V.+CJ+Final

This page in Doc Format: PLease use the document to modify this page and then copy and paste your modifictaions here to ensure consistency in style Font size Georgia 12 1.5 spacing

Of     Change Manager’s and Facilitator’s Guide “TEAM A”  ||
 * Conceptual Justification
 * 1- Justification of Team’s Inquiry Process ||
 * Team A’s group inquiry process was a seemingly messy one but there is method to our chaos.

We were given free reign to design our own script but of course designing something from nothing is always difficult and so we accessed prior knowledge based on a unit some of us took last semester EDPC 5021 and came up with editor, writer and reviewer roles as our team script. However, we did not really follow through strictly with the roles. There are a few possible reasons for this.

1) As students, we are not used to engaging in these roles and in particular, the role of the reviewer would be especially hard for a student to stick to. This is because the grading for assignments, including this assignment, is always about the quality and quantity of your own original writing. As such being a pure reviewer would seem that you’re not contributing as much. If this were a output oriented situation, we would of course not doubt the importance of the reviewer. But this is a process oriented assignment as judged by the grading rubric to award 5% to each individual contribution for each week.

2) Our multicultural personnel makeup. All 4 of us come from different cultures and as such have different working styles. This takes quite a bit of adjusting and negotiation on its own and to do that while assimilating a new academic assignment style of group work. While there were no real explicit tensions, there is a sense of things gelling as time went along, which is evidence of an adjustment process being gone through. As such.

3) Changing roles every week takes adjusting to. If we were to strictly follow the script of having interchanging roles every week, it would take us time to get used to the new role again and so it did not seem that efficient.

About 2 weeks into our inquiry process. It was apparent that we reverted back to task allocation rather than role allocation. This was probably because this is the one that appeals to our prior experience with collaborative work, i.e. ok you do this, you do that etc. Only one role was needed, that of the decision maker. During our group meetings, we would discuss problems, discuss solutions and the “decision maker” would make decisions if need be. I hesitate to call the decision maker the editor at this point because an editor entails more than decision making. Reviewing was done in a sporadic way, whoever had more mental energy and time would heed the call for review.

Towards the end of the assignment time period, we seemed to have stablised our inquiry process and are indeed somewhat using the original script of editor, writer and reviewer. However we do it our way which is described as follows.

1) We have a real editor now. She is not only a decision maker but provides the vision of the final product. Furthermore she does real editing work in ensuring the flow of the writing remains congruent and providing structure in meetings.

2) We have a fixed editor. While her vision of the final product (the guide) may change as time passes with new insights and inputs from the rest of us and her own readings, the change will be evolutionary which might not be the case if we were to have a totally different vision altogether.

3) We are all writers and we negotiate for reviewers during our live meetings. This way we all can keep up with the individual assessment objectives and are allowed some choice, based on our content mastery, interest or mental energy levels.

Our experiences reflect the findings the concerns of Dillenbourg (2002) and the findings of Haake & Pfister (2010). Dillenbourg (2002, p 1) was concerned that “on the one hand, the definition of scripts constitutes a promising convergence between educational engineering and socio-cultural approaches but, on the other hand, it drifts away from the genuine notion of collaborative learning.” If we had strictly adhered to the script, we would have had a less enriching collaborative experience as the messiness required a lot of negotiation and interaction on our part.

In their experiemental study regarding scripting of higher education students, Haake & Pfister (2010) found that “No general advantage of scripting was found concerning acquisition of knowledge; nor was overscripting observed. Collaborative scripting appears to be neither generally advantageous nor disadvantageous, but highly contingent on the particular content and task under consideration.” While this may sound like common sense, this observation may be of importance in collaborative work in cultures which have a high respect for authority. Students who find adhering to the scripts may think that their inability to follow the script from a wiser teacher-figure shows some flaw in their inquiry process, whilst the findings show that it is totally natural.

Our eventual stablisation of a loose adherence to the script may be one way in which educators can balance between seeking to achieve learning goals and gaining the intangible benefits of collaborative learning.

Palloff, Ena M. and Keith Pratt (2001): Lessons from the Cyberspace Classroom. The Realities of Online Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
 * References: **

Dillenbourg, P. P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL : The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. Kirschner, // Three Worlds of CSCL // (pp. 61-91).

