Adapt Governance to Align Educational Technology With Faculty Needs

Effective use of technology for pedagogy requires intentional collaboration.

Executive Summary

Info-Tech Insight
IT must integrate with institutional bodies through governance to ensure success. Involve all relevant stakeholders who will be impacted by the outcomes of educational technology including institutional leadership, faculty, local IT, and students.

Meeting the challenge of educational technology is a core priority of the IT department

Educational technology has become more central to IT’s mandate since the pandemic.

Faculty believe they will continue to rely on technology to deliver instruction through hybrid courses, although fewer believe technology resources will be expanded. This means IT must develop the capability to support the pedagogy.

Perception of faculty on the continuation of hybrid instruction

82%: Increased/continuation of courses offered hybrid/online
72%: Increased/continued faculty interest in teaching hybrid/online courses
56%: Expanded instructional technology resources

Source: “EDUCAUSE Quick Poll Results: Assessment and Learning Design,” EDUCAUSE, 2021

“The value of the technology should go directly to student learning as one of the main strategic outcomes of the College. Ideally, the CIO has their finger on the pulse of anything on the technology side that can enhance student learning, as well as an understanding of when systems can get in the way.”
–Kristen Eshleman,
VP Library/IT/Data & Analytics,
Trinity College Hartford

The transformation of learning spaces is bringing IT closer to the instructional priorities of the institution

Learning space redesign is involving IT in the education mandate of the institution

In a survey of 154 higher education IT professionals, 47% reported that spaces were being modified to support online or hybrid learning. This activity in learning-space redesign is bringing IT into greater involvement with the instruction of the students and thus into greater involvement with a top priority of every institution of education.

Source: “EDUCAUSE QuickPoll Results: Learning Spaces Transformation,” EDUCAUSE, 2022

Variation in terminology used for technology-enabled learning can lead to confusion

The terminology for different modes of instruction often focuses on the different implications of instructional design and the pedagogy of the course. Below is a list of common terms. IT should be aware that if the classroom technology is designed with flexibility in mind, a single learning space may facilitate multiple pedagogical approaches.

Here are a few common terms:

• Online courses are designed to be delivered solely through a virtual environment.
• Remote/distance learning uses technology to virtually deliver instruction that was designed for in-person pedagogy.
• Hybrid learning incorporates both in-person and virtual modes of instruction.
• HyFlex instruction is designed so that either the instructor or the student can attend the class virtually or in person.

Sources: Beatty, 2019; Ramirez et al., EDUCAUSE Annual Conference 2022

Regardless of the terminology, IT’s focus in learning space transformation is to introduce technology to promote flexibility in instruction.

The success of learning space transformation hinges on strategic alignment and leadership support

Identify what factors are essential for the success of a learning space transformation effort.

• As with any major institutional initiative, the transformation of learning spaces is a costly undertaking that involves stakeholders from across the institution.
• The list of factors in the chart was presented to IT professionals undertaking learning space transformation. They identified their top three enablers that support the initiative and the top three factors they were lacking which impeded the initiative’s progress.
• Financial resources, leadership support, and strategic alignment were the most important factors as both enablers and barriers.
• An updated room reservation system was also a strong enabler. Such a system would support selection of rooms by categorizing them according to the technology design.

Source: “EDUCAUSE QuickPoll Results: Learning Spaces Transformation,” EDUCAUSE, 2022; N=72 higher education IT professionals

The educational technology ecosystem spans a range of technologies and services

An IT department perspective

IT usually views the educational technology ecosystem according to its capabilities.

Learning platform service
Support for the learning management system and the third-party tools that integrate with it.

Classroom technology
Provides support for instructional and presentation technology for classrooms, labs, and seminar and conference spaces.

Media equipment
Offers a check-out service for equipment, as well as training and development services for instructional content and delivery.

Content management and website-hosting services*
A capability that is developed for the delivery of courses that are designed to be delivered online.

* This capability is often developed for dedicated online courses.

A faculty-facing perspective

This model reorganizes IT’s instructional technology services to facilitate faculty engagement.

Faculty are concerned with how the services and tools can benefit their pedagogy:

• Interaction support to enable students and faculty to collaborate more effectively.
• Content support to help faculty source and create materials for their courses.
• Assessment services and tools for both the creation and proctoring of tests and examinations.
• Course management to assist faculty with matters of scheduling, attendance, and gradebook records and their submission.

