by

Professor of Educational Psychology and Technology

University of Alberta

Canada

Mike.Szabo@ualberta.ca

"THE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS WE FACE CANNOT BE SOLVED AT THE SAME LEVEL OF THINKING WE WERE AT WHEN WE CREATED THEM."

Albert Einstein

The careful study of instructional technology as an innovation suggests why it has neither gained widespread usage among educators nor been able to reform education and how we view it. At the same time, the study of linkages between innovation and reform provides strong insight into major elements of successful innovation, i.e., those which are widely used and reform practice in their field. These elements and addressed and woven into an educational system aimed at promoting the use of instructional technology for change and on a large scale in the educational programs of tomorrow.

The system is known as TIE, which stands for Training, Infrastructure, and Empowerment, and was developed by Professor Michael Szabo (Appendix D). This system accomplishes several goals. First, a shared VISION for the integration of instructional technology and the reciprocal impact of technology on education is created throughout participating educational institutions. A vision is a requirement since no one has ever done this before and there is no model to follow. Vision is developed through a series of carefully designed workshops which involve administrators and key personnel.

Another major goal is to TRAIN all instructors application of instructional technology through a combination of a Central Leadership & Support Team which in tern trains strategically-based Task Forces, either at the building level in K-12 school districts or departments in colleges and universities. The week long workshop employs 24 self-paced learning modules and is carefully aimed at the technical features of instructional technology and how to apply them to the domains of curriculum, instruction and evaluation. In addition, the Task Forces are trained in selected leadership skills to prepare them to, in turn, train, support, model and plan with and for all their building level colleagues. The instructional strategy used in the Task Force Workshop is a mixture of group and individual work, with emphasis on the latter, and adheres to well-known principles of adult training and leadership.

Building an INFRASTRUCTURE establishes both the technical component (hardware, software, courseware, and telecommunications) and the all-important non-technical components (e.g., visible commitment to and support of the vision at all levels of administration, a system of just-in-time and credible support for all classroom instructors).

There are no pat formulas to follow in taking a vision and bringing it to some form of reality. The process requires commitment to that vision above and beyond the call of duty, as opposed to compliance ("Just do what the administration says.") The development of the necessary commitment calls for the ability of the Task Forces to make the key decisions as to the form and function of how Instructional Technology will be deployed and for what purposes. This is referred to as EMPOWERMENT. They key elements of the TIE System (creating a vision, providing training, and developing supportive infrastructure) are all focused upon enabling the Task Forces to lead in the maintenance of the vision and making it happen in their local instructional unit.

The TIE System emphasizes professional development, ownership of change through empowerment, multipliers to meet the demand of massive training, support in a timely and understandable fashion, high credibility, embedded expertise, and leverage of renewal. In short, reform is possible when the people in the organization share a vision, are trained, receive adequate support and infrastructure and are empowered to make the vision become a reality.

The good old classroom has been around for years, probably because it is a superb system for communicating information and learning. However, we live in a transitory period between an industrial and an information society. Schools and the classroom evolved to prepare people for the industrial society. What should schools look like in order to prepare students for the information society?

Society in general and education specifically are undergoing fundamental changes which are at the same time vast, confusing, and unparalleled since World War II. These changes are largely brought about by many factors but are certainly not possible without the concomitant computer and information technology surge. Paradoxically, the technology may play a major role in settling the changes. What do some of our stakeholders see when they view the educational system from outside?

Each of us has more machine power available at a fingertip than any Roman Emperor. A single CD-ROM can carry the whole of Renaissance science and philosophy. Information can be sent around the world easily and in an instant. And the end is not even in sight in the pace of compressing and distributing data and information. It is clear this exponential progress will have a growing and massive impact on the way we conceive of and delivery education. Polanyi [1994] provides a glimpse of what it will mean.

