Online Learning: Innovative? Yes, Transformative? No.

Posted on February 20, 2013 by Bruce Rosenbloom

I have been assiduously following the field of online teaching /learning for many years. Online learning has been, I would argue, the biggest trend in higher education in the past decade.  From an early growth rate of 20% per annum (according to the Sloan-C Reports), to a current level of around 10% per annum growth, online learning has been a force to be reckoned with. In the latest Babson study of online, fully 75% of college Chief Academic Officers regard online as being strategically important to their institutions.  Moreover, online (and its cousin hybrid learning), have produced changes in teaching on campus across the landscape, including:

  • The Flipped Classroom–where content is delivered online and outside the classroom, while engaging activities happen within the classroom;
  • A re-examination of the lecture as the primary mode of teaching (closely related to the flipped classroom trend);
  • A boon to older, non-traditional students returning to college for whom “the campus experience” is not needed and for whom the convenience of online is paramount for degree completion;
  • The gradual dis-aggregation of the faculty role (see previous post) in which essential parts of what constitutes a professor’s work are getting farmed out to others including course design, grading, and teaching;
  • A rise in collaborations between private content providers, tech companies and colleges to seize a competitive advantage for their online programs; and
  • A gradual shift in the role of the professor from “sage on stage” to a facilitator/guide of learning.

Online teaching has been a force for change and arguably, the major force in higher education in this last decade.  This is noteworthy since higher education has by and large been an entity resistant to change. But there is change, and there is transformative change. I would agree with Clayton Christensen’s term, “disruptive technology” when assessing the impact of online in higher education. Indeed, online learning, as stated above, has already caused significant change in the delivery of college courses, but not fundamental change in the prevailing “instructional paradigm” as described by Tagg in the “The Learning Paradigm College.” The “online revolution” has hardly produced systemic change at most colleges, only incremental change at best.

What Hasn’t Changed?

In the latest Inside Higher Ed edition,  I was reading a stimulating blog post entitled “The Right Path to MOOC Credit,” by Pamela Tate. The author was skeptical about whether Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) would transform higher education as some have argued. Ms. Tate writes, “Dig deeper and we are left to ask how many MOOC courses will really be worth college credit, where will the credits be accepted, and for how long wil college credits even be the primary measure of learning?” So despite the potential for such an innovation as MOOCs, in reality, it has yet to transform the academy in any substantial ways.

When I consider what a transformation would entail, John Tagg’s “The Learning Paradigm College” would be a starting point. He points to five characteristics of this new learning paradigm including:

  • Supporting students in pursuing their own goals
  • Requiring frequent student performances
  • Providing frequent and ongoing feedback
  • Assuring a long time- horizon for learning, and
  • Providing for stable communities of practice.

Traditional teaching structures that Tagg references often have little to do with actual student learning, and often are detrimental to learning. These practices include:

  • Course-credit hours to measure achievement,
  • The 15 -week semester,
  • “Atomized” curriculums that simple do not add up to a whole,
  • Assessment  via grades that provides little context or proof of learning,
  • Discipline/department structures that don’t reflect newer societal inter-relationships,
  • Tenure and promotion policies that often don’t reward good teaching, and
  • Isolated classrooms and students walled-off from each other and the outside world. These and other attributes reduce the chances of any transformative change beyond token or marginalized reforms. In a future blog post I will examine these further.

It is evident that traditional structures within the academy have not been transformed by developments in online learning, or more generally,  instructional technologies. At best, I believe that technology innovation has improved learning and student engagement to a degree and at worst, it functions as a band-aide for deficient pedagogy and institutional structures. So, although many faculty within these institutions (K-12 included) do their best to teach students, we all labor under an instructional paradigm that can accept innovations to teaching, but are still largely impervious to transformative change.

References

Christensen, Clayton M. & Overdorf, Michael, (2000). “Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change” Harvard Business Review, March–April 2000.

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

Tate, Pamela, “The Right Path to MOOC Credit,” Inside Higher Ed, February 14, 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2013/02/14/course-course-approval-moocs-may-not-be-wise-essay

 

Posted in A Learning Pedagogy, Online Trends, Paradigm Shift | Comments Off on Online Learning: Innovative? Yes, Transformative? No.