Consider how the ecosystem is presented to faculty

There are two considerations for the constituent perspective:

• A single tool or service may appear in more than one category, but this duplication is acceptable.
• Tools are organized by support and access level. Some tools are supported by the vendor, others by the department; some tools are available to specific departments while others are available to all faculty and students.

Source: McGill University

The learning ecosystem must overcome structural challenges to align with instructional objectives

See, for example, “Governance Structure of Dalhousie University,” Dalhousie University.

This simplified model of bicameral, higher education governance shows certain fundamental challenges to effective implementation of educational technology.

• Technology and pedagogy are siloed because the reporting structure for IT and faculty are largely independent of each other. This means that collaboration between the two parties is not supported by design.
• Enterprise IT is also at odds with local IT which often reports to their respective deans and may have an independent mandate to provide instructional technology.
• Other, unicameral models of governance suffer the same challenges despite their stronger executive. (Bowles, “Boards: Who’s Really in Charge?”)

Info-Tech Insight
Siloed operations tend to thwart effective provision of instructional technologies and undermine the educational mandate of the institution.

Involve multiple stakeholders in governance for educational technology

See, for example, “Governance | Learning Technology Hub,” University of British Columbia.

To overcome the siloed structure of higher education, IT should create a committee structure that involves key stakeholders in the appropriate level of engagement:

• An IT Steering Committee should be informed of developments in educational technology at the institution to ensure that IT resources are supporting key initiatives.
• An IT Advisory Committee for Educational Technology involves faculty leadership (ideally the provost and deans of key departments) as well as the head of the CTL.
• A Working Group for Educational Technology will involve stakeholders who have functional use of the technology in instructional settings including instructional faculty, IT operations, and students.

Info-Tech Insight
Larger institutions may create one working group for operations and one for pedagogy. Smaller institutions may find a single advisory committee sufficient.

Identify the responsibilities of the IT committees for educational technology

1. With your IT leadership team and local IT leadership, review the typical responsibilities of the educational technology committees on the following slide.
2. Identify which responsibilities you believe the educational technology committees should have, brainstorm any additional responsibilities, and document their reasoning.
3. As a group, consider the responsibilities and whether you can reasonably implement those in one year, or if any will need to wait until year two of the educational committees’ operation.
4. Modify the list of responsibilities in Info-Tech’s charter templates by deleting the responsibilities you don’t need and adding any that you identified in the process.

Download the IT Advisory Committee for Educational Technology Charter Template

Download the IT Working Group for Educational Technology Charter Template

Review the typical governance responsibilities for committees on educational technology

IT Advisory Committee for Educational Technology

Purpose

• Make recommendations to IT leadership on the evolution of the educational technology ecosystem.
• Report to the IT Steering Committee and provide oversight of the IT Working Group for Educational Technology.

Objectives

• Recommend and develop strategies and policies for educational systems for the institution.
• Prioritize the operational activity.
• Make recommendations on the optimal faculty support and service models.
• Determine lifecycle management of tools and services.
• Provide facilitation of topic-specific working groups as needed.
• Ensure privacy, security, and compliance standards are met.

Scope

• Stewardship of this committee applies to all educational systems and technologies developed and managed anywhere at the university. Educational information systems issues raised at other committees will be brought to the [ACET].

IT Working Group for Educational Technology

Purpose

• Provide faculty and student feedback for educational technology governance.
• Report to the IT Advisory Committee for Educational Technology on decisions about operational priorities and implementations of new systems and services.

Objectives

• Make recommendations for improvements in educational technology.
• Serve as a forum for sharing best practices across discipline-specific contexts at the department and faculty level.
• Promote information-sharing around learning technology between faculty and students.
• Assist with setting criteria for selection of new learning technology components in the environment.
• Establish operational priorities for educational technology.
• Monitor risks, quality, and progress of learning ecosystem operations.

Scope

• The remit of this committee is to provide feedback on user issues related to tools in the learning technology environment, to guide operations of educational technologies and services related to learning objectives, and to advise on pedagogical priorities and the tools that support them.

Source: University of British Columbia

Membership on the committees should offer wide representation while still being selective

The challenge for governance in educational technology is to involve wide representation from across the institution while still maintaining a manageable size for committees themselves.

