Assessment 4€¦ · Web viewBefore an institutionalized problem can be processed and solved, the problem itself has to be recognized or articulated, and as Plattner (2013) suggests,

INF536 Designing Spaces for Learning

Assessment 4

Case Report – Developing, prototyping & implementing the Online Learning Model at Charles Sturt University (word count 3128)

&

Critical Reflection

Or via url http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/lisahampshire/2016/10/08/inf536-critical-reflection/

Student name: Lisa HampshireStudent number: 89137301

Lisa Hampshire 89137301 The Online Learning Model (OLM) 1

http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/lisahampshire/2016/10/08/inf536-critical-reflection/



Online study is a growth area in Australian tertiary education and as such, there are

ongoing debates and discussions about best practice. While Buchan (2008, p. 98)

acknowledges how complex and challenging the provision of online learning can be,

there is a compelling case to make that moving from traditional delivery to an online

learning model is about much more than technology and providing an IT ecosystem

of adaptive, recurring cycles.(Buchan, 2008, p. 2) Historically, the frame moved

away from one based on the provision of technology where, the discussion centred

around, “how to get faculty to adopt more technology”(White & Weight, 2000, p.

184)to one where online education builds a, “human community”.(2000, p. 185) This

case study examines the conception, leadership and introduction of a model for

learning across Charles Sturt University (CSU), Australia. The Online Learning

Model (OLM) (u!magine, 2016a) is an example of the idea that where the right tools

are in place, designed learning experiences follow(Buchan, 2008, p. 2) creating a

measurable impact on student learning. The OLM reflects scholarship on the many

ways in which delivery, access and progression when studying online pose

significant challenges for everyone in the cycle and that the tools of online learning

are less important than communication, interactions, content creation, achievement

of learning outcomes and the design of learning experiences.(Buchan, 2008, p. 1)


Case Study: The Online Learning Model – Charles Sturt University

Choice of Process

Before an institutionalized problem can be processed and solved, the problem

itself has to be recognized or articulated, and as Plattner (2013) suggests, it’s

less about framing a problem and more about creating a stable view of it,

“otherwise every solution you prepare may be considered promising by the

stakeholders in one moment and may be discarded in the very next.”(2013, p.

100) Additionally, as the view of the problem changes, people’s ideas about

the solution and what it should achieve also change,(2013, p. 100)“thus they

introduce new criteria for evaluating your proposals”.(p. 100) You can infer

from this that managing a change from a paper distance learning model to an

OLM for a multi-campus, multi-stakeholder institution needs to be done

carefully so the goals of the development team are not constantly moving.

Education Technology specialist Professor Barney Dalgarno began co-

directing CSU’s efforts in 2014 to adopt a new process, called U!magine and

develop and write the formation document establishing the Online Learning

Model (OLM), the institutional response and strategy for distance education at

CSU, “the right leadership is an important factor as well as an ability to inspire

some passion in people”.(Leistner, 2010, p. 59) As Leistner suggests, design

project leaders have to drive the ideas and the process and this means they

must be capable of, “building a clear understanding of the value of

knowledge”.(2010, p. 59) The overreaching aim of developing the OLM was to

build on the long-standing paper distance education model in CSU’s past,

while “capitalizing on our new model of course design and our strengths in

workplace learning”.(Dalgarno, B as cited inGiven, 2016, p. 14)

Once the problem was identified it became possible to begin the process of

formulating a solution. From design thinking, “establishing mindsets and

offering tools which save you from the impossible task of finding ‘the correct

problem view’ or ‘the optimal solution’”,(Plattner et al., 2013, p. 102) to the


kind of radical change continuum described in Designing from the Inside Out

(unknown, n.d.) there were varying processes to engage with developing the

OLM.

