stay-at-Homes
• Saboteurs

Whereas trailblazers embraced technologies and opportunities to enhance learning, saboteurs saw technology as a dangerous roadblock to the learning process, and acted accordingly as “roadblocks” themselves.

But what is it that causes teachers to resist change, especially in the realm of technology?  Research indicates that many teachers lack in basic computer and Internet skills.  Carolyn McCarthy, an MSU instructor and technology coordinator for the Shiawassee Intermediate School District finds that “there is an absolute lack of technology skills in teachers that have been out in the field for quite awhile.”  A fear of “embarrassment due to unfamiliarity” (Hodas) is pervasive in teacher culture when it comes to technology, and this resistance causes teachers to lack the necessary technological experience to effectively incorporate technology technique into their classrooms (Frederickson).

Teachers are not generally prepared in education programs to use the technologies that are available and likely to be used in their future classrooms. In Behind the Curve in Teacher Preparation, Scott Fredrickson references studies by Barksdale, Northrup and Little that outlines some reasons —aside from merely fear or lacking skills—that TE faculty decide not to include technology in their curriculums:

• Lack of equipment or antiquated equipment
• Institution doesn’t count technology work toward promotion/tenure
• Amount of time required to learn new programs and create new instructional programs is extensive.

Because of this resistance in higher education, most new teachers enter the field technologically unprepared.  With teacher education programs shunning technology training for taking too much time teaching basic technology skills (Fredrickson) we’ve created a vicious cycle of technology resistance. Ruth Foster, principal of Scott Elementary in DeWitt noted how difficult it is to teach a technique that is unfamiliar.  “How can you confidently and efficiently teach a third grader to use PowerPoint, when you’ve never had to use PowerPoint yourself?”

In Michigan, teachers take a basic skills test in reading, writing and mathematics.  Most college TE programs spend considerable time honing these skills, but very little in preparing teachers technologically.  So, teachers aren’t being taught, and are therefore unable to teach others.  Needs aren’t being met on many levels.

In Technology: To Use or Infuse, Nancy Sulla highlights three trends that contribute to this cycle of technology resistance.  The first is “the overemphasis on merely building teacher’s tech skills.”  The second is “the belief that teachers’ inability to use technology can be overcome by students’ ability” and third that ‘computer use is often seen as an end unto itself.”  These trends highlight some of the problems that need to be overcome.  Teachers must be taught that technology only works if properly integrated into the curriculum, and administrations, teacher education programs and support staff must be taught that teachers cannot properly infuse that which they do not know. As Michael Golden said, “technology is a tool that has the potential to empower school leaders at all levels.” It may take a further cultural shift, but it’s time to figure out how provide the resources they need to fully utilize this tool.

SOURCES:
Classmates Discussion Forum 18 Jan 2006.

Bungum, Berit “Transferring and Transforming Technology Education: A Study of Norwegian Teachers’ Perceptions of Ideas from Design and Technology.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 16.1 (2006): 31-52.

Foster, Ruth A. personal interview 27 Jan 2006.

Fredrickson, Scott “Behind the Curve in Teacher Preparation: How Schools and Colleges of Education Should be Preparing Their Preservice Teachers to Teach Using Instructional Technology.” Journal of Information Technology Impact 1.2 (1999): 73-80.

Golden, Michael “Technology’s Potential, Promise for Enhancing Student Learning.” T.H.E J31.12 (2004):.

Hodas, Steven Technology Refusal and the Organizational Culture of Schools. 14 Sep 1993. Online. 23 Jan 2006.
<http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v1n10.html>.

Lewis, Theodore “Research in Technology Education – Some Areas of Need.” Journal of Technology Education 10.2 (1999):.
Masie, Elliott “Addressing Questions and Challenges.” Learning and Training Innovations 4.5 (2003): 10.

McCarthy, Carolyn personal interview 31 Jan 2006.

Saye, John W. “Technology in the Classroom: the Role of Dispositions in Teacher Gatekeeping.” Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 13.3 (1998): 210-234.

Sulla, Nancy Technology: To Use or Infuse.  Feb 1999. Online.  Jan 2006.
<http://ts.mivu.org>.

Vannatta, Rachel, Fordham, Nancy “Teacher Dispositions as Predictors of Classroom Technology Use.” Journal of Research on Technology Education 36.3 (2004): 253-272.

“Calls for change of any kind are seen as an attempt to change the rules in the middle of the game.” – Steven Hodas, “Technology Refusal and the Organizational Culture of Schools”

Fear of technology is not new.  Embracing technology involves changing routines and opening oneself to risk.  Several classmates responded that the fear of technology is often more the fear of change than of technology itself.  Research seems to support this assertion.

Teacher disposition and views on technology play a large role in whether the technology is adopted in the classroom (Vannatta, Fordham). In Technology in the Classroom: The Role of Teacher Dispositions in Gatekeeping, John Saye outlines five different “teacher types” and ranks them according to their tolerance for risk.  They are (in order of most willing to least):

• Trailblazers
• Pioneers
• Settlers
• Stay-at-Homes
• Saboteurs

Whereas trailblazers embraced technologies and opportunities to enhance learning, saboteurs saw technology as a dangerous roadblock to the learning process, and acted accordingly as “roadblocks” themselves.