Evolution of a Course

Posted on February 13, 2013 by Bruce Rosenbloom

I have been fortunate to teach a capstone course for the CUNY Online B.A. program. Capstone courses in many programs are the culmination of work toward a B.A. degree, taught in small classes. Students are asked to produce a project that demonstrates mastery of the subject matter and requisite skills needed to obtain the degree. For an instructor, such capstones are valued not only for the small class size where you have an opportunity to interact more with students, but also, because the instructor has discretion over the course content which may be covered in greater depth.

I have been teaching the capstone course for the Communications and Culture B.A. program for over three years during which time the course has evolved with my understanding of pedagogy along with my interest in the field. The various titles of the course reflect changes in my thinking, interests and understanding. Not surprisingly, these changes have paralleled shifts in my blog’s focus– from strictly online teaching issues, to issues of technology tools and online learning, and further to tools for engaging students in lifelong learning. The reasons for this “evolution” in my course are the subject of this blog post.

Evolution of a Course

The first course, “Principles and Applications of Online Teaching” was proposed and taught in Fall 2010. Given my interest in the field of online learning, I had a epiphany: Why not teach a course about online learning to students taking a fully online program?  The course was traditionally structured with readings from Michael Simonson’s book about distance education, supplemented with my Camtasia screen captures and website resources. A great deal of the work was accomplished via online discussions about topics concerning online teaching and learning as well as trends in online education. An ending research term paper was also required. Overall, I thought the first incarnation was a success and generally felt the students were engaged and real learning was achieved.

Upon reflecting on the first semester, I knew changes would be needed, hence the new title in the Spring 2011, “Principles, Practices and Pedagogy of Online Learning.”  I believed that students needed to approach the subject matter–online learning–from multiple perspectives, namely, that of the student, the instructor, and the administrator. Those perspectives became the three course units that gave this revised course a real structure and focus.

In addition to the change in content, I decided to experiment with several webinars throughout the course and also make use of anonymous surveys after each unit. Furthermore, I made group assignments a part of the course, and tied major assignments specifically to the three perspectives of online learning. Instead of a term paper, students had to produce and conduct an online learning module about an aspect of online learning. By the end of the term, I was pleased with the increased student engagement and tangible learning shown by the group projects and production of  an online lesson. Student feedback was more positive than in the first term, with students mentioning the usefulness of the webinars and technologies used by the professor and themselves.

I had the summer to contemplate further changes to the course, and by the Fall of 2012, “Engaging Tools for Online Learning” was rolled out. The focus had moved from the theory of online and the various perspectives, to the actual tools that could be used to enhance online learning.  I was intrigued about the potential of Web 2.0 tools, social networking, collaborative tools, video/ screen capture and other technologies. So, theory had gradually given way to practice, and specifically the nuts and bolts production of online learning. It was no longer whether online had a legitimate place in the curriculum; by this time the battle was over. Online had achieved a strategic place in higher education pedagogy; it had entered the mainstream. To me, the question became, “How can we make online the best it can be?” Tools were central to this equation.

I had all the students use a WordPress blog as the container of their semester’s work.  I felt this gave them ownership of their work in a way that Blackboard discussions did not. Moreover, at the end of the semester, they had a tangible product of their efforts. I had the class explore a different tool almost each week, from screen capture and wikis, to word clouds and concept maps, from social networking to group collaboration tools. Each tool was used in a context, which required both an understanding of the tool in addition to the course content. I felt this approach was quite ambitious since most professors are happy for students to master some content, without even bothering to learn new tools. Nonetheless, despite some technical glitches, I felt the students’ comfort zones were stretched, and actual learning took place.

My current iteration is called “Engaging Tools for Lifelong Learning.” As my thinking and understanding have evolved, I am starting to realize that learning begins and ends with the student. It’s not so much the mode of teaching (e.g. online or hybrid), or even the tools that facilitate that teaching, but rather it is the pedagogy that ultimately trumps technology. It was my recent reading of Tagg’s “The Learning Paradigm College” from which that insight came (see related blog post). Although I can’t single-handedly change the prevailing instructional paradigm, in my own small sphere of influence I can make the course focus more on actual student learning.