The OLM at CSU is an effort to quantify and map a process that began for

CSU when long standing assumptions about being a premier regional

university and premier provider of distance learning were shattered post Web

2.0 with the arrival of a new information ecology and new competitors eager to

forge market share. Understandings about traditional schooling served as a

metaphor for the new expectations of university learning, “separate

classrooms, minimally furnished and strung along corridors are no longer

appropriate”.(unknown, n.d.) Questions posed in 2000 remain considerations

for today, “what is the promise of technology and education? What is the

reality of the social change it represents? What are the continuing

challenges?”.(White & Weight, 2000, p. 185) As CSU’s Head of Campus

Virtual Don Olcott (u!magine, 2015) suggested recently, “The reality is that all

of our students complete various parts of their subjects in the virtual space.

The Virtual campus needs to be a value-added resource for all our students

and staff while recognizing that nearly 70% of CSU students are studying at

distance.”(2015)

The goal of the OLM was and is to develop, “a dynamic teaching and learning

model that in all its guises improves teaching, learning, and connectedness

across the learning community”.(Given, 2016) It was developed, “to

characterize the learning experience that CSU collectively aspires to for its

online students.”(2016) The OLM has also been part of an iterative process,

and now sits in its second skin as Version 2.(u!magine, 2016c)

The process described here follows Brown and Katz (2011) model of

designing with intent as well as Plattner’s (2013) rules for success in design

thinking: the human rule, the ambiguity rule, the re-design rule and the

tangible rule, meaning “to see what’s happening and to react accordingly in

the world and to construct a way out of complex problems, which usually have

not only one simple solution but often multifaceted, correspondingly complex


ones.”(Plattner et al., 2013, p. v) In the early 1970’s Rittel (Rittel as cited

inPlattner et al., 2013) developed a ten point plan for the solving of wicked

problems using psychology, but it was created exclusively for the realm of

politics and according to Plattner (2013) “design thinking problems are not like

political problems in all respects.”(2013, p. 98) Surely though, the conception,

funding, ideation, implementation and prototyping of a theoretical model of

learning within a large institution like a university is a political process worthy

of this type of consideration?

Exterior Pressure and Design Constraints

Institutional change by definition requires adherence to institutional policy

frameworks and large swathes of applicable legislation. Australian

universities are governed by the Higher Education Standards Framework

(Threshold Standards) 2015 (Australia, 2015) with new details tabled for

application from the 1st January, 2017. Additionally, they must be registered

under Part 3 of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act

(2011)(Australia, 2011), are government accredited via the Australian

Qualifications Framework and report to the Tertiary Education Quality and

Standards Agency. Overseas students rights are protected by the Education

Service for Overseas Students Act.(Australia, 2000) Any redesign of a

learning system or the creation of a new model must therefore be carefully

and constructively aligned with a broad range of existing requirements, even

before the first consultation.

The Nature of Work Groups and Teams

The group developing the OLM, known as U!magine, were deliberately

created as a new and separate team because the process demanded it.

There needed to be a separateness to drive a truly creative change; an irony

given how institutions are renowned for their organisational silos, where even

creative thinkers fall into a paradigm where solutions cannot be found, or if

identified, cannot be implemented. This separateness allowed the prototyping

and collaborative process of the OLM to proceed and importantly, to produce


change. Version 1 of the OLM became Version 2 without the strictures of

institutionalised thinking to bind it in place. As designer and inventor James

Dyson (2011) says, “hands-on, creative thinking through design and

engineering is a way to avoid prescriptive learning”.(2011) In the case of CSU,

prescribed pathways to the new approach to online learning are able to be

avoided.

OLM Version 2 saw ambiguous elements renamed and reworked through a

collaborative, prototyping process involving education designers and

academics. (u!magine, 2016c) A number of courses were identified for

inclusion in the first wave of the OLM. Element experts utilized their

education design experience to introduce and develop new resources. For

example, Element Lead (interactive resources) Bec Acheson developed

innovative new products across four pilot units of learning, ranging from

Viticultural Science to Information Studies. (u!magine, 2015, p. 6) Element

Lead (workplace interaction) Kerri Hicks addressed this across Human

Resource Management, Nursing, Writing and Midwifery.(u!magine, 2015, p. 7)

Both examples represent prototyping in action and as Kuratko (2012)implicitly

states, “Nothing gets your idea across better than something people can view

from different angles”.(2012, p. 115)

Much is written about prototyping as a technical process where ideas are

implemented and trialled, reworked, reintroduced and ultimately (hopefully)

adopted, because “failure is an important part of the process”.(Dyson, 2011)

However, scholars like Buchanan (1992) and Simon(1973) present a wicked

problem framework where you only get one chance at a solution, which by

rights prevents a prototyping process. This dichotomy illustrates the very

wide range of process available for education designers like those within U!

magine. The U!magine team created an Online Learning Exchange(u!

magine, 2016a) in the form of a website, to explain and expand on the model,

showcase exemplars from the pilots, (u!magine, 2016c) including an

innovative portrayal of prototyping in the form of an interactive interface called

The Mixer.(u!magine, 2016a)


Status Quo & Experimental Space Design

The Mixer in some ways represents the opaque wall between practical

application of the status quo, and experimental space design. Outside of

presenting new units of study as prototypes of the OLM where it has been

applied, The Mixer presents one of the few visible and tangible products of the

complex process of the OLM development process. It allows anyone to scan

the contents of the model and imagine how it might apply to their experience

of online teaching, learning or education design. The Mixer illustrates, “there

are principles we know will work and combinations of elements that form

pleasing patterns which we can repeat”.(u!magine, 2016b) The Mixer also

serves as a tangible product of a community of practice where people,

“accumulate and construct knowledge in a field” (Yuan & Kim, 2014, p. 222)

with passion, frequent interaction, developed relationships and identity.

The implementation process for the OLM is a work in progress with Phase 1

timed for delivery in 2017. This will include eight courses and about 190

separate subjects redesigned to adhere to the seven point (previously five)

connected student experience: learning communities, interaction between

students, teacher presence, interaction with the professions, flexible and

adaptive learning, interactive resources and e-assessment. Part of the Phase

1 process requires evaluation against criteria, “aligned with external measures

of teaching quality and student engagement with the results used to inform

refinements to the model and the implementation of support processes and

resources.”(Dalgarno, 2016)

Collaboration and Communication

Multidisciplinary team collaboration and communication was an integral

strategy for the Online Learning Model team. Plattner et al suggest it’s up to

a team to communicate their idea in a catchy way including creative

reframing, multidisciplinarity, interviewing for empathy, assuming a beginners

mindset, using affirming mottos, seeking feedback, prototyping and

storytelling. “Storytelling is a means to communicate problem views


compellingly”.(Plattner et al., 2013, p. 100) An example of how the OLM team

have used catchy and creative communications and storytelling to seek

feedback and creatively reframe an idea was recently published and

distributed online across the university. Headlined, “Project Spotlight:

Riverina Shore”(u!magine, 2016c, p. 10) the story itself within a newsletter,

highlights a new virtual community where students can participate in

embedded client scenarios within virtual homes, health centres and social

spaces. The piece highlights how this newly developed space for learning,

modeled utilizing the OLM principles of student-focussed learning, critical

thinking and interprofessional learning, was communicated to the wider

community.

The task of developing the OLM was a major collaboration with numerous

stakeholders. Firstly, the U!magine team was gathered from a range of

discipline areas, “while collaborator expertise is one of the most important

criteria to consider, we have found that skills in teamwork and in crossing

disciplinary and organisational boundaries are equally important.”(Norris et al.,

2016, p. 120)

Team leadership in U!magine was and is shared between Professor Barney

Dalgarno, an award winning and oft-published educator and information

technology leader, and Professor Don Olcott Jr. whose achievements and

publications are many, but is perhaps best described by his inclusion in the

US Distance Learning Association’s Hall of Fame in 2014. On the team are

experienced teachers, another is a technology architecture expert along with

a Doctoral student whose expertise is in student use of digital technologies in

the home, so as Norris (2016) writes, “an important aspect of engagement is

that the overall thrust of the project needs to resonate with members’

individual research interests and competencies”.(2016, p. 120) Leistner

(2010, p. 65) would add, the organisational culture needs to be built on a

foundation of passion, trust and competency.

