Showing posts with label change management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label change management. Show all posts
Saturday, November 21, 2015
Resume Bombs
This blog at Curmugucation (Peter Greene) is aimed at the Common Core in education but as well applies to many fields.
Monday, August 31, 2015
Change Management and Technology
Two environments: 1) organization leadership is satisfied with the technology status quo; 2) organization leadership desires to update technology.
In the former environment, there is little the technology manager can do other than to promote the need for updating by relating the advances the competition is making and demonstrating the advantages of updating. In the later environment, senior management, having made the decision to update, often gives the tech manager very little time to execute and "incremental" is seldom not part of the discussion. The tech manager can alleviate the time crunch issue over time by continual planning (strategic and tactical) and frequently collaborating, communicating and presenting. Salesmanship is definitely a plus. In any case, you can be sure that there will be end user resistance and that some degree of change management will be required to implement the update(s).
As we all know, changes in technology tend to reverberate throughout entire organizations. Most, if not all, departmental processes are affected. Many policies and procedures may need to be rewritten. Of course, training to some or more extent will be required. Technology changes are seldom silent and invisible. New or significantly updated technologies tend to create fear. Okay, maybe mostly just apprehension but some will literally be scared. Change is stressful especially when it has the potential of affecting livelihoods. Leadership early on must do it best belay the fears and apprehension. Will I lose my job? Will my position be downgraded with less pay? Will my hours be reduced? Will I be able to learn to use the technology? The IT manager gives guidance to leadership and encouragement to employees as possible during this phase.
The IT manager has his/her own apprehensions revolving around whether the new technology will work and whether she/he can pull off a smooth implementation. It is best to follow a change management process of your choosing, one that fits your leadership style and organizational culture. There are many available. I am a proponent of the eight-step change process developed by John P. Kotter, the Konosuke Matsushita Professor of Leadership, Emeritus at the Harvard Business School. Here is a general outline of the process. More and deeper information can be found at the Kotter International website.
Of course, before initiating these steps the tech manager has to have performed her/his due diligence: selecting the right technology (maybe more than one initially); networking with other users in similar organizations; and, her/his due diligence: selecting the right technology (maybe more than one initially); networking with other users in similar organizations; and, probably most important, collaborating with key employees; key operational supervisors, senior management, maintenance personnel, and cross-departmental staff.
In the former environment, there is little the technology manager can do other than to promote the need for updating by relating the advances the competition is making and demonstrating the advantages of updating. In the later environment, senior management, having made the decision to update, often gives the tech manager very little time to execute and "incremental" is seldom not part of the discussion. The tech manager can alleviate the time crunch issue over time by continual planning (strategic and tactical) and frequently collaborating, communicating and presenting. Salesmanship is definitely a plus. In any case, you can be sure that there will be end user resistance and that some degree of change management will be required to implement the update(s).
As we all know, changes in technology tend to reverberate throughout entire organizations. Most, if not all, departmental processes are affected. Many policies and procedures may need to be rewritten. Of course, training to some or more extent will be required. Technology changes are seldom silent and invisible. New or significantly updated technologies tend to create fear. Okay, maybe mostly just apprehension but some will literally be scared. Change is stressful especially when it has the potential of affecting livelihoods. Leadership early on must do it best belay the fears and apprehension. Will I lose my job? Will my position be downgraded with less pay? Will my hours be reduced? Will I be able to learn to use the technology? The IT manager gives guidance to leadership and encouragement to employees as possible during this phase.
The IT manager has his/her own apprehensions revolving around whether the new technology will work and whether she/he can pull off a smooth implementation. It is best to follow a change management process of your choosing, one that fits your leadership style and organizational culture. There are many available. I am a proponent of the eight-step change process developed by John P. Kotter, the Konosuke Matsushita Professor of Leadership, Emeritus at the Harvard Business School. Here is a general outline of the process. More and deeper information can be found at the Kotter International website.
- ESTABLISHING A SENSE OF URGENCY
- Top leaders must describe an opportunity that will appeal to individuals’ heads and hearts and use this statement to raise a large, urgent army of volunteers.
- CREATING THE GUIDING COALITION
- Putting together a group with enough power to lead the change. A volunteer army needs a coalition of effective people — coming from its own ranks — to guide it, coordinate it and communicate its activities.
- FORM A STRATEGIC VISION AND INITIATIVES
- Creating a vision to help direct the change effort and developing strategies for achieving that vision. Dr. Kotter defines strategic initiatives as targeted and coordinated "activities that, if designed and executed fast enough and well enough, will make your vision a reality."
- ENLIST A VOLUNTEER ARMY
- Using every vehicle possible to constantly communicate the new vision and strategies. Having the guiding coalition role model the behavior expected of employees. Large-scale change can only occur when very significant numbers
of employees amass under a common opportunity and drive in the same direction.
- Using every vehicle possible to constantly communicate the new vision and strategies. Having the guiding coalition role model the behavior expected of employees. Large-scale change can only occur when very significant numbers
- ENABLE ACTION BY REMOVING BARRIERS (empowering people to effect change) By removing barriers such as inefficient processes or hierarchies, leaders provide the freedom necessary for employees to work across boundaries.
- Getting rid of obstacles (training, training, training)
- Changing systems or structures that undermine the change vision
- Encouraging risk taking and non-traditional ideas, activities & actions
- Engage employees as partners
- Provide people with the opportunity to plan for and take action
- GENERATING SHORT-TERM WINS - Wins are the molecules of results. They must be collected, categorized,
and communicated — early and often — to track progress and energize your volunteers to drive change.- Planning for visible improvements in performance, or “wins”
- Creating those wins
- Visibly recognizing and rewarding people who made wins possible
- SUSTAIN ACCELERATION
- Change leaders must adapt quickly in order to maintain their speed. Whether it's a new way of finding talent or removing misaligned processes, they must determine what can be done — every day — to stay the course towards the vision.
- Using increased credibility to change systems, structures, and policies that don’t fit together and don’t fit the vision
- Hiring, promoting and developing people who can implement the change vision
- Develop people and projects to carry on the change vision throughout the organization
- INSTITUTE CHANGE
- To ensure new behaviors are repeated over the long-term, it's important that you define and communicate the connections between these behaviors and the organization's success.
- Creating better performance through customer- and productivity-oriented behavior, more and better leadership, & more effective leadership.
- Articulating the connections between new behaviors and organizational success.
- Developing means to ensure leadership development and succession.
Of course, before initiating these steps the tech manager has to have performed her/his due diligence: selecting the right technology (maybe more than one initially); networking with other users in similar organizations; and, her/his due diligence: selecting the right technology (maybe more than one initially); networking with other users in similar organizations; and, probably most important, collaborating with key employees; key operational supervisors, senior management, maintenance personnel, and cross-departmental staff.
Saturday, June 27, 2015
The Advance of Technology
After reading the paragraph below, read the entire article, then, assuming Ray to be correct, try to envision and describe education in 2030.
"The Law of Accelerating Returns
"March 7, 2001 by Ray Kurzweil
"An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential to the common-sense 'intuitive linear' view. So we won't experience 100 years of progress in the 21sst century--it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today's rate). The 'returns,' such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There's even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity--technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light."
From <http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns>
Sunday, June 14, 2015
School Reformers vs Anti-reformers
I want to be careful to not appear to support the education reform movement. I truly do not yet have an educated opinion on either the positive or negative effects reform initiatives are having. I have a "feeling" derived partly from logic, experience and reading summaries from recent studies that most of the initiatives are the result of a panicked "we must do something quickly" mentality resulting in throwing a bunch of ideas against the wall hoping that some will stick. Most of the studies are inconclusive--comparison and correlations but little causation. From recent research, I don't think any of them is sticking and I don't think allocating more money or time will produce positive casual student achievement results. Which is basically the same criticism anti-reformers have with possibly a "more harm than good" emphasis. But that's not enough. If anti-reformers agree that we need to improve K-12, exactly what is their plan? As a group, who are the ant-reformers and who are their designated spokespersons? And were "they" to put forward proposals, would they not be considered "reforms"? Or do the anti-reformers believe that the pre-reform movement system was producing desired results and no changes were necessary?
Sunday, June 7, 2015
The Changed Roles of the School/District Tech Director/Manager
Ten years ago, the guy in charge of IT had a relatively non-collaborative and straightforward job. Broadly we were responsible for the traditional management functions of planning, organizing, leading and controlling. Specifically we oversaw the procurement, installation and repair of hardware and software, the network and servers. We seldom interfaced with faculty and staff other than to take direction, respond to service requests or request funding. Given the hundreds of tasks involved in successfully performing those functions, we were busy and, if we were lucky enough to have them, our staffs were busy.
The truth has changed. What we do less of and what we do more of, more or less cancels each other out. We still are very, very busy. In most institutions, we are well beyond integrating technology into our classrooms (provisioning with operable computers and interactive whiteboards). A major change, the main goal of the modern IT director/manager, is to facilitate (read "manage") the successful integration of technology into the curriculum, instructional units, lesson plans and learning activities. The ideal approach is through coaching/mentoring, professional development and learning communities. A great discussion about these approaches is at the Center for Public Education website. I couldn't say it better but I will emphasize that we're not talking about traditional workshop-based professional development, which as been shown by numerous studies to be ineffective. Please read the article.
Other affective truths are the changes (I hesitate to use "advancements"--I'll wait for validated results) in educational technology, the students, and pedagogies including: the shift toward mobile technologies; cloud computing (SaaS -software as a service; PaaS-platform as a service; and IaaS-infrastructure as a service); all students are now "digital natives", many being technologically sophisticated; open source software; the need to ensure that students remain familiar with technologies that they might be using after school; learning management systems (LMS) (e.g. Moodle); online courses (MOOC); staying ahead of the available apps and software to support each content area; one-on-one computing in the classroom; bring your own device (BYOD); the flipped classroom; blended learning; learning partnerships; game enhanced learning; project-based learning; peer teaching; brain-based learning; differentiated instruction; just-in-time teaching; deep learning (whatever that is); etc.
Educational technology changes are accompanied by fear and operational and resource problems: privacy, security, safety, available band width, available funding, qualified technicians, committed administrators and board members, and push back to name a few. The technology manager/director must become an expert in change management and an integral part of the change planning and execution team. As technology becomes more infused into administrative and management functions, the curriculum, instructional units, lesson plans and learning activities, the more involved the educational technologist should be.
The truth has changed. What we do less of and what we do more of, more or less cancels each other out. We still are very, very busy. In most institutions, we are well beyond integrating technology into our classrooms (provisioning with operable computers and interactive whiteboards). A major change, the main goal of the modern IT director/manager, is to facilitate (read "manage") the successful integration of technology into the curriculum, instructional units, lesson plans and learning activities. The ideal approach is through coaching/mentoring, professional development and learning communities. A great discussion about these approaches is at the Center for Public Education website. I couldn't say it better but I will emphasize that we're not talking about traditional workshop-based professional development, which as been shown by numerous studies to be ineffective. Please read the article.
Other affective truths are the changes (I hesitate to use "advancements"--I'll wait for validated results) in educational technology, the students, and pedagogies including: the shift toward mobile technologies; cloud computing (SaaS -software as a service; PaaS-platform as a service; and IaaS-infrastructure as a service); all students are now "digital natives", many being technologically sophisticated; open source software; the need to ensure that students remain familiar with technologies that they might be using after school; learning management systems (LMS) (e.g. Moodle); online courses (MOOC); staying ahead of the available apps and software to support each content area; one-on-one computing in the classroom; bring your own device (BYOD); the flipped classroom; blended learning; learning partnerships; game enhanced learning; project-based learning; peer teaching; brain-based learning; differentiated instruction; just-in-time teaching; deep learning (whatever that is); etc.
Educational technology changes are accompanied by fear and operational and resource problems: privacy, security, safety, available band width, available funding, qualified technicians, committed administrators and board members, and push back to name a few. The technology manager/director must become an expert in change management and an integral part of the change planning and execution team. As technology becomes more infused into administrative and management functions, the curriculum, instructional units, lesson plans and learning activities, the more involved the educational technologist should be.
Saturday, April 25, 2015
The Various Aspects of Educational Technology Support & Integration
There was a time when performing as a Director of Information Technology I realized that educational technology support demands could and should be categorized so as to better prioritize, organize and focus technology staff and efforts. I came up with four distinct categories and a subcategory: 1-the interactive education learning process; 2-the unilateral learning process; 3-technology as a separate content area; and 4-school administration and management. Faculty/staff technology profession development is a subcategory integral of the four categories. These can be readily integrated into the ITIL framework. Note that the focus, while on the institution, does not address the constant back room support required to keep the systems running smoothly.
Faculty/staff technology professional development. I believe that if anything has held back classroom/curriculum technology integration, student self-directed learning and efficient use of school administration and learning management software, it is the insufficiency of technology professional development. I would encourage establishment of a technology professional development program that took into account the personal situations, learning styles and instructional needs of each teacher/staff member and one that included a teacher/staff/administrator individual learning plan agreement consistent with the school’s mission, goals, objectives and budgetary constraints while maximizing use of internal expertise (technologists and teacher/staff-technology leaders from within teacher learning communities and staff offices). Though research has shown that traditional, workshop-based professional development is ineffective, I would not hesitate to lobby the administration, board and community for additional funding to take advantage of select commercial programs that have a proven track record. A bit of aside gripe coming. Remember when Microsoft Office switched from the traditional menu interface to the "ribbon"? Or when your administrators pushed to change out the teachers' desktops for laptops? Or when the Board decided to implement a one-to-one computing program in the next school year? Yep, the techies were expected to develop change management skills overnight, design appropriate instructional sessions and execute.
