Re-envisioning the Vision (Part 1)

Posted on January 7, 2014 by Bruce Rosenbloom

In the past few months this blog has been in a hibernation of sorts.  I just have not been motivated to write any more about MOOCs, online learning, strategic planning for instructional technology or such things. There are many reasons I can give for this hiatus.  I no longer feel that technology change alone will bring significant changes in learning. Online learning, something I have long advocated, has largely won the pedagogical battle and now is integral to most institutions of higher education.  And yet, significant change in how we conduct teaching has still eluded us, both individually and collectively.

Or, this blog’s hiatus could stem from my feeling that my talents in this area have gone largely untapped and unrecognized within my employment or extended sphere of influence. But that’s not it either. While these and other factors have some merit, what I feel is really lacking is a tangible idea of what a better model for higher education would look like in the context of our current societal challenges. In other words, I personally, and we collectively, need to “Re-envision the Vision.”

Where’s the Vision?

We are stuck. Stuck in the muck of our fears, belief systems, structures and histories—for starters. But before we relinquish these dysfunctional and antiquated patterns, we need to, as Stephen Covey wrote, “begin with the end in mind.” That “end” is a new vision for a new day.

“Vision” is essential for change, be it transformational, disruptive, paradigm- shifting, or innovative. These changes may be necessary, but they are clearly not sufficient in my view.  If we are honest, we need to ask fundamental questions about what we are doing and what we wish to accomplish. For example:

  • How does change happen at any college or university?
  • How resistant are structures within these organizations to change?
  • Are the changes we seek even possible within these given environments?
  • Who are the change agents and what influence do they have?
  • Where is that compelling, meaningful, achievable, and worthwhile vision for our college or university?
  • Has this vision been recently updated to reflect the changing nature of society and the new challenges that students will face?

None of these questions, if honestly explored, will lead to the conclusion that change is easy, or in many instances, even do-able. Instead, it may lead to the conclusion, that if you have a compelling vision for what is needed, you had better expend your energies not with reforming what is, but rather, with creating new structures. More and more, this is the conclusion I am reaching in my evolution. But what does a new vision for learning look like?  That is the subject for my next blog post.

Posted in A Learning Pedagogy, Envisioning Online, Online Best Practices, Online Trends, Paradigm Shift | 4 Comments

Move Over MOOCs: The Real Revolution is Personalized Learning

Posted on September 6, 2013 by Bruce Rosenbloom

Given the hype about MOOCs in the past two years, it was inevitable that a reassessment would happen.  In an article entitled, “The MOOC Disruption Proves Less Than Revolutionary After All” in last month’s Chronicle, some of the hot air was let out of the MOOC balloon. Even some of the initial proponents of massive open online courses now see their role in a more limited evolutionary context, not a revolutionary one. MOOCs will be part of a spectrum of online course and program options that colleges may choose from. These options range from web-enhanced and flipped classrooms, to hybrid courses meeting partially online, to traditional courses using MOOCs or open educational resources, to fully online courses and programs — with all the combinations and permutations possible in these and other approaches to teaching.

In my blog post last spring entitled MOOCs and Magical Thinking, I cautioned against expecting too much too soon from this innovative approach to learning.  It will not transform college as we know it, and moreover, its initial impact will be limited, at best. Few students will ever be able to earn credit for such courses, and the traditional institutional structures within higher education will go largely unchanged. The real story, I blogged, is not the emerging MOOC environment, but rather the ongoing importance and acceptance of online learning  as a strategically important cornerstone to college pedagogy.  “The battle is over, and online has won,” I concluded in another post over a year ago.

MOOCs have had their day in the sun, and maybe have had too much of it. However, relatively unreported is a truly innovative, well-planned, and potentially revolutionary online implementation program, as reported in the latest Educause Review Online.  Northern Arizona University’s Personalized Learning Program (website link), I believe, is where you may see the future potential for online learning played out in real time.

A full discussion of the numerous innovations of this program will take a second blog post (in the near future) to fully discuss.  For now, I will list some of the revolutionary, or at least “disruptive,”  elements that Fredrick M. Hurst describes in his Educause article. These innovations include:

  1. Truly self-paced instruction for students which include students choosing their starting and ending dates
  2. Faculty role as “guides/advisers” on the side, used when students need them
  3. Free remediation and testing prior to admittance into their programs
  4. Ability to transfer formal learning credits from other institutions
  5. Just in time teaching when student is ready and is motivated to learn
  6. Pre/post testing of students for each course to better gauge learning
  7. Collaboration with a known publisher (Pearson) to expedite course and program development, roll-out and implementation, with the ability to provide needed expertise
  8. Truly inter-disciplinary programs that go beyond the discipline internecine turf battles and other limitations inherent in current academic structures
  9. Assessment based on actual student competencies, not merely writing papers or passing quizzes
  10. Automatic tracking of student progress for advisers/instructors
  11. Subscription-based, low cost (on par with CUNY tuition) model for students which provides real value
  12. Potentially shortened time to degree based only on student motivation and aptitude
  13. A competency report to employers  (that outlines skills applicable to the workplace) in addition to a traditional transcript
  14. Big data reporting capabilities which allows program managers to adjust courses based on tracking cumulative student data in real time
  15. Program specifically designed within its own independent unit inside the university–allowing for change and innovation without threatening the existing institutional processes and policies.

In summary, I will discuss these points in greater depth in my next post.  For now, I can say with some confidence, that new models like NUA’s Personalized Learning represents a much greater challenge to the rigid structures and practices of academia than MOOCs ever will. An institution like CUNY would do well to send a project team to this and other such programs and see what lessons can be learned for this university.

