Telecommunications%20in%20Education:%20Examining%20Distributed%20Teaching%20and%20Learning%20Environments%20(EDER%20677%20L.91)%20%20%20%20Online%20Team%20Building:%20Leadership%20Issues%20%20for%20the%20Asynchronous%20Class%20and%20for%20the%20Web%20Site%20on%20October%2024%20from%20Calgary

1
Telecommunications in Education Examining
Distributed Teaching and Learning Environments
(EDER 677 L.91)Online Team
BuildingLeadership Issuesfor the
Asynchronous Class andfor the Web Siteon
October 24from Calgary
2
Housekeeping
Housekeeping
Housekeeping
Housekeeping

• Some pointers for
• Your DL Portfolio (Web Site)
• Online Discussion Thread Summaries
• Online Conference Summaries
• The (Online) Teaching Project

3
Your Personal Distributed Learning (DL) Portfolio
Housekeeping.
4
Housekeeping

• Some Personal DL Portfolio Evaluation Criteria -
  (from the course outline and our discussions)
• 1. Contains information about you and your
  distributed learning interests (can have links to
  your other classes too).
• 3. Has a designer determined background and
  graphic look (per our screen design fundamentals
  class material).
• 4. Demonstrates a good, logical layout and
  navigation structure which complements and/or
  enhances your web site. Has a look and feel
  that you like.
• 5. Contains one or more images.
• 6. Contains your Discussion Thread Summary and a
  narrative about that leadership event from a DL /
  677 perspective.
• 7. Contains your Centra Session Outline (or
  session) and a narrative about that leadership
  event from a DL / 677 perspective.
• 8. Contains your 677 paper as a publishable
  document
• 9. Contains an overall narrative stating your
  perspective on DL and telecom
• (this is likely the first part of the Portfolio).

5
What your personal DL portfolio might look like..
(these are just ideas folks, not prescriptions
.. This is your story -))
Housekeeping

1. An introduction space that is your narrative on
   Distributed Learning and Telecommunication in
   Education. (You could use the session themes as
   titles and present your perspective on each
   theme.).
2. A Resource Centre (web page -) organized by
   categories representing what you feel are
   important categories or ideas about DL and online
   learning. Consider this a library for others that
   represents the best of what you would like others
   to know on the topics of interest to you, from
   the course.
3. A Project Centre where you have (1) a narrative
   or analysis of the important (pros and cons) of
   leading (a) an online discussion thread and (b)
   an online audio graphic conference and (2)
   artifacts from those online creations.
4. A Research Centre where you publish your paper.
   Live links in the paper add a useful online
   feature, pictures can be put in, etc.. Have fun
   with it.
5. A Teaching Centre where your online project
   exists, perhaps with a preamble or lesson plan
   to help pedagogues understand your intent.
6. A look and feel that represents you. If you are
   experienced with the web publishing technologies
   - spread your wings and do your art. If you are
   new to web publishing, remember that online text,
   organized well among logical web site
   architecture is just as meaningful to the
   surfer.
7. You taught us, in one discussion thread, that
   Simplicity is King online. This is not a
   course in design or instructional design, so this
   online DL scrapbookl can be very simple and it
   can achieve the criteria designed to guide you to
   a representation of your ideas on DL. Have some
   fun with it!

6
Housekeeping

• Online Discussion Forum Summary Guide (from the
  home page)
• Criteria
• 1. The highlights and key points of the weekly
  online discussion
• 2. Integrative ideas about the related class
  session discussion  
• 3. Critical comments linked to on the readings
  assigned for the week  
• 4. Links to further readings on the web

(the beach pictures are because it was -14C
in Calgary last night.. And we are trying to
ignore winter Knocking, knocking..!)
7
Housekeeping

