Due to ever-emerging technologies and instructional methodologies applicable in learning environments, the e-Learning Design Lab (eDL) must be continually engaged in strategic planning. Specifically, the goal of this process is to ensure that the lab is positioned to respond to research and development opportunities that result in solutions to e-learning challenges in learning environments. The intended outcome is a forward looking work scope and culture that is supportive of the interests and expertise of participating researchers while being responsive to outside opportunities.
In 2000, the Center for Research on Learning (CRL) and the Information Technology and Telecommunication Center (ITTC) partnered to create the e-Learning Design Lab. During its history, the eDL, which is administered by co-directors from the Schools of Education and Engineering, has largely focused on research and development addressing related to e-learning at the postsecondary level, including professional development. Recently, the organization has expanded its target audience to include children and youth, with a special focus on enhancing the education of students with disabilities. To date, such efforts have resulted in the development of content- rich online instructional products and the creation of validated tools and processes applicable to e-learning.
The legacy of the eDL has positioned the lab for this planning process. Thus, each member of the management team has served for more than six years and both staff members on the team have been with the lab since it was created. In addition, the GRAs in leadership roles are experienced in the processes employed by the lab.
Further, the School of Education is in the process of strategic planning for the graduate program in instructional technology. Thus, the landscape for future research and development priorities in the broad area of e-learning has changed dramatically since the inception of the lab. Most importantly, the timing for new leadership is appropriate. The lab had matured to a level where it is well positioned to extend the scope of its work, reexamine the target audience, and increase the number of participating researchers in fulfilling the evolving mission of the eDL.
The planning sessions replaced the weekly management meetings, and every effort was made to meet when all members of the management team could participate. During the latter stages of the process, during the spring semester, it became difficult to engage the full team at the same time. Thus, in some cases multiple sessions were held on the same topics, with two of the team members present at all sessions. A summary of responses served as the agenda for each session. Detailed notes were recorded and summarized and reviews of the material were presented at each subsequent meeting to ensure consensus. This process served two purposes: (a) the summaries contributed to building a legacy document that captured the discussion and decisions resulting from the planning process ; and (b) the discussion sessions on the responses to the stimulus questions helped to frame the final decisions resulting from the planning process.
After the discussion sessions, the agenda moved to the key topics that were judged to be critical to the strategic plan. These topics included the mission and value statements, the foci of the lab, the organizational structure, criteria for adding participating researchers, the engagement of students, and the relationship of the lab to the academic program in instructional design in the School of Education. Subsequent sections of this document contain the consensus statements on these topics as framed by the management team during the planning process. Appendix B contains the legacy document that includes summaries of the information that served as support for the decisions made by the management team. Appendix A contains specific suggestions for actions to be taken by the management team in the future. They are derived from the legacy document and edited to make the information more concise and useful for implementation purposes. These include the following:
The first step in the decision-making process was the framing of a concise statement describing the mission of the lab and the values that we place on the culture of our work environment. These two statements combine to communicate the foci of our work, our core expertise, and the manner in which we aspire to carry out our work. These statements guide decisions on what we do, the target audiences we strive to serve, and our relationships within the lab and the broader community of individuals and groups who share our commitment to furthering the effectiveness and applications of technology to teaching and learning.
Central to transforming the mission of the lab in an operational plan was the process of defining the work to be done and the population the work is intended to benefit. The construct developed by participating lab researchers and published in 2003 continues to represent a viable framework for guiding the work of the lab. As a construct it constitutes a work in progress that is subject to modification based on experience, changing societal conditions, and the interests of participating researchers, collaborators and students. It is important to create an environment and to set parameters of work that will serve the mission of the lab and the participants of the future. The following represents the version that emerged from the planning process.
Once the parameters are refined and individual interests are known, decisions can be made organizationally on how the interests of individuals and collaborators can be accommodated. For example, there may be a need for a K-12 division, a division related specifically to universal design or a division emphasizing professional development. The goal would be for the construct to influence an organizational structure that enhances the work of participants, encourages collaboration, facilitates independent work and results in a unified collection of work representing the mission of the eDL.
Generalization: Does the proposed activity apply to other populations of learners? Can it be modified to benefit a larger set of learners? Is it useable in other learning environments, curriculum content or instructional designs? Are its applications limited to a narrow set of features and/or tasks?
Intellectual Merit: What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?
Broader Impact: What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be broadly disseminated to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?
Scalability: Can the intervention, tool or activity be applied routinely at a national level without modifications or having to meet special technical requirements? Does the tool, intervention or activity possess the necessary features to maximize benefits to intended learners in varied learning environments?
Pre-K-12 Education: Learners representing students from different backgrounds and ethnicity in public or private educational programs, including charter schools and home schooling.
Postsecondary Education: Learners participating in educational and/or training programs beyond high school, including those enrolled in colleges of all types, vocational schools, the military, and industry.
Professional Development: Learners in a wide array of careers and positions where additional preparation will strengthen performance and enhance opportunities for advancement.
