Future of Higher Education Performance Evaluations

Workers in all industries have struggled with efforts to document informal learning experiences for formal performance evaluations and promotion and tenure boards. While it is simple enough to acknowledge informal learning accounts for a large portion of work-based improvement and progress, it is difficult to prove and support. Higher Education performance evaluations and tenure processes are different at each institution, with some embracing the affordances of a networked learning environment. A replicable documentation process is needed in order to further advance the acceptance of informal learning, and reward the participants for their efforts, which are often extended beyond the work place.

Evaluating Performance in a Networked World
The 360 degree feedback evaluation is one way organizations capture data internally to develop a holistic picture of the performance of an individual, through peer, supervisor and self-reflection. In a networked world, these data are more difficult to capture. Supervisors do not necessarily have access to a worker’s network of personal and professional contacts who contribute to performance improvement. As workers increase numbers of connections and strengthen individual relationships outside the organization, it will become critical for organizations to be able to capture the data and evaluate the nature of those relationships.

Role of Digital Documentation
Web-based or electronic documentation of performance, including CV’s, tenure applications, and electronic portfolios is reaching the mainstream. However, it is difficult to determine how to document and evaluate the role of networked learning in performance improvement. There are many aggregation tools to collect and distribute social network and publication feeds, but none are currently capable of delivering the fine-tuned information needed to give a clear picture of a worker’s ability, effort and influence. This collection effort must still be completed manually, in that the pieces of the document must be selected individually. The process is tedious, but necessary in order to show the effect of network participation.

Rewarding Open Teaching in Higher Education
Networked learning often leads to Open Teaching, a practice identified by open architecture, open experiences and the use of Open Educational Resources (OER). Open Teaching practices extend the learning outside the organization, community and nation. Traditional performance and tenure evaluation methods cannot capture the influence and extended reach of Open Teaching practices. The benefits frequently ripple far beyond the originating institution, and internal evaluation procedures cannot document these effects. In order to further promote and reward this model of teaching and learning, replicable evaluation procedures must be developed and piloted.

Open Feedback Request Form
One potential step in the direction of documenting and rewarding informal learning for higher education performance and tenure evaluations is an open feedback request form. This type of form collects testimonials and narratives of external network participants influenced by the participating worker. The process is replicable, yet the solution must include changes to the weight given to particular elements of the evaluation process. Presently, Dr. Alec Couros of the University of Regina is standing for tenure and submitting an electronic tenure application. Dr. Jon Becker, of Virginia Commonwealth University has created an open feedback request form soliciting commentary and narratives from external participants in Dr. Couros’ teaching and learning network. The form includes two questions:

  • What have you learned from/with Dr. Alec Couros?
  • In what ways have you shared what you learned from/with Dr. Alec Couros?

Dr. Becker will collect and analyze the data and submit the results to Dr. Couros or his tenure committee.  The form is being promoted through network connections on Twitter and in individual blogs.  Visit Dr. Becker’s blog to view the form, participate in the process and help shape the future of Higher Education performance evaluations.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Onramp Installment 18: Hitting the Road

It’s time to move on and leave you to navigate the social web with your newly found friends and professional contacts. I’ve uploaded a ZIP file of all the onramp posts, as well as an instructor guide, the delicious resources and sample syllabus as HTML files, if you wish to use any of this content in your own practice.  Thank you for reading along and sharing your knowledge with me!

Jen

Onramp ZIP

Posted in onramp | Tagged | Comments Off

Onramp Installment 17: Disrupting the Organization

In this series, I’ve deliberately excluded instructions for working within an LMS and other closed commercial applications.  Like many others, I try to stay away from these tools, if I can.  However, I’ve met instructors who are not permitted to use anything else.  For instructors in that situation, I hope you have internal support to use the system effectively.  Some of the commercial systems allow integration of outside RSS feeds.  If this is the case with your system, you may wish to publish your materials openly outside the LMS, and simply import the feed.  Many institutions have heavily invested in these products and you will find very little support for anything else.

Institutional culture is difficult to change, and innovation becomes the victim.  For insight into Disruptive Innovation Theory, and how it can be applied to education, read the book, Disrupting Class, by Christensen, Horn and Johnson.  The theory and their case studies are a fascinating read, although I feel the book was either prematurely published, or the authors did not dig deeply enough into the existing culture of sharing through participatory media.  Their most important point, is that disruptive innovation must address unserved populations, rather than replace an existing technology.

While the book focuses on innovative change in K-12 institutions and systems, there is implication for higher education and professional development.  I’ve found many higher education institutions are attempting to simply convert existing face to face courses into online courses.  If there is any validity to disruptive innovation theory, this process is destined to fail.  Our attention should be focused, rather, on addressing unmet needs.  For example colleges can target rural populations, military service members, and high school students.  Rather than replacing face to face courses in their entirety, the course model can be disrupted to offer new instructional models.  I would personally like to see disruption to the current practicum and student teaching models.  I envision external entities matching preservice teachers online with underserved students, and serving as connectors and facilitators.