• Major Project (Your Online Teaching Resource)
• In an introduction space, define the project
  (using project proposal as a guide can help you
  organize the introduction - giving the
  browser/learner and advance organizer). Recall
  the format where you state
• the intended audience
• the learning goals
• project specifications
• related research and resources
• Quite simply, the project is one lesson with one
  learning objective. Again, simplicity is king.
  For example (Because you cant get evaluative
  feedback to the learner, you can leave
  instructions in the introduction about how this
  will be done for the learner).
• This is really an exercise in developing a simple
  web based learning project because we cant
  integrate multiple CMC modes and media in the
  scope of just one online class with current
  technology (imagine.. In 10 years!). For now,
  Imagine that you can define a target learner
  (age, ability), and then offer them a lesson --
  using a web site -- where the learner
  accomplishes a clear learning outcome. (take this
  opportunity to demonstrate your knowledge of the
  CMC topics that are applicable for your learning
  event.)

8
Objectives for this Class
Models

• Explore models of team (group) and community
  development in an online course environment.
• Compare and Contrast strategies for building
  community online.
• Investigate the ideas of community surrounding
  online course design, delivery with a smidgen of
  thought here about leadership in the whole
  Distributed Learning process.
• The idea of leadership, including human resource
  development, etc.. within the DL or larger
  Edtech field context is an emerging idea today
  if you are interested in this topic for your
  Masters Thesis, I can help.

9
4 Models from the Educational Technology Field
Literature about Online Group Development
Models

1. Tuckman Jensen (1977) Linear model
2. McClure (1998) Seven Stage model
3. McGrath Hollingshead (1994) Impact of
   Technology on Group Development
4. Schopler, Abell, Galinsky (1998) System
   Levels

10
1. A Linear Model for Online Group Development
Models

• The Five distinct Stages of Online Group
  Development
• 1. Forming - students discuss framework for the
  class with the instructor
• 2. Storming - conflict arising from uncertainty,
  different knowings
• 3. Norming - group construction of modes of
  conduct, ideologies, knowings
• 4. Performing - feeling comfortable with one
  another, working together, trusting
• 5. Adjourning - formal good-byes and the
  necessity of that in human interaction
• (Tuckman Jensen (1977) see Paloff, p. 126.)

11
2. Seven Stage (Harmony) Model for Online Group
Development
Models
A Possible Descent into conflict

• 1. Pre-forming - introductions, email
• 2. Unity - leading/following online events
• 3. Disunity - risk taking shows student
  comfort
• 4. Conflict-confrontation - instructor
  interventions required to mediate ideas
• 5. Disharmony - a student is uncomfortable
  in the group
• 6. Harmony - re-engagement with support
• 7. Performing - group or individual work in
  consultation with others in the class
• (After McClure, 1998)

Possible Ascent out of conflict
Question Are these stages of development that
can occur in a different order? (Answer Yes,
some groups never conflict and still Engage in
highly expressive discourse. McClure still
provides a conceptual frame that allows us to
contextualize conflict in an online process)
12
3. McGrath Model Factors and Functions
AffectingOnline Groups
Models

• A. The Three Main Factors leading to successful/
  unsuccessful online groups (gee, Im glad they
  have included people (says Gene -)..
• People
• Tasks
• Technology

• B. Three functions that characterize online
  groups
• Production the achievement of the ability to
  complete a tangible task
• Well-being the achievement sense of individual
  satisfaction
• (needs are being met within the group)
• 3. Member support a sense of safe space has
  been achieved
• (McGrath Hollingshead, 1994)

13
3. McGrath Model Factors and Functions
AffectingOnline Groups
Models

• C. 3 modes of operation used by groups to achieve
  the 3 functions
• Inception group members start to work together
  to understand a common task.
• Problem Solving the main reason why groups come
  together online - a search for understandings or
  learning solutions.
• Conflict Resolution the search for agreement in
  our understanding
• Execution The completion of a task.
• (McGrath Hollingshead, 1994)
• If this is sounding a little behaviorist well
  it is. The field needs to build upon these models.

