Thursday, March 30, 2017

EDDE 806: Epilogue (of reboots and alternative universes)




I guess this is my "806 is dead, long live 806!" post ;-) 

One of the final requirements for EDDE 806 is to:
Create a final blog post linking to the 6 earlier posts and providing a final reflection, feedback and any recommendations on the course as a whole.

For those who are keeping score at home, other course requirements included the following:
  • Present a 30-45 minute presentation on their proposal or dissertation work and progress and respond to comments and questions.
  • Post reactions and reflections on at least 6 of the presentations (over one or more semesters) using a response template created by the instructor, to their blog in the Athabasca Landing (tagged with EDD 806)
  • Attend and participate in discussion in at least 6 sessions over one or two semesters of the course
I am not really sure what a final reflection really looks like for 806, especially considering that I will most likely attend quite a few sessions next fall when the remainder of my cohort will be presenting their in-progress proposals.  So, I thought that doing a reflection on the EdD program up to now would be worthwhile, and proposing a new way of pacing the program, and in the process something about 806 might come of it.

It seems hard to believe that about three years ago (give or take a month) I had just been accepted to the EdD program at Athabasca University (the stomping grounds of Anderson, Dron, Siemens, Cleveland-Innes, and another researchers I had been reading the work of in the years preceding my application to this university), and I had submitted my program fee payment to matriculate.  Three years, and nine AU courses later I am plugging away at my dissertation proposal.  If you are wondering what those 9 courses are:
  • 6 compulsory courses (EDDE 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806)
  • 2 optional courses (MDDE 701, 702)
  • 1 course in which I was a teaching assistant/intern (MDDE 620), for the "Greek cohort" no less :-) 
As with any good program, program creators take into account feedback received from a variety of sources and the program improves (for example the 2 optional courses started becoming available as my cohort was rolling in).   This proposed timeline from matriculation to graduation is what I would have done the same, and differently, if I were to go back in time:

Spring 2014 (same as the original timeline)
  1. Accepted! Woohoo!
  2. Enrolled
  3. Got books mailed to me (nice job, AU!)
  4. May 2014 - "welcome to the program" online adobe connect session with the cohort and select faculty.  Placed in pre-selected groups to work on Assignment 1 (due when we meet in August in Edmonton)
Summer 2014 (same as the original timeline)
  1. June-July: meet with Marc, Renate, and Steph (cohortmates) online -a few times to work on assignment 1
  2. June-July: read through textbook, and download PDFs from course site.
  3. August: meet in Edmonton, meet cohort-mates in person, polish assignment, present assignment.
Fall 2014 (somewhat similar to what I did in the original timeline)
  1. EDDE 801 (Advanced Topics and Issues in Distance Education)
    1. Weekly live sessions for class
    2. Weekly guests from the field of distance education (woot!)
  2. EDDE 806. 
    1. Peruse through the recent recorded sessions and listen to two. 
    2. No need for reflective posts --> Get feet wet, see what other cohorts are doing, ideate on own work. Maybe in final 801 session students share their ideas from having viewed 2 recordings.
Spring 2015
  1. EDDE 802 (Advanced Research Methods in Education)
    1. Bi-weekly live session for class
  2. EDDE 806 
    1. Attend 2 sessions during the weeks 802 didn't meet. 
    2. Reflect on 1 presentation (live or recorded)
Summer 2015
  1. MDDE 702 (qualitative refresher for those who need a refresher)
  2. Start brainstorming on your proposals.  Jot down big research questions, diagram some potential research methods for them,  and write brief abstracts about the problem to be solved. This is sort of like a TV show elevator pitch.  Be ready to pitch 3 ideas.
  3. Go back to 802 materials and see them in light of your pitches
Fall 2015
  1. EDDE 803 (Teaching and Learning in Distance Education)
    1. Bi-weekly class sessions
    2. Tackle topics on teaching and learning.  
    3. Does anything from course seem to connect to your 3 pitches?  File it!
    4. Intern in an MDE class
  2. EDDE 806 
    1. Attend 2 live sessions (during weeks when 803 does not meet)
    2. Reflect on two sessions (either live or recorded that semester)
    3. Present your top 3 pitches and receive feedback from audience in one of the live sessions
    4. Continue refining your 3 pitches based on feedback (this task crosses into spring 2016)
Spring 2016
  1. EDDE 804 (Leadership and Project Management in Distance Education)
    1. Bi-Weekly sessions
    2. Tackle topics on leadership.  
    3. Does anything from course seem to connect to your 3 pitches?  File it!
  2. EDDE 806
    1. Attend 2 live sessions (during weeks when 804 does not meet)
    2. Reflect on two sessions (either live or recorded that semester)
    3. Pitch 2 expanded ideas (expanded in terms of what type of literature you might look into, and updated ideas about methodology and problem)
Summer 2016
  1. MDDE 701 (Quantitative research refresher for those that need it)
  2. Pick one of your pitches and develop a literature review (due at the beginning of 805)
  3. Pick one of your pitches and develop a preliminary intro (due at the beginning of 805)
Fall 2016
  1. EDDE 805
    1. Bi-weekly class meetings
    2. Polish off a draft of your proposal that includes summer deliverables + methods
  2. EDDE 806
    1. Attend 2 live sessions
    2. Reflect on two sessions (either live or recorded that semester)
Spring 2017
  1. EDDE 806
    1. Attend 6 live sessions
    2. Reflect on 4 live sessions
    3. Present your proposal
Summer 2017
  1. Polish off proposal
  2. Connect with your cohort over the summer (support network)
Fall 2017
  1. Defend Proposal & start Research