Given finite technology resources, the interactive learning process should be the highest priority. Basically, it's all about integrating (infusing, if you must) technology into the teaching-learning dynamic within the classroom. Enough has been written and said by others and me in previous blogs. For now, let's just say that success in this category lies at the confluence of curricular content, constructivist pedagogies, and technology—that the interoperability of these three elements will foster engaged learning and encourage students to accept accountability and responsibility for their own education. Technology support in this category is on ensuring that classroom hardware is available when needed and operates reliably, that required software and apps are installed and functioning properly and that each classroom has reliable access to the network and the Internet. Each classroom should have a primary and alternate method of rapidly reporting issues to the technology department.
More and more emphasis is being placed on the unilateral learning process. This learning process can be defined as one wherein students without the supervision or oversite of, or immediate interaction with, a teacher, school staff member or another student use a digital device while performing learning tasks. Homework is the most common, traditional example. The flipped classroom, one-to-one computing programs and BYOD efforts are placing more emphasis on student self-learning. Whether or not these initiatives are enhancing or will enhance student learning, the tech department is obligated to ensure that the system fully supports the process 24/7. Coming into play here are various compartmentalized servers, interoperative operating system platforms, security and backups, remote access, acceptable use agreements and policies, safety, policies and procedures and I'm sure many more that do not come to mind readily. If students are expected to perform online research, analysis, synthesis, etc. from their own or family computers and the computer or their Internet is not functioning, what then? What if they don't even have access to a computer outside of school? How does the institution accommodate them? If the school provides them, how does a tech department maintain as many as 2,000 tablets? The questions of expense and support are many and complex. If such programs are effective, I believe that the educational gap between the haves and have-nots will continue to grow.
The third category and priority, technology as a separate subject area, seems to have declined in popularity in K-12 schools. The decline in great part is due to perceived student familiarity with common use hardware and software from early ages. At the same time, STEM is being pushed at all levels. And surprisingly, the following is from the Business Insider, September 11, 2014: "This semester, a record-breaking 818 Harvard students — nearly 12% of the entire college — enrolled in one popular class, reports The Crimson. The course, Computer Science 50: "Introduction to Computer Science I" (CS50), pulled in 100 more students than the 700 that signed up last fall, making it the single largest class in the course's 30-year history, as well as the biggest class at Harvard College this semester." Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/most-popular-course-at-harvard-2014-9#ixzz3YMjsSDCt The course has little to do about hardware, instead focusing on such topics as algorithms, software engineering, and web development. A reasonable prediction is that the success at the higher education level will shortly begin filtering down to at least the high school level. Support for technology courses is very similar to that for the interactive learning process, with the important exception of the addition of a highly technologically proficient teachers. Teacher content expertise and hands-on, project-based learning rules!
Lastly, on the priority scale is school administration and management support. Why last? Simply, it is not as close to the learning process nor nearly as time-sensitive. However, support is more complex involving uncommon software applications such as Blackbaud's suite of applications, one or more of the hundreds of school management, bookkeeping/accounting, curriculum management and mapping, lesson planning, grade book, report card and assessment software packages. Keeping these applications repaired and up-to-date along with the incumbent database and database server administration and management (both back room and user) takes a huge slice of time, efforts, and budget from the tech department's resources. Not to mention the training required that needs to be scheduled and performed. Sure to take a big chunk out of the tech budget.
Faculty/staff technology professional development. I believe that if anything has held back classroom/curriculum technology integration, student self-directed learning and efficient use of school administration and learning management software, it is the insufficiency of technology professional development. I would encourage establishment of a technology professional development program that took into account the personal situations, learning styles and instructional needs of each teacher/staff member and one that included a teacher/staff/administrator individual learning plan agreement consistent with the school’s mission, goals, objectives and budgetary constraints while maximizing use of internal expertise (technologists and teacher/staff-technology leaders from within teacher learning communities and staff offices). Though research has shown that traditional, workshop-based professional development is ineffective, I would not hesitate to lobby the administration, board and community for additional funding to take advantage of select commercial programs that have a proven track record. A bit of aside gripe coming. Remember when Microsoft Office switched from the traditional menu interface to the "ribbon"? Or when your administrators pushed to change out the teachers' desktops for laptops? Or when the Board decided to implement a one-to-one computing program in the next school year? Yep, the techies were expected to develop change management skills overnight, design appropriate instructional sessions and execute.
Given finite technology resources, the interactive learning process should be the highest priority. Basically, it's all about integrating (infusing, if you must) technology into the teaching-learning dynamic within the classroom. Enough has been written and said by others and me in previous blogs. For now, let's just say that success in this category lies at the confluence of curricular content, constructivist pedagogies, and technology—that the interoperability of these three elements will foster engaged learning and encourage students to accept accountability and responsibility for their own education. Technology support in this category is on ensuring that classroom hardware is available when needed and operates reliably, that required software and apps are installed and functioning properly and that each classroom has reliable access to the network and the Internet. Each classroom should have a primary and alternate method of rapidly reporting issues to the technology department.
More and more emphasis is being placed on the unilateral learning process. This learning process can be defined as one wherein students without the supervision or oversite of, or immediate interaction with, a teacher, school staff member or another student use a digital device while performing learning tasks. Homework is the most common, traditional example. The flipped classroom, one-to-one computing programs and BYOD efforts are placing more emphasis on student self-learning. Whether or not these initiatives are enhancing or will enhance student learning, the tech department is obligated to ensure that the system fully supports the process 24/7. Coming into play here are various compartmentalized servers, interoperative operating system platforms, security and backups, remote access, acceptable use agreements and policies, safety, policies and procedures and I'm sure many more that do not come to mind readily. If students are expected to perform online research, analysis, synthesis, etc. from their own or family computers and the computer or their Internet is not functioning, what then? What if they don't even have access to a computer outside of school? How does the institution accommodate them? If the school provides them, how does a tech department maintain as many as 2,000 tablets? The questions of expense and support are many and complex. If such programs are effective, I believe that the educational gap between the haves and have-nots will continue to grow.
The third category and priority, technology as a separate subject area, seems to have declined in popularity in K-12 schools. The decline in great part is due to perceived student familiarity with common use hardware and software from early ages. At the same time, STEM is being pushed at all levels. And surprisingly, the following is from the Business Insider, September 11, 2014: "This semester, a record-breaking 818 Harvard students — nearly 12% of the entire college — enrolled in one popular class, reports The Crimson. The course, Computer Science 50: "Introduction to Computer Science I" (CS50), pulled in 100 more students than the 700 that signed up last fall, making it the single largest class in the course's 30-year history, as well as the biggest class at Harvard College this semester." Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/most-popular-course-at-harvard-2014-9#ixzz3YMjsSDCt The course has little to do about hardware, instead focusing on such topics as algorithms, software engineering, and web development. A reasonable prediction is that the success at the higher education level will shortly begin filtering down to at least the high school level. Support for technology courses is very similar to that for the interactive learning process, with the important exception of the addition of a highly technologically proficient teachers. Teacher content expertise and hands-on, project-based learning rules!
Lastly, on the priority scale is school administration and management support. Why last? Simply, it is not as close to the learning process nor nearly as time-sensitive. However, support is more complex involving uncommon software applications such as Blackbaud's suite of applications, one or more of the hundreds of school management, bookkeeping/accounting, curriculum management and mapping, lesson planning, grade book, report card and assessment software packages. Keeping these applications repaired and up-to-date along with the incumbent database and database server administration and management (both back room and user) takes a huge slice of time, efforts, and budget from the tech department's resources. Not to mention the training required that needs to be scheduled and performed. Sure to take a big chunk out of the tech budget.
Monday, April 13, 2015
What are the desirable personal and professional characteristics of a good manager/supervisor?
A good manager is a manager in the traditional sense: performs the planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling functions in an acceptable and safe manner. However, an “excellent” manager is a manager and an excellent leader. Successful leaders are creative visionaries who develop and pursue goals, objectives and values in a collaborative, communicative, transparent, motivational and cooperative manner while demonstrating that they sincerely care about and respect the stakeholders. An excellent leader realizes that mission accomplishment and valuing and taking care of people are not a zero sum game but are interdependent. Leaders can readily extrapolate operational objectives from strategic missions and goals and facilitate accomplishment. Being visionaries, leaders are not afraid to take calculated risks. A good manager is reactive; an excellent manager is proactive. Manager-leaders are experts in their field, lead by example, are team players as well as team leaders and are capable of applying differing leadership styles depending on the nature and urgency of the situation.
Monday, March 2, 2015
Tech Integration - A Step-By-Step Process
SAMR
A Google search yields more than a hundred graphical interpretations of SAMR, some as simple as Dr. Puentedura's original concept depicted above to those that appear overwhelmingly complicated. There are models combining SAMR with TPACK, TPAC with Bloom's Taxonomy and here's one combining SAMR with Bloom's Taxonomy and iPad apps.
Many of these expanded models lend guidance regarding why integration is essential and provide broad nebulous outcome expectations: critical thinking; communications; collaboration; 21st Century skills; problem solving; systems thinking; creativity; innovation; literacy in a multitude of subjects; analyzing, etc. Is it possible that integrating technology is so complex as to defy a logical procedure? Maybe, but I'd like to give it a shot.
The process described below assumes adequate to superior teacher pedagogical, content, technological, student and curricular knowledge; that the teacher is ready to cross from Enhancement to Transformation; the availability of sufficient hardware, software and technical support staff to support a robust integration program; and that the teacher possesses the abilities to convert knowledge into practice and a desire that students achieve to an identified standard. Could it be that achieving a state as describe by the assumptions is complex and not the process?
