The cognitive cultural psychologist Richard Nisbett has noted “how his work with a Chinese  student challenged and changed his lifelong universalistic view of human cognition—the view widely shared by cognitive scientists that all human groups perceive and reason in the same way”(2008, p.71). While the Chinese believe in “constant change,” and take a big picture view of things, Westerners believe that they can control events because they know the rules that govern objects. The point is, it’s not a matter of my way is right and yours is wrong. It’s that there are many perspectives possessing more or less validity often depending on the context, and these perspectives will play out in a multicultural f2f and online learning environment. If I bring a little of my Japanese side into play, I would say that in order to create a harmonious online group, each participant may need to make some compromises in order to accomodate all.

Reference

Kolb, D. & Joy, S. (2008). Are there cultural differences in learning style? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, (33), pp. 69-85. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6V7R-4VF0XWS-1-13&_cdi=5849&_user=1067470&_pii=S0147176708000941&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2009&_sk=999669998&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkWA&md5=ea0fab200c3a30fc239913be7e515fd9&ie=/sdarticle.pdf  
]]> http://rrubailey.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/cultural-interaction-is-a-two-way-street/feed/ 0 49.352618 -123.033381 49.352618 -123.033381 bcbailey64 http://rrubailey.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/why-software-implementation-usually-fails/ http://rrubailey.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/why-software-implementation-usually-fails/#comments Wed, 10 Nov 2010 07:23:14 +0000 bcbailey64 http://rrubailey.wordpress.com/?p=95 ]]>

On our last skype call we spent some time having a very interesting discussion about how technology has often been less than successfully implemented in the educational realm and we all spoke from personal experience. Lack of support, lack of training, lack of motivation, fear of change, decisions imposed top-down with little or no consultation with the end-users, lack of alignment with educational goals, lack of leadership and lack of accountability were just some of the reasons cited for less than stellar outcomes.

Based on my experience in the private sector, I would also add that these contextual issues bedevil all software implementations, regardless of the milieu, and it is amazing how often they get overlooked by project managers, program planners and other stakeholders – in spite of the fact that they are such well-known issues!

Here is a sobering statistic:

“Research highlights that only one in eight information technology projects can be considered truly successful (failure being described as those projects that do not meet the original time, cost and (quality) requirements criteria).”

Despite such failures, huge sums continue to be invested in information systems projects and written off. For example the cost of project failure across the European Union was €142 billion in 2004

http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.19584

The basic reason for this is that anytime a new technology is introduced into an organization it will result in a need for (often signifigant) human change at some level within that organization.

It still leaves me dumbfounded (after years of seeing this play out in software implementation projects running the gamut, scope-wise) that we do not place primacy on the human factor, above all other considerations.

During our residency this summer, as we struggled to absorb new information which sometimes challenged our assumptions, we were reminded of the fact that change is sometimes uncomfortable. Many of us do not like being outside of our comfort zone even though it is vitally important to do so if one is to ultimately grow intellectually and emotionally. However, change is the only constant so as program planners, we have to do a much better job of helping stakeholders navigate through it. The problem is that “Even when the change is a good idea, if it is inadequately explained, led or managed it can produce negative impacts such as disruption, conflict, inefficiency, increased costs and ultimately, project failure.”

http://m.bangkokpost.com/articledetail.php?channelID=2&articleID=196498

Therefore, collaboration is extremely important. “The greater the degree of collaboration, the more knowledge is gained and shared by staff and the greater the likelihood of common committment and follow through by the staff.”

http://m.bangkokpost.com/articledetail.php?channelID=2&articleID=196498

In terms of software implementation best practices (which equally apply to planning a program reliant on TML), Colin Walter makes the following suggestions:

1) align the software implementation with the strategic business goals

2) provide a practical, simple framework for change across dimensions including stakeholder management, communication, the impact of change, organisational structure, job-design, skills and training, benefit delivery and transition management

3) work with individuals to help them understand, adapt to and develop their skills for the new software

4) drive leadership and team development to support the desired change

5) coach both change and program leaders, as well as line managers

6) provide tailored training in leading, managing, delivering and coping with change

http://m.bangkokpost.com/articledetail.php?channelID=2&articleID=196498

I am very optimistic about using social media in some of these change management contexts to improve this much needed collaboration/communication and I have seen it work well. For example, I have been involved in a few projects where wikis were successfully used to greatly increase collaboration and communication amongst team members which resulted in much greater project buy-in, which increased team members motivation, etc. etc. – establishing a virtuous circle. Furthermore, this kind of collaboration often unleashes creativity with stakeholders feeding off of each other’s ideas to come up with novel solutions to unforeseen roadblocks typically encountered in any kind of tech implementation project. Potentially great ideas have a spotlight shone on them through the use of social media that may not otherwise ever see the light of day. This is the power of social media in terms of improving collaboration. We can adapt or perish. If we have new tools at our disposal, let’s figure out how to use them for the maximum benefit. The printing press, the telephone and the telescope were all demonized before their true value was revealed. The latest technological tools are no different in that regard. Let’s get creative!Let’s not be afraid of change, let’s EMBRACE it!

http://teachers.net/gazette/wordpress/teachers-net-resources/alfie-kohn-testing-raising-the-scores-ruining-the-schools/

The basic argument is that students tend to learn a lot more from experience and self learning than they do from being taught how to pass an exam on a particular subject.

…and I know Alfie Kohn has an agenda, I just happen to agree with him on standardized testing. So does Sir Ken Robinson. Informal learning is very important and underrated in my humble opinion. We need to be teaching our kids HOW to learn more than WHAT to learn.

Quality Assurance has been defined as, “…guaranteeing that the quality of a product or a service meets some predetermined standard. Quality assurance makes no assumptions about the quality of competing products or services. …would be expected to reflect norms for the relevant industry… compares the quality of a product or service with a minimum standard set either by the producer or provider or by some external government or industry standards authority…should bear some relationship to best practice, but this is not a necessary condition…a fit for the market” (Inglis, 2005, p.3).  In other words, quality assurance is all about knowing what you want to accomplish in relation to other standards and making sure it happens.

Evaluation,  “….indicates application of the assessment findings to the continued development of student learning or program achievement…determining whether objectives have been achieved…implies a certain judgment that can be made, in part, based on assessment information…” (Galbraith, Jones, 2010, pp. 167-168). “The Joint Committee’s definition suggests that “evaluation is the systematic assessment of the worth or merit of an object” (p.3)…”evaluation is the systematic assessment of an object’s merit, worth, probity, feasibility, safety, significance, and/or equity” (p. 13).” (Galbraith, Jones, 2010, p. 168). In other words, evaluation is about deciding if the quality you are accomplishing/accomplished is or was worthwhile, based upon program objectives and associated metrics you are assessing/assessed the results against.

Newman (2003) refers to the monitoring of Web-based distance-learning program performance as measuring and tracking (p. 3). It is the identification and monitoring of key performance metrics tied to program success (p. 2). In other words, the process by which quality is tracked to assure and evaluate it.

