1. Amy L. Fletcher Political Science Programme University of Canterbury NEW ZEALAND Amy.fletcher@canterbury.ac.nz

2. Session Agenda Context of New Zealand Tertiary Sector Organization of T4T4T Pilot Project Framework: Information Ecology Outcomes and Challenges Preliminary Conclusions

3. I Will Leave Here Today With... Demonstration of online professional development in a different (NZ) context Information Ecology Practical use of the concept for professional development initiatives Outcomes, Challenges, Conclusions

4. Higher Education Policy Context: New Zealand 1984 “neoliberal revolution” Fees Expanded participation “Knowledge Society” Critic and conscience of society Changes accelerate with national government in the 1990s

5. Tertiary Sector Today Performance-based research funding (PBRF) Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) Accountability, transparency, outcomes

6. T4T4T – Pilot Project Collaborative online community Professional development Improve teaching – all approaches and disciplines E-learning (secondary) Strengthen Canterbury Tertiary Alliance

7. Canterbury Tertiary Alliance (CTA) University of Canterbury Christchurch Polytechnic Lincoln University Christchurch College of Education

8. Research Team Coordinator/External Researcher UltraLab, Ltd Mentors/Researchers Assist in recruitment of colleagues Regular workshops and meetings Participate in community activities Off-line mentoring where appropriate Amy:

9. Participants 1 hour per week Establish a professional development goal Participate in and across online forums Amy:

11. Information Ecology A system of people, practices, values and technologies in a particular local environment. Nardi and O’Day (1999)

12. Information Ecology and T4T4T Assumption 1: interaction of people + technology in an organization shapes adaptation and acceptance Productive, Dysfunctional, Neutral A2: Canterbury very different from the other CTA members

13. Research Questions How—or will—T4T4T affect Canterbury’s existing information ecology? Will there be sources of resistance? If so, what motivates this resistance?

14. Canterbury’s Information Ecology Faculty = primary emphasis on one’s disciplinary identity Reputation defined nationally or internationally – not locally! Promotion and respect via publication Executive = Focus on PBRF in pilot timeframe

15. Outcomes Limited participation that declined markedly over course of pilot – community not self-sustaining Tension: ‘theoretical’ and ‘applied’ participants Lack of Canterbury “fit” Very little buy-in from full-time professional staff outside of Education

16. Challenges Time constraints? Tension between Canterbury mentors and rest of pilot research team (Action Research = what is it?) How can key variable – professional development – be measured? PBRF

17. Subtle Forms of Resistance Participant lack of initiative Different views of the word “mentor” Alleged reputation of ERAU Instrumental and time-limited goals Professional jealousy? (I.E., why do you get to be a mentor?) Reluctance to appear “vulnerable” or “less than competent”

18. Preliminary Conclusions Organizational culture is the emergent result of the continuing negotiations about values, meanings, and proprieties between members of that organization and with its environment. If you want to change a culture, you have to change all these conversations. R. Seel (2000)

19. Preliminary Conclusions More empirical research needed before roll-out on a national level Need for executive level buy-in and incentives to participate Different faculty career paths within higher education?

20. Preliminary Conclusions Exploration of political implications and values underlying “online professional development.” One-size fits all does not work. More depth within disciplines. Organized along a departmental basis?