In terms of changing organizational culture to accept these new instructional models, there is an entire field of social science devoted to organizational change theories.  My experience with Viral Professional Development (VPD) has led me to believe the best options to influence organizational change and innovation occur when faculty and staff are supported in their efforts to self-organize and learn together.  Support for VPD and other informal learning strategies may include providing time for online social networking, creating comfortable physical spaces for networking, and offering informal online and face to face sessions, where participants are encouraged to experiment and share.  Administration cannot force innovation, but they can support it.  For example, I was hired to develop a course for BTC.  When I asked if I could publish components on my blog in this onramp series, in order to gain feedback, I was encouraged to do so.  Not all institutions encourage the kind of sharing that can lead to feedback and spawn innovation.

If you feel the information you’ve gathered in this series can help improve your teaching practice and that of your colleagues, yet you don’t feel your institution will support the ideas and concepts we’ve explored, you may be facing deep, institutional culture issues.  These can’t be taken lightly, and aren’t always possible to overcome.  For a good conversation about some of the implications of exploring social media for learning and reaching a brick wall professionally, check out Steve Dembo’s post here, and read through the comments.  I have known many people who have left their organizations because of the lack of support for innovation.  This is a real crisis, in my opinion, not just in terms of social media, but in realizing the needs of our society  have changed so dramatically in recent years, innovation may be the only way we resolve our problems.

Posted in onramp | Tagged | Comments Off

Onramp Installment 16: Why No Web 2.0?

One of the questions I am most frequently asked is why I don’t support the term, “Web 2.0.”  I have addressed this in many individual conversations and in a few blog posts, podcasts and a video, but thought I should include it in the Onramp.  The term definitely refers to Web-based applications that involve participatory media, as opposed to static “read-only” Web sites.  When you hear the term Web 2.0, you probably start thinking, “blog, wiki,podcast!” In terms of promotion for learning,  I’m not happy with categorizing participatory media by types of tools.  I feel this puts us at risk of narrowing our opportunities to communicate, by encouraging us to socialize across a particular type of tool, rather than focusing on the people behind the tools.  With RSS, we can bring text, video, audio, photographs, and conversations wherever we wish.  When I post something to my blog, I want the world to be able to easily respond using their favorite medium.  As much as we talk about moving away from the silo of the LMS, simply moving to “Web 2.0″ tools, does not solve the silo problem.

Observation #24: More than all the other Onramp posts, this is an example of my personal opinion and a reflection based on my experiences and natural curiosity.  I include it in the Onramp, both to address the Web 2.0 issue, and to give an example of the type of reflection you may see from students as they explore social media.  I’m not citing any source as backup for this rant.  It’s all me!

I’ve heard many presentations on Web 2.0 being the future of learning, with Moore’s Law being cited as critical to understanding the exponential growth of technology development.  It amazes me to see the same people promoting Moore’s Law, trying to move people into a technology advancement that has already been around for years.  If we’re going to teach Web 2.0, I feel it should be taught as an important historical event that forever changed the nature of communications for people with access.  Of course, it is more complicated than that, but I just hate to see it used as a lure to recruit newcomers to presentations, that sometimes seem like magic shows.  I have been guilty of this myself.

Sometimes I feel like I’m approaching this from the perspective of a member of an elite group, holding the exclusive keys to the future of learning.  But this is the Web.  It is here.  Everyone can do what I do, as long as they have access, and can read.  The big problem, is that not enough people have access and reading comprehension.  Sometimes Every day I wonder if we wouldn’t be better off trying to improve access and reading literacy, rather than convert reluctant instructors to integrating technology in teaching.  After all, if a person has strong reading comprehension skills and access, won’t employers be prepared to train them on their individual systems?  I don’t have the answer to this, but sometimes I feel guilty teaching these tools to people who have the access and ability to figure it out themselves.  I wonder if we’re giving stronger voice to those with privilege, when the power is there to enable the unheard, if only we could get them connected and literate.

So, to me, Web 2.0 is not a set of tools.  It was a social, historical, and cultural event that changed the way we communicate and organize around social objects, events and causes.  The world will never be the same.  People now have the power to quickly organize and communicate desires and demands to corporations and political organizations.  Unfortunately, not all people have that power, and many who do are quickly learning to control and take advantage of social media participants.  I’m troubled when I hear educators quote the high numbers of connected as a reason to use social media tools for learning.   Sometimes I’m called to give presentations and I’m told I was recommended as an “expert” in social media.  It deeply affects me when I give a presentation and feel like I’m suddenly revealing the wizard behind the curtain.  I feel using the term “Web 2.0″ creates the sense that there is some type of illusory new technology, without which, learning cannot occur.  If I knew a way to engage those without a voice, this is where I would next focus my career.  I know someone must be working on this.  Hopefully we will find each other!

Posted in onramp | Tagged | 4 Comments