Pass the SoLT

I get a little tired of hearing people complain about the current state of technology-enhanced learning in their institution without offering solutions to the problems they raise. Typically they assign or direct blame for the lack of vision, support, infrastructure, and so on, towards senior staff in formal leadership roles. Without denying the importance of these leadership roles, including my own, the so-called leader is an easy scapegoat and much of this attention reflects a very narrow and traditional view of leadership.

In recent years the leadership literature has increasingly acknowledged the importance of micro leaders and distributed leadership models in the effectiveness and sustainability of any educational innovation. In light of this literature a key distinction needs to be made between (a) the leader, (b) leadership and (c) leading as all three layers of leadership--macro, mesa and micro--are essential in a modern organization.

In a similar vein, Tony Bates and Albert Sangra (2011) in their recent book on Managing Technology in Higher Education argue that leadership can be understood in terms of two different senses. Citing the work of Mintzberg (2009, pp. 65-66) the first is with regard to position and the led: the leader is in charge, motivates and inspires, elicits shock and awe….In the second sense, leadership is seen more broadly, often beyond formal authority: a leader is anyone who breaks new ground, sets direction that shows others the way.’

The concept of vision and lifting other peoples' aspirations of what is possible is common to many definitions of leadership. Notably, Michael Fullan argues that vision building rests heavily on the shoulders of micro leaders as top down visions can be blinding. These are the people who will ultimately determine whether specific innovations are successful and go on to become institutionalized features of the organization. In contrast to John Kotter, Fullan claims that vision is something you should build over time and end with rather than necessarily establishing at the outset.

The key point is that leadership is possible no matter where you are in an organization's hierarchy. And everyone can play a role in leading through influence. Sometimes the most influential people are opinion leaders who have the respect of their colleagues. I have found through my own experience that these are the people you need to establish strong working relationships with as they can be far more influential on the outcomes you wish to achieve than early adopters and centrally driven efforts.

With these general points is mind, I'm currently involved with colleagues from Charles Sturt University (CSU) in an interesting research project looking at different approaches to leadership in the context of blended, flexible and distance learning. The specific aim of the research is to build knowledge and understanding of the impact of distributive leadership approaches to transforming teaching and learning in relation to the new normal of distance education. The research involves eight stories or case studies of adaptation at CSU and Massey at the macro, meso and macro levels of the institution. More information about the project is available from the following link:

• Fostering institutional change through distributive leadership approaches: Stories of adaptation in blended and flexible learning and distance education.

On a related topic, I'm also centrally involved as an expert reviewer in the development of a suite of online professional development courses on university leadership and management through the Epigeum team at Imperial College. I was the person who originally proposed the development of this course and it has been an interesting project so far working with some leading scholars in the educational leadership literature. We hope to complete the beta version of these courses in the next few months.

This is just a brief entry to let you know about the forthcoming DEANZ conference entitled...

Quality Connections - Boundless Possibilities: Through Open, Flexible and Distance Learning

http://www.deanz.org.nz

The conference will be held from 25-28 April, 2010 at Te Papa Tongarewa, Museum of New Zealand Wellington. The 2010 conference returns to Te Papa after the last conference was such a memorable and highly successful event.

The conference has two main themes: the challenge of building 'Quality Connections' and the 'Boundless Possibilities' available to educators, through open, flexible and distance learning. The key question explored across both themes, relevant to all education sectors, is:

How do the new places, spaces and tools of learning enhance outcomes and opportunities for learners?

In answering this question through a blend of critical conversations, scholarly debates and practical examples of best practice we reflect on past lessons, latest solutions and the promise of the future. These three reflective strands are woven throughout the conference and will be prominent in each of the keynote presentations. We have some outstanding keynote speakers lined up including...

• Professor Terry Anderson

• Professor Liz Burge

• Professor Mason Durie

I hope you will join us in Wellington, New Zealand to connect with old friends, meet new colleagues and share your own experiences. See the conference website for more information about key dates, etc. Also note that there will be a Moodle (Mini) Moot the day after the DEANZ conference for people with a specific interest in open source software for educational purposes.

In my last post, I talked about the concept of blended learning. Arguably, distance education has been the forgotten cousin in the rush to digitise university education. Over recent years there has been a great deal of interest in elearning, flexible learning, blended learning, open learning and other related concepts; and in many respects people have treated distance education as synonymous with these terms.

A related point is that too often we have not thought enough about the educational problem that new technology is attempting to solve. Although there is a strong convergence between the use of technology-enhanced learning and the traditions of distance education, it is misleading and potentially dangerous to group these concepts as the same.

The problem is that people use the different terms loosely and they are often poorly defined in the literature. Put simply, they mean different things to different people. The crucial point is that distance learners have specific needs that are different to many on campus students. This point is evident by the difference in retention and completion rates between different study modes. Although there is a drive to provide flexible learning opportunities for all students, this does not automatically mean the same experiences will serve the needs of all learners. The implication is that distance learners may require a different blend of activities, learning resources and technology solutions to those who can study on campus.

Distance education has a long history and has its roots in providing access to educational opportunities that would not otherwise be possible. Importantly, this basic principle still underpins Massey University's commitment to distance education and we are proud of our contribution to making university-level education accessible to many generations of New Zealanders.

Originally, distance education took the form of correspondence courses through the mail. Professor James Talyor refers to this as the first generation Correspondence Model. He describes three further generations, beginning with the Multi-media Model through the use of print, audio tape, video tape and computer-based learning. The third generation was the Tele-learning Model involving radio, television, video conferencing and audio graphic communication systems. The Flexible Learning Model is the fourth generation utilizing the interactivity offered through multi-media, computer mediated communication and connection to the internet. There is a strong argument that a fifth generation model is emerging in which technology-enhanced learning is being employed in ways that are more intelligent and personalised.

Irrespective of the model, distance is not determined geographically but by the variety of transactions that occur between the leaner and teacher. This key principle is known as the Transactional Theory of distance education. The basic assumption is that as dialogue increases, transactional distance decreases. Thus, it is not location that determines distance but rather the interaction between student and teacher.

Moore (1989) discusses three relationships, which are essential in distance education:

• Learner-teacher (dialogue between the student and teacher)
• Learner-content (how students engage with and obtain information)
• Learner-learner (exchange of ideas between students)

The key point is that we now have technologies that can greatly reduce the transactional distance that was not possible through the correspondence model of distance education. There is even an argument that the transactional distance could in some circumstances be greater for face-to-face students. However, there is also a danger that new digital technologies may reduce the level of access to university education—the basic principle of distance education—to those who have the greatest need. The reality is that not everyone can access the latest technologies and this must not be overlooked in the enthusiasm for new digital technologies.

Two key questions must be borne in mind when designing courses that attempt to exploit the potential of technology-enhanced learning:

• Who are your learners?
• What do you want your students to learn?

The most appropriate learning design and instructional blend needs to arise from your answer to these question. On this crucial point, I want to finish with a pertinent quote from Professor Diana Laurillard:

"I think blended learning will never go away... and for some courses, some contexts, a blend which is 90 per cent conventional and 10 per cent digital is probably right and you’d get the reverse for other kinds of course. So it’s entirely up to the particular context what kind of blend you have and we’ve just got to get practised at being able to find the right blend for the right course and context" (cited in Joint Information Systems Committee, 2009, p.46).