As I learn more about change models, I compare my experiences with change management in my previous corporate industry and my current post-secondary institution (PSI) professional setting. Dave Cormier (2017) wrote about the digital strategy within the PEI Department of Education. I found I was nodding my head up and down as I related to everything in his blog. Interestingly, I could easily compare his digital strategy development to my past experiences. As a result, the similarities between all settings are surprisingly relatable in my exploration of change thus far.
Cormier (2017) highlighted that he helped build trust by initially developing a project to solve a problem. As we recently focused on learning more about credibility, Dave demonstrated this attribute with his commitment to making a difference and as someone to count on to follow through to completion (Kouzes & Posner, 2011). In my experience, this initial demonstration to enable successful change can be impactful for others in embracing the change. For instance, in my organization(s), we initially developed pilot projects to prove the success of learning technologies. These trials are often essential to the plan before launching enterprise- or college-wide technology initiatives. Once we verify the learning technologyâs success to stakeholders, more extensive plans for deployment and adoption are developed.
As Catherine and I worked on Digital Literacy as our Design Thinking project in MALAT, we also had the Digital Citizenship topic at the top of our minds, like Cormier (2017). I must say that I feel far behind in leading this change, as I noticed Cormierâs post was written in 2017. There is still so much work to accomplish in this digital literacy area at my PSI and in my previous corporate setting. I am interested in discovering Dave Cormier’s progress in this endeavor because I understand the importance of persistence for instrumental change in digital literacy.
References
Cormier, D. (2017, December 8). Our schools arenât broken, theyâre hard. [Daveâs Educational Blog]. Retrieved February 10, 2024, from https://davecormier.com/edblog/2017/12/08/our-schools-arent-broken-theyre-hard/
Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2011). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it. Jossey-Bass.
Unit 3 Activity 1 – Gathering LMS Data Explored
Learning analytics is a pertinent topic in my college’s LMS data context. I appreciated reviewing the Data Ethics Policy, which highlighted the ethical use of personal data (The Open University, n.d.). I can also gather similar LMS data as Michelle shared with us. In LRNT524, I posted about policy concerns regarding learning analytics in our Moodle post. My research at the time involved Corrin (2021), who advised involving all stakeholders, including students, in the decision-making about ethical and privacy use. However, I have yet to discover guidance on a step-by-step process regarding learner analytics for this stakeholder engagement practice. I would appreciate any best practice suggestions and research on learning analytics policy development. In my case, figuring out where to start is sometimes the most challenging part of moving forward with change.
Regarding circling back to the digital literacy scenario, Cormier (2017) focused on the needs of students. A new way of looking at digital literacy could be through the lens of the instructor instead of the student. For example, Academic Deans and Chairs approached me wanting the analytics on instructor usage with our LMS. An âinventoryâ needs to be developed for each program on course outlines, assignments, assessments, grade books, discussions, etc., to determine the course components instructors use within the LMS. There is the possibility that we will discover that some instructors are not using the LMS at all. I believe this data will inform which instructors require digital literacy learning assistance. In addition, this data can help the training team strategize and develop targeted LMS lessons for instructors. From the Academic Deans’ and Chairs’ views, they may use the data for their performance management annual reviews for instructors.
Should the same ethical and privacy concerns for students still be at play for instructors who are mandated and paid to use the LMS? I am curious about everyoneâs opinions on this thought-provoking topic.
References
Corrin, L. (2021). Shifting to digital: a policy perspective on âstudent perceptions of privacy principles for learning analytics.â Education Tech Research, 69, 353-356.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09922-x
Cormier, D. (2017, December 8). Our schools arenât broken, theyâre hard. [Daveâs Educational Blog]. Retrieved February 25, 2024, from https://davecormier.com/edblog/2017/12/08/our-schools-arent-broken-theyre-hard/
Open University. (n.d.). Data ethics policy. https://help.open.ac.uk/documents/policies/ethical-use-of-student-data/files/287/Data%20ethics%20policy%20NEW%20July%202023_.pdf
Hi Marni,
Oh that is such a good question – and I would say in the absence of policy that states how LMS data can be used (including all stakeholders, faculty, students and staff), those same ethical and privacy concerns be considered for instructors too. But I think it would depend on what the expectations of the instructors are – do Chairs/Deans drop into their F2F classroom space to observe teaching (unannounced or planned?) to evaluate it? If yes, then perhaps they might have similar expectations for their virtual spaces, if not, then I think consultation might be needed before that kind of data was used for evaluation purposes. As with anything I think transparency is always good practice – letting people know what data is there, how it might be used (and it could be used to help inform PD opportunities) and what they can do with it to help their own learning journeys.
Hi Michelle, thanks for your great ideas to consider. I also agree on the importance of transparency. I have this topic of instructor expectations on the next Academic Council agenda to discuss with my senior leaders. ~M