A Google search yields more than a hundred graphical interpretations of SAMR, some as simple as Dr. Puentedura's original concept depicted above to those that appear overwhelmingly complicated. There are models combining SAMR with TPACK, TPAC with Bloom's Taxonomy and here's one combining SAMR with Bloom's Taxonomy and iPad apps.
Many of these expanded models lend guidance regarding why integration is essential and provide broad nebulous outcome expectations: critical thinking; communications; collaboration; 21st Century skills; problem solving; systems thinking; creativity; innovation; literacy in a multitude of subjects; analyzing, etc. Is it possible that integrating technology is so complex as to defy a logical procedure? Maybe, but I'd like to give it a shot.
The process described below assumes adequate to superior teacher pedagogical, content, technological, student and curricular knowledge; that the teacher is ready to cross from Enhancement to Transformation; the availability of sufficient hardware, software and technical support staff to support a robust integration program; and that the teacher possesses the abilities to convert knowledge into practice and a desire that students achieve to an identified standard. Could it be that achieving a state as describe by the assumptions is complex and not the process?
- Is there a need, a shortcoming that needs to be addressed? Examples might include students aren't getting it, students are bored, discussions wane quickly or are captured by a select few or changes in policies or curriculum.
- Review learning goals and activities in consideration of the available technologies (if class is in session, this is a good student collaborative exercise) relating the advantages and disadvantages of each technology to each of the learning goals and activities. Scaling works well for this analysis. Identify any cross-curricular opportunities. The results of this analysis will facilitate the designing or redesigning of course and lesson instructional strategies.
- Prepare the classroom: hardware, software, classroom furniture and arrangement.
- Execute and continually evaluate and revise. Adjustments may be needed in any one or more of the ingredients: pedagogy, learning goals or technology. Beware the Hawthorne effect. Oft times initially the subjects perceive increased attention being paid to them thus producing a significant (maybe unrealistic) enhancement to transformation of performance. Persistent and consistent use will yield real long-term student and teacher change.
Saturday, February 28, 2015
Do We Need to Revisit Why Once in a While
The following is the introductory paragraph to Steve Wheeler's 2/28/15 blog (http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.com/2015/02/talking-tech.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FcYWZ+%28Learning+with+%27e%27s%29)"
"Do teachers have a choice about whether to engage with technology? Technology is already so embedded in the fabric of schools, it's probably unavoidable now. Whether it's teacher technology, including wordprocessors, electronic record keeping or databases, or student technology, such as laptops, educational software or personal devices, technology should now be viewed as a set of tools that can be harnessed to extend, enhance and enrich the learning experience. Add the exponential power of the Web into the mix, and the argument becomes compelling. Technology offers us unprecedented opportunities to transform education. The question is not whether teachers should engage with technology, but how."
I believe we may be so far into technology integration (infusion?) that most in education no longer question "whether" or why. As with any program, plan or procedure, technology integration needs a periodic is this worth the time, expense and effort? review. Dr. Puentedura's SAMR model, for example, seems to assume that before student learning is significantly positively impacted the teacher must redesign, or better, create new learning tasks using technology. Is the corollary to that assumption that deep student learning cannot be achieved without technology? Do all courses and classes need to be transformed through technology integration? Would it be possible for students to become successful in the 21st Century and develop a life-long love of learning if, say, only 60% of the their classes were infused with technology and 40% were taught by experienced, determined and engaging teachers who loved their students and subject areas? What about a 20:80 or an 80:20 split? Would any of those be more or less successful than 100% and how would we know?
I would venture to say that the majority of K-12 professional development programs focus on technology integration rather than pedagogy in general and that most are of the workshop model, a method shown repeatedly to produce poor results. As with the multitude of teaching strategies, methods, and skills technology is just one tool. PD programs need to be planned and orchestrated through learning communities, teacher facilitated, focused on method implementation and targeted toward individual teacher needs. This means one-to-one or very small group sessions and whole lot of classroom coaching and mentoring.
"Do teachers have a choice about whether to engage with technology? Technology is already so embedded in the fabric of schools, it's probably unavoidable now. Whether it's teacher technology, including wordprocessors, electronic record keeping or databases, or student technology, such as laptops, educational software or personal devices, technology should now be viewed as a set of tools that can be harnessed to extend, enhance and enrich the learning experience. Add the exponential power of the Web into the mix, and the argument becomes compelling. Technology offers us unprecedented opportunities to transform education. The question is not whether teachers should engage with technology, but how."
