Knowledge management principles applied to the design of blended learning professional development can leverage each delivery method to give just-in-time support as faculty learn to implement instructional methods and classroom management techniques into their face-to-face classrooms. Design validation was completed in four phases using design and development research methods.
Background and Research Problem
Adjunct faculty comprise a large percentage of part-time faculty for many colleges and universities today. The faculty are hired because of their subject matter expertise in their content areas; however, there is no guarantee that they are skilled in effective classroom management. These instructors can become disconcerted and discouraged because they lack the knowledge and skills necessary to run an effective classroom.
While blended learning has been recognized as an effective modality for students and the adoption this delivery method has become increasingly common in educational organizations, this method has not gained much traction as a way for these organizations to deliver instruction to their own employees. Thus, opportunities exist to use blended learning as a strategy for the delivery of professional development in the workplace for those adjunct faculty who are teaching in face-to-face classrooms. The application of knowledge management (KM), however, is more common in the workplace. KM is used in organizations to identify, share, and validate knowledge in order to improve individual and organizational performance. Blended learning professional development incorporating KM principles can leverage face-to-face and online instruction delivery methods to give adjunct faculty real-time support as they expand their knowledge of and skills with the employment of specific instructional methods and classroom management techniques in their face-to-face classrooms.
Research Goal and Methodology
The goal was to construct and validate a blended learning professional development course for adjunct faculty. Design and development research methods (Richey & Klein, 2007) were used to conduct the study in four phases. In phase one, a course design framework incorporating SECI KM principles was developed. The basis for the framework was drawn from Yeh, Huang, and Yeh’s (2011) application of the SECI KM model (Nonaka, 1991) in a blended learning pre-service teacher education course. Components from Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) and Nonaka, Toyama, and Konno’s (2000) KM studies including the four modes of the SECI KM model (i.e., socialization, externalization, internalization, and combination), ba, knowledge assets, producers, and enablers were incorporated. In addition, concepts from communities of practice, just-in-time delivery, and Bloom’s taxonomy were integrated to complete the instructional design framework.
The next step was to construct a course based upon the framework. Course goals and outcomes were developed to meet the needs of adjunct faculty. Bloom’s taxonomy was used when looking at the type of outcomes expected by the faculty participating in the course. The course subject matter and identified learning outcomes encompassed tacit and explicit knowledge related to the university, instructional methods, and classroom management techniques. Viscosity considerations were made when determining the amount and type of information presented and discussed in the course. The just-in-time approach taken was an intentional aspect of the framework and design. The just-in-time strategy helped to inform the identification of additional outcomes which supported the overall course outcomes and which were associated with specific times during the term when specific knowledge was to be acquired, applied, or reflected upon. This approach would influence the velocity at which a learner could progress through the course materials as well. The blended learning method chosen included activities that have been demonstrated as effective in that course modality. Strategic selection of topics and activities would encourage movement along the knowledge continuum and interactions at the times proposed to be the most relevant and valuable. The inclusion of community of practice concepts was to address the sociological needs of the adjunct faculty as adult learners having the shared practice of instruction in face-to-face classrooms.
Included with the framework was a mapping of the learning outcomes, knowledge type, and activities associated with each SECI mode that had been determined for the adjunct faculty audience. In phase two, an expert panel reviewed the framework and mapping. The Delphi technique was used to capture panel members’ feedback. Revisions to the framework and mapping were results of the expert review. A consensus that the items in the mapping were acceptable was achieved after two rounds had been completed.
In phase three, content was further curated to support each week’s activities and the information or knowledge sharing which was needed for those weeks. The online portion of the course was constructed using the Desire2Learn Brightspace learning management system (LMS). Features of the LMS were used in the construction of the instantiation to support the course design information vetted by the expert panel.
The sequential nature of the phases in which the professional development course was designed and developed resulted in a refined instantiation of the course for the formative evaluation completed in phase 4. The formative evaluation was conducted using focus groups with key stakeholders including faculty, instructional staff, and administrators. The results of the formative evaluation were positive as the components of the framework, especially the integration of the SECI principles, were identified as notable aspects of the course design.
Research Questions and Results
Three research questions guided the investigation: RQ1. How can a SECI-based blended learning model developed to support pre-service teacher education be adapted to support professional development for adjunct professors in a postsecondary environment? RQ2. To what extent does the resulting training course meet adjunct faculty needs and the university’s needs and requirements? and RQ3. What implications do the results have for refinement of the course? All three research questions were successfully addressed through the aforementioned four phases.
Research Question 1
The SECI-based blended learning model developed to support pre-service teacher education could be adapted to support professional development for adjunct professors in a postsecondary environment by the intentional integration of additional development concepts into the design framework and by modifying the content for the new target audience of the training. The SECI principles, course duration, and blended learning modality were consistent with the use in Yeh et al. (2011). Minor adjustments with the mechanisms (i.e. group discussion, guided practice, observational learning) were made to make each mechanism applicable to this professional development opportunity. Some aspects of Yeh et al.’s (2011) model were not documented in the published article so all the adaptations may not be apparent or noted.
Research Question 2
The findings from the focus group sessions were an indication the training course would meet needs and requirements of adjunct faculty and the university. The adjunct faculty needs met would be in the development of organizational knowledge, knowledge and skills related to pedagogy and good teaching practice, and an increased sense of belonging to and perceived value by the university. Furthermore, the university needs may be met through the increase in collegiality, delivery of a consistent message for the expectations of instructional staff, and meeting the requirements of outside accrediting bodies for staff professional development.
Research Question 3
The focus group formative evaluation resulted in the receipt of constructive feedback valuable in the identification of areas for potential improvement in the course instantiation, extensions of this research, and future research opportunities. The areas of improvement noted were related to the course topics mostly. The diverse perspectives and backgrounds resulted in difference preferences for the value of the topics in the instantiation. The other focal areas of the group evaluation were the details of how the course would be facilitated and implemented. The group echoed concerns about potential obstacles to the implementation of professional development for faculty similar to what has been presented in other research study findings.
Conclusion
Overall, the incorporation of the SECI principles for faculty professional development was determined to be worthy of continued consideration by key stakeholders. A resultant design document was created to capture key components of the blended learning faculty development course. The next steps would be to develop a detailed facilitation guide to accompany the course and to collaborate with stakeholders in the creation of a detailed implementation plan that would be suitable to the institution. Once implemented, summative and confirmative evaluations would be recommended to assess the effectiveness and value of this professional development course, the course facilitation and implementation, and to determine whether the course is viable over time. Additionally, future research focusing on the incorporation of SECI principles into the instructional design of various online and blended learning contexts is recommended.
Engaging the Audience
We anticipate that our research presentation will spark curiosity about the design framework and research results. Time (at least 15 minutes of the 45-minute session) will be provided to engage the audience in a conversation about their perspectives and their response to the results of this study. We would like to find out from our audience answers to questions such as: What feedback do they have on the design and from what perspective they are commenting? What future research do they believe would be most beneficial? Do they see connections to what they are already doing? Technology will be used to collect this feedback during the session and for people to provide their questions.
References
Richey, R.C. & Klein, J.D. (2007). Design and Development Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review. 96-104.
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation? New York: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, ba, and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33, 5-34.
Yeh, Y., Huang, L., & Yeh, Y. (2011). Knowledge management in blended learning: Effects on professional development in creativity instruction. Computers & Education, 56, 146-156.