Mechanisms for Technology Evaluation and Implementation

Members

Faculty Chair:  Marybeth Mason, CGCC
Co-Chair:  Naomi Story, DIST

Janet Gesin, PC
Maria Harper-Marinick, DIST
Laura Helminski, RSCC
Patricia Holmes, GCC
Carol Ilstrup, GWCC
Alan Jacobs, SCC
Karen Kabrich, PVCC
Chas Moore, MCC
Janet Reckmeyer, GCC
Bud Sessions, SCC
Suzann Shepard-Smith, EMCCC
LynnAnn Wojciechowicz, SMCC
Ted Wolter, CGCC

Charge

Mechanisms for Technology Evaluation and Implementation Committee discusses and defines the mechanisms for infusing or not infusing technology after "it" has been tested or developed. This group also investigates the requirements necessary for "grass roots" implementation (resources, support, etc.) and the best time for individual colleges to take responsibility for implementation. Process and models for evaluating efficacy of instructional technologies have been discussed and will continue to be discussed.

Introduction

The charge of the Mechanisms for Technology Evaluation and Implementation Committee was to continue the work begun by the committee in 1993. We hoped to refine and test the description outlined in Schema I (1993 Ocotillo Report, 34-35), the process by which innovations move from idea to broad implementation.

Year in Review

We gathered data through interviews with faculty who had successfully implemented innovations within the District (i.e., Electronic Forum, Glendale Community College Assessment Program, Collaborative Learning, etc.) We defined the context of innovation as technology-based and non-technology-based endeavors. Then we identified the similar features which contributed to the success of each innovation and outlined those common features in the attached flowchart:

click here for full size version of flowchart

Conclusion

As a result of our research, the committee came to the following conclusions:

A successful classroom innovation begins at the college level with faculty and staff who have identified an instructional need. The innovative idea is supported by sound research and a clear rationale, then formulated into a goal with obtainable objectives.
Without collaboration and support from others, which may include colleagues, staff, and administrators at the local and District level, the innovation may never get off the ground. The idea must be piloted on a small scale and thoughtfully evaluated to determine whether to complete the project, revise it, expand it, or "bail out."
Broader implementation demands the expansion of support financially and administratively, and a "buy-in" by colleagues, often motivated by incentives. Ongoing training, follow-up, support, and evaluation, sustained over a three to five year period, will ensure permanent integration.
The committee wished to stress that innovators must be willing and encouraged to take risks, make mistakes, and even abandon an idea that once may have seemed to have great potential. "Bailing out" on an idea is not a bad thing.

Future Goals

In the future, the committee would like to look more closely at successful training models, internal grants process, faculty burn out, and expanding the involvement of part-time faculty in innovation and change.

Index

Ocotillo Report '94-- Mechanisms for Technology Evaluation and Implementation

back

c 1994, Maricopa Center for Learning and Instruction (MCLI) Maricopa County Community College District, Arizona