The impact of information technology on a wide range of efforts outside of education is becoming well known in developed economies. But how is education responding to these new opportunities? A small percentage of individuals (the early adopters) is exploring and using Alternative Delivery Systems (ADS). These early adopters quickly and easily take up new challenges and just as and quickly drop what they are doing and adopt the next thing that comes along. Numbering about 10-20 percent of any organization, they jump off the bandwagon and onto another, without any incentive or training.

Of great concern is the remaining 80-90 percent of the potential users whose effectiveness will be severely curtailed without knowledge or use of ADS. And the difficulty of attracting significant numbers of teaching faculty to the use of ADS has been recognized by many.

Just what is an Alternative Delivery System (ADS)? Basically it 1) uses instructional technology and 2) provides different ways of organizing and delivering instruction (education and training) from the conventional lecture format in which information is transmitted to learners.

ADS have three major components which are primarily based in digital formats. They are Presentation, Interaction, and Communication. See Appendix B for an expanded definition. This definition is important for this discussion as it forms a basis for Professional Development of staff as a tool for renewal.

Examination of the current situation in most instructional programs will reveal little or no use of ADS, except for the early adopters. The vast majority are waiting to see what happens or passively resisting. While innovation and the need for renewal and adapt are widely touted, in spite of the high failure rate of innovation, little action is being taken. As observed by [Rossman, Corbett and Firestone ,1988], adults are experts at pretending reform is taking place without vesting any ownership in the process, especially when there are implicit sanctions against changing. Presseisen [1985] analyzed eight major reports created to address (American) educational problems which have been widely publicized [Allen, 1992], [Coombs, 1985], [Finn, 1991], [NCOEIE, 1983]. She concluded none of them proposed any serious innovation, simply adjustments to the current way of doing things.

ADS is not only highly innovative in the way instruction is delivered. It also forces us to re-think our philosophy, theory and models of how people learn. For example, students submit assignments to be graded at the same time in conventional instruction. This enables evaluation and grading to occur on a comparative or normative basis. Using ADS, on the other hand, often means that different students submit different assignments at different times and comparative or normative evaluation is not possible. One may need to consider a competency or mastery learning assessment strategy in this environment.

Four factors associated with the use of ADS have been identified. They are the 1) presence of directional vision among administrators for the application of ADS, 2) ability to use rapidly changing instructional technology, 3) presence of infrastructure and support, and 4) willingness to change. A solution which ignores any of these factors is inadequate to the task. Of these three, the first is the easiest to overcome but the least important, relatively speaking.

Every system rests on assumptions, whether stated or implicit and its success rests in part on how well those assumptions match reality. The TIE System is no different and rests on several assumptions which stem from the conviction that ADS is a phenomenon known as an innovation. The assumptions of the TIE System are listed in Appendix A.

Stop any teacher at random and ask them to describe the long range vision of their administrators for the use of instructional technology in their schools and you will get a quizzical expression 99% of the time. Without strong vision and a commitment to support that vision, educators have limited prospects to bring about reform via use of instructional technology.

The use of instructional technology is not rocket science and is well within the intellectual capabilities of all university faculty members. It is unfortunate that training programs are not mounted by universities to train in the use of ADS. It is also unfortunate that lack of training is viewed as the most important barrier to the creation of ADS, when resistance to change and lack of infrastructure are more severe and pervasive issues.

The lack of infrastructure is but a symptom of a deeper problem. The problem is that decision makers may have neither a strong vision of what instruction can become under ADS nor a willingness to commit the broad range of resources to make it happen. The latter situation usually stems from lack of understanding of the complexities of development efforts which in turn stems from lack of ADS experience. The key point is faculty quickly sense this lack of vision/commitment and focus their efforts on tasks and projects which are valued.

There is also a logistics problem since ADS cuts across all subject matter and age levels. Therefore it has the potential to affect the role of every person with instructional responsibilities, rather than a select few. The task of training and supporting such potentially huge numbers of individuals is a logistics problem of enormous magnitude. Some mechanism for bypassing this massive training initiative must be found.

Finally it is difficult to justify hardware, software and other infrastructure when ADS instructional materials have not been developed, and conversely hard to justify large scale development without infrastructure to deliver ADS instruction.