References:

Hurst, Fredrick, (2013), “Northern Arizona University’s Personalized Learning,” Educause Review Online, Sept. 4, 2013, Retrieved at: http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/northern-arizona-universitys-personalized-learning

Kolowich, Steve, (2013) “The MOOC Disruption Proves Less Than Revolutionary After All,”  The Chronicle of Higher Education, Aug. 16, 2013, pp. A6. Retrieved from:  http://chronicle.com/article/MOOCs-May-Not-Be-So-Disruptive/140965/

Northern Arizona University, Personalized Learning website: http://pl.nau.edu

Posted in Envisioning Online, Online Best Practices, Online Trends, Paradigm Shift | Comments Off on Move Over MOOCs: The Real Revolution is Personalized Learning

Digital Pacifiers

Posted on August 3, 2013 by Bruce Rosenbloom

There are certainly benefits to the new digital technologies — cell phones, tablets, eReaders and a host of other devices.  But this post looks at the shadow side of these developments. On any subway, bus, or sidewalk in New York you see a significant portion of people (more weighted toward the young) using one or more of these devices.  I see them longingly scanning their screens, most oblivious to their surroundings, and I want to shout, “The answers are not there.”

Increasingly, I see these devices as “digital pacifiers” for the masses.  While we are all “connecting” with the net, being entertained with music, social networking, or even doing homework online, our ability to look inward and outward diminishes. Young people walk the street donning their headphones, often oblivious to their immediate environment and people around them. The phenomenon of “driving while texting” says it all in terms of being disconnected. For a digital medium that supposedly allows for making connections with others, we have lost the connection with the present, and to others in our immediate environment. We’ve created a “splendid isolation” in our own digital cocoons.

I came across an article in one of my hiking magazines decrying that today’s young are not venturing out in nature as much as previous generations. (see note 1). Tethered to their digital devices, it is not had to ascertain why.  In fact, “nature deficit disorder” is the term used by a therapist to describe this problem in young people. By losing contact and appreciation for the natural world, we lose an essential part of our existence and connection with a critical aspect of our being.

I have not made a survey regarding the content of digital media, but I suspect it is similar in many ways to the MTV U that I am forced to watch when I work out at the gym in Lehman College. The “content” runs the gamut from superficial videos that flash new  images every two seconds, to commercials to “Be Army Strong” or ones touting the latest inane reality show or acne skin cream. A constant diet of this can only turn one’s mind into mush, reduce one’s attention span to that of a gnat, and contribute to a self-absorbed narcissism. Our cultural landscape, as many have noted, has become more coarse, dumbed-down, and superficial.

As college teachers, we compete for the “hearts and minds” of youngsters exposed to these digital environments, and we are clearly losing the battle. Professors report students having shortened attention spans, being more distracted, and needing to be entertained rather than taught. The digital landscape seems to promote a passivity in students that discourages them from actively taking part in their learning process. Learning can be fun, but not necessarily so, but it does take effort and time on task. Failing such active engagement, students may become passive in their learning process like watching a movie, albeit less interesting than those in theaters or being streamed to their devices.

Ironically, one way colleges have addressed the digital natives is to infuse technology into their courses.  As Perensky foretold it over a decade ago, students must “power down” their devices when they enter classrooms which are instructed by digital immigrants. He and others call for technologies to engage students in their learning process as had been done in the past decade, and accelerated by online learning. I don’t doubt the value in many of these technologies for learning, as I use them in my own courses. However, our embrace of the digital has come at a cost that I think needs to be acknowledged. The human connection, the natural environment, the time to be reflective and alone have all drowned under a digital tsunami.

Our distractions, be they digital or otherwise, take us away from being present. The prospect of spending time off the grid is frightening to many, like withdrawal from a drug. Like meatless Fridays suggested by certain groups, I would propose technology-free Tuesdays to give one respite from the digital deluge. Try vacationing a week without emails, entertainment, or even news.  I am reminded of the exhortations of Howard Beale– that crazy anchorman in the movie “Network,”  who urged his audience to turn off their televisions –in his mad, insightful rant (see link below).  I would agree, and update his advice to include all digital pacifiers. Turn them off, in order that we may regain all that we’ve lost in the process.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTN3s2iVKKI

References:

Louv, Richard. (2011) The Nature Principle: Human Restoration and the End of Nature-Deficit Disorder. Algonquin Books. 303pp.

Perensky, Mark, On the Horizon (MCB University Press, Vol. 9 No. 5, October 2001), retrieved from: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Network (movie): Wikipedia reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(film)

Note 1: (From AMC Outdoors, July/August 2013, page 6)

“As our society struggles with the disturbing side effects of the digital age, which include a drop in physical activity and dissociation from the natural world by so many, especially the young, we need to support a new call to outdoor citizenship.”

Posted in A Learning Pedagogy, Envisioning Online, Online Best Practices, Online Trends, Paradigm Shift | Comments Off on Digital Pacifiers

Reflection and Refocus

Posted on July 25, 2013 by Bruce Rosenbloom

Note: Incredibly, it’s been two years since my first blog post, reposted below. I’d like to believe that it stands up well and is still relevant even in the fast-moving currents of online learning. 
I’m drawn to writing a new chapter in the future; one that may drift more far-afield as my own interests dictate and life process guides me. For now, I’ll briefly look back on my journey and set a new path for myself– a path with heart.

Online as a Strategic Asset

Imagine a six-story brownstone in the heart of New York City generously donated to the City University of New York.  The brownstone is structurally sound and the donors have agreed to support the extensive renovation required to transform the space as the home of a new college. Such is a brief history of the Macaulay Honors College situated on a landmark site on 67th Street. The beautiful building required extensive renovation to become a state-of-the-art learning space. Would anyone argue with the claim that this building, and the learning taking place within its walls, represents a significant CUNY asset?

Now, let’s image ten such learning spaces around New York City. Would they collectively represent a significant asset to our institution?  Estimating from their website, the Honors College currently graduates between 600-700 students per year. Ten such colleges would graduate approximately 6-7000 students per annum.   Given a concerted startup effort, I believe online programs throughout the CUNY system could easily accommodate these numbers, and moreover, represent an under-developed strategic asset for CUNY. However, many of these “virtual buildings” remain dormant, or un-renovated.

The question of how a virtual space or program becomes an asset is not difficult to fathom when you consider that corporations are allowed to put on their books intangible assets like “good will” and “human capital.”  Online programs within CUNY, albeit under-resourced and under-developed, represent a potential asset for the university on a par with buildings and campuses, faculty and intellectual capital. The issue is that this perspective is seldom if ever articulated or acknowledged.

CUNY has a proud and unique mission of access to education, academic excellence and affordability. Every high school graduate in New York City is guaranteed a spot in at least a CUNY community college and, if qualified, a CUNY senior college. I believe online learning, implemented well, can expand access to learning, promote positive learning outcomes, and foster continued affordability from an institutional standpoint. In summary, online programs are entirely consistent with CUNY’s mission and vision.

Why do I call online learning a “strategic” asset?  Here is a list of some answers, which I will develop in subsequent blog posts:

  • Many higher institutions consider their online programs as a critical aspect of their disaster preparedness planning;
  • Via online programs, CUNY can more easily reach potential students outside of our geographic area, thereby aiding recruitment and geographic diversity;
  • Given the expense of securing properties and construction, virtual classrooms represent a tremendous savings over “brick and mortar” (which includes extra savings for non- maintenance of buildings, and better space utilization on campus);
  • The time-shifting flexibility of online courses offer significant benefits for faculty and students alike, and may improve both student retention and time- to- degree completion;
  • Online learning can be a component of developing 21st century skills for CUNY students; and
  • Online learning fosters a shift from instructor-based to student-centered learning environments which research indicates creates more significant learning experiences.

This list is far from exhaustive and any brainstorming session could easily double the number of entries. As an institution, we need to look at the potential for online learning with new eyes. Are we sitting on a veritable gold mine of untapped potential and, if so, should we think of allocating sufficient resources to fully renovate and develop those virtual online spaces?

Photo Credit: From Macaulay Honor College website (http://www.macaulay.cuny.edu/about/campuses.php)

Posted in Envisioning Online, Online Trends, Strategic Planning for Online | Comments Off on Reflection and Refocus

Change Incubators

Posted on June 12, 2013 by Bruce Rosenbloom

When a large institution like the City University of New York looks to pilot significant change, they set up new structures rather than challenge the existing ones. These new structures serve the purpose of “incubators for change” within the larger university. For example, when online programs needed to be expeditiously rolled out, the School of Professional Studies was used to initiate the CUNY Online B.A. programs rather than attempt online programs at one of the 20 campuses. The reason is clear. The SPS online programs, like the exemplary Honors College, and innovative New Community College all needed more flexible and nimble governance/ organizational structures to successfully innovate.

What type of nimble structures or policies are needed for change? For example, all SPS faculty, whether they teach full-time at other CUNY schools, are considered adjuncts. Colloquial online faculty replaced a traditional faculty Senate in terms of governance. Such colloquial faculty are usually the ones advocating for and teaching online courses and are typically more open to change than their respective colleagues on campus. These and other changes in policies and governance foster SPS innovation which may develop without the constraints of faculty, unions and other stakeholders’ objections.  The lesson here, if you want to innovate, do it in the margins, not on the main stage.

Marginal Change

True innovation in teaching challenges existing policies or programs, and as such, will be resisted by those impacted by the change.  We see this in any discussion about online learning. The first question asked is,  “Will online negatively impact, or even displace, the existing faculty?” If faculty perceive online as a threat, they will resist it, undermine it, disparage it–all prior to experiencing the realities of online learning. Studies (see references below) consistently show that faculty who have not taught online are the most adverse to online learning. In contrast, for the many academics that have embraced hybrid/online learning, many report that their teaching has improved and even their enthusiasm for the profession has been enhanced.

At institutions with a long history of management and union discord, or those with a range of stakeholders in a decentralized organizational structure, change will not happen quickly, only incrementally at best. A variety of stakeholders must be consulted to get anything done, and invariably this process gets bogged down into a “what’s in it for me” mentality that ensures endless debate and postponed actions. In this type of institution, change can be “piloted” or be deemed “experimental” in an attempt to marginalize its impact on campus.  Without strong advocates for change at all levels of the institutional hierarchy, there will not be sufficient momentum to overcome the inevitable obstacles, hence relegating change to the margins of the institution.

Technology as Change Agent

Christensen’s concept of “disruptive technology” is worthwhile to consider in this context. Certainly teaching modes have been impacted by a host of technologies over the years including course management systems, video and web-conferencing, student response systems (aka clickers), blogs and wikis, presentation software, and a plethora of other technologies.  In the past decade, hybrid and online learning have become mainstays in the higher education landscape, but not equally across institutions. Alas, CUNY has allowed its online focus to be carried primarily by one college, namely the School of Professional Studies.  Although every CUNY campus has hybrid and online offerings as part of their pedagogical mix, entire online programs are only implemented at this one campus among the 24 within CUNY. The one exception to this rule will be a new online degree program for John Jay College which is being developed for a rollout in the fall of 2014.

In closing, I believe CUNY needs to develop more incubators for change on all campuses — involving entire online programs, not merely dispersed courses. SUNY, our sister institution in New York, has been doing a better job of incorporating technology innovation at the core of its educational agenda (future blog post on this) in terms of online strategic planning and rolling out online programs across all SUNY campuses. As I’ve written in the past, a centralized CUNY office of online would be a first step toward incorporating a CUNY-wide plan of action for online learning and technology innovation. Ultimately, if we are serious at CUNY about imparting 21st century technology skills to our students, we need institutional structures that put innovation at the center of university planning, not at the periphery.

References:

Allen, I.E., Seaman, J., Lederman, D., & Jaschik, S., (August, 2012), “Digital Faculty: Professors, Teaching and Technology, 2012,” Inside Higher Ed and The Babson Group. Retrieved from: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/survey/digital-faculty-professors-and-technology-2012

Bacow, L. et al, (May 2012) “Barriers to Adoption of Online Learning Systems in U.S. Higher Education,” ITHAKA S+R, Retrieved from: http://www.sr.ithaka.org/research-publications/barriers-adoption-online-learning-systems-us-higher-education

Christensen, Clayton M. (1997), The Innovators Dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail, Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Harvard University Press.

Posted in CUNY Practices, Envisioning Online, Paradigm Shift, Strategic Planning for Online | Comments Off on Change Incubators

The Character of Learning

Posted on May 27, 2013 by Bruce Rosenbloom

Character matters. That is the take-away from Paul Tough’s book, How Children Succeed:  Grit, Curiosity and the Hidden Power of Character.  Tough reminds us of the central importance of a person’s character to learning. In this highly readable book, the author seamlessly combines educational research with interviews and first-hand accounts of inner-city children who have beaten the odds and gone on to achieve success in academics and vocations. Along for the ride, a reader is challenged to depart with the conventional wisdom and reassess the foundation of educational policies concerning remediation and academic success.

bookcover

Paul visits several schools that are succeeding in economically disadvantaged areas like the Bronx, Harlem and Newark. More than pounding away at basic skills, these programs have a common focus on building  a student’s character to become successful lifelong learners. Among the traits he cites as important to learning include resilience, self-control, resourcefulness and curiosity. Such traits, even more than academic deficiencies, are what really holds intelligent students back.  The good news is that many of the best K-12 programs in disadvantaged communities are directly addressing the issue of character and are producing impressive results.

Tough gives many examples and anecdotes from schools across the country.  The most salient of these was a program at IS318 in the Bronx where an enterprising English teacher, Elizabeth Spiegel, created an after-school chess program that produced national champions, besting even private schools in almost every grade. As Tough writes,

Two of the most important executive functions are cognitive flexibility and cognitive self-control. Cognitive flexibility is the ability to see alternative solutions to problems, to think outside the box, to negotiate unfamiliar solutions. Cognitive self-control is the ability to inhibit an instinctive or habitual response and substitute a more effective, less obvious one. Both skills are central to the training Spiegel gives to her students . . .

‘Teaching chess is really about the habits that go along with thinking,’ Spiegel explained to me one morning when I visited her classroom. ‘Like how to understand your mistakes and how to be more aware of your thought processes.” (page 114, reference below)

Should Character Be Part of Education?

Conservatives could argue that schools should not be teaching things that are the domain of parents, and a child’s character training is one such domain.  Liberals would take a different tact with the “it takes a village to raise a child” philosophy espoused by Hillary Clinton. I feel two questions need to be addressed. First, “Should character be taught?” and  second, “Would it be useful to teach character?”  I would argue “yes” to both questions. There has been a noted breakdown of community and family institutions that in the past would have a role in developing a youngster’s character. With these gone or diminished,  I feel there is a need to fill the void, particularly in urban or rural communities struggling economically. Moreover, the evidence that Tough cites shows that early intervention can have a major impact in imparting traits like grit, curiosity, self-control and optimism.

One example of an ingenius “marshmallow” study of self-control was done on nursery children.  They were presented with the choice of getting a marshmallow immediately or waiting 15 minutes to receive two.  The subjects made their decisions and were subsequently followed through their academic lives.  The children who could delay gratification for 15 minutes “had SAT scores that were, on average, 201 points higher than those children who had rung the bell after 30 seconds.” (page 62, reference below) In other words, academic success is not predetermined by innate intelligence, but by positive attributes that can be taught at an early age given the right parenting, mentors, or school programs. Tough writes about one such innovative program,

Most early-childhood classrooms in the United States are designed to develop in children a set of specific pre-academic skills, mostly related to deciphering text and manipulating numbers.  Tools of the Mind, by contrast, doesn’t focus much on reading or math skills. Instead, all of the interventions are intended to help children learn a different kind of skill: controlling their impulses, staying focused on the task at hand, avoiding distractions and mental traps, managing their emotions or organizing their thoughts. The founders of Tools of the Mind believe that these skills, which they group together under the rubric of self-regulation, will do more to lead to positive outcomes for their students, in first grade and beyond, than the traditional menu of pre-academic skills.” (page xii, reference below)

Character is Key 

A trait like curiosity is worth examining. For many of us who have taught high school or beyond, we encounter students that have quite a blase attitude when it comes to learning. Whether it is learning in the classroom or outside, their curiosity has been dampened, along with their potential for learning.  How did they go from innately curious infants to bored and listless high schoolers? Maybe Einstein had it right when he stated that “It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry.”  Besides poor instructional methods, parenting and the home environment also have a major influence in stamping out curiosity about the world we live in.