This semester, I am still having students learn and use various technologies that they may incorporate in their real lives and beyond–as in lifelong learning. However, the passion for learning in all of us begins with our own personal passions and so I have students blog about their passions, interests and hobbies. The concept is that whatever passion they have (and presumably want to share with others) will energize them to learn these tools and apply them to teaching others. In addition, I have changed my focus from grading many individual assignments based on rubrics, to substantive feedback after each unit, via a teleconference/ discussion of a student’s work.  I believe this will prove more useful than more frequent, but often superficial, feedback that most classes provide. Lastly, students will be connected via conferencing software to form groups that review and critique each other’s work.

Naturally, the jury is still out on this semester (just starting), but I am hopeful. I think it is incumbent for teachers on all levels to improve, refine and tweak their courses throughout their tenure. Failure to do so constitutes “pedagogical malpractice” in my book. But even with all the changes I achieve as an individual instructor, I feel there is a chasm (more like an abyss) in the lack of fundamental change in our nations institutions of higher learning. The glacial (pre-global warming) pace of change  in higher education prevents the real restructuring of teaching and learning until a later time.

“It is nothing short of a miracle that modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry.”  —Albert Einstein

Posted in A Learning Pedagogy, Instructional Technology, Online Best Practices | Comments Off on Evolution of a Course

When Paradigms Collide

Posted on January 30, 2013 by Bruce Rosenbloom

Note: In this post and others to follow, I depart from observations about online trends, instructional technology, and even strategic planning, to focus on the essential issue of teaching and learning. We are in the midst of a “paradigm shift” in teaching and learning at all levels of education, with significant implications as to how instruction will take place in the future. These posts will focus on the anticipated changes and what they bode for the academy.

What is a Paradigm?

It was Thomas Kuhn, in his influential classic, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” that is credited with the term “paradigm shift.” He defined it as a set of assumptions and rules that create the framework in which the scientific community operates. Other theorists applied his idea to changes outside of science, particularly in the realm of the social sciences.  For example, John Tagg (citation at end of post) sees its relevance to organizations, and defines “organizational paradigm” as “. . . the framework of examples, models and rules that define the boundaries of an organization’s proper activities and that generates new rules governing those activities. . . .  The paradigm that governs an organization often cannot be–or never is–explicitly stated. But through living and working in an organization, one learns the paradigm that defines it in practice.” (Tagg, p. 15, full reference below).

Why Paradigms Matter

Paradigms are more than philosophical constructs. They have tremendous implications for how we see the world and how we approach problems. So for example, if we have a disease or condition afflicting a group of people, the allopathic (medical) paradigm would seek a vaccine, drug or surgical procedure or chemical/radiation therapy to address it. Alternative treatments, even if they have proven efficacy, would not be considered within that paradigm. Thus, many safe modalities practiced for generations would be dismissed as “quackery” regardless of their positive effects. This deprives us of viable health choices that may deliver results without the side effects inherent in the allopathic model which currently has a virtual monopoly in our health care system. Why doesn’t a new paradigm take its place?

The Power of the Paradigm

People, institutions, prestige, power and money all come into play in preserving an existing paradigm, regardless of how wrong-headed, destructive and costly it may be. We would like to presume that a better model would displace a previous flawed one. As already explained, this is just not the case. In actuality, any new paradigm will be vigorously opposed by those benefitting from the existing paradigm. Think of getting 20 plus years of education to become a medical doctor. Overnight, a new paradigm is touted as having the answers to health issues. Would you gladly embrace this new paradigm if your livelihood was threatened?  99.9% of doctors would not, which explains why less than one-tenth of 1% of physicians practicing in the U.S. would be considered as practicing alternative or complementary medicine.

The sad reality is that practitioners (fully accredited, licensed and accomplished in their fields) usually get vilified and their reputations disparaged for even suggesting anything critical of the existing paradigm, or offering alternative therapies. There are many examples I may give. Doctors have been attacked for suggesting a connection between vaccines and autism, for challenging the theory of AIDS and its treatment, for having the courage to oppose many drugs and orthodox therapies that may be dangerous or simply don’t work. As previously stated, the paradigm protects those within it, and opposes those who question it, often with a vehemence and mean-spiritedness that shows the inherent defensiveness of a paradigm on the ropes. So regardless of their merits, existing paradigms are guarded and protected against all new ideas or methods.

An Educational Paradigm?