14
4. The System Levels Model for Online Groups
Models

• There are three system levels - (observations of
  online groups made by noting the differences
  between online and face to face groups as a
  defining characteristic for online groups).
• Individual as online group members, our
  electronic personality has many parts, and
  members can use the relative anonymity of online
  work, with the absence of physical cues to
  manifest these personalities at will.
• Group we can pace responses and create time
  gaps that require groups to meet online in their
  own time and space.
• Environmental the technology that ensures
  clear, unfettered connection for the individuals
  and the group.
• (Schopler, Abell, Galinsky, 1998)
• See a Gestalt of these models in Paloff and
  Pratt, page 138.

15
Online Communities A Wider View of Groups and
Collaboration
Communities

16
Online Communities
Communities

• Foundational Issues (Kowch Schwier, 1998).
• Community should be aesthetically appealing
  (Sergiovanni, 1996)
• Moral connections should be considered (Sackney
  Walker, 1996)
• Constructivist principles are the pillars of this
  kind of community.
• Four types of Learning Communities
• Communities of relationship - where concerns and
  knowledge is shared (ie online womens support
  groups)
• Communities of Place - where members enjoy a
  common locale (ie fishers of the Atlantic Salmon
  online)
• Communities of Mind - Shared interests are the
  reason for this community (ie students or
  academics working on a paper)
• Communities of Memory - a collection of people
  who could otherwise be alone, where a memory is a
  focal point for interaction (ie Holocaust
  survivors online)

17
Communities
(Kowch Schwier, 1998)
18
Combining Educational Technology (DL) and
Organization theoryExploring a new kind of
Leadership for successful, DL-
EngagedOrganizations of the Future
Communities
19
Questions about Learning Communities Contexts
for DL
Sustainable DL Communities

• Ask yourself
• When you plan to provide or purchase Distributed
  Learning, do you consider the nature of the
  organisation that is providing the education? Is
  that a factor in your design?
• Do you consider or the nature of the
  organization in which the learner is situated as
  part of the design and distribution of the
  distance education event(s)?
• Recall our discussions so far on collaboration
  and codependency between people developing and
  delivering distance education in schools,
  companies or higher education institutions. We
  are codependent in DL.
• Distributed learning is a disruptive technology,
  it changes education institutions. As such, we
  need to understand how we change the institution
  too. That is the study of a learning community.

20
?
Sustainable DL Communities

• As instructional designers or distance learning
  architects, you will have a varying role in the
  reconfiguration of institutions that are
  preparing to excel in the knowledge era.
• By definition, that puts you in a leadership
  role, inevitably working with teams of
  professionals (Maxcy, 1995).
• Do you want your organization to have a high
  capacity for creating online learning
  communities? As a distributed learning graduate
  in todays economy, You need leadership skills to
  complement your educational technology and DL
  skills.

21
Creating Sustainable Learning Communities for
the Knowledge Era A Challenge for New Kinds of
Leaders
Sustainable DL Communities

• Premises
• There is a shift away from critical social models
  of education within education administration and
  education specialty areas (Bates, 1994).
• There is a shift from functionalist to post
  stucturalist models of education leadership at
  all levels of education today (Cibulka, 1999).
• There is a shift from behaviorist to
  constructivist or post constructivist models for
  instruction and design (Wilson, 1996).

(Kowch after Pace-Marshall, 1995 Drucker,
1997).
22
Assumptions about new knowledge environments for
the successful organisation of the future
Sustainable DL Communities

• Leadership in sustainable learning communities
  must
• Be personalized, flexible and coherent
• Be individually and externally networked
  (socially and in a telecom sense), not bounded by
  geography or temporal space.
• Accountable to the learner, to provide adaptive
  institutional learning environments.
• Provide open and generative learning
  environments.
• Provide education/training focused on inquiry.
• Learning environs must be playful, trusting and
  responsible.

