Slide 1: eLearning adoption: staff development and selfefficacy Bronwyn Hegarty and Merrolee Penman, Otago Polytechnic, Dunedin, New Zealand Dawn Coburn, Dunedin College of Education, Dunedin, New Zealand Oriel Kelly, Manukau Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand AND others (2006). Some rights reserved 2007
Slide 2: The purpose of the research To investigate the effectiveness of existing staff development models in preparing staff for eLearning at six institutions in New Zealand. This research was funded by a TeLRF (Tertiary eLearning Research Fund) grant provided by the Tertiary Education Commission, Ministry of Education, NZ
Slide 3: eLearning — multimedia technologies used for learning (e.g. Internet-based, CDROM technologies, video, audio, teleconference) self-efficacy — belief that people have in their own abilities to perform in particular areas. Higher self-efficacy the more confident.
Slide 4: Staff development has always been regarded as very important for preparing staff to teach online and to ensure high quality experiences are offered to students – review (Hegarty, 2004). This research looked at the link between staff development and self-efficacy in eLearning.
Slide 5: From the literature - four factors influence effectiveness of staff development models First factor– adoption of eLearning
Slide 6: Second factor– staff development models
Slide 7: Third factor – achieving self-efficacy
Slide 8: Fourth factor – institutional efficacy
Slide 9: Research questions • What is the range of eLearning staff development (SD) models offered by New Zealand tertiary providers? • How do SD models prepare academic staff for eLearning? • Why are some models more effective than others?
Slide 10: N = 82 n = 27 six institutions
Slide 11: Interesting findings: characteristics http://farm1.static.flickr.com/26/63661031_6e7e96da63_m.jpg To this http://farm1.static.flickr.com/41/83405429_5586b613ec_m.jpg From this High self-efficacy is linked to where the individual puts a lot off effort into getting something right and to understand it. The individual is willing to try and try again even in the face of failure; he/she expects problems and is confident about solving them.
Slide 12: Interesting findings: people said… Informal • sought when needed • more effective as relevant • can provide peer support Formal • taken when offered • may not be relevant • may not be as effective • may not have followup
Slide 13: Summary of findings • Staff development models were similar but didn’t always meet needs to develop capability and competency • Informal staff development wide-ranging and commonly used where high selfefficacy (early adopters) • Findings consistent with other Aotearoa/NZ research (Mitchell et al, 2005) • Findings confirm previous international research
Slide 14: What did we learn? Not really about catering for competency or capability .............BUT............. Its about being staff centred
Slide 15: • No evidence to demonstrate that the type of staff development had any impact on levels of self-efficacy ……. • There was evidence that the majority of the group was highly motivated and had a high level of self-efficacy • Informal SD linked to positive experiences with eLearning • Majority concerned with providing high quality materials and interaction with students – mainly within limitations of LMS
Slide 16: Recommendations – Flexible staff development which recognises organisational and individual needs – Incentives such as funding, time release and promotion for staff – A range of methods and strategies to pick from which are timely and relevant – project team, mentoring and community of practice approaches
Slide 17: • Hegarty, B. (2004). The Impact of Technology on the Quality of Teaching and Learning in Tertiary Institutions: Literature Review. Project completed as part of the requirements for a Doctorate in Education. University of Wollongong, NSW. • Hegarty, B., Penman, M., Brown, C., Coburn, D., Gower, B., Kelly, O., Sherson, G., Suddaby, G. & Moore, M. (2006). Approaches and implications of eLearning adoption in relation to academic staff efficacy and working practice. Ministry of Education: Wellington. • Mitchell, D., Clayton, J., Gower, B., Barr H. and Bright, S. (2005). E-Learning in New Zealand Institutes of Technology/Polytechnics: Final Report. Hamilton, New Zealand: Waikato Institute of Technology (WINTEC). Report presented to Ministry of Education, New Zealand. • Phelps, R. (2002). Mapping the complexity of computer learning: Journeying beyondteaching for computer competency to facilitating computer capability. Thesis submitted to fulfil the requirements of Doctor of Philosophy, Southern Cross, University, NSW. Full report at: http://cms.steo.govt.nz/