The most important factor is lack of willingness to change. Fullan [1991] observed that educators are neither trained nor expected to identify or overcome the major sources of resistance to renewal. To this one could add-that renewal, more often than not, involves punishment rather than reward. A different way of looking at renewal is not to consider it an enemy to be overcome or defeated or eradicated. Instead, resistance to renewal is a natural response of individuals to different situations in their environment over which they have little or no control. Examined from this point of view, renewal is possible.

Senge, in his book and program known as The Learning Organization, has identified one key to unlocking the power of innovation: the explication and testing of hidden mental models. He begins by observing that as we learn we develop unique mental models which have power to explain parts of our world. Problems occur when our models aren’t constantly updated to conform with reality and when our external actions are controlled by hidden and vastly different mental models. Szabo [in press] has identified some mental models which may inhibit the use of ADS to move instruction forward. Examples include:

In addition to mental models, there are numerous other issues related to establishing a positive climate for renewal, such as empowerment, the Task Force-Leadership Team structure, and so forth. More of these issues are presented later in this paper as Leadership Skills Models.

Analysis of renewal results in several principles which seem to maximize the chances of successful renewal and innovation. The system described in this paper attempts to honor these principles.

This program does not focus in on a single area of concentration. Rather, it addresses a variety of factors which have historically inhibited renewal in instruction. The bias, however is clear: renewal is the major factor to be addressed and the program addresses renewal based on the latest information we have about the process. In formulating the program, years of research and practical experience from the renewal, innovation, and leadership literature were consulted. Many of the ideas have been tested in previous work by the author in the context of a different type of instructional innovation. The components of the program fit together and interact, as shown in Figure 1, which

Figure 1. Training, Infrastructure and Empowerment in Support of the Vision.

depicts training, infrastructure and empowerment in support of the vision.. They all must be present. In an attempt to represent this whole and part system with a familiar analogy, I have chosen the onion, with its central core and surrounding layers.

The components of the program fit together and interact. They all must be present. In an attempt to represent this whole and part system with a familiar analogy, I have chosen the onion, with its central core and surrounding layers.

Permit me to briefly depart from the digital world and revert to an analogue for a moment. The program is analogous to an onion which has a central core, surrounded by several layers which provide protection, support and nourishment. Just as an onion cannot exist without the core and the layers, so this sytems requires both the Task Forces and supporting layers.

In this analogy, central core is a Task Force and the layers refer to a Leadership and Support Team, Department, College and University level administration functions as shown in Figure 2. The core and layers will be described below.

Figure 2. A Cross Sectional View of the Onion Layer Program of Renewal for UniversitiesWith Respect to Alternative Delivery Systems.

Like all analogies, this one breaks down if carried to extremes. For example, the onion has the power to make one cry! It can cause stomach upset--some people cannot digestion onions. Different people prefer their onion prepared differently according to their taste. Hmmm-perhaps the analogy can be extended further than I thought!

This program will foster renewal in the use of ADS by creating an appropriate and comprehensive climate to value, support and reward renewal and innovation in the use of Alternative Delivery Systems and in so doing honoring those numerous principles which are regularly identified with successful renewal.

Interwoven are submodels from the administrative viewpoint as well as from the faculty or entrepreneurial standpoint. This structure is represented in a conventional and generic organization chart as shown in Figure 3.

The Task Force is the heart of the renewal model. A Task Force is defined as a team of faculty who are willing to receive preparation to provide leadership and support to colleagues on behalf of their department. Here I will briefly describe the key elements of what the Task Force is expected to do and the rationale for these actions.

The Terms of Reference of the Task Force are to significantly expand the use of appropriate Alternative Delivery Systems among the majority of members of their department. Note that the Task Force is based wholly within a given department. Keep in mind that a Task Force consists of people within a unit, in this case a department, who are temporarily assembled and empowered to respond to a new opportunity or challenge facing that unit. The Task Force is usually provided with some special resources (e.g., planning time, information search) which they require to carry out the Task Force responsibilities, but for the most part they continue to carry on with much of their work load, depending upon the size of the challenge. Once the challenge has been met, the Task Force members return to their former positions.