During the team’s discussion on defining key terms, the similarities and differences between how the garment industry and TML discuss quality were found noteworthy.  In the garment industry ‘quality control ‘ is defined as the routine checking and testing of work in process against a standard to find and correct defects (frequently, the term is misused and really only relates to the final inspection of finished goods).  ‘Quality circles’ are small groups of workers who meet to identify, analyze, and find solutions to work problems in a team effort. ‘Quality assurance’ means company practices and procedures are identified and followed to meet customer’s specifications and expectations- a guarantee to the customers. Ideally, the goal is ‘total quality management’ or a long term commitment for continuous improvements of services and satisfaction beyond the customer’s expectations. This includes employee empowerment; benchmarking and a customer guarantee. ‘Benchmarking’ is the process of measuring goods, services, and practices against world-class leaders. It is proactive, builds high-quality work for error-free goods, and results in changes that bring about better processes. Key ingredients to achieving top quality include; creating consistency; adopting a philosophy for top quality; doing it right the first time; not rewarding lower prices; striving to improve; providing on-the-job training; leadership at all levels; avoid fear and conflict; eliminating unrealistic quotas; self-improvement with incentives and keeping everyone involved.

Each new definition suggests a more developed and proactive approach to quality management and caused much discussion with the management team when they were lobbied to have the ‘quality control’ managers renamed ‘quality assurance’ managers. The new job titles shifted the company’s focus and resulted in it being perceived as a quality organization- a reputation it had not previously held.

When planning TML programs,  the goal is also the most developed approach, ‘total quality management’, which suggests that measurement and accountability to key stakeholders (students, faculty, management, administrators, advisory boards, etc.) is built into the program planning process during the development, execution, conclusion and beyond, to determine if the goals have been achieved. Proactive, teamwork with institutional and external support is emphasized. Where the difference exists is in the measurement criteria. In business measurement is fairly linear- are we making money; Is the production garment an exact replica of the production sample? In education the measurements becomes much more complex and political- are we preparing adults for the 21^st century; are we keeping the tax payers, government and community happy (to name a couple of the many questions that are asked)? Are we meeting their goals? Are they satisfied?

Program evaluation is defined by Cafferella as “a process used to determine whether the design and delivery of a program were effective and whether the proposed outcomes were met. (Cafferella, 2002, pg. 225.) “Evaluation done to Improve or change a program while it is in progress is termed formative evaluation”(Cafferella, 2002, pg. 225.).  The data gathered by an evaluation process can be used, among other uses to cancel a program before it starts or while it is running (Cafferella, 2002).  Cafferalla outlines how important it is that the context of the program be considered in any evaluation. People are at the heart of evaluation.

One team member discussed their recent involvement with a college wide program evaluation at their college. Rumours of the review surfaced in April of last year. In April, most program coordinators were involved in exams, summative projects, student work placements and generally exhausted from the school year. The team member’s chair asked them to fill out yet another form, which she said she would do after she finished marking exams, summative projects and had ensured she had processed all her students for graduation. She was not asked again. On May 20, a draft report for the program review for the college was released to the college and the press about proposed cuts to programs. Faculty was invited to participate in town hall discussions on May 31 and June 1, 10 days AFTER the draft report was issued.  The town hall discussions were very heated as many of the facts in the draft report were simply wrong. Program coordinators suddenly discovered that their programs were to be revised or their program would be phased out, and these decisions were based on faulty, incomplete or wrong data.  Each program undergoes a provincial mandatory Program Quality Review every 5 years and it appears that this extensive document was ignored as well in preparing the draft report.  Extensive notes were taken in this town hall meeting on May 31 and passed to the committee who was responsible for the draft document. The final document which was released on June 21st, contained little of the noted changes. (Algonquin, 2010)

Cafferella outlines in Exhibit 11.1, “Ensure support for the evaluation from those who have a stake in the results” (Cafferella, 2002, pg. 231.) The program coordinators and the academic staff who deliver these courses were not consulted in the process, thus; the feeling of disenfranchisement was high among these people at the end of the review process. Their discouragement was clearly visible.

The two criteria which the report based its decision points on were: student retention rate and graduation rate.  Again, when these criteria were examined in the context which is encouraged by Cafferalla, many of the programs have an open admission policie. The context of the open admission programs was being compared with the programs with standards of admission and not surprisingly the open admission programs did not compare favourably with the other programs.

Thus the evaluation process which was undertaken by the college was incomplete in that it did not examine the contextual nature of the programs it was assessing. Unfortunately decisions were made and communicated to the public and faculty based on this evaluation.  The decisions left the college academia disheartened and disinclined to participate in any further college wide initiatives. The college academic union was outraged and the already adversarial relations between the management and the union were further heightened.  The team noted that the above example points to the importance of  consulting everyone involved in a thorough, positive and inclusive manner so that the information upon which decisions are based is indeed accurate and stakeholder’s concerns have been properly acknowledged and taken into account.

Further to the discussion above, the team next examined Newman (2003) states that assessment and evaluation “is often overlooked or downplayed” (p. 2) even though it is a key element of successful programs. Newman references Peter Drucker’s famous quote that “ïf you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it” (Drucker as cited in Newman, 2003, p.10). Program performance should be reviewed before (needs assessment), during (formative assessment) and after (summative assessment) a program has begun (Newman, 2003, p. 3). Things start to get murkier when institutions need to determine what to measure. “The definition of success, and the measures derived to assess it, can vary considerably” (Newman, 2003,  p. 4). This is readily understandable as each institution has a unique set of circumstances or context that should infuse the assessment and evaluation process.

To keep it simple, Newman (2003) suggests measuring program impacts and outcomes on students, faculty and the institution itself (p. 4). Examples of specific data that can be used include academic performance and course/program completion rates (students), rate/percentage of faculty participation (faculty) and student enrolment and tuition fee growth (institution)(p. 4), bearing in mind that “metrics are of most value when they target the unique objectives of the program” (p. 3). Another increasingly important consideration is ROI but this can be quite difficult to measure. For example, how do you measure an intangible such as “emphasis on fulfillment of institutional mission” (p. 5)?
Newman (2003) offers up Pennsylvania State University as an institution which has devised a “well-defined set of evaluation areas and criteria for web-based success” (p. 7). Their assessment areas include; program effectiveness (ie learner satisfaction, retention/completion), organizational effectiveness (ie financial viability, program growth) and institutional transformation (ie impact on the academic community, adoption of other university innovations) (p. 7).

One of the key questions that institutions need to ask is; “Has the institution developed a comprehensive assessment framework that is tailored to the institution’s objectives, programs and courses” (Newman, 2003, p. 10)?  When software was implemented in a school district, a team member found that often this was not the case. During implementation meetings with classroom teachers, he often discovered that they did not know what district learning goals they were to align usage of the software to. This was usually because this vital information had not been communicated by the district administration (which had selected and imposed the technology top-down)  to teachers. He knew that if such an alignment did not take place then assessing the success of the implementation a year later would be very difficult because no one would know what the criteria for success actually was! As the outside party, he knew his company would be the first to be blamed if there was a “whiff” of failure so he always had teachers confirm how they were going to align usage with district initiatives and what measures they would use to evaluate program success. He would then follow up at thirty day intervals via webcast, always referring teachers back to the goals they set in their initial meeting. What he always found somewhat surprising was that most administrators (both school-based and at the district level) did not lead their staff in setting implementation goals. Many of them were intimidated by technology and perhaps they did not want to lose face in front of their staff. The best implementations he participated in had full buy-in and involvement of administrators – but these were the exception not the rule. It was felt that a high level of educational leadership and support is required in order to ensure that program goals are set and met.