In addition to the multidisciplinary team developed within the U!magine group,

education designers were appointed as element specialists to assist with


professional development so that academics would know how and why to

incorporate the elements into their courses. Education Designer Miriam

Edwards became a specialist in one of the models’ seven elements; online

learning communities, and has been able to watch and guide the model being

rolled out as part of the course design process. She conducts workshops with

academic staff in her specialist area and will continue to do so as required as

part of the iterative communication process. Edwards (personal

communication Sep 30th, 2016) stresses the importance of understanding and

observing how the wider context plays a formative role in academics forming

a view of the OLM, saying the amount and scope of change in CSU’s

administration, including a reduction of schools from five to three, along with a

common support model for professional staff, presents something of a

roadblock to, “getting academics on board during a period of so much

change.”(Edwards, 2016) A case might be made that measuring uptake of

the full suite of the OLM in course design may prove difficult during this period

of flux.

The original model was drafted in late 2014 as part of the draft CSU Distance

Education Strategy. (u!magine, 2014) Consultation and feedback followed,

leading to the publication of the superseded OLM Version 1 in 2015. This

model was workshopped in sessions tagged Conversations About Online

Learning across campuses involving about 200 academics, education

designers and support staff. There were sixteen workshops throughout 2015

led by the OLM team.(Dalgarno, 2016, p. 2) The message from experienced

staff was the OLM represented innovative strategies that could be

implemented across disciplines.(Dalgarno, 2016, p. 2)

Norris(2016) suggests socio-ecological systems provide a good model for

trying to manage transdisciplinary teams, “itself a wicked problem of design”,

(2016, p. 115) noting the scale of uncertainty, conflicting social values,

messiness and complexity at the core of change management when working

with groups and teams. Norton(2012) describes how “complex environmental

problems cannot be comprehended within any of the accepted disciplinary

models available in the academy or in discourses on public interest and


policy”(2012, p. 447). Developing a model for online learning presents as a

complex environmental problem and as such requires a complex solution.

Messiness could have been the outcome of the OLM development, had a

socio-ecological process model not been used. Rather, using the 2015

transdisciplinary workshop feedback, the U!magine team gathered an expert

core group during April and May of 2016, including their own design and

technology leaders as well as quality learning and teaching leaders and OLM

element specialist education designers. This specialist group then revised the

first model and circulated it to an additional thirty CSU learning and teaching

scholars for further feedback and revision. A significant part of the process

adopted for the development of the OLM is that of revision and a willingness

to change course.(Norris et al., 2016, pp. 120-121)

The resulting seven-sided OLM is a little like Locke’s (2007) ‘six spaces of

social media’, or indeed McIntosh’s (2010) subsequent upscaled revision to

seven. Codifying the methodology of collaboration and process creates a

“fresh format for asking….what they would like to do in a new learning

environment, and then design a flow between the mix of spaces required for

the projects they will undertake.(unknown, 2016)

CSU’s delivery model for online learning began as a 1980’s paper/post model,

where students would receive parcels of learning materials in the mail. There

was a whole industry developed around printing course handbooks and

prescribed learning materials. Unlike other institutions coming into online

learning without a paper heritage, CSU suddenly found a range of courses

with existing distance delivery strategies but lacking a singular vision for

translating these to online delivery. It took plummeting enrolments for

strategists to address the latent assumptions implicit in previous business

positioning of CSU as ‘the premier regional university’ and ‘Australia’s leading

distance education provider’. Destination 2020: A Road Map for CSU’s

Online Future (Wills, Dalgarno, & Olcott, 2016), itself the redrafted version of

the 2014 Distance Education Draft Strategy(u!magine, 2014), sets out a clear

pathway from assumptions about CSU’s existing online learning to a future

system tailored from the ground up. “CSU is at a crossroads. Without a


complete re-engineering of CSU’s online learning capacity (teaching,

professional development, administrative infrastructure, and out of hours

support services) CSU will continue to lose market share, have a high ED

attrition rate, and will continue to receive poor ratings in national student

satisfaction surveys. Business as usual will not alter these challenges and

failure to address these may, in fact, create further gaps with our

competitors.”(Wills et al., 2016)