So, what are the differences between what I did and what I wish I had done (and what was an option?) I had dipped my toes in 806 when I started in 801; I was curious, and since the course was open to anyone, why not? But, once 802 kicked in, it was difficult to keep up, so I was on-and-off in 806 throughout the program (more off than on, until 805).  Despite the on-and-off nature I ended up reflecting on some of the sessions before I officially signed up for the course (hence the number of posts at the end).   I think that 806 was originally conceived as a course to keep the band together in some formal manner while we're all off doing our own thing, but I think that the strength of 806 is really in being a connecting strand (on the program side) from start to end.  I think being part of 806 from the start can help future cohorts conceptualize what they want to do, see what others are doing, and know that for proper execution of the dissertation lots of planning needs to go into it (and we can all commiserate at our setbacks, and celebrate our victories). I think this is important to see early on.

In terms of Summer terms, summer is definitely a good time to kick back, relax, have a few beers in the garden while reading your favorite fiction...but in all honesty two weeks off would be have been fine, and then we should have been on the path again.  Coming from a US background, I am used to the term ending at the end of May. AU's early start and early end of the spring (Winter) semester meant that I had boatloads of free time.  This dissertation won't write itself and I think that the summers (Mid-April through August) are a good time to do it in a structured (cohort driven, program driven) way.  Summers can be a time when you work on your elevator pitch for some ideas - and you can present them in 806 (during your second year) to see what might stick - you can also get feedback and things to think about.  During the summer of year 2 you can spend those 4 months in doing a lit-review and an introduction (2 chapters!), and be ready to roll in 805 (start of year 3).  I think this plan gets you better positioned to defend at the beginning of year 4.

A potentially controversial issue might be the requirements for 806. At the moment it's an attend 6 and reflect on 6 setup.  My proposal is attending and/or viewing 14 sessions (as opposed to 6), reflecting on more sessions overall, but you'd have the freedom to reflect on some recorded ones - in case the live session wasn't something you could really say something about; and EDDE 806 is more integrated into the entire EdD process.  Of course, this means that 805 + 806 (Research Seminar I & II) would need to be tweaked, but I think that the end goal would be better.

So, what do other EdD folks think?  Does this work for you?


Post Title Reflection
& Live attendance
Reflection
from Recording
Own
Presentation
Post I - On prepping for a dissertation






























Totals:
10
4
1

Saturday, March 25, 2017

EDDE 806 - Post XIII - It's the end of the semester, and I feel fine


Alright folks!  That's a wrap for EDDE 806 for this semester!  The semester went out with a bang with three members of my cohort presenting their dissertation proposal work in progress (and for those on the east coast the session was a little long - after a long day - but well worth it!).