Optimism and persistance are specific traits that Tough believes have a positive impact on learning. Optimists are better learners since they see the importance of learning and believe they can exercise agency in their lives. At any age, lifelong learning becomes essential for success, and optimists are more likely to invest time for it to happen. Persistance is overcoming the inevitable obstacles in the path of learning. This trait correlates to the “time on task” research that clearly demonstrates that the more time spent on learning, the greater the mastery. Together, optimism and persistance form the “grit” of a person’s character that propels academic and worldly achievements.

From grade school through college, remedial programs struggle to raise students’ academics through a variety of supplemental instruction. Without directly addressing the issue of character, preferably in the early years of schooling, such efforts will at best produce half-results. As Tough’s wonderful book illustrates, programs that address a student’s character, in addition to academic deficiencies, may have the best chance of turning around students floundering in school, and can also provide them the character traits needed to succeed in life.

Reference:

Tough, Paul, (2012) “How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character,” Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston, MA.

 

Posted in A Learning Pedagogy, Envisioning Online, Paradigm Shift, Strategic Planning for Online | Comments Off on The Character of Learning

Why Online Fails

Posted on May 5, 2013 by Bruce Rosenbloom

As online increasingly enters the higher education mainstream, there have been many articles and reports documenting best practices in this arena. Institutions who are novices in implementing online learning can tap the wealth of experience from the “early adopter” universities with well over 15 years experience, and in some cases, more than 20 years of online teaching.  In this regard, it’s worth noting that the University of Wisconsin celebrates its excellent 29th Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning this August. I’ve attended several of these events over the years and can report there is a wealth of research and actionable strategies for making online programs successful.

With over two decades of experience in online learning, one must question why any college would proceed with a hybrid/online program without first consulting those in the field.  There are many practitioners with experience eager to share their expertise. Even so, I see many colleges embark on their online journey in an entirely unplanned, unresearched, and unprepared manner.  The question is why.  This post offers some ideas.

Lack of Understanding

Colleges and universities are complex enterprises.  Presidents and administrators are under much pressure to improve student retention and success (however that is measured) while satisfying faculty needs and balancing the imperative for research and scholarship. With many constituents to serve and multiple mandates, it comes as no surprise that online learning may not be a high priority. Many presidents suffer from the same misunderstanding prevalent amongst their faculty that online learning is “second rate” and “not for our students.” These beliefs set the tone for online implementation at that college, and can thwart any real progress in this area.

Without substantial support for online learning by college leadership, online efforts will succumb as dedicated staffers attempt to do the heavy lifting inherent in changing an institution’s culture, often resistant to change. In most cases, these efforts at best will produce some sporadic or tentative successes while the opportunities to transform the mode of teaching at that institution flounders. Considering that online learning has been the largest trend in higher education in the past decade, a college can no longer afford leadership without an informed understanding of online learning.

Lack of Vision and Strategic Plan

Real leadership has an understanding of the potential for online and how it supports the mission of that institution (i.e., access and quality). Moreover, that leader also needs to possess the skills to nurture strategic planning for online learning that is more than empty rhetoric or a dead, easily discarded planning document.  As an example, I can point to Joel Hartman, University of Central Florida’s Vice Provost for Information Technologies and Resources, who has won numerous awards for his university’s online implementation. I have had the pleasure of attending a workshop of his on “Planning Online Programs” several years ago. Mr. Hartman possesses the talents of being a visionary with strategic planning skills. Over the course of several years, he has transformed teaching and learning at that institution, while dramatically increasing online enrollment and revenues. Moreover, his position within the university allows him to lead a team that does both planning and implementation for online learning.  The results speak volumes for what an informed leader can deliver with a real vision and strategic plan. (link Video of Joel Hartman)

Lack of Institutional Support

Related to the previous points, institutional support is critical to achieving anything substantive within a university.  This support not only includes the administration using its influence to overcome obstacles and barriers to online adoption (e.g., resistant faculty governance), but also for allocating the necessary manpower and faculty incentives so initial efforts can have a reasonable chance of success. Assuming that the existing faculty center, for example, can achieve online learning at a college without instructional technologists, instructional designers, media specialists or even a director of online learning is, simply put, a pipe dream.

Lack of Quality Control

It is arguable that even in traditional courses, there is little “quality control,” but in online offerings the lack of such controls spells trouble. Student evaluations and instructor observations may be the minimum requirement in a face-to-face class, but is woefully inadequate for an online class. Issues like course organization, instructor accessibility and responsiveness, use of interactive tools for learning, and clarity of explanations for assignments all carry greater importance in a fully online class.  The problem is that when hybrid/online programs develop (often with little thought to quality control by the college), students are presented a range of online experiences that may detract from the success of these initiatives. Moreover, once the proverbial cat is out of the bag, faculty may resent oversight of “their” online courses, even if it promises better quality to students. Ideally, quality control needs to be considered at the outset of online development—although it rarely is.