I believe we may be so far into technology integration (infusion?) that most in education no longer question "whether" or why. As with any program, plan or procedure, technology integration needs a periodic is this worth the time, expense and effort? review. Dr. Puentedura's SAMR model, for example, seems to assume that before student learning is significantly positively impacted the teacher must redesign, or better, create new learning tasks using technology. Is the corollary to that assumption that deep student learning cannot be achieved without technology? Do all courses and classes need to be transformed through technology integration? Would it be possible for students to become successful in the 21st Century and develop a life-long love of learning if, say, only 60% of the their classes were infused with technology and 40% were taught by experienced, determined and engaging teachers who loved their students and subject areas? What about a 20:80 or an 80:20 split? Would any of those be more or less successful than 100% and how would we know?
I would venture to say that the majority of K-12 professional development programs focus on technology integration rather than pedagogy in general and that most are of the workshop model, a method shown repeatedly to produce poor results. As with the multitude of teaching strategies, methods, and skills technology is just one tool. PD programs need to be planned and orchestrated through learning communities, teacher facilitated, focused on method implementation and targeted toward individual teacher needs. This means one-to-one or very small group sessions and whole lot of classroom coaching and mentoring.
Monday, January 26, 2015
Organizational Development (OD) – a Systems View
The traditional view or organizational development is a linear approach: (1) symptom analysis (identification of one or more dysfunctions that inhibit effectiveness); (2) diagnose the dysfunction(s) (determine the cause(s) of the dysfunction(s)); (3) intervene to correct the dysfunction(s); and (4) check to see that the dysfunction(s) are gone and effectiveness enhanced. This is, of course, a simplistic condensation of a rather complex process derived from the traditional standard definition of OD developed by Richard Beckhard in his 1969 book, Organizational Development Strategies and Models, wherein he states, “Organization Development is an effort (1) planned, (2) organization-wide, and (3) managed from the top, to (4) increase organization effectiveness and health through (5) planned interventions in the organization's "processes," using behavioral-science knowledge”. In other words the objective was to find and fix non-productive issues.
In the years preceding 1969 and probably well into the 1970s, most organizations were relatively static. Systems were fairly well-defined—hierarchical structures established, roles enumerated, employment/union contracts agreed upon; processes and procedures published, controls in place—it was a tidy world. The OD practitioner/stakeholder team’s objective was to find the dysfunctions negatively affecting effectiveness and eliminate them through implementation of change with minimum operational disruption, management discomfort and employee dissatisfaction.
Despite recognition that modern dynamic organizations are of ambiguous structure; competing in a volatile world-wide market subject to various and numerous often conflicting and changing laws and regulations; made up of self-defining, self-regulating and diverse employee teams whose members may be physically separated; chasing ever-changing technologies; training and retraining employees at an exponential rate caused by dysfunction turnovers; dealing with greater community consciousness; and dealing less with unionization and rigidly defined job descriptions, OD practitioners have yet to settle on a new coherent definition of OD. Rapid and frequent change in modern organizations is their defining nature. However, the nature of change itself has not changed. Change continues to be rife with stress and anxieties and in this environment the linear approach to OD will only result in greater frustration. As the initial dysfunctions are in the process of being corrected a plethora of old symptoms will come to light and new ones identified. Obviously, dissecting and fixing piecemeal “ain’t gonna git it.” It is generally agreed within the field that a system-wide or holistic approach need be taken and a few new definitions have been offered:
“Organization Development is the attempt to influence the members of an organization to expand their candidness with each other about their views of the organization and their experience in it, and to take greater responsibility for their own actions as organization members. The assumption behind OD is that when people pursue both of these objectives simultaneously, they are likely to discover new ways of working together that they experience as more effective for achieving their own and their shared (organizational) goals. And that when this does not happen, such activity helps them to understand why and to make meaningful choices about what to do in light of this understanding.”
-- Neilsen, “Becoming an OD Practitioner”, Englewood Cliffs, CA: Prentice-Hall, 1984, pp. 2-3.
"Organization development is a system-wide application of behavioral science knowledge to the planned development and reinforcement of organizational strategies, structures, and processes for improving an organization's effectiveness."
-- Cummings and Worley, "Organization Development and Change", Sixth Edition, South-Western Publishing, 1997, p.2.
"Organization Development is a body of knowledge and practice that enhances organizational performance and individual development, viewing the organization as a complex system of systems that exist within a larger system, each of which has its own attributes and degrees of alignment. OD interventions in these systems are inclusive methodologies and approaches to strategic planning, organization design, leadership development, change management, performance management, coaching, diversity, and work/life balance."