The three proposed research projects are  Kim's, titled "Student Satisfaction Levels among Canadian Armed Forces Members toward their distance learning experiences" which deals with Canadian armed forces training and distance education; Rosemarri's , titled "Transforming Learning in Higher Education: Implementing UDL in Higher Education"; and Scott's, titled  "College Leadership and Distance Learning"

There were some common themes between these three presentations, and presentations that have been done previously in the semester, be it underlying reasons for the research, methodologies employed, or potential timelines.  Having seen the timelines of friends from Cohort 6 (and to some extent from Cohort 5), I can say that I've certainly revised my own timeline to a much more realistic expectation (how does 2019 sound?).

Going back to some common threads,  Kim discussed a little bit about the training costs associated with the CAF (approximately $1.3B Canadian per year).  I am not sure what the size of the CAF is, but I was wondering how much is that amortized per member of the CAF; not that every member of the CAF will have an equal dollar amount of training spent on them, but it was a thought.  The thing that really stood out for me was the story about officer training and how a member of the CAF can spend 1 year in residence to complete their training, or do it over a period of 2 years via distance education in the field (because Distance Ed is considered by the brass less rigorous and hence you have to have more).  It's interesting to see such (unfounded) biases alive not just in academia (my playground) but also in other places.  This question isn't really related to Kim's research (which is survey research) but I'd love to see a compare and contrast of the on-campus officer training vs the online version. They should have equal outcomes, but I am wondering what the pros/cons are for each modality.

Another presentation (Scott's) dealt more with college leadership and the adaptation of colleges in Canada to distance education. The idea behind this research is to look at leadership variables that promote growth of distance education at the university president level.  The underlying  rationale here (at least one of points) was that the role of the university is changing, and the university must adapt or go extinct. Scott quoted O'Meara who said that Higher Education as it is found to be "irretrievably immersed in a merciless marketplace" (O'Meara).  If I remember correctly Scott is the only person who has presented thus far (from our Cohort) that is doing mixed-methods.

I think the idea of leadership variables promoting growth at the university is important.  Bad leaders do have a chilling effect both to individuals and to the organization as a whole.  That said, the thing that was running through my mind is the framing of the argument.  A lot of what we see today (at least on my side of the border) tends to be about framing higher education in the framework of a market economy: get degree X to do work X, come back often for CPD.  There is, however, in my mind a disjuncture here.  School costs a lot.  Both from a financial aspect and a time aspect (not to mention any emotional aspects). Education isn't a new pair of jeans you buy every other season. Adapting to a market economy (IMHO) isn't what institutions of higher education should be doing.  We should be innovative, but the evolve or die out framing doesn't work well for this particular sector of life and society.

As an aside, in the chat  Norine wrote a paper called "Adult learning theories: shows that hurt the feet" - LOL.  Now I am curious to read that paper.  I am not sure how this came up, but it must have been in someone's lit review :-)

That's all for this season of EDDE 806 :-) See you in the fall!

Friday, March 10, 2017

EDDE 806 - Post XII - Of Navigators and Succession...

Last evening we had our penultimate EDDE 806 session for this season. On tap for the evening we had Neera's presentation (originally of Cohort 6, but now firmly "one of our own" in cohort 7), and a presentation by Stephanie.

One question that came to mind, outside of the context of these presentations, was how long do EdD students stick around in 806 after they have met the requirements of the course?  If they don't come back, why is that?  If they do return, why do they return, and what influences their regularity of participation?  I guess this could be a dissertation topic in and of itself, but it's a question that came to mind as I saw some very familiar names in the guest list on Adobe connect last night, and noticed the absence of other names that I've seen over the last year or so of my 'informal' 806 participation.  Of course, a dissertation topic like this would most likely add 2-3 years to my studies, and that doesn't seem like an appealing prospect :p

For the presentations of the evening, Neera presented on her proposed study, titled Succession planning in higher education: condition for sustainable growth and operational resilience, and Stephanie's proposed research topic is titled Developing routine practices for health system navigation in Canada.  Neera is focusing succession planning, with a focus on Polytechnics (with potential study participants coming from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and British Columbia.  I was surprised that there are Community Colleges in Canada - I tend to think of community colleges as a US term.  Looking little community college might be one of many terms that refers to the same type of institution in Canada.