Lack of Policies and Procedures

Outside of providing faculty development for their online efforts, many colleges spend almost no time thinking whether institutional policies and procedures need to be addressed for online learning. Joel Hartman, referred to earlier in this post, argues that such thinking is critical to the success of any online program. Alas, often the policy makers don’t realize this issue until problems start to occur.  Some examples are:

  • Faculty complain that their classes are too large (no student maximum for online courses)
  • Department chairs struggle with reviewing adjunct faculty performance in online courses (no procedure for evaluating online instructors)
  • Administrators complain about greater student dropouts in online classes (no student preparation for online, no prerequisites for taking online classes)
  • Students complain that their online instructors are doing a poor job (no policies regarding course quality, or mandatory instructor training/certification).

The fact that such problems (and many others) can be addressed by formulating policies and procedures prior to the rollout of online programs seems like a well-kept secret to many administrators.

Lack of Faculty Buy-In

Academia by its nature is a slow-changing beast made even more so by faculty governance mandates that resist any change thought to be a threat to faculty.  Online learning, for many instructors, is seen as a threat that must be abolished (too late for that) or, at least, slowed down (let’s say “no” at first, then study the issue). Of course, many tenured faculty have embraced hybrid/online learning and are greatly dismayed when their colleagues have such a jaundiced view of online. Even so, many studies clearly show that faculty resistance is the major impediment to online adoption within institutions (see references below).  Furthermore, faculty who have never taught online are the most resistant. I have heard rather absurd resolutions passed in Faculty Senates that consider “hybrid courses” as experimental in nature and therefore requiring Senate approval after a 2-year trial. These and other stalling tactics are a major reason that institutions with a long tradition of tenure and unions within the professoriate are the slowest to embrace online learning and indeed, try to subvert it whenever possible.

Lack of Institutional Capacity / Expertise

These days, MOOCs (massive open online courses) and other online developments are very much in the news. Consequently, everyone seems to have an opinion about it, or think they know a great deal about online. To implement a successful online program requires real experience and knowledge of the field. It may possibly require an experienced director to guide an institution’s online efforts, and/or a committee dedicated to doing research on best practices from other schools literally decades ahead in their online development. In my experience, many experts within institutions with mature online programs are more than willing to share their expertise with those colleagues new to online. However, many colleges starting online programs tend not to consult with real online experts, but instead give this authority to those who lack a real understanding of online who are suddenly thrust into a role involving online leadership. The expression “incompetence reigns supreme” perfectly describes the consequences of such policies. Ironically, on such a  campus, there may exist a real expert regarding online teaching and learning, possibly one who has followed the field for years and may even blog about an online vision for their institution.  Rest assured, that individual will be overlooked when such planning occurs and will operate in relative obscurity while the faux experts weigh-in.

In conclusion, there is little reason that a new online program cannot learn the lessons of institutions that have treaded this well-worn path. The pitfalls described above are avoidable.  With the right people and support structures in place — and a real vision and plan for online learning — a college has a fighting chance to successfully grow their online programs.

References:

Allen, I.E., Seaman, J., Lederman, D., & Jaschik, S., (August, 2012), “Digital Faculty: Professors, Teaching and Technology, 2012,” Inside Higher Ed and The Babson Group. Retrieved from: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/survey/digital-faculty-professors-and-technology-2012

Bacow, L. et al, (May 2012) “Barriers to Adoption of Online Learning Systems in U.S. Higher Education,” ITHAKA S+R, Retrieved from: http://www.sr.ithaka.org/research-publications/barriers-adoption-online-learning-systems-us-higher-education

Posted in CUNY Practices, Envisioning Online, Online Learning Policies, Procedures, Systems | Comments Off on Why Online Fails

MOOCs and Magical Thinking

Posted on April 11, 2013 by Bruce Rosenbloom

During the dot-com bubble a decade ago, an astute trader decided it was time to get out of those heady stocks the moment he heard a cab driver speaking about them.  Recently I got a similar feeling upon hearing a professor at an online committee meeting rambling about “being proactive” about implementing MOOCs (massive, open online courses) at his institution. The problem was not with MOOCs per se, but rather with the daunting reality that at this professor’s college, less than 1% of the courses were online, with significant administrative / faculty resistance to hybrid / online teaching. Why this new interest in MOOCs when previous committees looked upon online with a jaundiced eye?

MOOCs have caught the imagination of the media, and even many in academia. This is understandable. There is a sexiness to MOOCs that the garden-variety online course cannot compete with. Moreover, venture capitalists shower money on startups, promising learning to anyone with a computer, and at very low cost to students. Such courses are  facilitated with advanced technologies that allow a “personal feel” though taken by thousands, while using varied modes of instruction to capture students’ interest and engagement. Some of the most avid MOOC advocates claim that based on authenticated student feedback, they can provide individualized instruction to each student while assessing the effectiveness of specific learning elements in the course. With teams of course developers, these courses are superior to the instructor-produced efforts, and naturally, are delivered by the best  professors from elite colleges like MIT and Stanford. And to top it off, eventually students will be able to earn course credit for completing such courses, posing a serious challenge to the existing credentialing process of higher education.

Many of these promises might come to pass, in time.  The sobering reality is that MOOCs currently impact a small fraction of the students currently in college.  The industry is working on a budget model that won’t be free, and that academic leaders are skeptical whether they will be implemented any time soon on their campuses. I am of the belief, for all the pluses of this new approach to learning, the hype about MOOCs is obscuring the important impact that online has already had on the academy. Online learning has been the biggest trend in higher education for a decade and a half, growing at a 20% per annum rate initially, and finally leveling off to a more sustainable 10% rate in recent years (reference below).  That is real impact, not hype. Along the way, online has caused significant shifts (but not transformation) in teaching and learning at colleges across the country. Online has gone from a discredited outlier to a fundamental university strategy in the span of a decade. Very few trends in higher education have had the impact that online learning has, particularly in this relatively short span of time.  As one of my blog posts was titled, “Online is Inevitable.”

