Opening  up  Large  Scale  Change  Initiatives    

Calling  on  Faculty  Perspectives  to    Develop  a  Framework  for    

Organization-­‐Wide  ePortfolio  Implementation  

ePIC  2013  London,  UK  

 Jennifer  M.  Brill,  Ph.D.  

Associate  Professor  

 Samantha  J.  Blevins  

Ph.D.  Candidate  

InstrucDonal  Design  &  Technology  Learning  Sciences  &  Technologies  Virginia  Tech,  Blacksburg,  VA,  USA  

Purpose  &  Context  •  Develop  a  framework  to  support  electronic  porNolio  (eP)  adopDon  •  faculty/administrator  data  on  adopDon  process  at  large  U.S.  research  university  (≅30,000  students)  

•  Diffusion  of  InnovaDon  (DOI)  theory    

•  University  ePorNolio  IniDaDve:  2002-­‐present  •  eP  Office  IntenDons:  

•  strategic  alignment  to  department,  college,  and  insDtuDonal  goals  •  key  stakeholder  partnerships  •  pilot-­‐tesDng  •  faculty  development  opportuniDes  •  inform  with:  •  Concerns-­‐Based  AdopDon  Model  (CBAM)    

(Hord,  Rutherford,  Huling-­‐AusDn,  &  Hall,  1987)  

•  Ely’s  Eight  CondiDons  of  Change  (Ely,  1990)  

Research  Questions  •  What  strategies  and  resources  are  used  by  a  large  research  university  to  assist  faculty  with  eP  implementaDon?  •   To  what  extent  do  these  strategies/resources  reflect  DOI  theory?    

•  How  do  faculty  perceive  the  current  eP  adopDon  support  process?  What  about  the  process:  •  is  successful?  •  is  lacking  and  requires  improvement?  •  reflects  DOI  theory?    

• What  features  of  DOI  theory  should  be  included  in  an  eP  adopDon  framework?  

Methodology:  Development  Research  

Analysis  

•  Faculty/Admin  • RIPPLES  Survey:  52/144  (36%)  

• Follow-­‐up  Interview:  12/12    

• DOI  literature  review  

Development  &  EvaluaDon  

•  Framework  developed  

•  Under  review  by  two  external  DOI  experts  

Revision  

•  Suggested  revisions  to  be  incorporated  in  a  revised  framework  

Developmental  (Type  2)  Study  

Design  &  Development  Research:  Methods,  Strategies,  &  Issues    Richey  &  Klein  (2007)  

Design  &  Development  Research  

Richey,  R.  C.,  &  Klein,  J.  D.  (2005).  Developmental  Research  Methods:  CreaDng  knowledge  from  InstrucDonal  design  and  development  pracDce.  Journal  of  Compu?ng  in  Higher  Educa?on,  16(2)  23-­‐38.  

Participant  Demographics  General  

•  Age  Range:  20s-­‐70s  •  Gender:  62%  female;  38%  male  •  Professional  PosiDon:    •  Faculty:  67%  •  AdministraDve:  29%  •  Other:  4%  

Teaching  &  ePor0olio  •  Years  teaching:    •  0-­‐10:  35%  •  11-­‐25:  40%  •  25  or  more:  25%  

•  Years  using  ePs:  •  <1:  23%  •  1-­‐3:  35%  •  4+:  42%  

•  %  Abandoned:  42%  •  Purpose  for  using  ePs:  •  Track  learning:  46%  •  Assess  learning:  60%  •  Support  professional  

development:  40%  

Findings:  Participant  Perceptions  on  RIPPLES  Elements  RIPPLES  Elements  Straight  Ranking  

Importance  to  eP  Implementa;on  (%  SA/A)  

Themes  related  to  University’s  eP  Implementa;on  

1.  Resources          (money  &  Dme)  

92%   •  Time  rated  higher  than  money  

2.  Support            (admin,  technical,                        pedagogical)  

85%   •  eP  office  found  to  be  exemplary  and  essenDal  •  AdministraDve  support  reported  as  important  but  lacking  

3.  People                (communicaDon;                      shared  decision-­‐                making)  

52%   • Need  a  more  unified  culture  of  support  at  the  department/program  level  

4.  Infrastructure              (technological                    backbone)  

94%   • Overall  university  infrastructure  viewed  posiDvely  •  eP  technology  viewed  less  posiDvely  