In any case,  I think that Neera made an interesting point, and something that I've seen at my own institution: In higher education it often seems that hiring new people at the institution, or replacements for key positions, takes a lot of time.  That ends up potentially costing the institution money because there isn't someone in the position to take care of the critical needs for that institution; and if someone is hired but the search fails (bad fit for example) it's still money down the drain.  Hence a good succession plan (implemented well) would conceivably benefit the institution.

For Stephanie's presentation, since I am not in the healthcare field, I am a little less able to say something other than it's a cool project :-) I don't want to just summarize her presentation though.  The thing that struck me, both with Stephanie's presentation and Neera's (and other presentations I've seen over the years) is that most dissertations and dissertation proposals seem to be either Qualitative in nature or Mixed Methods, but I have yet to see a strictly Quantitative approach just yet.  I wonder if others have seen those in their experiences in EDDE 806.

Thursday, March 9, 2017

Loyalty a one way street?


[Warning: longer than usual post] Recently I came across an article on InsideHigherEd titled In Higher Ed, Loyalty Is a One-Way Street, and the tagline was "Loyalty of students and faculty is often demanded. Is it returned?"   The main thesis of the article is that in higher education the job you're in is the job you're in unless you apply for another job and get in, at which point you can either leave your old job or use your new offer as leverage for a better job (or better pay) at your current job.  The article is written from a faculty perspective, but it resonated with my own experiences at the university.  However, I wouldn't really call it an issue with loyalty, but rather it's an issue of organizational culture and lack of meaningful (to the individual) rewards for that loyalty.   Here are my observations as a staff member from the last (close to) 20 years at my institution, and a story from my first job on-campus.

When I first started working here, I worked as an assistant (no benefits, hourly employee) in media services while studying as an undergraduate. It was a fun job, I worked with, and for, interesting people and I can say that I learned a lot from the job and from the people I interacted with.  The job was always meant to be temporary since it was renewed on a semester-by-semester basis.  And in my second year of employment I got more responsibility by being given the reigns of the weekend operations (again hourly, non-benefited, but more responsibility).  After about 3 years of being non-benefited someone retired and his job posting opened up.

Having show progressive responsibility I was a prime candidate for the position. I applied, interviewed, and ultimately got the position.  I still worked in the same place as before, doing about the same things, but now I was benefited, full-time, with managerial responsibilities on top of everything else.  For five years I did my best to learn more about my job, and to try to be innovative to help the department.  I started an MBA, I joined a professional association (with my own money),  I learned, prepared, and passed the relevant entry level certification, I connected with IT folks from the university to keep my department in the loop, and I volunteered for AV projects with my colleagues during slow periods in the office. I didn't do this for recognition, but so that I can be better at my job.  Ultimately however, one does expect some sort of recognition (in some way, shape, or form). Our university does not award merit points for employees who continue to keep up with their professional development.   Everyone gets the same Cost of Living (COLA) increase as everyone else.  If you want a pay increase you need to show that your duties have significantly changed since you were hired.