All movements need their visionaries, and certainly MOOCs has theirs. Sebastian Thune, a Stanford professor who founded Coursera, is one of the Pied Pipers of this movement.  In many presentations, he speaks passionately and eloquently about a brighter educational future with the advent of MOOCs (see video). I would love to believe him. The way I see MOOCs at this point is a promising technology that can advance the field of online learning at some future point, but maybe in a more evolutionary manner, as is the norm in academia. I applaud the spirit of innovation of Thune and others, so sorely needed to improve the moribund instructional paradigm of current college teaching. Now the hard work begins.

References:

Allen, I.E., Seaman, J., Lederman, D., & Jaschik, S., (August, 2012), “Digital Faculty: Professors, Teaching and Technology, 2012,” Inside Higher Ed and The Babson Group. Retrieved from: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/survey/digital-faculty-professors-and-technology-2012

Allen, I.E. & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the Distance: Online Education in the United States 2011, Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved  11/15/11 from, http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/going_distance_2011

Posted in Envisioning Online, Online Best Practices, Online Learning Policies, Procedures, Systems, Online Trends, Paradigm Shift, Strategic Planning for Online | 1 Comment

Top 10 Tips for Online Instructors

Posted on March 25, 2013 by Bruce Rosenbloom

As one who makes lists, a list about online learning would be a natural for me.  Admittedly, my Top 10 List for online instructors is limited by a fault in all such lists; namely, it merely reflects the thinking of one person at one point in time. OK, with those caveats, the person is me, and the time now.

10. Collaboration, community and communication. Let’s face it; online learning can really seem a distant, isolated and lonely enterprise were it not for some of the tools an instructor can use to create social cohesion. Fortunately, there are an array of tools that can bridge the social distance of online learning. Some of these tools create community like social networking, wikis, and web conferencing, while others foster group work like project management tools (i.e., Basecamp), document sharing tools (Google Docs, Dropbox). The tools for communication like lecture/ screen capture, webinar software, blogs, discussion boards and chat rooms allow for exchanges needed to break the isolation.

9. It’s not them versus us. Whether the mode of teaching is online or traditional, there is a pervasive sense among many in the professorate, that students are — (fill in the blank — unmotivated, lazy, not prepared, unable to think). There is a wide gap between teachers and students, made even more so by a totally outdated instructional paradigm that places the professor at the center of the class, rather than student learning. One consequence of this arrangement is a chasm between two groups in the learning process. The recent concept of “learning community” is a much more productive model that allows for a closer relationship between students and teachers.

8. Feel the passion. We all have seen professors who have lost the reason they became professors in the first place, namely their passion for both their subject and the teaching of students. These professors, whatever their mode of delivery, need to be let go.  Often this can’t be done because of the institution of tenure. However, even in an online class, there is a myriad of ways to make the topic engaging, alive and delivered with an undertone of passion by the instructor.  Without passion, all the players will go through the motions of learning without actual learning taking place.

7. Use technology. Yes, you’re teaching online and in all likelihood employing a course management system (CMS). That may be necessary, but it definitely is not sufficient. It is incumbent of online instructors to become versed with instructional technologies. Such technologies can engage students, help students learn new tools/skills essential in a modern workforce, and improve actual learning in your class. Every semester I hear from students who often decry the lack of technology usage in previous online classes. I feel it important for instructors to learn one or two new technologies per semester to incorporate into their classes.

6. Live and personal. Who said that just because a program is asynchronous, that you can’t include live webinar events? These events can be optional to attend at the scheduled  time, but can be recorded for later viewing by students who missed it or want a second go-round. I have been conducting live sessions for several years, and invariably students are very positive about this option which allows them to see and hear the instructor live, ask questions, hear responses from other students, and be kept up-to-date with both assignments and course content. The vast majority of online professors do not avail themselves of these free, simple webinar tools that can add so much to a class.

5. Constantly improve your online course. I feel this is true for all teaching, but especially online teaching. A recent blog post (link here) traces the evolution of the capstone course that I teach. I am always looking for new teaching approaches, better instructional tools, and dynamic materials for my class. I actually look forward to trying new things in class and even make mid-course corrections when needed. These improvements keep the course fresh and my interest in teaching it high.

4. Learn from others in the field.  This past week we had a Hybrid Teaching Showcase in my Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL). Three professors who went through our faculty cohort for hybrid/online instruction presented their class to colleagues and others in the college community. By listening to their approaches, I was able to pick up three good ideas to use in my online class — this semester. Such forums, conferences, and even blogs like this, are a constant source of ideas and inspiration.

3. Take a break. Teaching online courses can be labor intensive and therefore require a lot of work. If you can, taking a semester off from teaching online can restore perspective and balance.  You may even return with renewed enthusiasm for the task at hand. My break is during the summers.  I never teach during the summer, yet with my full-time job in faculty development, always have my foot in traditional teaching modes and methods.

2. Reach out to students. This semester, I tried something that was recommended to me many years ago, but I never attempted: I called my students. At agreed-upon times, I had about a 20-30 minute phone conversation with all (six) students in my capstone course. With a small class this is certainly doable, but please consider it in larger online classes also. The connection with students, feedback about the course, and insights into their lives, was well worth the extra time involved.  Generally students appreciate the effort as it demonstrates caring for them as people and interest in their success. Try it and you may find it is one of the best time investments you can make as an online instructor.

