1 / 21

Technology at the Planning Table

Technology at the Planning Table. Power and Interests in Course Management Systems Andrew Whitworth, University of Manchester, UK Angela Benson, University of Illinois, US. Structure of seminar. Research background Research design Early observations: centrality of CMS

shanae
Download Presentation

Technology at the Planning Table

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Technology at the Planning Table Power and Interests in Course Management Systems Andrew Whitworth, University of Manchester, UK Angela Benson, University of Illinois, US 11th Sloan-C ALN conference: November 2005

  2. Structure of seminar • Research background • Research design • Early observations: • centrality of CMS • perspectives on “lone rangers” 11th Sloan-C ALN conference: November 2005

  3. Why? • Unlike the TARDIS… • …educational technologies do not materialise from nowhere… • …nor do they always look the same. 11th Sloan-C ALN conference: November 2005

  4. Building technologies • Technologies are built from environmental resources – both material and cognitive • Cognitive resources could be forms of knowledge, values, goals, research… • We should ask not only what values, procedures, assumptions etc. influence innovation… • ….but whose. 11th Sloan-C ALN conference: November 2005

  5. Why does this matter for e-L? • Growth in online learning • Prevalence of course management systems • Studied as technology… • …even as pedagogy… • Our conclusion: should also be studied as organised human activity • Technology now sits “at the planning table” 11th Sloan-C ALN conference: November 2005

  6. CMS in online programs Planners, administrators Teaching assistants CMS Instructors/Lecturers Students Developers Researchers/evaluators Stakeholder groups are likely to have different perspectives on the role and effectiveness of the CMS and as well as different degrees of influence on its design and evolution. 11th Sloan-C ALN conference: November 2005

  7. Theoretical antecedents • Negotiating Power and Interests (Cervero and Wilson, 1994a) • Planning not “behaviorist”; cannot completely control the environment • But nor do stakeholders have complete freedom from structural constraints • Critical view – recognize the problems… • C & W’s framework a solution to problems 11th Sloan-C ALN conference: November 2005

  8. Theoretical Framework • Responsible planning demands that all persons affected by a program have a voice in determining its purpose, content, format and audience • Negotiating competing interests responsibly in the presence of power inequities • Program is the result of these negotiations 11th Sloan-C ALN conference: November 2005

  9. Research Purpose • This joint US/UK research project compares the different approaches that institutions employ in online course delivery, specifically focused on the different ways power and interests are negotiated among stakeholders using open source and home-grown course management systems. 11th Sloan-C ALN conference: November 2005

  10. Research Questions • What interests do course management system stakeholders bring to the evolution of CMSs? • How are those interests negotiated during the ongoing development and implementation process? • How do those negotiations impact the systems design? • How do those negotiations impact the teaching process in online courses? 11th Sloan-C ALN conference: November 2005

  11. Research Design • Embedded qualitative case study • 3-Layer Design Framework 11th Sloan-C ALN conference: November 2005

  12. Design Framework • Layer 1 - Educational Systems • US • UK • Layer 2 - Course management systems • Commercial (e.g., WebCT) • Open source (e.g., MOODLE) • Private (“Home grown”) • Ad hoc (“Lone Rangers”) 11th Sloan-C ALN conference: November 2005

  13. Design Framework • Layer 3 – Stakeholder groups • Instructors • Planners • Developers *added* • Learners *not included* • Institutional Leadership *not included* • Affected public *not included* 11th Sloan-C ALN conference: November 2005

  14. Data Collection • Semi-structured Interviews • Teaching Perspectives Inventory • Meeting observations • Online course inventory 11th Sloan-C ALN conference: November 2005

  15. Data Analysis • Descriptive component • Constant Comparative (Merriam, 1998) • NVivo for coding and categorization • Explanatory component • Explanation-building (Yin, 1994) 11th Sloan-C ALN conference: November 2005

  16. Centrality of CMS Program B Program A “Laissez-faire” or “free market” approach Home-grown CMS (1997 – revised 2004) All course units use it Recent widespread use of Moodle, however A counterintuitive suggestion – the home-grown system is less flexible? 11th Sloan-C ALN conference: November 2005

  17. Developer/instructor interaction Program B Program A Primarily mediated through planners Developer/instructor distinction less pronounced Instructors Instructors Developers Planners/administrators Planners/administrators Developers Note also the different motivations of the groups in each case. 11th Sloan-C ALN conference: November 2005

  18. Alby at UK University 8 years teaching; 5 online Informal online teacher training Prior programming experience Web design course for non-computer science majors Limited access to organizational support HTML-based hybrid course Recent MOODLE experience Terry at US University 20+ years teaching; 17 online Informal online teacher training Prior programming experience Technology tools course in online master’s program for teachers Full-time access to program-dedicated technical and management support staff HTML-based online course Recent MOODLE experience Lone Rangers 11th Sloan-C ALN conference: November 2005

  19. Lone Rangers • Shared perspectives • Technology as teaching tools • Self-directed technology learners • Individual goals drive use, not organizational goals • Divergent perspectives • Lone ranger because of lack of organizational support (Alby) • Lone ranger because of personal philosophy (Terry) 11th Sloan-C ALN conference: November 2005

  20. Lone Rangers • A good way of getting innovation started. . .not clear that it sustains/promotes adoption of ongoing/future innovations • What is the evolution of the lone ranger? • What do lone rangers bring to the CMS planning table? 11th Sloan-C ALN conference: November 2005

  21. In the end…? • Generalisations are not the aim… • Research provides cognitive resources for stakeholders in educational technology • Like the TARDIS these technologies are bigger than • they may seem… • We want to help draw a map. 11th Sloan-C ALN conference: November 2005

More Related