Next, the team discussed the importance of applying quality assurance (Q.A.), evaluation and monitoring appropriately to program planning. As Knox (2002), cited in Galbraith and Jones (2010), states, evaluating: will ensure stakeholders whose interests are underrepresented will be considered; may ensure continued support of a parent organization; may help to set priorities; means stakeholders are more likely to be engaged and committed; documents worth and benefits; may contribute to ongoing support from stakeholders; may inform explanations of program functions; may help to strengthen the program  (pp. 170).

Evaluating programs will ensure their validity; reduce duplication of programs which will enhance their sustainability and will ensure planners consider diverse opinions. Monitoring and evaluating Q.A. will allow planners to plan, improve and be accountable for their programs (Galbraith, Jones, 2010, pp. 172).  Evaluation must be based on “a carefully constructed, longitudinal data source that informs programmatic decision making at all levels…to respond more effectively to changing internal needs and external market demands (Newman, 2003, p. 10) Best practices will change over time raising benchmarks, especially related to the flexibility of eLearning, the quality of delivery and support services while lowering costs (Inglis, 2005, p. 10). If evaluation is not applied properly the intervention may be more problematic than the issue and it may carry a high cost in terms of staff involved. Staff may focus on one narrow area of the program at the expense of others; quality frameworks may stultify innovation and staff may respond to the letter rather than the intent (Inglis, 2005, p. 11)

The team felt that a major barrier to program evaluation is the faculty.  They can feel easily threatened and over worked and will resist supporting a quality program for fear of being challenged or given more work to do. They also have the support of a union who will encourage them to work to rule and to resist as much as possible.

Another barrier is the students. In one team member’s experience, students are currently surveyed for each course, each term, and then again for their entire program annually. Since the current students do not see the results of their comments being acted upon, they are reluctant to give up valuable time and answer the surveys with thought and ample consideration. In one situation, alumni were brought back for a focus group and they were annoyed to learn we had acted to correct some of their issues with their program. Somehow they felt they had been robbed; they did not feel we had been responsive.

In many cases, the questions students are asked must be re-framed into vocabulary they know and understand. They are not professional teachers and do not understand terms we take for granted such as ‘teaching methods and materials’; ‘instruments of evaluation’ etc. and giving one example of each leads them in a specific direction which may not be valid.

It was felt that there was a risk with feedback, receiving it and then not acting on it. One program has consistently received feedback that the students would like an internship and this has not been acted on. The students have also not received feedback to their feedback- something that should be  essential if you want stakeholders to feel valued and inclined to contribute again.

The team then considered why quality has become increasingly important for universities over the past couple of decades (Inglis, 2005). For example, as universities establish satellite campuses in foreign countries, they need to ensure that the quality of the programs they offer are of the same standard as in the home country and that they match the quality of their competitors. At a recent 2010 OECD conference on higher education, branch campuses of foreign universities were described as hollow shells and it was noted that that attending students were “well-aware that the quality might not be the same as the original university” (Sharma, 2010). Parker (2004)  notes it is important to ensure that an institution delivering an online course is credible and fraudulent. Different countries have attempted to establish criteria to protect consumers. In the UK for example, there is a licensing procedure in place, together with voluntary accreditation and there is a scheme in place for the quality of marks. In Canada, the quality assurance comes from the provincial governments who have organized the criteria into three outcomes; the quality of the outcomes, the quality of the program and the quality of the inputs and resources (Parker, 2004).

Two models which can be employed for ensuring quality in online education programs are the Quality Improvement Framework devised by Inglis, Ling and Joosten in 2002 and the Benchmarking Framework devised by McKinnon , Walker and Davis in 2000 (Inglis, p. 4). The Benchmarking framework focuses on using performance trends for self-improvement, enabling inter-university performance comparisons and allowing universities to determine their competitive positions (p. 4). The Quality Improvement framework focused on “managing quality processes within institutions” (p. 6). It should be noted that while the Benchmarking framework is intended specifically for universities, the Quality Improvement framework can also be applied to any institution delivering training programs reliant on new technology (p. 7)

The 67 benchmarks utilized by the Benchmarking Framework are organized into the categories of; Governance, Planning and Management, External Impact, Finance and Physical Infrastructure, Learning and Teaching, Student Support, Research, Library and Information Services, Internationalization and Staff (p. 7). The Quality Improvement Framework is based on 10 principles (each accompanied by a set of best practice indicators) designed to support the delivery of online learning which are; informed planning and management of resources, sustained committed leadership, improving access for all clients, incorporating equity, and promoting cultural diversity, understanding the requirements of the learner and reflecting stakeholder requirements, design, development, and implementation of programs for effective and active learning, creating confident and committed staff with new competencies, managing and maintaining the technical infrastructure, evaluating for continuous improvement, provision of effective and efficient administrative services and supporting the needs of learners (p. 8).

When determining which framework to use, Inglis (2005) suggests that educators always start with the question, “For what purposes is the framework being chosen?” (p. 10). If it is to manage quality processes then use the Quality Improvement Framework but if it is to compare institutions then either one can be used. The Quality Improvement Framework provides an operational level comparison vs. a more general comparison from the Benchmarking Framework (p.10).

Inglis (2005) mentions that one of the issues with evaluating quality is that of cost, specifically demands placed upon staff time  (p. 11). One team member was involved with a very major quality improvement process within a private corporation and one of the biggest issues they saw with the endeavour was that the scope of improvement became so large as to become unmanageable and unrealistic in certain areas. They simply didn’t have the requisite number of staff and hours in a day to accomplish all of the quality improvement goals that were being simultaneously implemented by multiple departments. While the goals were laudable and they had great staff buy-in due to an extensive consultative process, they should have broken the plan down into smaller components and staggered implementation to a much great degree. As it turned out, the process promised the world to staff and they gradually became cynical as they saw goals not being met because of resource constraints. The team recommended under-promising and over-delivering as an effective way of managing expectations when planning quality improvement initiatives. They also felt that departments need to carefully consider how the quality improvement processes they are enacting only within their department could reverberate throughout the organization. This can occur when inter-departmental communication and consultation is insufficient at the needs assessment stage.  The team noted that this example shines a light on an interesting dilemma; the need to break a project down to manageable sections while not losing sight of the overall organizational mandate which applies to the whole organization.

A team member working in a school district found it incredibly frustrating that some “powers that be” were deciding what program they should be using, then changing it, or modifying it before most teachers had the opportunity to use the technology. They didn’t even have the opportunity to test “what was”, let alone set a benchmark to assess the success of student use. Furthermore, when they were “informed” of new software, and encouraged to use it, there was little to no support or training. Or the training that was provided was a “show-off” session for someone, rather than “let’s get our hands dirty” and work with this. She was quite certain that anyone assessing the quality of their programs would be ringing their hands wondering what went wrong. Instead they tried something new. Stakeholders (the teachers who use programs with students) were not consulted or trained. Teachers certainly had not been asked to evaluate or provide feedback.  She’s not aware of any “quality assurance” or “evaluation”. Perhaps because they are a public school district, it is felt that a critical look at what teachers are doing isn’t necessary. Perhaps evaluation is ongoing. But at the “end-user” state, it certainly does not look like it, or feel like it. It was noted by a team member that this example certainly shows how a carefully and well-rounded needs assessment on the front end, will alleviate the frustration on the back end. What was the definition of stakeholders in this case? It appears that the teachers were not part of the process, even though they should have been. Furthermore, communication is such a key part of any group dynamic. The best planning and execution can be all for not if the information is not communicated to the correct parties.

Finally, the team used a Somalian example to illustrate the importance of establishing the context when defining Key Educational Requirements for Learning:

“For many scholars that I have met, Somalia is a prolonged incurable cancer whose anarchy is beyond modern medicine. It stands a generational guilty to scattered pockets of knowledge and research. This massive country sitting next to an equally vast coastline is linearly judged by its violent character when a story is told by a talented journalist in the streets of Mogadishu and still more stunning when another writer zooms his camera on the pirates-of-Somalia waters.  For me, an aid worker, Somalia is no ordinary miracle; it is one of us. A unique mass of knowledge awaiting to be tackled by an eagerly waiting generation of enthusiastic young men and women of this Horn of Africa. For instance, when the puzzle of global warming and environmental matters will be looked from a failed state perspective, Somalia will take its rightful place in such a discourse.  Equally, for me working in a failed state, the Open Access Week is my miracle gift to the cause and vision of the many men and women currently signed into this forum. To Somali school children that I work with every day, I hope with such a conviction that they will thank Open Access for bridging a divide bigger than thirsty for water – a thirst for open knowledge!”  (Moroko, 2010)

This quote was taken from the Open Access Week Website and it shows the power of Online learning in the underprivileged areas of the world. The unfulfilled thirst for knowledge in the journey of lifelong learning is not evident to us, living in the peace of Canada. The importance of context in defining the Key Educational Requirements (KER) for learning is critical and even more so in a distance environment when the face to face interactions are missing. Would the KER in a failed state, where formal education is fragmented or nonexistent, will be quite different than the KER which would be used in the west? Brigham Young University used a KER of quality educational experience as a KER in a recent analysis of a college algebra course ((Rogers, pg.238). The concept of quality must again be put into context.

Once the KER have been defined,  metrics can be designed to provide meaningful information about a program. “It is absolutely essential for stakeholders to identify the metrics most meaningful to them” (Rogers, 2010, p.  233). The meaningful metrics would be different for stakeholders in a failed state, as it appears that any avenue to education would be welcomed. “It is also easy to lose track of what you are actually trying to discover, and what you would do with that information if you knew it” (Rogers, 2010, p. 234). The concept of benchmarking would help the stakeholders in the failed state with the comparisons of performance. “Benchmarking involves understanding one’s own processes, analyzing the processes of others, comparing your performance with the others analyzed and then implementing the steps necessary to close the gap  (Inglis, 2005, p. 3).  Benchmarking would enable the Western educational stakeholders to assist the educators in Somalia establish some Key Educational Requirements to help them rebuild their educational system. “We must use the resulting data to make improvements in the interaction”  (Rogers,  2010,  p. 244). … and the data which has been interpreted may be shared to the benefit the users and education community as a whole  (Rogers, 2010, p. 245).  The educational community is a worldwide community brought closer by the power of the internet and technology. KER must be developed in a social and sometimes geographic context. Once those KLR are established then the gap which would obvious by benchmarking would then allow actions to be taken to close the gap.

In conclusion, Team 5 recognizes that quality assurance, evaluation and monitoring in program planning for TML have been neglected in the past and are of increasing importance moving forward. As education becomes increasingly globalized and as institutions increase their efforts to attract and retain students, it is crucial that solid evaluation and assessment frameworks are utilized when planning TML programs in order to ensure their quality to the mutual benefit of all stakeholders.

References

Parker, N. (2004). The Quality Dilemma in Online Education. In Anderson, T. & Elloumi, F. (Eds). Theory and practice of online learning. Retrieved August 16, 2010, from http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/ch16.html

Caffarella, R.S. (2002). Planning programs for adult learners: A practical guide for educators, trainers, and staff developer, Chapters 11 & 12 (pp. 224-285)

Inglis, A. (2005). Quality improvement, quality assurance, and benchmarking: Comparing two frameworks for managing quality processes in open and distance learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6(1). Retrieved August 16, 2010, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/issue/view/20

Newman, A. (2003). Measuring success in web-based distance learning [pdf]. EDUCAUSE Research Bulletin , 2003(4). Retrieved August 16, 2010, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0304.pdf

Chapter 15, Assessment and Evaluation, Galbraith and Jones, in Kasworm, C., Rose, A. & Ross-Gordon, J.(Eds). (2010). Handbook of adult and continuing education: 2010 Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers. (pp. 167-176)

Algonquin College, Retrieved from : http://www.algonquincollege.com/planning/

Sharma, Y. (2010, September). Global: Branch Campuses are Hollow Shells, University World News, Retrieved  October 19, 2010, from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=2010091807441277

Moroko, J, Retreived from: http://www.openaccessweek.org/forum/topics/ravaged-by-decades-of-war-now , October 22, 2010

Rogers, P.C. . The Use of Web Analytics in Design and Evaluation of Distance Education. In Veletsianos, G. (2010), Technologies in distance education, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120177

In their book, Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education, Bates and Poole (2003) described a model they designed which could be used for selecting and using technology for distance education programs.  The model they designed was called SECTIONS which stands for Students, Ease of use and reliability, Costs, Teaching, Interactivity, Organizational issues, Novelty, and Speed.  What follows is an analysis of these elements as we move into the 21st century and how to reframe the questions Bates and Poole originally asked, in light of Web 2.0 learning environments.

The first element of the Bates and Poole’s SECTIONS model considers students.  They suggest that consideration should be given to student demographics, access to technology, and to how students learn (Bates & Poole, 2003).  In 2007 twenty-four percent of all students, who were registered in a post secondary program, were taking at least one fully on-line course (Bates, 2011).   Hughes (2009) argued that students continue to seek face to face learning environments.  This may be in part because students lack the necessary skills or confidence for independent study.  Students may need support, and may need to have an instructor select the content to be learned (Bates, 2011).

Distance education allows for courses to be structured around students’ interests (Bates, 2011).  Magolda and Platt (2009) suggest that Web 2.0 allows students to participate in the process of creating content.  Distance education tends to move students from concrete learning to abstract reflective learning (Bates & Poole, 2003).  The challenge is to help students develop skills to critically evaluate, understand and search for relevant materials (Hughes, 2009).

Students’ access to the internet must also be considered (Bates & Poole, 2003).  Many of the new programs require large band width (Hughes, 2009).  The type of internet provider that students have access to, will determine what Web 2.0 technologies they can readily access.  For some students access to a computer may be a concern (Bates & Poole, 2003), however the landscape of access to the internet is rapidly changing, and today many students have access to social media and Web 2.0 on their smart phones (Magolda & Platt, 2009).  Since the book Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education was written in 2003, technology has advanced ways that individuals and groups of individuals can and do communicate.

A cautionary note around Web 2.0 is privacy.  Many of the applications students use may not protect students’ privacy.  The University of British Columbia (UBC) warns online students that there is a potential risk when using Web 2.0 applications. Their privacy may not be protected and postings may become the intellectual property of the site provider (Bates, 2010).