• If more people get involved than is required, then the committee risks being ineffective. Participants should be selected based on the identified responsibilities of the IT steering committee.
• Further, if the responsibilities don’t match the participants, this will negatively impact committee effectiveness as leaders become disengaged in the process and don’t feel like it applies to them or accomplishes the desired goals. Once participants begin dissenting, it’s significantly more difficult to get results.
• Select only the people whose attendance is critical. For example, Facilities is included in the graphic, but their participation may not be central, and they may only need to be involved during learning space redesign.

“OSU IT works with Facilities and Capital Planning to ensure campus technical standards are used by architects and contractors on new construction and remodels. This reduces the barriers to a consistent classroom support model and availability of standard technologies for instruction."
– Kristina Case
Director of Academic Technologies, UIT
Oregon State University

Identify committee participants and responsibility cadence

1. In a meeting with your IT leadership team, review the list of committee responsibilities and document them on a whiteboard.
2. For each responsibility, identify the individuals whom you would prefer to be responsible / accountable for that decision.
3. Group responsibilities with the same participants and highlight groupings with fewer than three participants. Consider the responsibility and determine whether you need to change the wording to make it more applicable or if you should remove the responsibility.
4. Review the groupings, the responsibilities within them, and their participants, and assess how frequently you would like to meet about them – annually, quarterly, or monthly.
5. Subdivide the responsibilities for the groupings to determine your annual, quarterly, and monthly meeting schedule.
6. Validate that one advisory committee and one working group is appropriate, or whether to merge or divide the current number.
7. Document the committee participants and procedures in the committee charters and remove any unnecessary responsibilities identified in the previous exercise.

Draft the purpose statements and goals for the educational technology committees

1. In a meeting with your IT leadership team and key stakeholders such as the those from the Center for Teaching and Learning, review the example goal statements in the IT Advisory Committee for Educational Technology Charter Template and the IT Working Group for Educational Technology Charter Template. Identify whether any of these statements apply to your organization. Select the statements that apply and collaboratively make any changes needed.
2. Document those goals in the respective committee charters.
3. With those goal statements in mind, consider the overall purpose of the committees. The purpose statement should reflect what the committee does, why it does that, and the goals.
4. Document these in the IT Advisory Committee for Educational Technology Charter Template and the IT Working Group for Educational Technology Charter Template.

Review these typical milestones to support technological enablement of education

GOVERNANCE FOR EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

CLT COLLABORATION

FACULTY SUPPORT

INSTRUCTIONAL INNOVATION

INSTRUCTIONAL TRANSFORMATION

Digital Learning Strategy
A DLS is a plan for the technology, workforce development, and change management initiatives that will enable the institution’s priorities for education and align those priorities with the institution’s larger digital transformation strategy.
(Sources: “EDUCAUSE QuickPoll Results: Transforming Teaching and Learning with a Digital Learning Strategy.” EDUCAUSE, 2022; Berkley Information Technology)

LTI Integration Process
Faculty find the LMS most useful when they add LTI plugins to suit their specific pedagogic needs. The LMS on its own enables administration, not teaching. IT will need to develop a seamless process for plugin adoption that ensures privacy and security compliance and minimizes the duplication of functionality.
Source: Haskell and Mojeiko, EDUCAUSE Annual Conference 2022; Beaudry, EDUCAUSE Annual Conference 2022)

Community of Practice
A community of practice for teaching transformation provides a supported space for faculty to experiment, create, and share ideas with colleagues across disciplines. This community is usually led by the Center for Teaching and Learning with IT offering structured support.
(Savage, et al., EDUCAUSE Annual Conference 2022)

Embed EdTech with CLT
To encourage collaboration between IT and faculty, embed an educational technologist within the Center of Teaching and Learning. While the reporting structures don’t change, having an EdTech in physical proximity with CTL is considered a best practice.

Info-Tech Resources

Improve IT Governance to Drive Business Results

• IT governance is the top predictor of value generated by IT, yet many organizations struggle to organize their governance effectively.
• The right people are not making the right decisions about IT.

Establish an Effective IT Steering Committee

• Unfortunately, when CIOs implement IT steering committees, they often lack the appropriate structure and processes to be effective.
• Due to the high profile of the IT steering committee membership, CIOs need to get this right – or their reputation is at risk.

Make Your IT Governance Adaptable

• People don’t understand the value of governance, seeing it as a hindrance to productivity and efficiency.
• Governance is delegated to people and practices that don’t have the ability or authority to make these decisions.

