Ari's+References

Ari’s Annotated Bibliography Faculty perceptions of change from WebCT to Sakai


 * Beatty, B., & Ulasewicz, C. (2006). Faculty perspectives on moving from Blackboard to the Moodle learning management system. 50(4), 36-45.**

Two SFSU professors commenting on their experiences with LMS. One a techie ID prof using Moodle after Blackboard, one non techie using Bb for the 1st time. Techie prof comments most useful about his experience preferred Moodle for ease of interface (file structure and organization) and hope for the future, preferred Bb for author control of posts and sharing student work. Brings up good points about open source LMS in general: ability for local control, many developers working on applets for the system to increase functionality or create quick fixes. Emphasizes the need for faculty advisory committees when choosing a new system.


 * Bongalos, Y. Q., Bulaon, D. D. R., Celedonio, L. P., de Guzman, A. B., & Ogarte, C. J. F. (2006). University teachers' experiences in courseware development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 695-704.**

The purpose of this study was to give an account of various experiences of college professors using the Blackboard (Bb) system in developing, implementing and evaluating “courseware” at the University of Santo Tomas in Manila, Philippines. This is a qualitative design that used interviews to collect data from professors. The data was analyzed and thematised on the basis of internal and external homogeneity. Data was collected from 10 professors via personal interviews aided by a “semi structured interview guide”. Twenty-eight questions were asked and organized under 7 categories. Interviews ranged from 20 minutes to 1 hour and 15 minutes in length and were tape-recorded. Results were presented in general statements under each of the 7 interview question categories. Some direct quotes were given to support generalizations. Results found that the professors were generally positive about using the courseware as they saw it as a way to supplement their traditional forms of teaching, as a student-centered approach to learning and as fulfilling to see students using the materials they had created. The main drawbacks mentioned were technical difficulties and the amount of additional time it took to develop materials on top of existing workloads.


 * Gioia, D. A. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433-448.**

• Waiting on interlibrary loan


 * Hannan, A. (2005). Innovating in higher education: Contexts for change in learning technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(6), 975-985.**

3 qualitative studies done over time and comparing perceived innovation in teaching and learning at UK universities. Innovation handled in 3 ways. Individual innovation (drawing on ideas of enthusiasts), guided innovation (supported by institutional funds), directed innovations (institutional imperatives usually to maximize efficiency). Many respondents bring up frustration due to new bureaucratic assessment policies that require much paperwork. Overall conclusion that innovations in teaching and learning can happen only if the institution is making an effort on the part of the students. Hard when research agendas made to be more important that teaching.


 * Klein, S. M. (1994). Communication strategies for successful organizational change. Industrial Management, 36(1), 26-30.**

Interesting piece from a corporate perspective, uses corporate examples that while not education are still interesting and easily transferable to education. 3 stages of change (Kurt Lewin) Unfreezing, changing, refreezing. Suggests 6 key principles of organizational communications and which should be emphasized in each stage as well as strategies for each stage. Good article.


 * Masi, A. C., & Winer, L. R. (2005). A university-wide vision of teaching and learning with information technologies. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(2), 147-155.**

Responses to the challenges of using an LMS at one university. This university’s reported motivation for using an LMS has moved from a cost savings one to one of customer service, student demand and pedagogical advantage. Mentions that because technological changes are not merely ones of the tool, that they can permeate society that its important to make choices based on a clear sense of institutional mission. But developing a mission of integrated Instr. Tech and teaching/learning is challenging. Lists challenges. Then lists their responses, what doing to address the challenges (system wide LMS, support & training, beefing up infrastructure, providing incentives for teachers to use tech, encouraging students to use as learning tools)


 * Morris, J. (2004). Features and functions are merely trifles in the selection of a course management system. T.H.E. Journal, 31(11).**

Opinion piece on how to increase the odds for success when choosing an LMS. Bring up interesting questions to consider when deciding on an LMS. Most vendors have same features, can’t decide based on them. 20% of the features used 80% of the time. The ease of use paradox: Easy for whom? Perceived ease of use is inversely proportional to flexibility and robustness. Has 10 questions to consider beyond features and functions, including a formula to figure real cost of ownership. Importance of finding out as much about vendor who for better or worse it about to become a partner. Assess as you would a job applicant.


 * Owen, P. S., & Demb, A. (2004). Change dynamics and leadership in technology implementation. Journal of Higher Education, 75(6), 636-666.**

Qualitative study (open ended interviews w/ admin, fac and staff) looking at one large community college with a system wide goal of integrating technology into teaching and learning. Interviews with admin and staff. Stages of technology adoption followed pretty closely innovators to laggards. Key role of leadership was to provide incentives to help fac overcome anxiety and skepoticism. Faculty needed reward and recofgnition as well as varying modes of support. Change associated with technology is even more disruptive than change without it. Impacts both their professional and personal lives and people vary so widely in degree of comfort with technology. Tended to create a feeling of lac o f control and both personal and institutional tensions. Again calling for broad participation in guiding the change process. May hep to give back a feeling of control and influence whether they engage or resist. Underlying unease about if these changes will actually lead to positive changes in teaching and learning, lack of data to support again leads to unsettled feelings. Have a diagram in which shows technology changing and institutional change and they are always just out of sync as tech changes always outpace the institutional ones. Creates a constnt state of tension, disruption and and stimulation for further change. Institutions having to constantly be reactive, hard to be proactive. Faculty have a particularly hard time and need robust and comprhensive support to deal with the constant level of disruption.


