| Higher Education Course Migration from F2F to Online Instruction: Problems for Instructors |
||||
Reflection #5 Now we approach the heart of the matter. The research indicates that we are dealing with at least two specific subgroups: 1)innovators and early adaptors, and 2) everybody else. According to Rogers, innovators make up 2.50 percent of the population, early adaptors make up 13.5 percent. The rest -- early majority (34%), late majority (34%) and laggards (16%) make up collectively 84 percent of the population. The two groups are motivated differently. The first group, innovators and early adaptors, are intrinsically motivated, that is, they are motivated by opportunities for learning new things, expanding their reportoire, reaching new students, deriving personal satisfaction from being early adaptors (Betts, 1998, Landis, et al, 2000, Rockwell, 1999, Schifter, 2000, Wilson 2001). The second group, the non-early adaptors, are extrinsically motivated, that is, they would seek some tangible benefit that they do not now possess in exchange for participation in DE. Benefits may include release time, reduced workload, bonuses and salary enhancements. There are factors that overlaps both groups. Both express a concern about workload. Those faculty who already do DE express concern about the unanticipated demands on their time to develop and implement DE courses. Non-DE faculty are reluctant, in part, because of the time requirements. Both groups acknowledge problems involving career growth in an academic culture that honors research more than innovative teaching. The institution, if it values DE, must provide promotional opportunities ands professional recognition to faculty that participate in DE. Both groups express a desire for, or at least an appreciation for, training in technology and pedagogy, and both groups insist on the importance of reliable technological infrastructure and technical support. Finally, this issue of quality of instruction is important. The Early adaptors believe DE affords quality instruction; the non-adaptors have serious doubts. There are other factors that both unite and divide these faculty subgroups, but this is not the place to elucidate all of them. Rather, reflection on the interaction of the two groups is in order. In Rogers' schema, the early adaptors (not the innovators) are the most useful resource in the process of consumating the adaptation of technological innovations. They are the ones who can, on the personal level, persuade those who are reluctant to adapt. How well will this approach work in the design and implementation of DE? I suspect that, peer-to-peer, the early adaptor can do much to allay the fears of those faculty that maintain an apprehensive posture vis a vis Distance Education. Certainly the early adaptors can speak to technology issues and, assuming the technology is both available and reliable, provide reassurance that all is well in the digital world. But what about pedagogical issues? These early adaptors, who may also be highly intuitive in their adaptive techniques, might have little to offer in terms of pedagogy, simply because they are intuitive rather than covertly analytical. They may grasp the essence of sound pedagogy, but in an intuitive manner. In such a scenerio, the early adaptor may be helpful, but not entirely sufficient, in mentoring late adaptors. On the other hand, in addition to technology expertise, it is the role of the IT professional to provide the expertise in learning theory and pedagogical issues that infuse Distance Education. What the early adaptor cannot provide as a mentor, the IT professional can provide. The real challenge for the educational technologist is to bring together adaptors and non-adaptors in such a way that each can learn from the other, in a manner in which both groups are stakeholders in the outcomes. It may not be the case that all faculty, sooner or later, have to adapt to DE. Some may never adapt. But the non-adaptors can still be supportive of DE if they can be persuaded that DE is a worthwhile enterprise. Is there an opportunity here for the educational technologist to formulate a vision that both groups -- adaptors and non-adaptors -- can share about DE in a larger institutional context? Granted, the role of the purveyor of institutional vision typically falls to the administrator, but who is to say the educational technologist cannot avail themselves of the opportunity to be innovators themselves in creating a shared vision of DE. Such a role may not be in the text books, and there may not be a place for it in the flow chart, but it may be worth a try anyway. Just a thought...
|
||||