There are new questions to consider, including whether students understand privacy issues regarding the Web 2.0 technologies that they are using or may use.  Do the students have the necessary skills to critically search for and evaluate the material they are locating on the web?  Do the students have the confidence for independent study?  Do students need structured support?

The “E” in Bates and Poole’s SECTIONS model considers “ease of use” (Bates & Poole, 2003).   When choosing which technology to incorporate into an educational program, designers must consider the reliability of the program.  Some programs have a tendency to “crash” on a regular basis (Bates & Poole, 2003).  It may be necessary to have dual servers in the event that one server crashes.  The bandwidth that information is transmitted has an effect on the speed and reliability of the program (Hughes, 2009).   Slow transmission is frustrating for teachers and learners (Bates & Poole, 2003).  As technology advances, the access to more bandwidth is changing.  Students may now use mobile phones to access many programs online (Bates, 2011).

Programs should be easy to learn, to use, and to navigate.  If too much time is lost in learning the program students and teachers will be frustrated.  A way to address “ease of use” is to provide a preparatory course for students who lack necessary skills (Bates & Poole, 2003).

As we move forward into the 21st century new questions need to be considered.  Is there sufficient bandwidth available to deliver the program to the end user?  Are dual servers necessary to ensure reliability?  Should students be required to take preparatory courses in order to ensure that they have the necessary skills for a course?

There are two sets of cost factors to consider in Bates and Poole’s SECTIONS model.  These are costs of individual items, and the drivers of the costs, or production costs (Bates & Poole, 2003).  Individual item costs include the purchase or licensing of equipment and software.  If the educational institution is using a central server and has negotiated a central site, then a program may not incur new costs to the institution.  In Web 2.0, many tools are available on the internet at little or no cost to the user (Bates, 2011).  Even Learning Management Systems (LMS) are moving to open source, although a 2007 Gartner survey suggests the real costs of installation, adaptation and maintenance are yet to be clearly identified (Bates, 2011).

According to Bates & Poole, the production and delivery of materials as well as the number of students participating in a program are the drivers of the costs (Bates & Poole, 2003).  Some of these costs are incurred because of the use of specialists who assist in the development and delivery of course materials (Bates & Poole, 2003).  Web 2.0 has opened the door to free educational resources, which may obliterate the need for specialists in the future.  Bill Gates, in his talk at the “Techonomy” conference in August 2010 suggested that the best lectures will be available online and for free (Sparks, 2010). Many of the leading universities now have lectures available on the web for free (Loll, 2010). Other educational software such as wiki’s, blogs, and podcasts, are available for free. Users pay for customization, but the basic tools are free.  On the other hand the costs of training and supporting the educators who deliver the courses are on the rise. At Algonquin College, an examination of the current budget for Full Time Employment (FTE) positions showed that a ratio of one technology and learning support position existed for every five faculty positions (Algonquin, 2010). With the continual and rapid changes to technology, this ratio is not expected to decline.

Another cost to consider is that of copyrights.  With the advent of Bill C-61 the rules of copyright in Canada changed (Parliament of Canada, 2008).  In the United States the practice of digital locks nullifies much of the fair dealing outlined in the bill. The implications for distance education are that the material produced in a given course will self-destruct within 30 days of the completion of the course (Geist, 2009). This cost has not been quantified yet but it will affect students in distance education in the future.   Bates and Poole (2003) suggest that average student costs should be calculated over a five year period.  Technology which was used five years ago may be obsolete today.  With the explosion of new technology, is a five year average reasonable?

The “Teaching and Learning” of the SECTIONS model addresses learning needs, instructional approaches and the best choice of technologies to support learning (Bates & Poole, 2003).   Bates and Poole (2003) outlined examples of how and when technology may be used to solve strategic teaching issues.  They described the instructional benefits of television, radio and computers and suggested that teaching context played a role in determining which media or technology was most viable.

Pedagogical approaches to web-based learning are affecting change.  Constructivists believe “all knowledge is relative, personal, and dynamic” (Bates, 2011, p.31).  A new theory, connectivism, suggests that “the nature of knowledge is radically transformed by the technology of the Internet” (Bates, 2011, p. 31).  Knowledge is advanced by connected networks which in turn create collective intelligence (Siemens as cited in Bates, 2011).
Web 2.0 is based on new social web technologies which enable communication, collaboration, participation and sharing (JISC, Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World, 2009).  Educators must find ways to reach “adult learners ‘where they are’ and promote critical reflection in learning situations to help further learners’ growth and development in increasingly complex societies” (Hansman & Mott, 2010, p. 21).  Social networking in Web 2.0 will assist learners in refining employability skills which are valued by employers.  Web 2.0 tools have made choosing media and technologies an even more complex activity.  They provide learners with the opportunity to access quality educational content and to create their own learning around areas of personal interest, and then demonstrate their learning. In this situation “neither party may be entirely comfortable, at least initially” (JISC, Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World, 2009 p. 7).

Interaction and interactivity, the “I” of the SECTIONS model, considers learning to be active, where learners respond to material and demonstrate their understanding (Bates & Poole, 2003).  Bates and Poole (2009) noted that while it is easy for a machine to handle yes/no answers, it is easier for an instructor to handle unanticipated responses.  In the seven years since that was written it is evident that software has become increasingly sophisticated in terms of being able to provide more nuanced feedback and assessment. A current issue in online education is that “students are often dissatisfied with the feedback and assessment process, and it is rarely used as an opportunity to further the development of self-awareness and literacy’s of learning” (Beetham & McGill, 2009, p. 7). Perhaps one reason for this is that the younger generation operate at “twitch speed” expecting instant responses and feedback (Downes, 2005).

Efficacious learning requires that learner do something with the material they are presented with.  As an important part of this process of active learning, feedback lets the learner know if they have learned the materials correctly (Bates & Poole, 2003).  Although arguments over the benefits of, face to face interactions, or fully on line programs continue to rage on, the fact is that “across the North American post-secondary system, fully online programs have been increasing by an average of 20% per annum since 2002” (Bates, 2011, p. 24). Clearly online learning will be a mainstay in the future.

When educators started using new Web 2.0 technologies with their students in 2003, they noticed that students discussed their assigned topics with peers worldwide (Downes, 2005).  Learning created in this manner is obviously much more interactive for the learner than content created by an instructor. The trend is to increasing learner-created content and hence increased interactivity and interaction (Downes, 2005).  So how does one ensure the quality of learner-created content?  How can learner-created content, coupled with the power of social networking be used in a way that creates a rich learning environment in alignment with the achievement of the defined educational objectives of the course or program the learner is enrolled in?  These are new questions to consider when engaging Web 2.0 learning.

In their SECTIONS model for selecting and using technology in education, Bates and Poole state that, “without appropriate organizational support for technology-based teaching, the workload of university and college teachers becomes impossible” (Bates & Poole, 2003, p. 103).  The implementation of a useful technology can be derailed due to poor organizational support, poor leadership and lack of a plan. If an institution is not prepared to support the technology, the instructor must be prepared to spend a lot of time and effort being an innovator (Bates & Poole, 2003).