The Task Force functions as a Team. The goal of this model is to bring about widespread increases in the use of Alternative Delivery Systems among all members of the department, not just the 10-20% who will automatically be ‘early adopters’. As such, the job is too big for one or two individuals to carry out, as will be seen later on. A team effort is called for.

Figure 3. University Organizational Chart with Task Forces and Leadership/Support Team.

The Task Force’s Composition or selection criteria is crucial. It must include the active participation of the key departmental administrator, for this clearly signals the importance of Alternative Delivery Systems to all observers. Administrative participation will be invaluable to formulate and support long-range changeover plans for the department. Next, the Task Force must include teaching faculty whose opinions and ideas are respected and valued within the department. The curriculum specialist should be a member, as well as individuals who have had some experience with Alternative Delivery Systems.

The next operative work describing the Task Force is Leadership. The Task Force in this model will be expected to provide leadership in the use of Alternative Delivery Systems to other members of the department. They will do so through a combination of modeling, conducting training sessions, and providing on-going support to departmental colleagues as needed in a just-in-time fashion aimed at the level of the individual user. Successful transformations begin to involve large numbers of people as the process progresses. Faculty are emboldened to try new approaches, to develop new ides, and to provide leadership.

Next, note that the Task Force is based and works within a given Department. Research has shown that the explicit and implicit power to make or break innovation and renewal rests in the hands of the department rather than at the college or central administrative levels. This model seeks to leverage the power of renewal by applying it where the greatest impact can be made.

The next feature of the system is Accountability. The Task Force will be accountable to carry out four tasks: 1) become exemplary users of some form of Alternative Delivery Systems in their own area of responsibility, 2) actively train colleagues in the use of Alternative Delivery Systems, 3) provide on-the-spot support for colleagues, and 4) develop a multi-year changeover plan to guide the department. While accountability might be considered somewhat harsh within the context of innovation, it must be tempered by at least two considerations. First, each Task Force will be empowered to determine the boundaries of these four tasks. They are likely to attempt tasks which can be accomplished and are within their capabilities. Second, those involved must understand that Alternative Delivery Systems is highly innovative, innovation requires risks, risk will entail some failure, and administration must be tolerant of failures. After all, if people are asked to show the way through uncharted waters, they must be rewarded appropriately and perhaps differently from those who are content to sail through familiar waters. The only constraint is that the actions fit within the broad parameters of the overall vision.

The final operative word is Resources. The Task Force must be given certain resources to enable them to carry out this challenge. One key resource will be training to prepare Task Force members to carry out their objectives. The training to be provided includes the ‘hard skills’ of Alternative Delivery Systems and the ‘soft skill’s of renewal. This training will be carried out by the Leadership Training Team (Layer 1) and is described further below. In addition, the Task Force must have a support system to turn to as they carry out their tasks. This support must be accurate, respond rapidly, and be couched in terminology appropriate to the level of the user. Third, the other levels of administration must be prepared in advance and this will be a function of the Leadership Training Team. This Team will be capable of training and supporting Task forces from several departments simultaneously.

What is the rationale for structuring the Task forces in this manner? First, the emphasis is placed on providing training and support for faculty members. When Professional Development is emphasized, the potential for renewal is greatly increased.

Next, this model Empowers the Task Force and encourages ownership of the renewal process. The challenge is to implement Alternative Delivery Systems, but the Task Force is free to interpret what that means and what is appropriate to the department, within the parameters of the overall vision and realities dictated by administration.

This system capitalizes on the Knowledge of the strengths, weaknesses, personnel, policies, and goals of the Department, which is possessed by the members of the Task Force. No external consultant could encapsulate that storehouse of knowledge; but the external consultant can bring different skills to the table.

In terms of sheer numbers, there is no way to provide training to all members of a university community, do a good job, and not cost a fortune. This systems turns Task Force members into leaders and trainers who act as multipliers.