If a lesson from Leadbeater and Wong’s (2010) examination of primary

education could be applied to the development of CSU’s Online Learning

Model, it is that “disruptive innovation frequently starts in the margins rather

than the mainstream.”(2010, p. iv) Charles Sturt University was bound into an

old-school distance education strategy and it was this crisis of falling revenue

and enrolments that led them out to the margins. Ultimately, the strategic

design of the process for developing the OLM fulfilled Buchan’s(2010, p. 1) list

of communication, interactions, content creation and the achievement of

outcomes. A recommendation that is not recognized in this case study is that

for other institutions considering a similar move into a more developed and

crafted model of online pedagogy, the process should begin as soon as

possible. Where future-proofing discussions are taking place, powerful

arguments exist for embedding online learning into the framework and this is

applicable whether the goal is to provide only online education, or for places

like primary or high schools where learning online is becoming a normative

feature of education design.

Developing, designing, prototyping and implementing the multi-faceted Online

Learning Model utilizing an expert led community of practice, fully engaged in

a process with measurable and identifiable outcomes has provided a clear

framework for engagement in online pedagogy and filled a gap educators and

theorists have had on how to help learners learn online.


RECOMMENDATION LIST

When building a framework for designing virtual learning spaces, much can

be learnt from Charles Sturt University’s ideation and implementation of the

Online Learning Model. The following points of practice represent the

recommendations implicit in the case study:

Building online pedagogy is NOT about technology

The goal of an online learning community is to build a functioning

human community

Create a stable view of the problem you are trying to solve so your

goals are not moving with politics or fashion.

Choose a leadership team capable of inspiring passion, but also of

driving the ideas and the process

Understand your market.

Build it and build it again/ideation/iteration/implementation

Design with intent

Map your context – legislative, political, funding, change as part of a

socio-ecological process

Build a separate team to creatively drive the changes to learning

spaces, of multidisciplinary experts capable of crossing discipline and

organisational boundaries

Collaborate with stakeholders for prototyping in a community of

practice

Create expertise hotspots by recognizing individuals who can lead

implementation

Be prepared to change and remodel

Maintain a timeline for implementation

Utilise catchy and creative communication to tell your story

Collaborate and publish

Workshop widely, and then workshop in a more focused way

Question assumptions and rely on literature and research

Mentor implementation


Reference List

Education Service for Overseas Students Act (2000).

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act, (2011).

Higher Education Standards Framework (threshold standards), (2015).

Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2011). Change by Design. The Journal of Product

Innovation Management, 28(3), 381. doi:10.1111/j.1540-

5885.2011.00806.x

Buchan, J. (2008). Tools for survival in a changing educational technology

environment. Paper presented at the Hello! Where are you in the

landscape of educational technology?, Australia.

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues,

8(2), 5. doi:http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511637

Dalgarno, B. (2016, September, 9th). [The Online Learning Model

Implementation Plan].

Dyson, J. (2011, August 4th). No innovators dilemma here: in praise of failure.

wired.com.

Edwards, M. (2016, 2016, September 30th).

Given, D. (2016). Division of Student Learning Annual Report to the

University. Retrieved from csu.edu.au:


http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511637

Kuratko, D., Goldsworthy, M., & Hornsby, G. (2012). Innovation acceleration :

transforming organizational thinking. Boston: Pearson.