5.  Policies   60%   •  Policies  in  general  are  viewed  posiDvely  •   eP  policies  are  lacking/not  communicated  

6.  EvaluaDon   66%   •  EvaluaDon  viewed  as  important  •  Liple  has  been  done  to-­‐date  and/or  reported  on  

7.  Learning          (user  learning                  outcomes)  

87%   • OpportuniDes  offered  for  user  learning  are  exemplary  

Findings:  Barriers  and  Enablers  Ba

rriers  

•  eP  system  design  •  Time    

• Faculty  understanding  • Support  &  training  • Technology  resources  • ApplicaDon  beyond  classroom  

• Rewards  &  incenDves  En

ablers  

•  Support    

• Technology  capabiliDes  • Rewards  &  incenDves  • Faculty  understanding  •  Interest  • ApplicaDon  aqer  graduaDon  

ePortfolio  Adoption  Framework  

Framework:  Awareness  Component  Component   Selected  

Strategies  to  Support  Component  

Key  Player  Involvement  

Assessment  of  Current  Implementa;on  Status  

Next  Steps  for  Implementa;on  

               

   Professional  knowledge  of  pedagogical  benefits  of  electronic  porNolios  

• Web  sites  • Newslepers  • ArDcles  • PresentaDons  • Professional  development    

• Academic  leaders  on  campus  (e.g.  provost,  teaching  and  learning  directors)  •  Leading  electronic  porNolio  scholars  and  pracDDoners  •  Local  faculty  innovators  • Other  high-­‐level,  respected  opinion  leaders    

1. Faculty  are  unaware  of  the  pedagogical  value  of  electronic  porNolios.  

2. Faculty  are  somewhat  aware  of  the  pedagogical  value  of  electronic  porNolios.  

3. Faculty  are  very  aware  of  the  pedagogical  value  of  electronic  porNolios.    

RaDng  of  1  or  2  •  IdenDfy  mulDple  avenues  for  electronic  porNolio  awareness  building.  • Plan  a  3-­‐6  month  awareness  building  campaign.  • Reassess  awareness  status  aqer  one  to  two  academic  years.    

 RaDng  of  3  • Reassess  awareness  status  at  next  formal,  systemic  evaluaDon  of  electronic  porNolio  implementaDon.  (A  systemic  evaluaDon  is  recommended  every  3-­‐5  years.)    

Awareness

Framework:  Action  Plan  Component   Current  

Implementa;on  Ra;ng  

Next  Steps   Key  Players  to  Involve  

Target  Comple;on  Date(s)  

Addi;onal  Notes  

☐1      ☐2      ☐3    

☐1      ☐2      ☐3    

☐1      ☐2      ☐3    

…etc…  

Awareness

Motivation

Commitment

Evidence  of  Theoretical  Alignment  with  DOI  Framework  Component   Theore;cal  Connec;ons  

 

Awareness   Knowledge  of  InnovaDon  (r)  DissaDsfacDon  with  Status  Quo  (e)  

MoDvaDon   Persuasion  (r)  DissaDsfacDon  with  Status  Quo  (e)  Rewards  and/or  IncenDves  (e)  

Commitment   Decision  (r)  ParDcipaDon  (e)  Commitment  (e)  

Resources   ImplementaDon  (r)  Sufficient  Knowledge  and  Skills  (e)  Availability  of  Time  (e)  Availability  of  Resources  (e)  

Leadership   ImplementaDon  (r)  Leadership  (e)  

EvaluaDon    

ConfirmaDon  (r)  

(e)  =  Don  Ely,  CondiDons  for  Change,  (1976,  1999)  (r)  =    Everep  Rogers,  DOI,  (2003)  

Other  Thoughts  •  Next  Steps:  •  Complete  expert  reviews  •  Revise  framework  •  Test  

•  Will  be  using  at  mid-­‐size  university  to  guide  new  eP  implementaDon  iniDaDve    

•  LimitaDons:  •  RIPPLES  model,  even  with  adapted  survey  

•  too  lengthy  •  acronym  terms  confusing/misleading  

•  Development  Research  •  Fuzzy  process  •  Is  it  the  best  approach  to  model/framework  development?  

In  regards  to  “openness”…  

•  How  can  such  a  framework  support:    •  community  learning?  •  user-­‐friendly    eP  infrastructure  and  architecture?  

Samantha  Blevins  sjblevins@vt.edu  

 Jen  Brill  

jmbrill@vt.edu    

Thank  you.