Probably the most frustrating thing about working with Alternative Delivery Systems is that at a beginning level of knowledge, problems which are minor to the inexperienced can be demoralizing. The second most frustrating aspect of working with Alternative Delivery Systems is the inability to obtain support in a timely fashion, help which can be understood by the layperson. The Task Force, being in the department, will provide this assistance in the form of support. The importance of this service cannot be overestimated.

The results will be more credible because they were attained by people from the department, charting their own course. The external consultant, with expertise and resources beyond that which is available to the faculty could never attain this credibility. Long range plans, assembled by the Task Force with its newly acquired knowledge and joint planning with administration are likely to be more realistic, appropriate and thus carried out. Finally, when the Task forces job is done, its members return to their previous work responsibilities. This embeds expertise within the department for future use and avoids the creation of additional administrative units which have extremely limited ability to provide the service for which they were created.

Finally, Leverage renewal by concentrating efforts at the place where it is most susceptible to success-the department. In a University, power to innovate or not resides with the chairperson of each department.

An Institutional Leadership Team directs and coordinates the efforts of this program. It is comprised of a focussed team of experts in the field of ADS and renewal, plus an external consultant or two to guide the process. As with the Department Task Forces, this group will dissolve upon completion of its tasks.

The first major task of the Leadership Team will be to set the stage for renewal across the institution at the Central, College and Department Levels of Administration. This task will be described in greater detail below.

The second major task will be to work directly with the Task Forces. This will involve working with Departments to identify Task Force Members, training the Task Forces in the hard skills of technology use and the ‘soft skills’ of application to curriculum, instruction and evaluation, and leadership. Finally the Leadership Team will provide long term support to Task Forces as they carry out their plans.

The Technologies below will feature Modules which teach how to use the technologies.

Digital Presentation Technology Modules (P)

Digital Interactive Technology Modules (I)

Distance Delivery Technology (D)

Key Related Topics (K)

Leadership Skills Modules (L)

Curriculum & Instruction Modules (C&I)

Evaluating Student Learning Outcomes Modules (E)

The format of the workshop will use a mixture of large and small group work and provide extensive opportunity for independent work on the modules which are designed to be self-instructional. Adult learning principles will be employed. See Appendix C for additional information on the Task Force Workshop format.

The Leadership Team will arrange for or otherwise support information and technology exchanges across Department Task Forces to promote learning and understanding of the diverse applications and plans which will arise. In addition, communication to administration of the progress and particularly the long range plans developed by the Task Forces will be a high priority. Finally, the progress will be presented to other members of the profession external to the campus, through presentations at professional conferences and other appropriate forums.

The Leadership Team will seek to promote several goals and activities with administrators of Departments. These will include

The Leadership Team will seek to promote several goals and activities with administrators of the Colleges involved. These will include

The Leadership Team will seek to promote several goals and activities with the Central Administration of the University. These will include

You won’t be able to see this layer after the program has met its desired objectives. The reason is that the Departmental Task Force and Leadership Team have been assembled from existing university personnel who have been seconded for a portion of their time and consultants. When the program has met its goals, Task Force members will return to their department posts, the consultants will move on, and there will be no new administrative structure to have to maintain and support. In principle, each department will have its own pool of ADS expertise left over from the Task Force work.

The first benefit of the program is the payoff from investing in the professional development of the faculty. The University’s strengths reside in the ability of its personnel to create and disseminate knowledge to the rest of society.

The second benefit will likely be improved instruction because active participation in ADS will naturally force faculty members into a re-examination of how they view and delivery instruction and programs.

The third benefit will be increased accessibility by society to the knowledge of the university through distance delivery of current information and timely instruction.

Given that the high cost of creating ADS will be past, the lower cost benefits of using technology to deliver instruction will result in controls on escalating costs and greater acceptance by the public and funding bodies.