Alas, it exists and it is also impervious to change from within. The instructional paradigm has been the predominant one for generations of students –so much so that we can hardly imagine another way of approaching education. However, like having a medical paradigm that treats patients but rarely restores health, we have an educational paradigm that offers instruction, but often not learning. Both K-12 and higher education are under its spell, and it has produced a host of problems that have been resistant to any “reform.”  As detailed in his book, The “Learning Paradigm College,” John Tagg explains how, for many students, this instructional paradigm has created incentives for surface learning, extrinsic rewards of  learning (grades/jobs), and passivity in their own learning process.

According to Tagg, one artifact of the Instructional Paradigm is the credit hour, a unit that measures hours of classroom time.  The credit hour is useful for transfer of credits and assigning workload to faculty, but does it have anything to do with actual learning? Regrettably, “seat time” does not correlate with student learning as many studies like “Academically Adrift” report. Another structure that Tagg takes issue with is courses.

“For many policy makers, the meaning of education has changed. Formal processes have become the purpose of the institutions. Courses, which the funding mechanism of public colleges had made the economic backbone of the institutions, had come to define the educational mission in the Instructional Paradigm. The mission of colleges became putting more students in more classes. . . offering courses–had become the end, if not the definition, of higher education.” (Tagg, p. 16-17,  full reference below)

Only recently, has there been a concerted effort to begin questioning the entire structure, approach, processes, and artifacts of this teacher-centered model. Tagg and others have been in the forefront of such a re-examination of what the real mission of higher education should be, not what it has evolved into, as Tagg decries, “factories for the production of full-time equivalent students (FTES), transcript generating machines (p. 17). When enough people see the dysfunction of an existing Instructional Paradigm, and are willing to focus their efforts on changing it (which may mean putting their reputations on the line) then real change may be possible. As with most changes in paradigms, it may take a generation of professors to “leave the stage” before the new student-centered learning paradigm has a chance to take hold. In the meanwhile, we are doing a great disservice to generations of students that must play the game of taking courses to earn a degree, and often only after graduation, can begin the real process of learning.

References

Arum, Richard and Roksa, Josipa, Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses (University of Chicago Press, January 2011), Retrieved at: http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo10327226.html.

Barr, Robert B. and Tagg, John, “From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education,” Change,  November/December 1995.
Retrieved at: ilte.ius.edu/pdf/BarrTagg.pdf

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

 

Posted in A Learning Pedagogy, Instructional Technology, Online Best Practices, Online Learning Policies, Procedures, Systems, Online Trends, Paradigm Shift | 1 Comment

Toward a Learning Paradigm College (Part 1)

Posted on January 23, 2013 by Bruce Rosenbloom

Note: With this post and others to follow, I depart from observations about online trends, instructional technology, and even strategic planning, to focus on the essential issue of teaching and learning. We are in the midst of a “paradigm shift” in teaching and learning at all levels of education, with significant implications as to how instruction will take place in future decades. These posts will focus on the anticipated changes and what they bode for the academy.

The Learning Paradigm College by John Tagg,  is a rare book with the power to produce epiphanies of insight in most self-reflective readers. Over many years, I have enjoyed the role of both student and teacher, and yet I had an unsettled feeling that something in the process was fundamentally wrong, something that was both hidden, yet obvious.  Now I understand why.That unsettled feeling had much to do with teaching as had been done for many generations, namely what Tagg terms the “instructional paradigm.”  This pedagogy, practiced at all levels of the educational environment, places instruction at the center of the enterprise, with the assumption that learning will naturally follow.  In other words, current educational systems will typically trumpet student learning as central to their missions, while in practice placing instruction as the organizing principle around which all activities are organized. In fact, there is a disconnect between what is being said versus what is being practiced.

Tagg passionately and clearly critiques the Instructional Paradigm, as reflected below.

The fundamental flaw of the Instructional Paradigm is precisely that it substitutes a means for an end. It raises formal organizational processes (courses, transcripts) to the level of institutional mission. In the Instructional Paradigm college, maintaining and expanding the paradigmatic process of delivering instruction is what makes a college a college, what defines it as an institution of higher education. . . . Teaching is valuable if and when it leads to learning, but not otherwise . . . It can be a useful tool. But it is only a tool. When we make the production of tools the objective and ignore what the tools were meant to achieve, we produce warped priorities and incoherent plans. To say that the mission of a college is instruction is like saying the mission of General Motors is to produce assembly lines or the mission of a hospital is to fill beds.