What has changed greatly since 2003 is that “many learners expect to be able to access their personal technologies in institutional environments, and to personalise technologies provided for them by institutions” (JISC, Effective Practice in a Digital Age 2009, p. 5).  In fact, Bates states that “Web 2.0 represents not just a new generation of tools, but a significant shift in approaches to teaching and learning that challenge the very existence of formal educational institutions” (Bates, 2011, p.39).   On the teaching side, institutions need to discuss E-pedagogy with the teachers who will end up using the technology with their students. New questions to consider may be what is the best way to use a particular technology in the classroom? Or, is there a need for more research?

“Novelty”, in the SECTIONS model considers the “newness” of a technology (Bates & Poole, 2003).  Research indicates that Web 2.0 technologies are developing at a rapid rate. What is considered novel today may be considered mainstream within six months (Bates, 2011).  This rapid change also suggests that institutions, teachers and learners must have the desire and capacity to stay abreast of new developments.  They must determine how much work would be required to use each technology, how reliable and user friendly they are and what privacy and copyright issues would need to be considered for each platform (Bates, 2011).  “There is no sign that the pace of change in ICTs is slowing…even more complex and challenging now…it is critical that educational organizations have processes in place that encourage dynamic change, innovative uses of technology, and monitoring and evaluation of what works and what does not” (Bates, 2011, p. 39).

The “Speed” of the SECTIONS model addresses two questions. “How quickly can courses be mounted with this technology?  How quickly can materials be changed?” (Bates & Poole, 2003, p. 79).  Linked to these questions are other considerations. “How fast-developing is the subject? How frequently must materials be updated?  Which technology would best support that?  How easy and quick is it to make changes?  Can changes be handed over to someone else to do or must you make them?” (Bates & Poole, 2003, p. 104).

Web 2.0 technologies allow for relatively intuitive, quick and easy use.  “These tools again are relatively simple to use….Posting video to sites such as YouTube is free, quick and easy” (Bates, 2011, p.26).  How quickly materials can be changed ties closely to an instructor’s pedagogical approach.  Are they objectivist, constructivist or connectivist?  If they are the former, speed related to subject content developments, frequency of teaching material changes, ease of making changes and who would best be suited to make the change, may be a significant factor.  If they are a constructivist or connectivist these considerations will be less significant due to the structure and organization that their program is likely to take.  Questions to consider are, “What kind of content do we want the learners to access?  Where is it?  Do we have to create it from scratch, or does it already exist on the Web?  Can learners find their own materials?  If so, what guidelines or criteria should we provide?” (Bates, 2011, p. 38).

An examination of Web 2.0 has demonstrated a need to reframe Bates and Poole’s questions.  Since 2003, Web 2.0 has changed and challenged how we view the component parts of Bates and Poole SECTIONS model (2003).  Technology is changing how people interact socially and in learning environments.  New questions need to be considered, and some questions previously asked are losing relevance.  Technological change advances rapidly in the 21st century.  The SECTIONS model has provided a useful framework for designing educational plans in the past.  Will simply reframing questions keep it relevant as technology marches distance education forward?  Or will a new model be required for the 21st century?

References

Algonquin College.  (2010, April)  Approved budget 2010 – 2011. Retrieved from Algonquin College, Reports website: http://www.algonquincollege.com/reports/pdf/budget_2010_2011.pdf

Bates, A., & Poole, G. (2003), Effective teaching with technology in higher education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Bates, T. (2010), Can web 2.0 tools be legally used for education in Canada?  E-learning &
distance education resources March 5, 2010, Retrieved from:

http://www.tonybates.ca/2010/03/05/can-web-2-0-tools-be-legally-used-for-education-in-canada/

Bates, T. (2011), Understanding web 2.0 and its implications for e-learning.  In M. Lee, &
C. McLoughlin, (Eds.), Web 2.0 – based e-learning: Applying social informatics for
tertiary teaching (pp 21-42).  Hershey: Information Science Reference
Beetham, H. & McGill, L. (2009, June).

Thriving in the 21st Century: Learning literacies in a
digital age (LLiDA project). JISC, Retrieved from

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/projects/llidareportjune2009.pdf).

Downes, S. (2005, October). E-Learning 2.0. Elearn Magazine, Retrieved from

http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1

Downes, S. (2010, January 4). Questioning pedagogy [Web blog post].  Retrieved from

http://www.downes.ca/post/53339

Effective practice in a digital age.  (2009, June). JISC Publications.  Retrieved from

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/effectivepracticedigitalage.pdf

Geist, M. (2010, June 2). Geist: Long-awaited copyright reform plan flawed but flexible.  The Toronto Star, Retrieved from: http://www.thestar.com/business/media/article/818180–geist-long-awaited-copyright-reform-plan-flawed-but-flexible
Hansman, C. & Mott, V. (2010).

Adult learners. In C. Kasworm, Rose. A, & J. Ross-Gordon,
(Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 13-24) Los Angeles: CA: Sage Publications

Higher Education in a web 2.0 world.  (2009, June). JISC Publications. Retrieved from

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/heweb20rptv1.pdf

Hughes, A. (2009). Higher education in a web 2.0 world. (May 12, 2009). JISC Publications.  Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/generalpublications/2009/heweb2.aspx

LeBlanc, S. (2010, September 27). Why MOOC engagement is so hard [Web blog post].
Retrieved from http://sleve.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/why-mooc-engagement-is-so-hard/

Loll, R. (2010, May 10). Searching for the Quantum Origins of Space and Time. Perimeter
Institute for Theoretical Physic, s Retrieved from: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/en/Outreach/Public_Lectures/View_Past_Public_Lectures/
Magolda, P. & Platt, G. (2009).

Untangling web 2.0’s influences on students’ learning.  About
campus  14 (3), 10-16.  Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=15&hid=13&sid=e7953502-dce4-43f0-9d98-2325a2a6d3c6%40sessionmgr13

Parliament of Canada, House of Commons of Canada, Second Session, C – 61, Thirty-ninth
Parliament (2008). Bill C – 61. Retrieved from

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=3570473&file=4

Sparks, D. (2010, August 6). Bill Gates on in-person vs. online education [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2Qg80MVvYs&feature=player_embedded.

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=2010091807441277

Two models which can be employed for ensuring quality in online education
programs are the Quality Improvement framework devised by Inglis, Ling
and Joosten in 2002 and the Benchmarking framework devised by McKinnon ,
Walker and Davis in 2000 (Inglis, p. 4). The Benchmarking framework
focuses on using performance trends for self-improvement, enabling
inter-university performance comparisons and allowing universities to
determine their competitive positions (p. 4). The Quality Improvement
framework focused on “managing quality processes within institutions”
(p. 6). It should be noted that while the Benchmarking framework is
intended specifically for universities, the Quality Improvement
framework can also be applied to any institution delivering training
programs reliant on new technology (p. 7)

The 67 benchmarks utilized by the Benchmarking framework are organized into the categories of; Governance, Planning and Management, External Impact, Finance and
Physical Infrastructure, Learning and Teaching, Student Support,
Research, Library and Information Services, Internationalization and
Staff (p. 7). The Quality Improvement framework is based on 10
principles (each accompanied by a set of best practice indicators)
designed to support the delivery of online learning which are; informed
planning and management of resources, sustained committed leadership,
improving access for all clients, incorporating equity, and promoting
cultural diversity, understanding the requirements of the learner and
reflecting stakeholder requirements, design, development, and
implementation of programs for effective and active learning, creating
confident and committed staff with new competencies, managing and
maintaining the technical infrastructure, evaluating for continuous
improvement, provision of effective and efficient administrative
services and supporting the needs of learners (p. 8).

