Using a Futures Approach in Organizational and Instructional Development

James L. Morrison, Facilitator

Employers are expressing increasing dissatisfaction with the ability of college graduates to access, evaluate, and communicate information; to use information technology (IT) tools effectively; and to work well within groups across cultural lines. A change of instructional paradigms--from passive to active (authentic) learning strategies, such as project-based learning, problem-based learning, or inquiry-based learning--is clearly needed.

However, changing instructional paradigms is difficult. Faculty members are busy, many are not comfortable with using information technology (IT) tools, and most cling to the traditional model of the professor as subject matter expert/authority. Although most professors now use one or more IT tools in their teaching, these tools too often serve only to support a traditional lecture method (e.g., PowerPoint, automatic class rolls, email, discussion forums). In a large survey in the United States, for example, Finkelstein, Seal, and Shuster, 1998, found that 76% of faculty across disciplines, institutions, and age cohorts use the lecture as their primary instructional method.

Current approaches to broaden the instructional repertoires of faculty members include faculty workshops, summer leave, and individual consultations, but these approaches work only for those relatively few early adopter faculty members who seek out opportunities to broaden their instructional methods. The major problem is how to affect organizational culture as a whole so that most professors will be receptive to adopting active learning methods and using IT tools to enhance these methods in their classes.

One approach to this complex issue is to engage faculty members at the departmental level in thinking about the future and its implications for their institution, their curriculum, their students, and their careers. This approach has been successfully implemented previously (see, for example, Using the Futures Program as a Tool for Transformation at http://horizon.unc.edu/courses/papers/transforming.html ).

Objectives

The objectives of this workshop are to (1) demonstrate a procedure to encourage participants to be open to new ideas and (2) allow participants to experience a set of exercises that they can use to engage faculty members on their campuses in planning for the future of their departments. Hopefully, this approach to faculty development will enable faculty members to design curricula more in tune with future requirements and be more receptive to implementing active learning strategies.

Preparation 

Please review the following publications prior to the workshop:

Approaches to anticipating the future:

Suggested

1. Morrison, J. L. (1996). "Anticipating the Future." On the Horizon, 4(3), 2-3.
2. Morrison, J. L. (1997). "Transforming Educational Organizations" On the Horizon, 5(1), 2-3.
3. Mack, T. "An Interview with a Futurist." Futures Research Quarterly, 2003, 19 (1), 61-69
4. Morrison, J. L. (2005). "Experiencing the Online Revolution." In G. Kearsley (ed.),Online learning: Personal Reflections on the Transformation of Education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
5. Morrison, J. L. (1996). "Teaching in the Twenty-First Century." On the Horizon, 4(5).

Agenda 

0800 - 0915 Anticipating the future
0915 - 0930 Break
0930 – 1015 Identifying potential events
1015 – 1045 Prioritizing events/Identifying signals
1045 – 1100 Break
1100 - 1130 Deriving implications for institutions/departments
1130 - 1200 Using this approach with departmental faculties

Exercise: Anticipating the Future

The objective of this exercise is to identify potential events that could affect the future of higher education.

Events are unambiguous and confirmable. When they occur, the future is different. Event identification and analysis is critical in anticipatory planning.

It is important that an event statement be unambiguous; otherwise, it is not helpful in the planning process because (a) it is unclear what may be meant by the statement (i.e., different people may understand the statement differently) and (b) there is no clear target that allows us to derive implications and formulate action steps.

It is also important to establish the planning time-frame. For this workshop, our planning time-frame will be 10 years with the expectation that workgroup members estimate that the events they identify have some probability of occurrence within the next decade.

For example, consider the following event statement: There will be significant changes in political, social, and economic systems in the Middle East.

Each person on a planning team may agree with this statement; it would be difficult to disagree with such a general claim, even though each person may interpret it differently.

More useful statements would be:

Use of alternative sources of energy (e.g., hydrogen, wind) worldwide increases 1,500% from 2006 levels.

Or

Palestine and Israel sign peace accord.

Or

OPEC becomes a free trade zone.

These statements are concrete, unambiguous, and signal significant change that could impact colleges and universities in the Middle East.

Another point: The event statement does not include an impact statement. Consider the following event statement:

New developments in technology will dramatically increase enrollments in online education programs throughout the Middle East.

First, each technological development must be specified as an event. Second, consider that an event can have both a positive and a negative impact. For example, there may be signals that within five years 75% of college and university courses will use multimedia technologies in instruction. Or, there may be signals that within five years 30% of college and university courses will be taught by the project method. Both events could have both positive and negative consequences on colleges and universities. If, for example, the faculty in a particular institution are not currently oriented to using multimedia technology or the project method of instruction, these events may adversely affect the competitive position of their college. On the other hand, distributing the signals of these events in a newsletter to the faculty may help bring awareness of what is happening and inculcate in faculty members a desire to upgrade their set of teaching skills.

Finally, it may be helpful to write event statements as headlines in a newspaper (e.g., Peace in the Middle East; Iran nukes Israel).

We will use the Nominal Group Process for this exercise (see below). The group facilitator will pose the question: What are the potential events that may change the future of higher education if they occur? Take five minutes to think about the question, remembering to think broadly through the STEEP sectors, locally through globally. Then begin the round-robin process to post nominations from individual group members to the flip chart. We will spend 25 minutes on this part of the exercise (or until you have exhausted event nomination). When I call time, go to the discussion/clarification phase, where the facilitator will ensure that group members understand and agree with the event statements. (Prepare for some rewriting!) When I call time again, begin selecting those events that may have the most impact on colleges and universities in the next decade. We will use the paste-on dots for this exercise. Group members will be given four dots to indicate their selection. Voting criteria are as follows:

• Vote for the five most critical events for the future of higher education in the Middle East that have some probability of occurrence within the next decade. Do not be concerned about the event having high or low probability; be concerned only about the severity of the impact (positive or negative).
• Do not put more than one dot on one event statement.
• Put all dots by the beginning of the event statement (so that we can quickly see the frequency distribution of dots)

After this section is complete, identify the signals that indicate that your most critical event could occur within the coming decade. What are the implications for higher education in the Middle East if this event occurs? What should the college do?

The Nominal Group Process

The Nominal Group Process is an efficient tool that ensures balanced participation. It requires participants to first think about the question (e.g., what potential events can affect the future?) and write down their thoughts on a sheet of paper. After a suitable time the facilitator uses a round-robin approach, asking each participant in turn to nominate an event. Only one nomination is given by each participant. Participants are asked to nominate those events that could be most critical to their organization. Each statement is written on the flip chart in large text so that all can see the nominations. Each statement should be numbered to facilitate discussion in the discussion phase. The next person is asked to submit his or her "best" candidate. During this time the only person talking is the person nominating a statement; all others are requested to think about the statement to see if it stimulates an idea that they had not had before.

Under normal circumstances this process goes on until there are no more nominations, at which time the facilitator guides the group in a discussion of each nomination to clarify, discuss, edit, and remove redundancies. Of course the discussion may uncover more events, which will then be posted on the flip chart. (Given time limitations, we may have to curtail the discussion to two rounds before we begin the discussion phase.)

Begin the exercise by selecting leadership roles in each group. The roles are facilitator, flip chart scribe, reporter, and paperhanger. Please concentrate on the discussion; don't worry about taking notes.