In five years my duties had indeed changed in practice, but not on my job description (what governs your pay).  I was doing different work than my colleagues, but we were all paid the same; they actually were paid more as a result of compounding COLA increases, because they had been working here longer, which was fine.  Our supervisor was a nice guy, but he hated to differentiate (the kind of person who treats all his kids equally, no matter what).  This was problematic because everyone he managed "exceeded expectations", but this praise felt a little hollow after a few years.  Praise needs to be accompanied by something else to be useful (if you use it a lot), like a little more flexibility on vacation, or a pay increase, or some money to attend a PD event, or whatever. So, the only option for a little more money was to go through the official procedure (which was fine).  My boss at the time told me that he supported me, but privately he told others that he would never support it unless others got the same deal (regardless of their duties).  This was a natural extension of "treat everyone the same".  Since I ultimately did not get a promotion there, I looked elsewhere for work.  It was sad because I liked both the job and my colleagues, but you do what you have to do.  When I told my boss that I got another job, his boss attempted to retain me in the department asking if I would stay if they matched the salary. I would! But, I wouldn't wait around for it (two in the hand is worth more than two in the bush).  Since they couldn't make it happen, I left. I still kept in contact with my colleagues there, they were great people (and it's a small campus), but I left that department. And they were inconvenienced because they couldn't hire a replacement right away, and my area was the busiest on campus (based on department held statistics).

To bring it back to the IHE article, without knowing that this is the game to play in academia, I ended up playing this game.  I looked for other jobs, I interviewed for them, got an offer for them, and did respond in the affirmative that I would stay if they matched the salary (which would also mean that I would get another job description, which was originally turned down). But, given the steep bureaucracy of the university (at least mine), it wouldn't have been nimble enough to do it as quickly as accepting the new job offer, and the trust relationship was broken since my supervisor told me one thing and told others something else (those others eventually telling me), so there was no guarantee that the retention offer was any good.

This is one story.  I've experienced other things in my close-to-20-years here, and I've spoken to colleagues and have heard their stories too over the years.  My 2c on the matter are as follows (mileage at your college may vary, this is just based on my local colleagues around the Boston area):

There is a fundamental problem of organization culture.  Warner writes that  he has"witnessed genuine loyalty among colleagues at the department level, but this is a reaction and response to the lack of loyalty at the larger institution level. They have banded together as protection from above." I've seen this myself, and have heard it from colleagues at other institutions as well.  Some departments are better at self-supporting than other departments but this creates structural inequalities within the organization as a whole.  If your supervisor likes you, and you get all the perks in your department, but a colleague is not liked (or has an ineffective supervisor, or doesn't enjoy the group protection you do, etc.) they do not get any of the perks you get, an in some cases doing the same job! This type of unequal treatment isn't a hypothetical, it's happening. And in instances where merit payment are involved some employees may be eligible for a merit pool because their supervisor loves them and gives the "Exceeds expectations" all the time, while other employees might be working for someone who believes in the power of the bell curve, and everyone "meets expectations" with the exception of a few 'high performers' and a few 'low performers', so in essence these managers no only shoehorn people into the bell curve, they deny them an opportunity for merit/bonus pay that they would be entitled to if their supervisor were someone else.

Another issue I've seen is that everything is treated as a net-zero outcome.  Someone's gain is regularly someone else's loss.  So if you work for a big department (or a college/faculty within a university), if an employee has an opportunity to grow in their job, but that growth takes them out of their smaller sub-unit into another sub-unit of the organization, the organization is resistant to embrace this.  Even though the employee will still be connected to their previous sub-unit, and could help take care of work/issues within that sub-unit as well, that "transfer" would be most likely blocked because the originating sub-unit would not necessarily be able to get funding to replace that previous position.  There concern seems to be how many warm bodies each department has, and not necessarily what type of work needs to be done.  Just as an example from my first job on-campus.  It's been 12 years since I left that job. The number of warm bodies doing  the same work has remained the same even after having 2 retirements and (sadly) 1 death. Those positions have been replaced to do pretty much the same thing, regardless of where research into educational technology and learning have lead us since. That department is still a separate fiefdom and people get annoyed when they are asked to take care of something that another IT department "should" be doing (never-mind that they are all part of the same IT parent department).

Finally, it might seem that my position is higher salary (or other monetary perks) as a general acknowledgment of employees' good work and loyalty.  Or, associated with more money is moving up the ladder work-wise into a more managerial position.  While money and career development are nice, sometimes they are not the end-all be-all.  My former colleagues seemed to like what they did.  They didn't seem interested in changing jobs for higher pay.  Maybe pay for them wasn't even a top concern (bills paid, mortgage paid, savings at an OK level), but they may have wanted more flexibility for vacations in order to spend more time with their family. A flexible organization should be able to be able to give such perks (fairly, and across the organization) to people who earn it (good work, loyalty, and so on), and at the same time have the resilience to work around any issues that might arise from this individual flexibility provided.