 * Peterson, M. W. & White T. H. (1992) Faculty and administrator perceptions of their environments: Different views or different models? Research in Higher Education, 33(2), 177-204.**

• Waiting on interlibrary loan


 * Phelps, M. R. (2006). A Case Study. Production and Use of Open Source Education Resources: Tufts University. (O. f. E. C. a. Development)**

Tufts developed its own OpenCourseware project, TUSK Tufts University Sciences Knowledgebase, all schools w/in the U contributing courses (27 to writing date). Courses are open to the public, not for credit and no access to faculty associated with them. Discusses copyright issues and the major barrier of assuring no violations. Each course fully reviewed. Use creative Commons licensing. Surveyed & interviewed faculty who had contributed. They are a Sakai partner. Web hits are growing, users mainly in US. Barriers are English only, time to prepare and convert, will the university continue this as a public service.


 * Remy, E. (2005, June 12-16). Open source course management systems: A case study. Paper presented at the Association of Small Computer Users in Education (ASCUE) Conference, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.**

Small college that adopted Caroline as its LMS. “Blackboard was for big schools”, budget constraints. Despite low return rate >20% they report survey results. Caroline rated excellent by faculty and students. Most negative feedback from students was that faculty weren’t using it. Due to a split within the Caroline community, this school had to move to Dokeos. Results have been positive. One barrier (since overcome) was lack of a tool to migrate old course sites to new LMS.


 * Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.**

Classic work on how innovations are adopted and spread in society. Specifically addresses adopter categories for individuals rates of adoption. Identifies characteristics that make an innovation more like to be diffused widely.


 * Rutherford, L. H., & Grana, S. J. (1995). Retrofitting academe: Adapting faculty attitudes and practices to technology. T.H.E. Journal, 23(2), 82.**

Brief opinion piece with suggestions for getting on the technology integration bandwagon as a reluctant faculty member


 * Santilli, S., & Beck, V. (2005). Graduate faculty perceptions of online teaching. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(2), 155-160.**

Study conducted to investigate time spent teaching online doctoral level courses. 47 respondents to an electronic survey regarding in which activities their time was spent most in online teaching. Perhaps most relevant idea is that online teaching needs to be defined and rewarded in new ways. While institutions are able to offer courses to more students at a lower cost, the benefits aren’t being passed down to the faculty who are teaching these courses and yet are still being rewarded on the basis of traditional standards and criteria.


 * Van Rooij, S. W. (2007). Perceptions of open source versus commercial software: Is higher education still on the fence? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 433-453.**

Qualitative (interviews, 20 participants) study of perceptions of technology and academic decision makers about open source benefits and risks. Good background info on adoption rates and overall diffusion of open source esp at universities, also discusses freely distributed online courseware and educational materials. Research questions: What are the characteristics that CIOs and CAOs believe differentialte open source software from commercial software? How interested would CIOs and CAOs be in outsourcing campus-wide systems and at what price? Participants came from number of universities at different stages of adoption and of different tools. When presented with a services plan all were interested in a service to provide support ot move from their current proprietary LMS to an open source. All preferred the “Chinese menu” style of service chhosing over a set package. Commercial software implementation experiences and vendor price perceptions have reinforced negative perceptions about the cost of vendor software esp in relation to the institutions’ needs. Open source seen as a way to bridge the functionality gap and control ones destiny. This outweighted the perceived drawbacks which included lack of support, security and questionable longevity. 1)The study calls for a closer look at the partnership between information and administrative officers and the need for a better mutual understanding both of the functionality and the benefits to the end users. The folks who decide which software to go with need to liaise with the pedagogy people long before and decisions are made. The decision needs to be made holistically not just on the technical merits. 2) Calls for institutions who have already adopted OSS to write up and publicize their experiences to be able to better assess the true cost-value relationship. “The absence of hard numbers will perpetutate what Green (2004) terms “affirmative ambivalence” towards open source; namely agreement with the underlying concept, but reluctance to actually adopt and to replace vendor product with open source solutions.” (p. 448) 3) Feasibility: fear of external consultants that might be needed to implement open sources based on previous experiences.


 * Van Wagoner, R. J. (2004). Influencing the perception of organizational change in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28, 715-727.**

This study developed a model to look at how change was perceived in the Colorado (13) Community College System. Survey administered covering 4 domains: decision-making, programs, support services and resources. Results: 1. Longer an indiv is at an instituton more likely their perception to be neg re org change. 2. More they understand the mission and are involved in change better able to put in context and view positively. 3. Perception of change doesn’t relate to groups but is an individual perception. 4. The more change that occurs, the more it is perceived and the more they are likely to perceive its value. if indiv are able to put organizational changes into a larger context, via stroger strategic understanding, the more accepting they are of change efforts. Inclusion in the process is important. Perceived value: people have to know why changes are happening and the things they value (like close relationships with co workers) have to be taken into consideration. If a bunch of people lose their jobs and those left have lost friend and don’t understand why the value of the change may not be perceived as high. It is important to articulate the the value that the changes will have toward advancing and accomplishing the goals and missions of the institution. Need to be able to connect their personal experiences with important elements of the institution.