But what is it that causes teachers to resist change, especially in the realm of technology?  Research indicates that many teachers lack in basic computer and Internet skills.  Carolyn McCarthy, an MSU instructor and technology coordinator for the Shiawassee Intermediate School District finds that “there is an absolute lack of technology skills in teachers that have been out in the field for quite awhile.”  A fear of “embarrassment due to unfamiliarity” (Hodas) is pervasive in teacher culture when it comes to technology, and this resistance causes teachers to lack the necessary technological experience to effectively incorporate technology technique into their classrooms (Frederickson).

Teachers are not generally prepared in education programs to use the technologies that are available and likely to be used in their future classrooms. In Behind the Curve in Teacher Preparation, Scott Fredrickson references studies by Barksdale, Northrup and Little that outlines some reasons —aside from merely fear or lacking skills—that TE faculty decide not to include technology in their curriculums:

• Lack of equipment or antiquated equipment
• Institution doesn’t count technology work toward promotion/tenure
• Amount of time required to learn new programs and create new instructional programs is extensive.

Because of this resistance in higher education, most new teachers enter the field technologically unprepared.  With teacher education programs shunning technology training for taking too much time teaching basic technology skills (Fredrickson) we’ve created a vicious cycle of technology resistance. Ruth Foster, principal of Scott Elementary in DeWitt noted how difficult it is to teach a technique that is unfamiliar.  “How can you confidently and efficiently teach a third grader to use PowerPoint, when you’ve never had to use PowerPoint yourself?”

In Michigan, teachers take a basic skills test in reading, writing and mathematics.  Most college TE programs spend considerable time honing these skills, but very little in preparing teachers technologically.  So, teachers aren’t being taught, and are therefore unable to teach others.  Needs aren’t being met on many levels.

In Technology: To Use or Infuse, Nancy Sulla highlights three trends that contribute to this cycle of technology resistance.  The first is “the overemphasis on merely building teacher’s tech skills.”  The second is “the belief that teachers’ inability to use technology can be overcome by students’ ability” and third that ‘computer use is often seen as an end unto itself.”  These trends highlight some of the problems that need to be overcome.  Teachers must be taught that technology only works if properly integrated into the curriculum, and administrations, teacher education programs and support staff must be taught that teachers cannot properly infuse that which they do not know. As Michael Golden said, “technology is a tool that has the potential to empower school leaders at all levels.” It may take a further cultural shift, but it’s time to figure out how provide the resources they need to fully utilize this tool.

SOURCES:
Classmates in Discussion Forum 18 Jan 2006.

Bungum, Berit “Transferring and Transforming Technology Education: A Study of Norwegian Teachers’ Perceptions of Ideas from Design and Technology.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 16.1 (2006): 31-52.

Foster, Ruth A. personal interview 27 Jan 2006.

Fredrickson, Scott “Behind the Curve in Teacher Preparation: How Schools and Colleges of Education Should be Preparing Their Preservice Teachers to Teach Using Instructional Technology.” Journal of Information Technology Impact 1.2 (1999): 73-80.

Golden, Michael “Technology’s Potential, Promise for Enhancing Student Learning.” T.H.E J31.12 (2004):.
Hodas, Steven Technology Refusal and the Organizational Culture of Schools. 14 Sep 1993. Online. 23 Jan 2006.
<http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v1n10.html>.

Lewis, Theodore “Research in Technology Education – Some Areas of Need.” Journal of Technology Education 10.2 (1999):.
Masie, Elliott “Addressing Questions and Challenges.” Learning and Training Innovations 4.5 (2003): 10.

McCarthy, Carolyn personal interview 31 Jan 2006.

Saye, John W. “Technology in the Classroom: the Role of Dispositions in Teacher Gatekeeping.” Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 13.3 (1998): 210-234.

Sulla, Nancy Technology: To Use or Infuse.  Feb 1999. Online.  Jan 2006.
<http://ts.mivu.org>.

Vannatta, Rachel, Fordham, Nancy “Teacher Dispositions as Predictors of Classroom Technology Use.” Journal of Research on Technology Education 36.3 (2004): 253-272.

Research Question- Overcoming Fear and Preconceived Notions Regarding Technology

How can I help educators (all grade levels, but primarily focusing on higher education) to stop fearing and resisting technology?

Sub questions-

How will the pre-conceived notions of “academia” hinder me in this quest?

How can I help overcome the view of technology as “dangerous?”

What are the potential social ramifications of utilizing technology in the classroom?

How many educators fail to distinguish between “computers” and “technology?”

How could the K-12 and higher education communities benefit from sharing technologies, ideas about technology, etc?  (A good example is how Louisville Public Schools and Kentucky Virtual University utilize ANGEL and work as a team in its development.  How does this work?  What benefits do they see?)

I focused less in my brainstorming about budget for implementing technology, rather as technology as an idea, its potential for adoption/acceptance and what needs to be done to reach the level of adoption/acceptance.  How do we irradicate fear of the unknown?