A few notes around trying to transfer the ideas of Collis et al (4 E’s Model) to people at UCS. The 4 E’s Model is a very useful framework (which I continue to use), as it is can easily accommodate central and local teams.
The key idea is to use the model to identify the likelihood for the individual to adopt a technology in their teaching and learning (assuming voluntary choice is involved)
The idea would be to map the current use of technology (innovations) in teaching and learning at UCS using the Inst of Education pedagogical templates for e-learning. Then justify the current usage via the 4 E’s Model, and set a number of recommendations based on applying the 4 E’s Model.
The 4 E’s model >>
- IoE Pedagogical templates for Learning >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=0AfpzMJUoL3hrZGRzejY0YzZfMjgxYzZkN3hoZ2s&hl=en
Taking the factors highlighted by Collis et al.,
- vision about technology within the institution
- actual level of technology use within the institution
- readiness to change in the institution
- funding and incentives to adopt technology innovations
- experiences in the past with technology in the institution
- adequacy of the technical infrastructure in the institution
Educational Effectiveness (perceived)
- innovation can solve personally relevant educational problems
- provides new forms of learning experience
- provides support for the existing curriculum
Ease of use (personal)
- ensure institutions provide upto date hardware and software
- support software environments which do not require significant training (low threshold technologies)
- ensure the experiences of working with the technology fit the individuals experiences and beliefs about the learning process
- build self confidence with starting with successful experiences
So, where should we start as the Elevate Team to increase the likelihood of a member of staff at UCS effectively adopting a technology in their teaching?
- Encourage the development of a vision (strategy) at the institutional, school and LN levels.
- Encourage a more “risky” / technology change approach, we where use a range of tools (Salmon 4 quandrants model – existing / new learners and technologies)
- build up a sense of confidence in the technology / infrastucture – and disseminate this to users. This will involve getting the user community involved in influencing the technology mix, development work etc., Build stable platforms !!!
- funding and incentives … working much closer to support and develop people through the ILTS projects, and external projects. Promote an action research culture within staff, and map to rewards, either CPD (conference) funding, CMALT, HEA Fellow/Associate
Educational Effectiveness (perceived)
- facilitate the development of a community of practice at UCS around enhancing learning through innovative technologies … with the intention of disseminating how new approaches might solve personal educational problems, and provide new learning experiences. This includes; sharing stories, running pilots and projects, providing appropriate staff development opportunities, running two “UCS conferences” a year (including external speakers), releasing Elevate Team resource from support functions to more 1-2-1 style consultations
Ease of Use
- actively ensure we have low threshold technologies in place which meet the user needs – where possible develop around externally hosted solutions (tend to be more user friendly) – see https://docs.google.com/present/edit?id=0AcaF5QN3s_UDZGY2azRwajVfNzg2Y2twYnZkZzg&hl=en&authkey=COHG-J4C
- re-design our staff support and development programme (face to face and online) – to make it more just in time (faq engine, how to guides, infozone drop in surgeries), and working with small niche communities. Ensure the balance is right between support activities by the team and pedagogical development of staff
- Account that people are all at different stages within their teaching experience, therefore, re-allocate team resources to being more 1-2-1 consultation focus, with the exit strategy including the Elevate team being more proactive in the evaluating the intervention.