Tag Archives: iPDP

Conceptual framework

When trying to visualize the writing a paper on the current design using the conceptual framework I identified back when I wrote the paper: Considerations for a Professional Development Program to Support iPads in Higher Education Teaching, I realized that I have having trouble making things fit, but also including all the things that mattered in the current design. That made me realize that what I really need to do is articulate a new emerging conceptual framework – a picture that does a better job capturing the variables that directly affect the design. In this post, I’m going to talk about some of these variables – I’ll need to spend some time with pen and paper brainstorming all the topics and building a new picture of how the course looks.

First, from the original paper, I have:

  • TAM – more specifically the goal to increase an individuals perception of the ease-of-use and perceived usefulness
  • Technology – the idea that a workshop needs to cover both product technology and idea technology (it occurs to me as I write this, that this is a concept I should have introduced in my emerging technology class, to help students with their technology presentations – but alas that isn’t related to this post)
  • ┬áTime – the idea that calendar time needs to pass in order for a person to adopt a technology – the idea here, is both related to cognitive load – too much information in too short of a time is not useful, but also that just plain time needs to pass. People need time to integrate a new technology – this doesn’t happen overnight …
  • Individual Beliefs – these are can be a barrier – or they can help – with adoption. The idea here is that if you are asking people to change beliefs as well as use technology, you have more work to do. But also, that to get people to change their beliefs, peers help.
  • Organizational structures – these can help or not.

I also had evaluation, but that was really a throw in to address the scope of the comprehensive exams question, and not something that truly fits within the framework. Additional things that I think need to be considered include:

  • Sustainability / resources – this effects many aspects of the design. You can create something great if you have infinite resources, but the reality is you don’t. Under sustainability, you need to think about physician availability, and the costs associated with running the program
  • Organizational structures – this is playing out a role in my project too … it is mentioned above but I felt I needed to say it again. This is in part because things are changing … people are new … organizational policies are changing … so you have a moving target here.
  • Adapablity. This has a few components. It involves adapting to ┬áthe changes in the organization, but also needs to address the adapting of the technology itself. An iPad program needs to constantly evolve, as new mobile apps are available every day, but also the older apps are improving. Something that you dismissed 6-months ago may now be leading edge. Building this into the program is not trivial.

OK.. I have more thoughts in this area, but they are not flowing right now. I will need to continue with this later.

Workshop design – sharing vignettes

One aspect of my original workshop design – from my iPad Professional Development Program (iPDP) – was the desire for some form of knowledge sharing evening. Although the program I’m creating at the DFM has been scaled back a lot from the design presented in the iPDP paper, I was struggling to figure out how to incorporate the knowledge sharing component. I’m happy to report that one of my sponsors/co-facilitators came up with an idea of how to solve that program (without even knowing that I thought it was a problem).

When we deliver the workshops, after the ice breaker activity the group is divided in two. Those who feel more beginner/notice begin with a 30-minute skills lab, while those who identify as more advanced begin with a case-vignettes presentation. After 30-minutes the groups switch. By dividing the groups this way, it means that the skills labs can be little more adapted to the level of the audience. The first skills lab will necessarily be more basic than the second skills lab. However, the interesting part here, is that the first group doing the case vignettes will have an opportunity to see some vignettes but also be solicited to share some vignettes. In this way, the more advanced participants have a chance to share what they know, and the physician facilitator demonstrator (yes that is a mouth full) will also have an opportunity to learn from peers. When the second group does the case vignettes (the beginner group), they will likely not have new vignettes to contribute, but they will gain from the additional knowledge, as the case vignette facilitator now might have a couple of new vignettes to present. I may not have explained that well – but the benefit here is that the opportunity to “share” vignettes has now been incorporated into the workshop – so I don’t feel like that aspect of the original iPDP design has been lost.