1. Use a learning contract. Although this may seem a bit on the formal side, such a document (you may also call it an “agreement”) signed by students can eliminate a lot of misunderstandings regarding instructor expectations. I have included a Student_Contract that I have used in a previous class. There is nothing that quite focuses the attention of a person than having to sign a contract of any sort. Some instructors make drafting such a document an activity of their class. In any case, it would include the major requirements of the course and your specific expectations of students in the class.

So, my Top Ten List is complete — until the next one. I hope it has served the purpose of having you reflect on your online course, and making it the best it can be.

Posted in Envisioning Online, Online Best Practices, Online Learning Policies, Procedures, Systems, Online Trends | 1 Comment

New York Times — Say It Isn’t So!

Posted on February 21, 2013 by Bruce Rosenbloom

So the “paper of record” weighed in on online learning in its February 18th editorial entitled “The Trouble with Online College.” Overall, the editorial paints with a wide brush and distorts the reality of online teaching and learning. Below is a point-for-point analysis of the editorial (some points are legitimate) followed by ideas I would have put forth in my editorial on the subject.

Online Through the Eyes of The Times

After a close reading of the editorial, the following are the major points:

  • Attrition rates in online courses are significantly higher than in traditional courses.
  • Students with poor skills, needing remedial help, would be better off in face-to-face classes.
  • Online courses typically have little interaction with students.
  • Students are wasting “hard-earned” tuition monies by taking online courses.
  • Students should demonstrate success in traditional classes prior to taking online courses.
  • Blended courses may be more appropriate for struggling students, but they are rare and costly.

There is some merit to what The Times puts forth, and a lot of misguided nonsense. First, in well-planned and well-run online programs, the attrition rates are not significantly different than in traditional classes. “Struggling students” who need remedial help would have been screened out prior to taking any classes.  It is a “best practice” for online programs to be forthright about what online learning entails and to realistically assess students’ abilities during the application process.

Also, not all online programs are for-profit, where students are aggressively recruited to spend their (often) government-funded tuition dollars with little hope of obtaining a degree. Many, like the CUNY Online programs, require mature adults to have 30 or more credits of previous college experience. Rather than a recipe for exploitation, this is the fulfillment of a student’s lifelong desire to earn a legitimate credential at a respected institution. In fact, some online programs have policies where only students with a requisite  GPA can enroll in online courses, and only after their first year of college is complete. Policies such as these would prevent much of the abuse seen in for-profit online programs which The Times attributes to the entire field.

Blended or hybrid courses are a viable option for many students at many institutions. Within CUNY, there is a major push from Chancellor Goldstein to ensure that all colleges within the university offer a range of hybrid courses. Additional funding was provided to most CUNY campuses and college presidents need to report hybrid/online benchmarks at their respective campuses. The idea that blended courses are “rare or costly” in higher education is completely off the mark.

Interaction in hybrid/online courses may be as robust, if not more so, than in traditional courses. In my fully online course, I  have:

  • webinars twice a month where students can see, hear and interact with me,
  • students use collaborative tools for group projects,
  • students create a blog about both course content and their reflection of learning, and
  • used various other Web 2.0 and social networking tools. So students experience active learning, engagement with course content, the professor and fellow students and, in all likelihood, have a higher degree of interactivity than in a traditional course. It is up to program administrators to set the bar higher to ensure the quality of online courses. Interactivity is but one aspect of course quality. Rest assured, lack of interactivity can just as easily exist in a traditional setting as in an online one.

What The Times Didn’t Say (but I have in my various blog posts):

1. The field of online learning has been one of the most dynamic developments in higher education in the past century. Its growth has been meteoric, and its impact on higher education policies and programs, significant.  (see this post)

2. Online learning is now an established fact in higher education, and a strategic component at most institutions. (see blog post)

3. Online learning is part and parcel of a significant shift in how teaching and learning are conducted.  Essentially, we are in the midst of a paradigm shift in teaching practice from an instructor-centered model to a learner-centered one. (see blog post)

4. Online learning has its issues and abuses, as does traditional learning. With any change in paradigm, those benefitting by the existing paradigm will vociferously resist change, usually by parroting specious arguments. The Times is complicit in this process by such editorials. It can take a generation of innovators to make real inroads in any endeavor as significant as college teaching. Despite the nay-sayers, the arguments for online learning are compelling and will not be reversed. (see blog post)

5. The existing model of pedagogy is bankrupt and has completely outlived its usefulness. It’s one thing to criticize online learning as deficient, it is quite another to assume that traditional pedagogy, as practiced for several generations, is a paradigm of good teaching. As John Tagg writes in his book “The Learning Paradigm College,” the current instructional paradigm needs a complete overhaul in its approaches, processes, policies, measures of success, and roles of teacher and student. It is this current system that has spawned a legion of educational reformers who clearly see that “the emperor has no clothes.” (see blog post)

Much more can be written, but The Times editorial is nothing but an embarrassment for those of us in the field.  Hasn’t The Times tried to change its modus operandi due to the recent digital avalanche in publishing? In a similar manner, traditional institutions will be forced to change their operations in light of the avalanche of digital learning and the new learning paradigm.

Reference:

Tagg, John, (2003). The Learning Paradigm College, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Posted in Envisioning Online, Instructional Technology, Online Best Practices, Online Learning Policies, Procedures, Systems, Online Trends, Strategic Planning for Online | Comments Off on New York Times — Say It Isn’t So!