Haake,J. & Pfister, H. (2010) Scripting a distance-learning university course: Do students benefit from net-based scripted collaboration?. // International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. // 5(2), 191-210  || Team A’s choice of HODs as the audience of the proposed change guide is not arbitrary. HODs, who are considered as the middle management of an organization, prove to have a pivotal role in any change process. Fullan (1991) describes the different roles and responsibilities which principals, or more accurately related to this specific guide “heads of organizations”, play and have. For example, HODs are the people “most likely to be in a position to shape the organizational conditions necessary for success, such as the development of shared goals, collaborative structures and climates, and procedures for monitoring results.” (Fullan ,1991, p. 76). Moreover, HODs, and unlike teachers, have access to information on ongoing innovations outside the scope of the classroom. This increases their chance of bringing in new ideas which could contribute to change in one way or another. However, HODs as “middle managers” and leaders have very complex and ambiguous roles. “Leadership relates to mission, direction, [and] inspiration. Management involves designing and carrying out plans, getting things done, [and] working effectively with others.” (Fullan, 1991, p.157). HODs should do both “simultaneously and iteratively” and requires multiple skills that HODs often lack. Therefore, this guide attempts at clarifying the necessary and multiple // key // skills and strategies needed for HODs to carry out change in an effective manner. However, Fullan claims with support from various studies that few of them succeed in their involvement in the change process due to lack of knowledge of “what” change is and “how” it happens (content and process of change). Therefore, team A thought of introducing SSM a methodology of change which deals with both content and process to serve as a reliable tool to understanding and dealing with change. SSM help in examining the context of change, e.g. different change agents and their perspectives of change, which is a necessary prerequisite to carrying out change successfully. HODs could also play a big role in providing clear direction of change for those involved. Fullan argues that “clarity” about change goals and implementation strategies are very essential in having the different change agents, such as teachers, implement innovative change in the right way. However, it is noticed that many change processes suffer from “false clarity” which hinders its desired outcomes and demotivates people from implementing change. Equipping HODs with the necessary skills and knowledge to form well-articulated vision statement and conduct strategic planning could significantly assist in the provision of a clear plan for change. However, this guide does not cover a section on formulating a vision statement which is a limitation that needs future consideration The Professional Development program we are proposing is based on the theory of double-loop learning (Argyris and Schon 1996) expansive learning and Activity Systems (Engeström 2001). Single loop learning is instrumental learning that may lead to changes in action but does not affect the underlying conceptual beliefs that support the action. Double-loop and Expansive Learning is deeper learning that brings about a transformational change in the underlying beliefs and attitudes of the learner. The changes required in this University are not simply related to learning the new technology, the entire organization needs to change in order to embrace the new pedagogical methods, attitudes and instruments. Activity Systems Theory proposes establishing communities of practice which are collaborative groups that support conceptual change through social interactions. A number of these groups within the organisation result in learning that occurs beyond the individual person but incrementally for the organization as a whole. This method combines with other research on Professional Developement that highlights the need for the program to be carried out // during // as well as before implementation, and that it should focus on how change agent practically contribute to change rather than educating them theoretically Change agents, especially teachers, should be able to // link, apply and integrate // what they learn to change aspects in the field (Fullan 1991).
 * 2- Justification of Guide’s sections ||
 * 1- Why heads of educational departments as audience? **
 * 1- Why heads of educational departments as audience? **
 * 2- Why introduce SSM as a methodology of change? **
 * 3- Leadership and strategic planning **
 * 4- Professional development for change **

Bates (2002) describes ICT infrastructure in an educational institution as the foundation of a house without which the rest of the house cannot be built. However, he argues the ICT infrastructure is not enough in itself. Appropriate administrative, technical and academic applications should accompany the infrastructure as well as ensuring student access to technology. It is necessary for HODs to be aware of the implications of the provision of ICT infrastructure in relation to teaching, learning, technical support and administration, not only in relation to expenditure. Bates (2002) believes that evaluating technology-based teaching and learning is pivotal as this is a new, emerging field which is in need for continuous reformulation and improvement. However, many evaluators and researchers have been focusing on the “wrong” questions to answer. It has been a regular practice to evaluate technology-based teaching “in comparison” to traditional classroom teaching, which Bates argues is not an effective way of evaluation as these two situations are distinct in characteristics. Bates suggests focusing on unique elements of technology-based teaching and learning such as its impact on learners, the technology’s affordances for effective teaching and learning and its cost-benefit relationship. Including a section on evaluation in our guide is important to ensure that the evaluation focus is appropriate and attempts at answering the “right” questions using the appropriate methods. ** 7- Change management tools ** The essence of our change scenario is an ICT project with phases across an ICT project lifecycle. The lifecycle sets the project in motion and directs the activities and products. Change management forms (a significant) part of the lifecycle and as such, developing plans, forming strategy, and designing tools is addressed within the ICT project plan. Moreover, the ICT project plan can be considered as the overarching scheme housing the change management plan.
 * 5- ICT Infrastructure **
 * 6- Evaluation **

In 2009 the Australian government introduced an initiative to increase IT infrastructure in schools nationally. Following, each State was required to carry out implementations. The QLD Department of Education and Training (DET) published an ICT Project Lifecycle (IPL) matrix showing the details making up each of the ICT project phases. A version of this matrix has been used to develop our ICT project plan.

Considering the ICT project plan to be the overarching scheme housing the different phases within which lies the activities and products draws a systemic view of this arrangement.

The primary premise the change management tools of the guide borrow from is Trowler’s ‘Change Thinking, Change Practices’ (2003) guide. As such, the change management tools to aid the transition from old to new systems were chosen with the following considerations in mind: the level of change, the foci of change, the sources of change, control and power, the processes of change, strategic change management, and the impact and evaluation of change. Following, each of the tools are designed to address individuals as well as individuals within the context of groups, show the pedagogical value and pedagogical connection to the change, to encourage contribution from individuals, allow for local adaptation, address different stages of the change management plan, and to lead to constructive learning.

The secondary premise borrows from Agyris’ ‘What is an organization that it may learn?’ (1996) book. There is an understanding that organisational change comes from organisational learning, which ties in nicely with our change guide being directed at HOD. Agyris (1996) explores the idea of an individual understanding the changed concept then applying the understanding practically so that the change becomes embedded within the organization to be symbolic of organisational change. Knight and Trowler (2001) adds to this argument by applying change thinking theory to aid change practices. It is thought that a ‘learning department’ is in a position to grow therefore is ready and has the capacity to process change. ** References ** : ** Bates, T. (2000). Managing technological change: Strategies for college and university leaders (1st ed. ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ** ** Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed. ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. ** ||