Research Contributors and Experts

Kristina Case
Director of Academic Technologies, UIT
Oregon State University

Kristen Eshleman
VP Library / IT / Data & Analytics,
Trinity College Hartford

Rebecca Frazee
Faculty in Learning Design and Technology
San Diego State University
Associate Director at FLEXspace.org

Mark Roman
Managing Partner
Info-Tech Research Group

Valence Howden
Principal Advisory Director
Info-Tech Research Group

Bibliography

Beatty, Brian J. “Beginnings: Where Does Hybrid-Flexible Come From.” In Hybrid-Flexible Course Design, EdTech Books, 2019. Accessed 6 Feb. 2023. edtechbooks.org, https://edtechbooks.org/hyflex/book_intro.

Beaudry, Debbie. “Collaborative Approach to Improving Accessibility for Teaching and Learning.” EDUCAUSE Annual Conference 2022, 27 Oct 2022, Denver, CO. Accessed 12 Jan. 2023. https://events.educause.edu/annual-conference/agenda.

Berkley Information Technology. ‘Digital Learning Strategy’. Information Technology, 27 Dec. 2021. Accessed 6 Feb. 2023. https://technology.berkeley.edu/it-strategic-plan/it-goals-fy-priorities/digital-learning-strategy.

Bowles, Kathy Johnson. “Boards: Who’s Really in Charge?” Inside Higher Ed, Nov. 2021. Accessed 24 Jan. 2023. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-explain-it-me/boards-who%E2%80%99s-really-charge.

Dalhousie University. Governance Structure of Dalhousie University. Dalhousie University, Feb. 2016. Accessed 6 Feb. 2023. https://cdn.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/dept/university_secretariat/Board-of-Governors/Governance%20Structure%20Document%20-%20updated%20August%202016.pdf.

Frazee, Rebecca, et al. “FLIPP the Learning Space Planning Process with FLEXspace & LSRS to Engage and Align Stakeholders.” EDUCAUSE Annual Conference 2022, 27 Oct 2022, Denver, CO. Accessed 12 Jan. 2023. https://events.educause.edu/annual-conference/agenda.

Haskell, Allyson, and Leslie Mojeiko. “Canvas LTIs at University of Florida: Finding the Right Balance for Educational Technology Adoption.” EDUCAUSE Annual Conference 2022, 27 Oct 2022, Denver, CO. Accessed 12 Jan. 2023. https://events.educause.edu/annual-conference/agenda.

McCormack, Mark. “EDUCAUSE QuickPoll Results: Assessment and Learning Design.” EDUCAUSE, 2 April 2021. Accessed 19 Jan. 2023. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2021/4/educause-quickpoll-results-assessment-and-learning-design.

McGill University. “Teaching and Learning Technologies.” Teaching and Learning Services (TLS), n.d. Accessed 6 Feb. 2023. https://www.mcgill.ca/tls/instructors/technologies.

Muscanell, Nicole. “EDUCAUSE QuickPoll Results: Transforming Teaching and Learning with a Digital Learning Strategy.” EDUCAUSE, Aug. 2022. Accessed 6 Feb. 2023. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2022/8/educause-quickpoll-results-transforming-teaching-and-learning-with-a-digital-learning-strategy.

Ramirez, Elyse, et al. “Designing Future-Focused Learning Spaces: Shaping Teaching and Learning for HyFlex Environments.” EDUCAUSE Annual Conference 2022, 27 Oct 2022, Denver, CO. Accessed 12 Jan. 2023. https://events.educause.edu/annual-conference/agenda.

Reid, Pat. ‘EdTechs and Instructional Designers — What’s the Difference?’ Educause, 10 Dec. 2018. Accessed 23 Jan. 2023. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2018/12/edtechs-and-instructional-designers-whats-the-difference

Robert, Jenay. EDUCAUSE QuickPoll Results: Learning Spaces Transformation. Apr. 2022. Accessed 27 Jan. 2023. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2022/4/educause-quickpoll-results-learning-spaces-transformation

Savage, Jesse, et al. “Creating a Positive Space for Teaching Transformation.” EDUCAUSE Annual Conference 2022, 27 Oct 2022, Denver, CO. Accessed 12 Jan. 2023. https://events.educause.edu/annual-conference/agenda

University of British Columbia. ‘UBC Learning Technology Governance | Learning Technology Hub’. Teaching with Technology, n.d. Accessed 2 Feb. 2023. https://lthub.ubc.ca/governance/