REPORT ON A CHANGE SYSTEM:
THE TRAINING, INFRASTRUCTURE AND EMPOWERMENT SYSTEM (TIES)
Professor Michael Szabo, Ph.D., Terry Anderson, Ph.D. and Annette Fuchs, M.Ed.
University of Alberta
Edmonton, AB Canada
Overview
The philosophy of TIES is that the process of change is equally or more important than training or resources to faculty use of alternative delivery systems. While numerous theories of change have been put forth in the literature, there are few working examples of comprehensive application of the principles which derive from the theories.
The purpose of TIES was to design and test a system for change in a university environment. The system is based upon 1) innovation change theory, 2) a workable, not just theoretical approach, 3) content taught is alternative delivery systems, 4) change methodology, 5) both top-down and bottom-up operation, 6) professional development and 7) empowerment through leadership training.
There are two major intended goals of TIES. The first is that the chief academic officers identify a vision for alternative delivery systems of instruction for the university, publish that vision widely, and demonstrate their commitment to it in a clear and convincing fashion. Secondly, departments within the university create leadership task forces to interpret the vision for their unit and prepare colleagues to implement the shared vision.
TIES was devised in 1996 by the Project Director during a sabbatical leave and through LEE funding, implementation began in 1997. The first description of TIES was presented at an International Conference in 1996 and can be viewed at http://www.atl.ualberta.ca/papers/change/tie.html/ and Appendix A.
Deliverables
The first deliverable is an outline of a Visioning workshop for Chief Academic Officers (CAO)s of an institution. This describes what will transpire in a workshop to create a vision for the institution (Appendix B). The second deliverable is a workshop outline for the training of TIES Leadership Task Forces (TLTF)s (Appendix C). The third deliverable is a set of TIES training modules in Web-Based Instruction (WBI) format. The list of modules is located in Appendix D. A sample module (L7: Dealing with Mental Models) has been provided in Appendix E. All modules are available at http://www.quasar.ualberta.ca/edmedia/TIES/Ties_home.html/
Project Planning and Implementation
Problems/Issues
The driving force behind TIES stems from the conviction that bringing people to actually change their practices with respect to new teaching approaches is extremely difficult. Critics of education, of which there is no short supply, often contend that:
There are major advantages and disadvantages to Instructional Technology (Appendix F). The University has a rich history in computer-based instruction and the environment for Alternative Delivery Systems (ADS) there is described in Appendix G. Furthermore, ADS is an innovation. It cannot be understood or made to happen without a strong understanding of what an innovation is or is not. See Appendix H for pertinent findings from educational innovation.
Assumptions of TIES
Almost every system rests upon a set of assumptions which, if not met, may render the system inoperable before it begins. The assumptions of TIES are as follows.
Phases
The ultimate goal of Phase I is the creation, dissemination support building for a vision of what the instructional program of the institution will look like in the future; a vision generated by the Chief Academic Officers (CAOs).
A retreat involving the CAOs and key support staff who would be provided with stimuli, resources and a mechanism to capture and edit their deliberations was chosen (Appendix B). At the retreat, CAOs would be presented with examples of the use and impact of IT from within the institution as well as a sampling of the best practices from around the world.
Next comes a brainstorming session to create the University of Alberta Vision for Alternative Delivery Systems. The basic question to stimulate these outcomes is: "Suppose it is now 10 years into the future and your vision has succeeded beyond your wildest expectations. If you were to walk around the campus, city, and province, what evidence would you see of the success of this vision?"
Finally, discussion focuses on "What are the major barriers that stand between us and the accomplishing this vision?" This session encourages the CAOs to identify ways these barriers could be overcome. After a suitable time, it is expected that the CAOs publicly present the results of their deliberations with emphasis upon the vision and presenting a convincing case for their commitment to having it become a reality.
Phase II: Identification of Departments
Deans of faculties and chairs of departments were approached to describe the vision of the institution and the role of the TIES Leadership Task Force (TLTF) to meet that vision, and extend an invitation to participate. The authors identified six departments that appeared to be prepared to participate and in which there were active colleagues from previous work in ADS. One had other more pressing agenda items and declined to pursue the option further. Deans and Chairs were informed that the funding would provide $7,500 for each team and requested to provide additional resources in support of the work of each team.
Phase III: Development of TIES Workshop and Modules
The modules to be created had to provide basic instruction in ADS and change methodology, model ADS, and incorporate adult learning strategies (andragogy). The driving philosophy behind TIES is to make certain all TLTF members have a basic competence in the following areas of ADS: presentation and interactive digital technology, professional development, leadership, curriculum and instruction, evaluation, and related issues (See Appendix D) for a list of the 38 modules by topic.
