A Miss in the Project Management Approach of the OPM-University Business Model
Concurrent Session 3
Brief Abstract
This session shares the serious consequences that occur as a result of a gap in the project management approach of OPM Managers and University Administrators for this OPM-University partnership. It also discusses the benefits of the application of Activity Theory conceptual framework to direct inquiry and analysis of the project management approaches in this partnership model
Extended Abstract
Many higher education institutions believe that they must adopt online programs to better serve their constituencies, but making this decision requires faculty to adopt a new mode of teaching. Higher education institutions can build infrastructure to support their online program initiatives or they can partner with management organizations (Online Program Management Providers, OPMPs) that offer some or all of the services needed to make online programs successful. These services include marketing, admissions, and instructional design. This presentation presents a case study that describes the interactions between the faculty at a research university, an online program management provider (OPM), and one instructional design firm that was outsourced by the OPM. The case exposes the problems that can arise during the instructional design process when none of the organizations practice effective project management.
The case study is rendered through the lens of Engeström’s (1999) Activity Theory. The Activity Theory framework is a descriptive meta-theory rather than a predictive theory (Engeström, 2000). Analyzing human activity should not only involve examining the kinds of activities people engage in but also who is engaging in that activity, what their goals and intentions are, what objects or products result from the activity, the rules, and norms that circumscribe that activity, and also the larger community in which the activity occurs. The most appropriate unit of analysis in a system is ‘activity’ (Jonassen & Murphy, 1999). In this research, the activity is the instructional design process within the context of developing higher education online programs.
Online learning uses a different platform, builds communities in different ways, demands different pedagogies and requires different choices for curriculum as compared to face-to-face courses and programs (Morris & Stommel, 2016). They require more effective teaching principles and practices so that students do not get overwhelmed or experience excessive cognitive load. Many studies show that teaching online requires a different pedagogy and skill set as compared to the traditional classroom (Fetherston, 2001; Hardy & Bower, 2004; Oliver, 2002; Boling et al., 2012). As such, online teachers are faced with new pedagogical issues including student interactions, course content design and delivery, multiple levels of communication, new types of assignments and performance expectations, and different sets of assessments and evaluation techniques (Boling et al., 2012). This necessitates adaptations in teaching practices. A persona change occurs when a faculty member transitions from face-to-face teaching to the online classroom (Phillips, 2008). Use of technology in this field demands a shift from a teaching- to a learning-centered paradigm (Boling et al., 2012; Fink, 2013; Fink, 2013a).
OPM providers are generally for-profit companies that partner with educational institutions to offer academic programs. The OPM provider invests some or all of the necessary capital upfront to create infrastructure for an online program and also provides various related services in exchange for a percentage of the program’s revenue (Springer, 2018). OPM providers offer help in four core service areas: market/lead generation, enrollment management, student services, and course development and delivery (Springer, 2018). For universities, the most important aspects of the partnership are the promise of building high-quality courses and receiving thoughtful instructional design support for their faculty (InsideHigherEd.com, 2019; Riter, 2017).
A review of the literature indicates that most OPM providers do not have economic sources or expertise to tailor instructional design services for a particular institution, program, or course, and therefore maintain only a small number of instructional design staff because tailoring their approach to a particular institution does not benefit the underlying economic arrangement (InsideHigherEd.com, 2019). From the OPM perspective, student enrollment in online programs takes higher priority to instructional design; hence most of their resources go into marketing rather than into designing highly effective online programs.
However, low effectiveness in the course design process can be reflected in lower completion rates and reduced student satisfaction (Bawa, 2016; Hone & Said, 2016; Educause.edu, 2010). No studies have shown how OPM provided instructional designers work with faculty to design and develop online courses and whether these collaborations have an effect (positive or negative) on faculty motivation and attitudes regarding what it takes to effectively teach online. A gap also exists in the literature around how these business partnerships work and there are no evidence-based practices to help managers guide on this process.
