Christopher D. Sessums :: Weblog :: ALT-C 2006 -- Transformin...

I attended a marvelous session/debate titled Transforming Learning: Evolution or Revolution that was framed by the following question:

Should change evolve incrementally over time or is a more radical approach required to transform learning and teaching in an increasingly e-world?

Highlighted by cburell

Background:
In 2003 the SFEFC/SHEFC elearning Group Final Report stressed an emphasis on learning rather than technology and invested £6M to support “transformation” activities aimed at achieving significant changes in culture and practice in participating colleges and universities. Six transformational projects involving consortia of Scottish post-16 institutions were funded for two yearsto work towards the following principles of transformation:

• the process of change will mean that certain aspects of learning and teaching are conducted in a new way;
• the process of change is consistent with, and embedded in, institutional strategies, and is not a peripheral process driven solely by the possibility of external funding;
• the intended outcome is sustainable, and is expected to result in long-term change in activities beyond the period of external funding; and
• the process will yield measurable benefits to the institution and its learners.

The six e-learning transformational projects are developing models for change across a range of areas including pedagogy, staff development, e-assessment, PDP and e-portfolios, learning activities and content. Most projects are engaging with several of these areas. More information can be found here.

Highlighted by cburell

Chaired by an Scottish Funding Council representative each side, represented by two of the projects, will discuss how the different approaches impact on the following:

• Models and incentives - bottom up, top down, cascade, collaborative approaches
• Buy-in - institutional, departmental, individual
• Investment - economic aspects
• Evaluation - measuring transformation
• Timescales

Highlighted by cburell

Since transforming a university culture involves transforming people, perhaps any changes would work if it came in phases. Some changes could happen over a relatively short period of time (e.g., adopting a new VLE) while other changes would take time to manage (e.g., shifting the curricula to a problem-based or student centered model).

Highlighted by cburell

one associates evolution as taking place over thousands and millions of years, thus setting up the desire for bringing about change at a more rapid pace (i.e., to keep up with the changes in society). Information technologies have evolved at such a blinding pace over the past few decades which in turn have left many universities and schools scrambling and reacting slowly at best.

Highlighted by cburell

What if universities took on a mission statement that involves transformation as a continuous underlying element, that is to say, “we are always in transition” as a means of remaining flexible and adaptable to social and market demands? If this were the case, the notion of revolution wouldn’t be necessary unless this new plan wasn’t working.

Highlighted by cburell

The fact that this debate exists suggests that colleges and universities are not doing their part to stay abreast with the changes in society, teaching, learning, and information technologies. And this is why the notion of revolution seems somewhat appealing on a number of levels. How long do we have to weight for universities to catch up? And once they do catch up, will social needs and ICTs have changed yet again thus requiring learning institutions to continuously evolve and transform?

Highlighted by cburell

I watched a college go through a massive change when, over a period of about five years, 6000 students and teachers went online with laptops in the classroom. The institution was very good about support and there were strong internal teacher-leaders. It was a kind of revolution.

My observations are that there were some true-believers (me among them), many earnest  but unsure and trying teachers, many, many bowing to the (temporary, they were sure) political winds, and a substantial set of total cynics. I had friends in most of the camps.

Humans beings are messy. Many resist change, no matter what. Many embrace change, but don't actually understand what it is that's happening.

The problem with institutions is they are by nature small-c conservative; that's an important  aspect of their value. They keep knowledge alive that way. But we are going through the biggest change in communications in human history, at an incrediably rapid rate, and it's been clear for at least 5 years that this isn't going to go away. It's getting more and more powerful and ubiquitous. Yet many academics are still railing against the web and refusing to use it. I'd blame their age, but I'm one of the older Baby Boomers, and it's not age.

I think it's refusing to give up the power of being the expert in the classroom and institution. They've lost the joy and excitment of fresh discovery, true learning. I'd almost feel sorry for them, if they weren't so irritating. I don't understand why institutions of higher learning aren't actually fascinated by learning!

Highlighted by cburell