When determining which framework to use, Inglis suggests that educators
always start with the question, “For what purposes is the framework
being chosen?” (p. 10). If it is to manage quality processes then use
the Quality Improvement framework but if it is to compare institutions
then either one can be used with the Qulaity Improvement framework
providing an operational level comparison vs. a more general comparison
from the Benchmarking framework (p.10)

Finally, Inglis raises some issues around the dark side of evaluating quality. Introducing
quality improvement processes can stifle innovation because whatever
aspects of a program that are focussed on because they are contained in
the framework, may very well cause other important aspects of the
program to be neglected, thus causing new problems with quality (p. 11).
There are also costs involved with implementing new processes such as
staff time and if the quality improvement processes are implemented
top-down without stakeholder buy-in then resistance or token efforts at
change may be expected (p. 11).

I was involved with a very major quality improvement process within a private corporation and one of the biggest issues I saw with the endeavour was that the scope of
improvement became so large as to become unmanageable and unrealistic in
certain areas. We simply didn’t have the requisite number of staff and
hours in a day to accomplish all of the quality improvement goals that
were being simultaneously implemented by multiple departments. Thus while
the goals were laudable and we had great staff buy-in due to an
extensive consultative process, we should have broken the plan down into
smaller components and staggered implementation to a much great degree.
As it turned out, the process promised the world to staff and they
gradually became cynical as they saw goals not being met because of
resource constraints. I would say it is usually best to under-promise
and over-deliver and anyone planning quality improvement initiatives
should always have this thought in the back of their mind. The other
thing I would mention is that an organization is an organic whole,
regardless of the silo mentalities that often exist between departments.
Departments need to carefully consider how the quality improvement
processes they are enacting only with their department in mind are going
to reverberate throughout the organization because they will, and often
in unforeseen ways because the inter-departmental communication and
consultation was insufficient.

References

Inglis, A. (2005). Quality improvement, quality assurance, and benchmarking:
Comparing two frameworks for managing quality processes in open and
distance learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 6(1). Retrieved August 16, 2010, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/issue/view/20

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=2010091807441277

BRIAN BAILEY  – Royal Roads University MA Learning and Technology 2010 – LRNT501 /LRNT502 – AUGUST 20th, 2010

Why is it important to examine one’s assumptions about adult learners and learning and to determine which philosophical orientation is the closest fit?  According to Bates & Poole (2003),  “The way we teach in higher education will be driven primarily by our beliefs or by the commonly agreed consensus within an academic discipline about what constitutes valid knowledge in the subject area”  (p. 26).  As MacKercher states (2004), “what one values and believes to be true about learning is incorporated into one’s philosophical orientation to learning and to learners and determines how one is likely to facilitate learning” (p. 5).  Bates & Poole (2003) state that, “the different approaches to learning reflect contradictory or incompatible views of human behaviour.” (p. 35). However, they then suggests that “ certain aspects of human behaviour might best be learned through behaviourist approaches, whereas others may best be learned through the social construction of knowledge” (p. 35). As MacKeracher (2004) states, “all approaches to learning and learners are useful in some contexts, with some learners and for some content”  (p. 5).  The most effective facilitators understand that, “adults learn most
productively when facilitating strategies match their needs and/or preferred learning behaviours and styles” (MacKeracher, 2004, p. 227).

MacKeracher has devised a useful framework for categorizing one’s philosophical orientation towards adult learning although she cautions that “not all the ways of thinking about adult learning can fit into a single philosophical orientation” (MacKeracher, 2004, p. 21).  She has based this primarily on Quigley’s four basic orientations of vocational, liberal, humanist and liberatory and Blunt’s two paradigms of technical-rational and participatory-liberatory (Quigley, Blunt as cited in MacKeracher, 2004, p. 18).  According to MacKeracher, someone with a humanist orientation to adult learning believes that:
-education is mainly for personal growth, self-actualization.
-content is defined largely by learner
-learning process directed largely by learner
-main approaches to learning are relational, self-selected
-knowledge is mainly subjective
-purpose of learning is mainly personal development
-consequences of learning include personal and social development and maintenance of
social and democratic institutions (MacKeracher, 2004, p. 22).

In the following example I will use my experience teaching ESL students in Japan to illustrate some of the ways my approach to teaching fits the humanist orientation towards adult learning.

Shortly after beginning to teach ESL to adults in Japan, I was surprised to learn that the average student in my class had received at least six years of English instruction in the public school system and yet still could not communicate at more than a beginner level in English.  I gradually came to the understanding that the problem lay not with the student, but with the manner in which they had been taught.  They were the passive recipients of whatever content their instructor deemed to be appropriate for them.  They were often learning English solely to pass an entrance exam of one sort or another and the content often had no relevancy for the student outside of this context.  Not surprisingly, the content was often quickly forgotten after the test.

I wanted my students to learn how to use English as a communication tool for the rest of their lives in a way that satisfied each student’s unique needs.  I wanted them to view the acquisition of  language skills as a life-long endeavour, which opened new doors for them at each stage of achievement.  I wanted them to reflect on what their motivations were for studying English and then use that information to help select course content relevant to their goals.  I was their guide on the side, not their sage on the stage.  I reasoned that since they were going to be doing the learning, not me, it was paramount that the learning be centred on the learner and not the teacher.

I assumed they would learn as much if not more from each other than from the teacher through role-playing and problem-solving activities and would spend at least 80 percent of class time doing the talking.  They were to take the initiative in selecting warm-up topics and were to start speaking English with each other as soon as they entered the class.  They were to give weekly speeches on topics of their own choosing.  In short, I expected them to start taking more responsibility for their own learning They were not going to be passive recipients of teacher-determined content in my class!  I wanted my students to exhibit some of the characteristics of the ideal self-directed learner that Candy lists such as;
-demonstrating curiosity, openness and flexibility
-having knowledge about, and skill in, learning generally (i.e. knowing how to learn)
-being reflective and self-aware
-showing confidence and having a positive self-concept (Candy as cited in MacKeracher,
2004, p. 46). MacKeracher observes that Candy’s list, “seems to fit best with the humanist orientation…” (Candy as cited in MacKeracher, 2004, p. 47). Thus I was a humanist but I was not consciously aware of that at the time.  I took my beliefs and assumptions for granted and for the most part assumed that everyone else thought the same way.

In retrospect, I was setting myself and my learners up a for a culture clash of epic proportions.  I subscribed to the widely held North American view that in the field of adult
education, “…the more a learner can be involved in the various phases of the learning process and the more they are in charge, the more they are likely to learn” (MacKeracher, 2004, p. 19). Bates & Poole (2003) state that “if there is one major trend in teaching in higher education today it is the move toward more learner-centred teaching.” (p. 45). The Teaching and Learning with Technology Program at the State University of New York (http://tlt.sunny.edu/Learner-Centred.htm) states that this philosophical approach to teaching includes the following components:
-Includes the learner in decisions on curriculum, instruction and assessment
-Acknowledges, respects and accommodates individual differences in background,
interests, abilities and experiences
-Treats learners as co-creators in the teaching and learning process
However,  Ziegahn stated that, “cultures that are less likely to value individual effort and self-reliance and more likely to value group effort and harmony are also more likely to believe that the learner is better served by acquiescing to experts or co-operating with others in deciding how to learn (Ziegahn as cited in MacKeracher, 2004, p. 19).  This assumption was definitely reflected by the learners in my adult ESL classes in Japan. For the most part, their assumptions about learning aligned with the vocational orientation in MacKeracher’s framework as follows:
-education is mainly for occupational preparation and retraining
-content is largely defined by occupation and experts
-learning process largely directed by facilitator and resource creators
-main approaches to learning are autonomous, expert-directed
-knowledge is mainly received
-purpose of learning is mainly developing skills and knowledge for coping and adapting
-consequences of learning include knowledge, skills and value acquisition for vocational
-competence and economic productivity (MacKeracher, 2004, p. 22).