Finally, the residue of the program will be pools of expertise in every participating department. These pools of expertise will enable the institution to continue to keep up with or stay ahead of the continuous renewal which we anticipate in the technology and techniques of ADS that will surely come our way.

It is my prediction that education will evolve from its current centralized classroom learning environment to an intermediate stage of combined classroom learning and Alternative Delivery Systems. This evolution will continue until a desirable, effective and cost efficient system emerges. The evolution will take place over a period of 20-50 years, unless interrupted by major social or political upheaval. Different societies will move through these evolutionary stages at different rates and different starting points.

Allen, D. (1992). Schools for a new century. NY: Praeger.

All systems are predicated on a set of assumptions, which may be explicit or implicit. Failure to follow or honor those assumptions is often the reason for inadequate application or results. The TIE System rests on several assumptions and these should be studied carefully before embarking on a venture with it.

The key foundational assumption is that Alternative Delivery Systems (ADS) in formal courses or instructional programs are highly innovative and must be treated as such. A study of successful and unsuccessful innovation leads to the formulation of the remaining assumptions.

GOALS

To train all Task Force members to the same level of knowledge & skills in the 7 areas of Presentation, Interaction, Distance, Key, Leadership, Curriculum & Instruction and Evaluation through independent study learning modules.

TARGET AUDIENCE

Educators who have been organized into Task Forces and who accept a role of providing leadership to colleagues in their educational unit. All will have personal e-mail and SLIP/PPP accounts.

ADULT LEARNING PRINCIPLES & CORRESPONDING INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES

TRAINING CONTENT

One portion of the training will focus on the technical skills of using presentation and interactive multimedia. The second portion will address the issues of applying those skills in curriculum and instruction and evaluation applications. The third portion prepares the Task Forces to apply successful principles of adapting the innovations of Instructional Technology. The content will be delivered through the use of independent study modules with self-assessment tools built in.

TIMING

Forty hours of workshop in day long increments. Options include 5 consecutive days, 3 + 2, 2+ 3, or 2+2+1 as scheduling allows.

TRAINERS

Training will be conducted by a Central Training and Support Team using the Modules and resources from the TIE System.

SUPPORT

Support will be provided to Task Forces and Task Force members by the Central Training and Support Team

RESOURCES

Each Module employs a diverse set of resources, including books, manuals, videotapes, software, and journal articles. These are spelled out as part of each Module. In addition, there are general requirements for other resources, such as computers, VCRs, audio capture equipment, and so forth which are also listed in the workshop materials. Since those being trained are working for the most part independently, the demand for a full set of equipment for each participant is diminished.

5-131 Education South

The University of Alberta

(403) 492-0715

FAX (403) 492-1318

mike.szabo@ualberta.ca

President

Interactive Solutions, Inc.

4204 - 107 Street

Edmonton, AB

T6J - 2R9

(403) 435-0277

Date of Birth: 1938

Married to Karen, two children

Citizenship: United States of America

Permanent Resident Status in Canada

Ph.D., Educational Research and Measurement

Purdue University, 1969

M.S., Physics

Purdue University, 1967

B. Sc., Education

Taylor University, 1962

The Pennsylvania State University (1969 to 1980)

Michael Szabo, Ph.D. is Professor of Educational Psychology and Division of Technology in Education at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta Canada. He is in charge of the graduate program in Instructional Technology and conducts research and development into several aspects of effects of instructional technology on learning and the process of instructional technology as innovation and change. Prior to this appointment, Professor Szabo was Manager of Instructional Systems Development (PLATO) at the University of Alberta from 1981 to 1987.

From 1969 to 1981, Professor Szabo was on the faculty of Education at The Pennsylvania State University and also served in Directorship positions in the Computer Assisted Instruction Lab (IBM 1500), the Instructional Support System and the Center for Educational Research and Evaluation.

Professor Szabo has consulted and been involved in creating interactive multimedia programs for a variety of government and commercial agencies around the world, most recently in Asia. In 1985, he founded Interactive Solutions, Inc. a training company which focuses on creating interactive multimedia solutions to problems of education and training.