At our institution I think that the institution does attempt to demonstrate appreciation of loyalty to its employees, and I do think that upper administrators care (to some extent at least); that is to say I don't believe them to be greedy monsters that just look at the bottom line.  One of the events we have each year is the "years of service" event where people are recognized for their service in 5 year increments.  Last year I was recognized for 15 years of (benefitted) service to the institution for example.

In the end I don't think it it's a matter of loyalty.  Loyalty (or lack of loyalty) is a conscious effort (or lack of effort).  I think the issue is systemic, and it's really an issue of management.

So... my question (to anyone who is reading this), is how to we make academia responsive, and at the same time equitable, and flexible so that it works both at the individual level and at the organizational level?  Thoughts?

Saturday, February 25, 2017

EDDE 806 - Post XI - Get your Waldorf on...

Statler & Woldorf, muppet critics
This past week the presenter of the week was Angie Parkes of Cohort 3, who is a fellow instructional designer!  Angie was presenting to us  her (potential?) dissertation proposal which as to do  with testing the hypothesis that the DACUM process can be done effectively online.  More specifically, her three hypotheses are that (1) an online asynchronous DACUM can produce a comprehensive and rigorous competency analysis; (2) the online asynchronous DACUM can be completed in less than 6 months (2 financial quarters); and (3) the online asynchronous DACUM can be completed for less than $1000.

Angie is coming at this problem from a corporate instructional design lens, where a lot of money is spent in corporate environments for training, however 50%-90% of this training is deemed ineffective.  Because of this training departments are one of the first things that get cut when a company needs to tighten the budget (explains a lot of the angst that friends who are corporate IDs feel).  I do wonder though what about corporate training makes it ineffective.  Being a bit of a Waldrof (or am I more of a Statler?), it seems to me that fellow instructional designers in corporate settings do what's expected of them to do (self-paced, drill & kill interventions), but those don't work because they are usually compliance (and everyone seems to hate that).  If instructional designers were more integral in the talent development cycle, the interventions might be more effective.  Anyway, I think I digress.

So, one might ask, what is DACUM?  DACUM was new for me, and it is defined as:
Developing a Curriculum (DACUM) is a process that incorporates the use of a focus group in a facilitated storyboarding process to capture the major duties and related tasks included in an occupation, as well as, the necessary knowledge, skills, and traits.  This cost-effective method provides a quick and thorough analysis of any job.   
It seems to me to be one of the tools used by instructional designers in the needs analysis phase to determine what is needed to be accomplished by the learning intervention. Apparently DACUM is only done in person at the moment, which can be quite expensive when done face to face, and synchronously, for the same reason that training is deemed expensive at times: you need to pull employees away from their work to do this thing.  Angie is looking at employing Design Based Research (DBR) with a Delphi approach. Her expert informants will be 6 PhD Psychometricians at her company, distributed over a geographic distance (some are in the same office, but some are not). She will have one group of senior psychometricians and one group of junior psychometricians (it will be interesting to see if there are differences between those who are more senior).

On another note, it's interesting that this is not Angie's first idea.  She's had several over the years, but opportunities dry up and doctoral students are left trying to pick up the pieces.  I often wonder what happens if you've passed your dissertation proposal defense (and hence you are formally an EdD candidate), but that opportunity dries up and you need to do something else.  Does you committee ask you to re-defend something new?  Do you try to salvage what you have with what little is left?  Do you put together a new proposal with just your advisor?  With coursework it's pretty cut and dry - you do the work, you get a good grade, you pass.  The dissertation can be a year long project (or longer) after you defend the proposal.  What happens when stuff hits the fan when you're in the thick of it?

If any cohort 1 or cohort 2 folks are reading this, advice is definitely welcomed :-)