15. Generic Implementation Plan

Responsable organisation: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

First Partner : Hogescholl van Utrecht

Aim: Provide a generic implementation model for the Pronett portal

Outcomes. A portrait (1) of the current reality of our organisations is needed, previous to deciding the measures (2) that need to be taken to obtain our goals.

Our work will be based in B. Collis and J. Moonen (Flexible learning in a digital world. experiences and expectations. London: Kogan Page. 2001). Collis & Moonen thesis is that "use of technology application as a purposeful part of the instructional delivery of a course or related to a classroom lesson is still far from widespread": big potential contrasts with lack of use and this gap is "an implementation problem" (p. 45). The author cite two main implementation models: the Concerns-Based Adoption Model, which predicts seven "stages of concern", and the Innovation-Decision Model which stresses on different "aspects" a project has to offer so as to be accepted by individuals. Collis – Moonen base their own model in the three phases a change process usually has: 1) pre-initiation and initiation, 2) implementation and 3) institutionalization. The movement from 1) to 3) is estimated in 5 years.

A quantitative analysis (i) is the starting point for a qualitative description (ii). The quantitative analysis will be obtained by scoring a table of questions about the pre-initiation and the initiation phases, and a description of the institution’s profile (the first of the four E’s in the Collis – Moonen model).

1. Experience building
1. Bottom-up
2. Adaptation of experiences elsewhere
2. Institutional direction
1. Inside the faculty
2. Outside the faculty, inside the university
3. Outside the university
1. National project
2. European project
3. International project
3. Strategic plan creation:
1. Paedagogical goals
1. enunciated at university level
2. enunciated at faculty level
3. developed in response to strategic position of the university
2. Infrastructural requirements
1. level of access
2. capital and recurrent costs
3. off-campus network access
4. reliability
3. Evaluation, dissemination and debate: monitoring practice
1. internally
2. externally
4. Quality issues
5. Expertise for development, production and distribution
1. staff development
2. resourcing for support
3. links to similar groups outside
4. potential for strategic alliances
6. Funding developments through
1. internal budgets
2. proposals to external agencies
7. Resourcing of planning for
1. development of a technological strategy
2. reviewing and updating a plan
4. Responsibility assigned.
1. Integrated (central unit management)
2. Parallel (learning units operating separately)
3. Distributed (bottom-up)
5. Environment: the institution profile
1. Vision about technology
2. Actual level of use
3. Readiness to change
4. Funding and incentives available
5. Experiences in the past whit ICT
6. Adequacy of the technical infrastructure

Describe the related situation for each of these items to produce a portrait of the current reality in your organisation.

This table offers a list of measures to follow during the implementation phase. It includes the last three of the 4 E’s model of Collis – Moonen (points 1 to 3); a prediction of project members attitudes (based on the "Moving from the pioneer" chapter in Collis – Moonen book), and some strategies proposed to enhance implementation.

1. Education effectiveness
1. Long-term pay-off (likelihood of long-term tangible benefit)
2. Short-term pay-off (efficiency gains)
3. Learning effectiveness The innovation provides:
1. New forms of valuable learning experiences
2. Support for the existing curriculum
3. Solutions to personally relevant education problems
4. Improved communication
5. Valuable support to existing curriculum
2. Easy of use
1. Network is
1. convenient to access
1. Faculty (instructors and students)
2. Home
1. Instructors
2. Students
2. adequate: speed, bandwidth…
3. reliable
2. Hardware. Easy access to:
1. computers
2. printers
3. Software
1. User friendly
2. Does not require training
3. Does not require special client software
3. Engagement
1. Personal orientation ("native / immigrant")
2. Sharing of interests
3. Pleasure in WWW
4. Project members
1. Trainers
1. expectation of educational gain
2. fit of the product to the members own setting
3. engagement level (to override the negative "easy of use" vector)
2. Trainees
1. expectation of educational gain
2. fit of the product to the members own setting
3. engagement level (to override the negative "easy of use" vector)
3. Mentors
1. expectation of educational gain
2. fit of the product to the members own setting
3. engagement level (to override the negative "easy of use" vector)
5. Decision makers. Ways of giving active support
1. meeting regularly with the implementation team
2. attending public meetings
3. making use of technology
4. making regular reference to the initiative
6. Implementation team strategies
1. Effectiveness:
1. Arguments for the ICT change concrete and meaningful
1. For the instructor
2. For the staff members
2. Reward mechanisms
1. provision of extra financial support
2. released time
3. incorporation of participation in staff evaluation procedures
4. funding for conference attendance if reporting on innovation
2. Ease of use
1. Adequate staffing
1. Webmaster
2. network manager
3. help-desk personnel
2. Adequate and upgraded hardware
3. Adequate and upgraded software
4. Subsidized at-home connectivity
3. Environment Use of technology
1. in any teaching done
2. that respects instructor’s concern and current ways of teaching
3. that is easy to use for initial engagement
4. that acknowledges the instructor’s limited time

As this are only check lists and are not meant to be the definitive analysis, they can be used in a very open way.

In point 1) Portrait, some points express facts, that can be answered yes / no (p.e. 3.1.), and some express opinions, that can be answered "high … low" (p.e. 3.2.1. "middle level of access"). I suggest a scale in which 1 means "extremely negative" and 4 "extremely positive".

Some points express opinions (i.e. 1. Education effectiveness) that can be answered by degrees like "fully agree … scarcely agree"; others express facts more or less quantifiable (i.e. 2. Easy of use) that can be answered: 1 easy access from home … 4 no access from home.

Same for point 2) Measures.

So a table could run as follows:

Common sense should decide which points to fill. This model is intended for each member.

Members implied: Pronett members; trainers (Faculty professors); trainees (pre-service teachers); mentors (in-service teachers)