In keeping with adult learning principles, it was recognized that 1) not all participants would need to study all the modules, 2) there was not enough workshop time to complete all modules needed by each individual, 3) some selection was needed by individuals, and 4) learning rates would require an allowance for self-pacing, all modules were developed in an individualized, self-paced web-delivered instructional format, complete with diagnostic and prescriptive self-assessment tools. The workshop also had the goal of building a team orientation to complete the workshop tasks and the activities of the coming year
The workshop was conducted during a four day break in the second term of the academic year.
TLTFs were informed that the training team would be available to assist in whatever way possible during the coming 12 month period. The support provides and models the importance of on-going, local and just-in-time support. A Web conference site was set up to facilitate communication within and between teams and trainers.
Evaluation Results
Initially a retreat to develop a vision could not be scheduled. There was some difference of opinion as to whether the vision should be developed by the CAOs themselves (the author’s opinion) or should be developed by key people in the university and presented to the CAOs for their approval.
During a retreat with CAOs, limited progress was made toward the goals of examining current noteworthy applications, creating a vision for the university, and identifying the key barriers and their solutions to making the vision happen. One key outcome was to begin a dialogue on the role of ADS with the deans of the university. Another outcome was the development of an updated version of the institution's technology integration plan (Learning First, 1998).
Phase II: Identification of Departments
After extensive discussion and probing, five teams from across the university agreed to participate in the year long program, starting with an intensive workshop.
One Dean had begun work on a technology integration plan and invited the author to discuss TIES and asked to nominate a TLTF (TLTF B). Due to the small size of the departments in this faculty, they requested to participate as a faculty level team rather than as a department level team.
TLTF C was formed from an instructional technology team which had already been created and was grappling with how to proceed. Their plan was to convert a large undergraduate course to ADS-based instruction and use that to encourage departmental colleagues to become involved. This team had the most questions to ask about TIES and the author met with them repeatedly and answered numerous questions in person and electronically.
Discussion with another faculty resulted in the formation of TLTF D at the faculty level since the departments were quite small. The Dean was enthusiastic and involved a faculty member who was heavily involved in developing IT course materials.
When a presentation on TIES was made to the Associate Dean of another faculty, the enthusiasm was quite high and a meeting with the Dean was quickly arranged, followed by a presentation to the Dean’s Council. TLTF E was formed from this faculty and once again, it was a faculty-wide endeavor as the departments involved are small and engage in many joint projects.
Due to the complexity of the TIES and its innovative nature (attempting to deal with change and reform rather than simply training or resources), an extensive schedule of meetings, discussion, writing, explanation, answering questions and negotiation had to be carried out
Phase III: Development of TIES Workshop and Modules
The driving philosophy behind the TIES training program is to make sure all TLTF members attain a basic competency in several different areas of ADS and change. In the area of ADS, modules were designed to deal with digital presentation technology (7), digital interactive technology (5) and distance delivery (3).
In response to instructors’ requirements to know how to apply IT to courses and curricula, a set of modules on curriculum and instruction (6) and evaluating students (4) were developed.
On the assumption that teaching bright, articulate, and motivated instructors to develop ADS is relatively easy but motivating people to change behaviors is considerably more complex, a series of eight modules designed to promote leadership skills aimed at resistors was developed. The content of the modules draws heavily from the work on change of Senge, Kotter, and Covey among others, and their writings were employed in the learning activities.
Finally, a series of 5 modules on key related topics (e.g., professional development, copyright, and effectiveness of IT) were created. These modules are open for viewing at the TIES web site listed at the end of this article.
Methodology to Acquire Content
Each module was designed to be completed in a self-paced format with several optional objectives and linked activities to choose from. Each module has its own self-assessment pre and posttest, the expected objectives, and learning activities to meet those objectives. In keeping with the team-building theme, several modules required completion by either the departmental team or a cross-team but small group. In order to make the instruction available on an extensive basis, i.e., beyond the workshop, the modules were created in a web-based instruction format. A diagnostic pretest, covering all 38 modules, was developed using the preassessment items from the modules
Methodology to Foster Team-Building
Professors may or may not have experience in substantial team efforts, in spite of the fact they may have worked together in the same department for substantial lengths of time. Activities were included which were aimed specifically at dealing with cooperative efforts with respect to providing leadership. These were couched in the context of ADS.
The TLTF training took place during a 4 day school break in February 1998. The entire TLTF C participated, including the department chair and a faculty member who was officially on sabbatical leave. TLTF A, on the other hand, was a no-show. No one from the team participated and the chair did not offer the courtesy of contacting the workshop coordinators that they had decided not to participate, although one participant had indicated a conflict due to a conference scheduled the same time
TLTF B consisted of a single individual who had recently returned from his faculty from several years at another institution. This individual was well-versed in the WWW component of IT, keenly interested in the promoting IT in general and had strong support from the dean.