Content Structure: R&D that relates to framing content to meet the particular requirements of different disciplines and learners in order to maximally benefit from e-learning.
Universal Design: R&D that relates to enhancing the benefit of e-learning to all learners through deigns that address the unique needs of some learners but generalize to society in general.
Communications Design: R&D that relates to presenting and interacting with information in electronic forms that maximize understanding and learning. This includes creating formats, visual displays, and other presentation forms that enhance understanding and can be rapidly employed in dissemination. It also includes R&D in the area of exploratory learning modes in which students are allowed to interact with visual representations in a very general way. Examples might include, but are not limited to, simulations.
Policy: R&D that relates to the development, validation, and modification of policies that govern educational applications of e-learning in environments serving diverse learners.
Learning Environments: R&D that relates to the varied settings in which e-learning may occur (e.g., classrooms, labs of all types, independent study arrangements, on the job settings, and studios).
Instructional/Assistive Technology: R&D that relates to the design, development, validation, and/or implementation of designs for instruction through the use of technology and/or the creation of technologies that enhance the performance of individuals in areas of motor, cognitive, or affective behavior.
Consideration of the organizational structure was deemed critical due to the collaborative model under which the lab operates and the self-supporting requirement that governs it. The organizational structure overlaps with all other decisions made in the strategic planning process. The effectiveness of the structure is largely tied to the responsiveness of the staff and participating researchers and the roles they assume individually and collectively. By necessity, the organizational structure will remain a work in progress with a focus on continuing to meet the needs of the lab and affiliated colleagues. Central to the way the organizational structure operates is the manner in which it contributes to communication and efficiency on the part of participating researchers, accommodates the co-directorship model, enhances efforts to generate support for the work of the lab, complements the culture of engaging students, and supports the mission of the lab.
Therefore, the organizational structure should include:
The success and continued effective operation of the eDL depends on active engagement of faculty and others who share a commitment to activities associated with its mission. Thus, it is through the collective efforts of researchers that resources are secured, work is carried out, students are supported, products are produced, contributions are made to academic programs, and the eDL achieves a national presence. The talents of the core group of researchers as well as their commitment to the mission of the eDL remains central to the long-term success of the lab. The self-sustainability of this group requires a collective effort in focusing the work of the lab, pursuing opportunities for external support, and attracting colleagues to the group. Their willingness to share in the responsibilities for the development and maintenance of the lab is central to their role.
Composition of the core group need not be limited to individuals with interests specific to those parameters of the construct that are content in nature; they may also focus on associated areas of expertise such as technical skills, process interests, design or learner attributes. A formative approach may be taken in adding to the core group to ensure a logical and systematic expansion of the work of the lab and the implementation of the strategic plan.
In adding to the core group of researchers/developers invitees must meet the following criteria:
Central to the mission of the lab is its commitment to providing experiences for students related to the design, development, content management, delivery, evaluation, and/or research of e-learning across disciplines and age groups This commitment has been implemented through the staffing of projects by creating GRA and student hourly opportunities; supporting students in conducting thesis and dissertation research; and structuring roles that approximate career paths.
Basic to the eDL‘s commitment to students is the creation and maintenance of a culture that is characterized by mentoring, providing opportunities to grow and develop new skills with priority placed on opportunities for participation in collaborative scholarship and an expectation of maturation in their career aspirations and independence as scholars/developers. The focus is on recruiting students whose talents and career objectives match the mission of the eDL. Preference is given to the selection of student employees who are studying with or known to faculty members participating in the lab.
In support of students the eDL will:.
The eDL will professionalize the roles of students by:
The eDL represents a significant and, in many ways, unique resource for academic programs that have as their primary or related mission the preparation of professionals or scholars in instructional design or educational technology. The legacy of the lab as an R&D unit, combined with the space and equipment resources, established relationships on campus, and visibility among students and faculty across academic departments where e-learning is an area of research interest, has resulted in the capacity to benefit students in their pursuit of academic programs in fields preparing professionals for careers where skills related to related e-learning are required.
The ITTC/CRL partnership and its visibility among campus units position the lab as a resource that is unlikely to be replicated in the future due to competing resource needs and priorities within the University. Thus, the lab provides academic programs, opportunities for student research, employment, and training experiences related to e-learning in a sustainable environment that does not exist elsewhere on campus.
In an informal way, through participating faculty and the engagement of students, an implied relationship has existed. In a similar, but not identical manner, there has been a relationship with other departments through the recruitment of student employees and with the Department of Special Education through content and development initiatives driven by concern for the needs of learners who benefit in significant ways from technology. The lab is not and does not aspire to be an academic program, but it can be leveraged in major ways to contribute to building a department of instructional design of considerable stature at the University of Kansas. For this to occur, a relationship must be made operational in a manner where benefits are mutual. The ITTC, EECS, CRL and Special Education department models have much to offer in framing such a relationship between the academic program in instructional technology and the eDL.The eDL could provide the following core opportunities that would enhance the quality of an academic program such as the one proposed above:
