The article by D’arcy Norman from the U of C was quite interesting. Norman, D. (2017, March 11).
The idea of collaboration carts piqued my interest even more. At KPU, we have some systems that are coming to the end of their life. The smartboards at each group table and the smartboard at the top of the room offer inclusion and collaboration, but as they are coming to the end of their life, some screens work. Some don’t right now in a few of the classrooms, which hinders the learning process of collaboration and inclusion.
I think with the collaboration carts; the thought was to offer flexibility and transparency, to open up access to students and all for accessibility of programs and technology, let go of control, and offer collaboration to all. To introduce this profound change, the main areas of change that were thought out were flexibility, user design control by allowing a universal design of the learning approach, having support available, and open access to all. Some barriers they encountered were technology limitations, system complexity based on each user’s need, and a warranty expiration, which I resonate with from my experience at KPU.
I would love to hear how it has progressed since 2017 and what they have learned. From my perspective, is a continuous plan in place to support upgrades and implementation? I also think about continuous training time and resources for the new technology as it grows and changes for all users. All who use this need some tenacity to get what they need if their ideas are not working or the technology changes, and they need to learn more to adapt. Maybe launching this more from a pilot perspective, gathering feedback as you grow the project, could have helped with testing and adoption or adaption and improving it as it continues to be rolled out.
Great insights, Leona! I believe a pilot program would have been an excellent way to foresee the potential issues that D’Arcy eventually identified. From the diagram, I see there’s a potential for 32 stations, which, if acquired and implemented all at once, would have carried significant risks. With a phased rollout strategy, the warranties would have expired in a staggered manner, reducing the potential impact of maintenance costs and allowing time to develop an evergreen plan.
I’d also love to see how the technology has held up since 2017, especially considering the hardware shortages during the pandemic and the shift from classroom training to online learning. Did the faculty and students feel lost without the technology, or would they say it was valuable but not essential, or more of a luxury?
Hi Leona and Allie,
You both wondered about how the TI infrastructure and planning had evolved or changed since this initial report and reflection. I tried to do a bit of digging, and there are multiple reports, but interestingly not much is said about the space itself. They very much talk about the kinds of activities and programming that they offer (and have a series of vision statements) – but described from a teaching and learning focus. As Allie points out – perhaps post-pandemic the focus has really shifted to help support blended and online learning initiatives. Would you say there has been a similar shift in focus in your organizations?