-- Matt Minahan, MM & Associates, Silver Spring, Maryland
Explicit in all three definitions are that the goal is enhanced performance/effectiveness and that organizations must be viewed in the whole as organic systems. Implicit in the definitions is the absolute need for authentic and candid collaboration by all team members throughout the entire process. It seems that most practitioners agree, probably more by default than by studied experimentation, research and deliberation that the same in-practice processes apply to a systems approach as they did under older OD theories.
The primary difference is the recognition that any change to any one part of a system affects the other parts: people; culture; cliques; emotions; performance; structures (formal and informal); norms; values; attitudes; lines of communication; goals; objectives; standards; processes; products; structure; training; roles; other teams; etc. Such recognition will perforce engender system wide effectiveness and performance evaluations which will likely identify additional dysfunctions, dysfunctions even brought about by previous or ongoing changes.
In the years preceding 1969 and probably well into the 1970s, most organizations were relatively static. Systems were fairly well-defined—hierarchical structures established, roles enumerated, employment/union contracts agreed upon; processes and procedures published, controls in place—it was a tidy world. The OD practitioner/stakeholder team’s objective was to find the dysfunctions negatively affecting effectiveness and eliminate them through implementation of change with minimum operational disruption, management discomfort and employee dissatisfaction.
Despite recognition that modern dynamic organizations are of ambiguous structure; competing in a volatile world-wide market subject to various and numerous often conflicting and changing laws and regulations; made up of self-defining, self-regulating and diverse employee teams whose members may be physically separated; chasing ever-changing technologies; training and retraining employees at an exponential rate caused by dysfunction turnovers; dealing with greater community consciousness; and dealing less with unionization and rigidly defined job descriptions, OD practitioners have yet to settle on a new coherent definition of OD. Rapid and frequent change in modern organizations is their defining nature. However, the nature of change itself has not changed. Change continues to be rife with stress and anxieties and in this environment the linear approach to OD will only result in greater frustration. As the initial dysfunctions are in the process of being corrected a plethora of old symptoms will come to light and new ones identified. Obviously, dissecting and fixing piecemeal “ain’t gonna git it.” It is generally agreed within the field that a system-wide or holistic approach need be taken and a few new definitions have been offered:
“Organization Development is the attempt to influence the members of an organization to expand their candidness with each other about their views of the organization and their experience in it, and to take greater responsibility for their own actions as organization members. The assumption behind OD is that when people pursue both of these objectives simultaneously, they are likely to discover new ways of working together that they experience as more effective for achieving their own and their shared (organizational) goals. And that when this does not happen, such activity helps them to understand why and to make meaningful choices about what to do in light of this understanding.”
-- Neilsen, “Becoming an OD Practitioner”, Englewood Cliffs, CA: Prentice-Hall, 1984, pp. 2-3.
"Organization development is a system-wide application of behavioral science knowledge to the planned development and reinforcement of organizational strategies, structures, and processes for improving an organization's effectiveness."
-- Cummings and Worley, "Organization Development and Change", Sixth Edition, South-Western Publishing, 1997, p.2.
"Organization Development is a body of knowledge and practice that enhances organizational performance and individual development, viewing the organization as a complex system of systems that exist within a larger system, each of which has its own attributes and degrees of alignment. OD interventions in these systems are inclusive methodologies and approaches to strategic planning, organization design, leadership development, change management, performance management, coaching, diversity, and work/life balance."
-- Matt Minahan, MM & Associates, Silver Spring, Maryland
Explicit in all three definitions are that the goal is enhanced performance/effectiveness and that organizations must be viewed in the whole as organic systems. Implicit in the definitions is the absolute need for authentic and candid collaboration by all team members throughout the entire process. It seems that most practitioners agree, probably more by default than by studied experimentation, research and deliberation that the same in-practice processes apply to a systems approach as they did under older OD theories.
- Contract with and gain commitment from key personnel
- Establish the change team
- Analyze systems to identify dysfunctions and/or unmet goals/objects of the systems
- Determine likely causes of systems dysfunctions
- Identify all the parts of the system that are negatively and positively affected by the dysfunctions
- Organize additional change teams as needed; establish inter-team collaboration
- Identify methodologies (as much as I detest the term, “interventions” if you will) designed to improve effectiveness of the organization and performance of its employees
- Apply consensually selected multi-team methodologies to improve effectiveness while building internal ability to create sustainable change
- Evaluate the effectiveness of the changes on the entire system, reinforce, recycle as needed
The primary difference is the recognition that any change to any one part of a system affects the other parts: people; culture; cliques; emotions; performance; structures (formal and informal); norms; values; attitudes; lines of communication; goals; objectives; standards; processes; products; structure; training; roles; other teams; etc. Such recognition will perforce engender system wide effectiveness and performance evaluations which will likely identify additional dysfunctions, dysfunctions even brought about by previous or ongoing changes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)