Taming the Beast – Managing Educational Technology Adoption

1. Taming the Beast – Managing Educational Technology Adoption Sandra Dowie, MA, MBA, PMP E-Learning Development Officer Office of the Provost, University of Alberta sandra.dowie@ualbert.ca CANHEIT | On the EDGE | June 15-18, 2008 | University of Calgary

2. Session outline… U of A’s strategic framework for supporting teaching and learning Strategies for promoting innovation Educational Technology Adoption Process - A continuum of innovation & services Effectively engaging stakeholders in researching new educational technologies Challenges & next steps Please feel free to ask questions.

3. Decentralized vs. Centralized Educational Technology Services • Pressure to decentralize services to: • Meet local educational needs • Increase responsiveness • Take advantage of emerging technologies • Implement Web 2.0 • Pressure tocentralize services to: • Achieve of economies of scale • Minimize redundancies • Increase reliability • Build critical mass of expertise

4. Achieve a continuum of technology innovation…. Rather than focus on centralization versus decentralization,academic versus administrative, or best organizationalmodels, …focus on the effective delivery of IT services over a continuum of technology ‘innovation.” There are dozens of innovative IT applications knocking at the enterprise door, the challenge is how we can facilitateletting them in. - J. A. Bielec (2007)

5. Educational Technology Adoption Process

6. Ed. Tech. Adoption Process:Balancing Agility with Stability Faculty-based activities provide: • Innovative instructional approaches • Disciplinary expertise • Understanding of students Central services provide: • Control • Reliability • Security • Efficiency

7. Centralization vs. decentralization …there is a deep literature…that on the balance, decentralized approaches are best suited to organizations where innovation is the primary objective, whereas centralization is best where efficiency …isparamount. …the glue (in our world) that will make it possible for us to create rich hybrid services that balance the Institution’s need to economize & account for outcomeswill be IT governance. - R.N. Katz, 2007

8. Valuing contributions of both central & decentralized services Faculty-based IT exploration: Ed IT services aligned with departmental priorities Experiment with technologies too immature & costly for wide use Provide a discipline-specific perspective Open the potential for transformation Centrally provided services: Ed IT services aligned with institutional priorities Offer deep IT expertise Support more mature technologies to enable wider use Control costs through economies of scale Control backup, versioning, availability, disaster recovery, etc. Maximizing innovation & minimizing cost depends on effectively managing this transition

9. Participants in the Ed. Tech. Adoption Process Vice-Provost (Information Technology) – Educational Tech. Adoption Process oversight Teaching, Learning, & Technology (TLAT) Council – leadership & communication Teaching & Learning Enhancement Fund (TLEF) – resource ($800K a year) Discovery Learning Network (DLN) – resource Academic champions – frontline innovators Central service providers – partners & resource Faculty-based staff – partners & resource

10. The Ed. Tech. Adoption Process provides a framework for… Generating innovation & change through adopting educational technologies appropriately Central service providers proactivelyengaging stakeholders in decision making Researching the benefits, costs, & risks of employing a technology institution-wide Assessing resources & services required to support larger scale implementation Ensuring central service providers are sufficientlywellresourced to support selected educational technologies Improving transparency & communication

11. U of A's Educational Technology Adoption Process Stages Phase 1: Exploration & Innovation Phase 2: Incubation & Development Phase 3: Deployment & Integration Each phase has core research questions that build on the preceding phases.

12. Three primary types of projects Off-the-shelf hardware & software that require little modification Applications & technologies that require some customization Custom built applications & resources

13. Ed. Tech. Adoption Process is described by the phases’… Goals Nature of the projects & their scope Research questions Support services & funding Project management & dissemination of research findings

14. Goals for each phase Goals for each phase • explore educational potential of new technology • conduct small scale pilot tests within limited contexts • benefit from grassroots innovation • identify viable technologies for broader implementation • develop support models • determine infrastructure requirements • build phased support for broader innovation through selected technology • develop support systems for full implementation of selected technology • make final selection

15. Nature of the project & scope • broader initiatives • wider range of applications of the technology • 2 or more Faculties • consider feasibility for extensive use on UofA campuses • last stage prior to full implementation • larger projects • team includes central service providers, faculty-based staff, & educators • technology used in diverse programs of study • smaller scale • single course • one discipline • only a few instructors

16. Research Questions – Phase 1: Exploration & Innovation What are the educational technology’s costs, risks, & barriers to use? What learning outcomes might be supported? What are the educational best practices associated with the technology? What resources are needed for a pilot project? Who are the initial stakeholders? Should this educational technology be considered for broader use & central support?

17. Research Questions – Phase 2: Incubation & Development How widely might this educational technology be used? (e.g. disciplines, teaching methods, type of students) What are the risks, & obstacles to campus-wide implementation? What support is necessary to ensure its effective utilization? What are the ed. technologies’ indirect & direct costs? What other technologies does this replace &/or augment? What are the opportunity costs if the technology is supported? Should this educational technology be considered for broader implementation?

18. Research Questions – Phase 3: Deployment & Integration How effectively is the educational technology being used? Is the use of this educational technology aligned with the University’s strategic direction? Are the PD & support systems associated with this technology optimal? If not, how could they be improved? What are the longer term institutional outcomes we might achieve through using this technology? Should this educational technology be fully implemented?

19. Support – Services & Funding • Project champion – faculty member • Faculty-based e-learning staff • Might include central e-learning service staff • Might have TLEF & DLN support • Champion – instructors • Faculty-based e-learning staff • Increasing central e-learning services • Additional support through TLEF & DLN important • Approved by VPIT & Director of central support services • Ongoing partnership with other central service providers & faculty-based staff

20. Project management (PM) & dissemination of research findings • typically ad hoc • project plans & schedules are loosely defined • may create report and/or article • PM is more structured • Request: • Project plans & schedules • Evidence - informed practices • Reports/research articles • Detailed project plans & schedules • Change control documentation • Validated best practices • Approved PD/support services • Final reports & articles

21. Example: Student Response Systems (SRS) • Fall 2006: Early adopters supported through DLN related program • 2006 to 2008: Research outcomes & potential of SRS • Reported to VPIT & TLAT Council • Winter 2008: preferred SRS vendor announced • Fall 2008: AICT Classroom Support installed SRS receivers • Bookstore sells student remotes • DLN provides support & research

22. Challenges & next steps Communicating Ed. Tech. Adoption Process to University Increasing buy-in & engagement of central service units Enhancing the smooth transition between phases Funding innovation is not cheap Evaluating process results for University Introducing Phase 4 – outsourcing

23. References Bielec, John A., “Fostering Innovation in an Enterprise Environment,” in “The Organization of the Organization: CIOs Views on the Role of Central IT,” EDUCAUSE Review 42, no. 6 (2007):52. Frederick, Lawrence W. “Recasting the Centralization – Decentralization Debate: Advancing the Innovation Support Cycle” (Research Bulletin, Issue 10). Boulder CO: EDUCAUSE Centre for Applied Research, 2008, available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar Katz, Richard N., “IT Matters: Centralization or Decentralization May Not!” in “The Organization of the Organization: CIOs Views on the Role of Central IT,” EDUCAUSE Review 42, no. 6 (2007):52. Morse, A. & Puleio, J. “Centralization vs. Decentralization,” prepared for DEA 453: Planning & Managing the Workplace, Cornell University, Spring 2001. Downloaded on June 13, 2008 from http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/dea453_653/01student/asheley_jonathan/index.html