In addressing research quality, I conducted an analysis of my literature review sources to determine citation quality and thoroughness. See Analysis of the “Scholarliness” value of the Literature Review
This research uses an interpretive case study methodology to examine a private research university’s partnership with an OPM provider to develop online master’s degree programs, with the outsourcing of instructional design services to an Instructional Design Firm (IDF). The primary data sources come from interviews, participant observations, and documents from the OPM, the IDF, and the institution. For anonymity purposes, the names of the organizations participating in this study have not been disclosed.
The study uses the Activity Theory (AT) as a framework to describe and analyze the complex work/activity system involved in developing online courses. AT is an umbrella term for a range of social science theories and research originating from Soviet psychological activity theory pioneered by Lev Vygotsky, Alexei Leont'ev, and Sergei Rubinstein (Cole & Engeström, 1993). It is widely used in theoretical and applied psychology, education, professional training, ergonomics, social psychology, and work psychology. AT is specifically useful in qualitative research methodologies (e.g., ethnography, case study) in providing a method of analyzing and understanding a phenomenon; finding patterns and making inferences across interactions; and describing and presenting phenomena through a built-in language and rhetoric. AT offers an external perspective on human practices. It is a descriptive meta-theory or framework rather than a predictive theory (Engeström, 1999). An activity cannot be understood or analyzed outside the context of which it occurs. The components of any activity are organized into activity systems. See Figure 1 below.
Figure 1. Engeström’s (1999) model of an activity system. Source: (Engeström, 1999)
AT is well suited to the discovery and sense-making nature of this study (See Figure 2). According to Bradford et al. (2011), AT is a good framework for an organizational self-evaluation of its “technology-enhanced learning” (TEL) or online learning practices. In adjusting the model to the case of faculty and their teaching practices when launching online programs via a business relationship, the faculty becomes the subject with teaching as an object of active learning with an outcome target of new competencies. The resulting model incorporates key actors’ roles in making an impact on faculty approaches to teaching design (See Figure 2 below).
Figure 2. Activity System context for the RU (Research University--->R University) and OPM (Online Program Management Provider) business partnership with outsourced Instructional Design Firm (IDF)
Using AT, I looked at a complex system that integrates and captures the dynamics of the interactions between multiple levels – from the leadership of both the OPM and institution, to project management and the staff involved in that, to the ID faculty interactions, as well as multiple processes including the selection of the IDF, the dynamics of communication and collaboration between IDs and faculty, and between faculty and department and institutional leadership, etc. The literature does not include a study that uses AT to analyze this kind of system.
Session Outcomes
The presenter/researcher will share all the results related to gaps in project management in this model that will be helpful for all faculty, instructional designers, academic administrators, OPM managers, and design thinkers. The presenter will then describe what Activity Theory is and share the importance of the use of this theory to guide effective project management approaches for this study. The presenter will also discuss how and why Activity Theory is a good approach or conceptual framework for research and practice for analyzing the OPM-University Business Model and how it can help guide administrators for effective project management approaches. Quotes from OPM Mangers, university administrators, and faculty will be shared as evidence to help the audience understand the effective project management approaches to this business model. The format of this session is a conversation rather than a formal presentation. The presenter will be putting results and ideas out that would invite questions and commentary. The following steps will be followed
-
Think Assertion
-
Evidence
-
Commentary
Learning Outcomes for the audience:
-
Identify the complexities in project management approaches of an OPM-University partnership
-
Apply effective project management approaches like Design Thinking (or Agile Methodologies) for such outsourced partnerships with OPM's and technology vendors
-
Apply Activity Theory to analyze gaps in project management approaches for the OPM-University Business Model
References:
List of References for this proposal
List of Figures (in case if you cannot view the above figures correctly)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. CC BY
Note to Reviewers: The conference track I have chosen for this session is 'Research, Evaluation, & Learning Analytics.' I am covering the research technique. However, my research study also provides results relevant to leadership and institutional strategies. So my session also fits the 'Leadership and Institutional Strategies' Track. This work fits both tracks and I would request you to suggest the best fit for this session.