(Pace-Marshall, 1997).
23
The Conditions for such Leadership
Sustainable DL Communities

• Identity Development in the Organization
• Information Architectural design in the
  Organization
• Relationship Building in the Organization

24
The Conditions The Leader as Identity Builder
Sustainable DL Communities

1. Bring the system together to think about itself
   and to make decisions about DL, as an
   organization.
2. Include the expertise and experience of everyone
   in the system in realizing the organizations
   fundamental beliefs and values.
3. Clearly and continuously identify patterns in the
   organizations emerging goals, and recognize how
   each individual is committed to that reality.
4. Make decisions at the local level, based upon a
   strong sense of mutually understood
   organizational identity (this is who we are and
   this is what we do).
5. Promote individual and organizational freedom and
   efficacy.

25
The Conditions The Leader as Information
Architect
Sustainable DL Communities

1. Allow information of all kinds to be a flow of
   energy, not an energy sink.
2. Create open and multiple pathways for
   connectiveness.
3. Bring the environments voice into the
   information system.
4. Continuously generate and share new knowledge.
5. Promote honest dialogue and feedback, (async and
   sync modes).
6. Encourage frequent and rapid experimentation.
7. Seek our complex, ambiguous and paradoxical
   information and make it public.

26
The Conditions The Leader as Relationship Builder
Sustainable DL Communities

• Create an maintain a network, not structure, of
  relations between codependent people who
• Create and maintain fluid webs of dialog and
  interaction.
• Establish open access to people in the network.
• Promote diversity of all kinds.
• Establish power sharing by mutually respected
  influence trust.
• Build a capacity for reflective inquiry so that
• Permeable, flexible organisation boundaries allow
  DL adjustment for continuous change (social,
  technological, pedagogical, demographic).
• Tolerate messiness and allow overlapping
  relations in the network.

27
Works Cited

• Cibulka, J. G. (1996). The reform and survival of
  American public schools an institutional
  perspective. In R. L. Crowson, W. L. Boyd and H.
  B. Mawhinney (Eds.), The politics of education
  and the new institutionalism (pp. 7-21). London,
  UK Falmer Press.
• Drucker, P. (1997). How generational shifts will
  transform organizational life. In F. Hesselbein
  (Ed.), Organizations of the Future (pp. 71-86).
  San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.
• Kowch, E and Schwier, R. (1998). Considerations
  in the construction of technology-based virtual
  learning communities. Canadian Journal of
  Educational Communication, 26(1), 1-12.
• McClure, B. Putting a New Spin on Groups.
  Hillsdale, N.J. Erlbaum, 1998.
• McGrath, J., and Hollingshead, A. Groups
  Interacting with Technology. Thousand Oaks,
  Calif. Sage, 1994.
• Sackney, L., Walker, K., Mitchell, C. (1996).
  Postmodernism and power in school organizations
  Heat, hassles, and hurdles Harvard Education
  Review.
• Schopler, J., Abell, M., and Galinsky, M.
  Technology-Based Groups A Review and
  Conceptual Framework for Practice. Social Work,
  May 1998, 4(3), 254-269.
• Sergiovanni, T. (1996). Leadership for the
  schoolhouse How is it different? San Francisco,
  CA Jossey-Bass.
• Tuckman, B., and Jensen, M. Stages of Small
  Group Development Revisited. Group and
  Organizational Studies, 1977, 2(4), 419-427.
• Wilson, B. (2001). Trends and futures of
  education Implications for distance education.
  Retrieved December, 2001, from Colorado State
  University, Instructional Technology Web site
  http//carbon.cudenver.edu/bwilson/TrendsAndFutur
  es.html

28
For next session

• Contribute to this weeks discussion forum.
• Check out the Web Site Home Page for further
  instructions (core readings).
• Work on your Online Project and
• Start conceptualizing the overall shape of your
  Personal DL portfolio web site.

Adieu from Calgary..