At times, my students must have thought I came from another planet, so different were some of our basic assumptions around adult learners and the learning process. They were used to being told what to learn and how to learn by their expert teacher and now I was contradicting this model by telling them that only they could determine what was the best way for them to learn. There was definitely a disconnect at times between my students and me.

If I had known then what I know now regarding my assumptions towards learning and learners, I would have been better able to serve the needs of my students.  I could have eased my students more gently into a new way of thinking about their learning rather than just assuming that they would instinctively understand my teaching methodology without any elaboration on my part.  I would have better understood that having them assume much greater responsibility for their learning was not at all what they were used to and would cause stress and cognitive dissonance for many of them.  To their great credit, many of my students ultimately succeeded in adapting to my style of teaching and through their own efforts, made great improvement to their English skills.  However, I now realize that with a better knowledge of both their assumptions towards adult learning as well as my own, I could have helped more of my students to learn more productively. I would have ensured that my facilitating strategies, “ matched student’s needs and/or preferred learning behaviours and styles” (MacKeracher, 2004, p. 227).

In the future, I will always try to stay aware of the fact that “differing views of the nature of knowledge, learning and teaching will have profound effects on the design and delivery of teaching.” (Bates & Poole, 2003, p. 45).  It is a very worthwhile goal for, as Brookfield states, “A theoretical understanding helps us read the world in a way that makes it more open to our influence”  (Brookfield as cited by Kasworm, Rose & Ross-Gordon, 2010, p. 78).

References

MacKeracher, D. (2004). Making sense of adult learners. Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press

Bates, A.W. and Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education. San Francisco, CA, U.S.A.: Josey-Bass

Kasworm, C.E., Rose, A.D. and Ross-Gordon, J.M. (2010). Handbook of adult and continuing education. Los Angeles, CA, U.S.A.: Sage Publications, Inc.

Evaluation – Judith Blanchette, Royal Roads University

GRADE: A+

Brian, your paper is very well-written.  While there are some APA
issues, the content itself is clearly presented and demonstrates strong internal cohesion and coherence.  You’ve used external resources appropriately to support your ideas, and your examples are clear and relevant.  It is evident that you understand the concepts under consideration and have drawn conclusions that may help you maintain the balance between your philosophical perspective and the needs of your students.

The most interesting conversations revolved around the interplay between Myers-Briggs, the role of birth order and how that manifested itself in our group work. Being somewhat of a skeptic regarding any effort to subdivide seven billion unique individuals into a small number of neatly defined categories, nonetheless, I was surprised by how accurately I was pegged by MBTI. It was also generally accurate about my classmates (at least the ones who were willing to share their results). My curiosity is now sufficiently aroused that I want to understand how the questions asked in Myers-Briggs were arrived at because I felt at times like I was contradicting myself while completing the assessment. Many of my friends want to take the test so, with the usual cautions, I referred them to some of the online sites where you can take the test for free. It will be interesting to get their thoughts after they complete it.

As for the role of birth order, I used to dismiss this as residing just above superstition. Once again, I really do feel that it is somewhat dangerous to reduce humanity to three categories and then make generalizations. I also wonder how well the generalizations made about birth order play out in different cultures so I am going to do some further reading on that topic as it is fascinating. Nonetheless, the generalizations were surprisingly accurate, both amongst my classmates and in my family and my wifes family in Japan (so there is one case, at least, where the results were consistent across two very different cultures). I did not discuss this with my 11 year old, but I did with my 16 year old. It was very interesting because she had mentioned earlier in the school year that she had discussed the concept in her social studies class. I must admit that at the time I was a little negative because of my wariness of either purposefully or inadvertently engaging in labelling. This time I backpedalled a fair amount as we found the generalizations to be surprisingly accurate in both our cases. We came to the conclusion that understanding the role of birth order is very useful when trying to understand group dynamics and where someone may be coming from psychologically, while at the same time recognizing that it only scratches the surface of human complexity.

The next time I work in a group I will consider MBTI and the role of birth order vis a vis personality. As I said in an earlier post, understanding reduces fear and hate. Being aware of MBTI and birth order can help to defuse misunderstanding amongst group members with divergent personality types. I think I have become more tolerant as a result of learning about MBTI and birth order (well, except at 8 am on a Monday morning before I have had my caffeine fix!).

My next post will be about my general impressions about what everyone else in the class has blogged about…so NOT the last post!

The father and his son have opposing world views which leads to tension between them throughout the movie. The father is a great storyteller and relays the facts about his life through fanciful tales where fact is intertwined with embellishment. He is a qualitative kind of guy. For him, it is all about the story. His son is just the opposite. He just wants the facts, the true events as they actually happened. No extraneous, irrelevant and fake filler for him, thank you very much! He is the quantitative guy.

At the end of the movie the son successfully reconciles his quantitative world view with the qualitative way his father views the world, realizing that the facts of his fathers life are embedded in his stories. In terms of research, qualitative and quantitative need each other to be whole. The world is not usually black and white, it is mostly grey.

It behooves us as critical thinkers to not be so fast in rushing to judgement regarding what we initially perceived to have happened in a particular situation. The iceberg is always mostly hidden beneath the surface and one needs to take the time necessary to discover the true essence of it.  We often only see what we want to see because our bias often makes us see only what agrees with our currently held assumptions. Critical thinkers must guard against this tendency

“Oh really?”, I remarked.  ”Yes,” she replied. ”I heard it from a friend at work.”  So I told her that the phrases “did you know” and “I heard that…” are two very suspect phrases which lead to suspect conclusions. What was the sample size I demanded? Who was interviewed and under what set of circumstances? When did the survey take place? Who sponsored the study? My wife’s face started to exhibit the tell-tale expressions of contempt that I had learned about during our sessions last week with Hillary Leighton so I wisely backed off with a , “that’s nice, dear.” As I went back to my newspapers, research studies suddenly seemed to pop up on every page. Like Russell Crowe in “A Beautiful Mind,” I could see numbers and statistics everywhere. Were they correct? Could they be trusted? Was it a conspiracy?!

This morning I was watching the Nature of Things with my family. They were doing a show on the declining fish stocks in some tropical location. My daughter remarked, “Tropical fish aren’t as delicious as cold water fish.”  My wife jumped in with, “I beg to differ but I had mahi-mahi in Hawaii and it was really delicious.” My daughter replied, “Well, that’s what I heard.” My wife responded, “the phrase, that’s what I heard, is not something you should go around saying if you want to be considered an authority on a topic. You should consider doing a survey first. Just ask your Dad. Oh Bill Muirhead, what hath thou wrought?!