TLTF D did not translate the specified team structure into reality. It consisted of one full time faculty member who was actively developing a WBI course for the faculty, three part time sessional instructors, and no faculty administrators. TLTF E was also at the faculty level and consisted of a seasoned IT person, also just returned from a sabbatical leave, an Associate Dean, and a sessional instructor. They also participated in the entire workshop and began to develop ideas for working with their faculty colleagues.
During the six months following the training of TLTFs, the teams returned to their respective academic homes to 1) increase personal use of alternative delivery technology, 2) identify and meet training needs of colleagues in the home academic unit, 3) provide or arrange for support for colleagues in the unit and 4) develop a long range plan for the home academic unit which would begin to address the future direction and requirements for alternative delivery systems. The latter activity was particularly timely as the university administration, with stimulation from ADEM, requested a "Technology Integration Plan" from each Faculty.
Evaluation Results
TLTF "A"
It is not clear why this task force did not bother to attend the workshop or to inform workshop leaders of this decision. One member previously indicated inability to attend due to a conflict with a previously scheduled conference. Perhaps the lack of interest in ADS evidenced by the lack of a clear vision statement for ADS by either the university or the dean sent a signal. Perhaps a clear understanding of TIES and its goals and objectives was not conveyed to those involved.
TLTF "B"
Team "B" consisted of a single individual from a faculty whose Dean had previously and in several ways expressed a strong interest in ADS. They too chose to participate as a faculty rather than department due to small size. The individual participated extensively and expressed appreciation for the empowerment philosophy of TIES, having recently come from an environment where technology had been ruthlessly enforced on a faculty with major negative implications. After the workshop, the Dean reassigned this individual to a full time ADS coordinator who then formed an ADS team that embarked upon developing and implementing a long-range technology integration plan for the Faculty.
TLTF "C"
This team came the closest to meeting the TLTF selection criteria: several key opinion leaders, the department chair, and several members already active in ADS. Before agreeing to participate, they asked many important questions about the workshop and commitment expected. They participated actively during the workshop and by its end had developed the structure of a long range technology integration plan. At the time of this writing, the Project Director has not had the opportunity to interview the team for more specific details of their progress.
TLTF D was driven by a single individual, rather than a team. Steve (not his real name) identified a need for training his colleagues in the basic use of computers and contracted two individuals to create training materials in these areas which would meet the unique needs of this Faculty.
Steve personally conducted several two day workshops and provided personal support to colleagues. The major activity that consumed Steve's time, in addition to carrying an above average (for the University) teaching load, was the development of a web-based course.
The experience of TLTF D is highly representative of the individual entrepreneur approach to change (see Team Section of this report above). Note that no administrators or other faculty opinion leaders (beside Steve) participated in TIES training week. It might be concluded that the experience of TLTF D was solid, positive, but quite limited in the scope and depth of addressing alternative delivery systems in the unit. It depended upon the good will of Steve. However, Steve observed that his work in alternative delivery, particularly in the development of a web course was cited as a positive factor in his receipt of tenure.
TLTF "E"
TLTF "E" participated as a faculty, rather than as a department. Historically, this faculty had recently been reorganized through a merger of disparate departments that did not possess a great deal of affinity with one another. This task force came close to meeting the selection expectations, with an Associate Dean and several key opinion leaders. It also included several sessional instructors and research personnel. Their participation in the workshop was quite strong and they too began to develop their technology integration plan. Subsequent to the workshop, this team developed and submitted its TIP to the faculty as a whole, developed several successful ADS funding proposals, hired a course developer and hired an instructional designer. They have also begun discussions with other units on campus regarding joint professional development masters degrees to be delivered by ADS.
Lessons Learned or Revisited
Means of Disseminating the Results and Future Plans
The Project Director has applied for a sabbatical leave during the 1999-2000 academic year with plans to pursue the development, expansion, and dissemination of the TIES. Several departments have been approached in a preliminary way about forming TLTFs during the coming year. Preliminary discussions have begun with other educational institutions in the province to adopt the TIES.
Acknowledgement
This research was funded by the Department of Advanced Education and Manpower Learning Enhancement Envelope grant and the University of Alberta.
List of Appendices
APPENDIX A: Paper Describing the Philosophy and Structure of TIES
APPENDIX B: Visioning Workshop Outline
APPENDIX C: TLFT Workshop Outline
APPENDIX D: TIES Workshop Training Modules List
APPENDIX E: Sample TIES Module-L7- Dealing with Mental Models
APPENDIX F: Advantages and Disadvantages of Instructional Technology
APPENDIX G: Environment for ADS at the University of Alberta
APPENDIX H: The Nature and Importance of Educational Innovation