Leadbeater, C., & Wong, A. (2010). Learning from the extremes. Retrieved

from retrieved from

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/citizenship/socio-economic/docs/Le

arningfromExtremes_WhitePaper.pdf

Leistner, F. (2010). Mastering Organizational Knowledge Flow How to Make

Knowledge Sharing Work Wiley and SAS Business Series

doi:retrieved from Wiley database

Locke, M. (2007). Six spaces of social media, Test. Retrieved from

http://test.org.uk/2007/08/10/six-spaces-of-social-media/

McIntosh, E. (2010). Clicks and bricks: how school buildings influence future

practice and technology adoption. Educational Facility Planner, 45(1-

2).

Norris, P. E., Amp, Apos, Rourke, M., Mayer, A. S., & Halvorsen, K. E. (2016).

Managing the wicked problem of transdisciplinary team formation in

socio-ecological systems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 154, 115-

122. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.008

Norton, B. (2012). The Ways of Wickedness: Analyzing Messiness with

Messy Tools. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(4),

447-465. doi:10.1007/s10806-011-9333-3


http://test.org.uk/2007/08/10/six-spaces-of-social-media/

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/citizenship/socio-economic/docs/LearningfromExtremes_WhitePaper.pdf

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/citizenship/socio-economic/docs/LearningfromExtremes_WhitePaper.pdf

Plattner, H., Leifer, L., & Meinel, C. (2013). Design Thinking Research:

Springer International Publishing.

Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial

Intelligence, 4, 181-201.

doi

:http://www.public.iastate.edu/~cschan/235/6_Simon_Ill_defined_probl

em.pdf

u!magine. (2014). Draft DE Strategy. Retrieved from

https://www.csu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1169973/Draft-

DE-Strategy.pdf

u!magine. (2015). U!magine Newsletter Issue 2. Retrieved from

https://uimagine.edu.au/about/newsletters/

u!magine. (2016a). CSU Online Learning Exchange. Retrieved from

uimagine.edu.au/csulx/

u!magine. (2016b). Online Learning Exchange. Retrieved from

uimagine.edu.au/csulx/

u!magine. (2016c). u!magine Newsletter Issue 3. Retrieved from


unknown. (2016). Module 6.2 The Seven Spaces [INF536 Designing Spaces

for Learning] https://interact2.csu.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-981157-dt-

content-rid-2220132_1/courses/S-INF536_201660_W_D/

module6/6_2_The_Seven_Spaces.html: Charles Sturt University.


https://interact2.csu.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-981157-dt-content-rid-2220132_1/courses/S-INF536_201660_W_D/module6/6_2_The_Seven_Spaces.html:





https://www.csu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1169973/Draft-DE-Strategy.pdf

https://www.csu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1169973/Draft-DE-Strategy.pdf

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~cschan/235/6_Simon_Ill_defined_problem.pdf

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~cschan/235/6_Simon_Ill_defined_problem.pdf

unknown. (n.d.). Designing from the 'inside-out'. Retrieved from

http://www.featherston.com.au/1668/designing-from-the-

%E2%80%98inside-out

White, K. W., & Weight, B. H. (2000). The online teaching guide : a handbook

of attitudes, strategies, and techniques for the virtual classroom.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Wills, S., Dalgarno, B., & Olcott, D. (2016). Destination 2020: A Road Map for

CSU's Online Future. Retrieved from

https://www.csu.edu.au/uimagine/roadmap

Yuan, J., & Kim, C. (2014). Guidelines for facilitating the development of

learning communities in online courses. Journal of Computer Assisted

Learning, 30(3), 220-232. doi:10.1111/jcal.12042


https://www.csu.edu.au/uimagine/roadmap

http://www.featherston.com.au/1668/designing-from-the-%E2%80%98inside-out

http://www.featherston.com.au/1668/designing-from-the-%E2%80%98inside-out

Documents

Assessment 4€¦ · Web viewBefore an institutionalized problem can be processed and solved, the problem itself has to be recognized or articulated, and as Plattner (2013) suggests,