 . . . At the core of the Instructional Paradigm is a conception of teaching as the transmission of information from teachers to students. The paradigm thus emerges from a model of pedagogy that gives value to everything else in the institution [except learning]. (Tagg, pages 18 and 19, reference at end).

 So What’s Wrong with Current Instruction?

Tagg argues that the organizing structures of instruction are either antithetical to real learning or simply irrelevant artifacts that no longer have purpose.  Among the examples of such practices he cites include:

  • The lecture as the primary means of transmitting information (contributes to student passivity)
  • 15 week semester (an arbitrary length of time for a course, inflexible to actual pace of student learning or their capacity)
  • 3 credit-hour course that insists all subjects can be covered in chunks of time that relate to “seat-time” not actual learning time (artifact of 19th century model)
  • Curriculum is “atomistic” in the sense that students proceed through an array of courses that may or may not relate to each other in any meaningful manner; “a stack of instructional bricks that can be stacked in any order” (Tagg, p. 25)
  • Disciplines that, like guilds, have long ago lost their relevance and reason for being other than the fact that academia has been structured for generations into academic departments which “derive their power from their role as depositories for classes.” (Tagg, p. 23). Inter-disciplinary models are needed for students to navigate the current world.
  • The transcript as a document that reflects the instructional passage of a student through a curriculum, but accomplishes little else in terms of what is learned.
  • The lack of accountability in terms of what students actually achieved in 4+ years of higher education.
    “The numbers that colleges report on are largely self-referential; enrollments and GPAs can be compared to equivalent figures from other colleges but not to any meaningful referents in the world outside the academy.” (Tagg, p. 29).

The Results

What results from the Instructional Paradigm are students often both passive learners and turned off to their learning, and possibly lifelong learning; students who know how to game the system to get the grade (an external motivator) by doing the minimal amount of work needed; students who see college as a means to an end, and who model surface learning with little connection to the outside world; and students whose skills in many areas are not being tested in a context that can demonstrate mastery. Is it any wonder that in a recent study, called  Academically Adrift, 45% of students in an array of higher educational settings show no improvement in a range of skills over the first few years of college. This represents a colossal waste of resources and time that could be better spent on a Learning Paradigm that puts the learner first in both word and deed.

In Part 2 of this post, I will detail the Learning Paradigm and contrast it to our current model.  In case you wish to read a shorter take on this book, please refer to an article listed in the References section from Change magazine.

References

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

Barr, Robert B. and Tagg, John, “From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education,” Change,  November/December 1995.
Retrieved at: ilte.ius.edu/pdf/BarrTagg.pdf

Posted in A Learning Pedagogy, Envisioning Online, Online Best Practices, Paradigm Shift | 2 Comments

Forum for CUNY Instructional Technologists

Posted on December 20, 2012 by Bruce Rosenbloom

Overview of Event

As a followup to my panel at the CUNY IT Conference entitled “Navigating the Sea of Instructional Technologies at CUNY Campuses,” I will be hosting a forum on that topic at CCNY’s CETL this January 15th.  All CUNY faculty, staff and administrators involved with instructional technology administration, implementation, planning, teaching or faculty development are invited to attend.  To download the above flyer, please click on– Navigating-IT.

I envisioned this event as an opportunity for technologists, faculty, and administrators throughout CUNY to informally get together to discuss a concern for all of us, namely, successful implementation of instructional technologies (ITs) at our respective campuses. In addition to several (short) presentations, participants will work in small groups to brainstorm issues like:

• Instructional technologies impact on teaching
• Visioning and strategic planning in this area
• Instructional technologies for hybrid/online teaching
• Process of choosing ITs on campuses
• Role of CUNY Central for IT implementation
• Major issues/problems with campus IT implementing
• Collaboration among CUNY schools in this area.

Space is limited. If interested, please register at the link below.
(link deactivated post event)

Posted in CUNY Practices, Envisioning Online, Instructional Technology, Online Best Practices, Online Learning Policies, Procedures, Systems, Online Trends | 4 Comments

Envisioning Educational Technology’s Future

Posted on December 16, 2012 by Bruce Rosenbloom

Every once in a while I come across a work that is truly exceptional in its thinking and execution.  Such a work is that of Envisioning the Future of Educational Technology.  Looking 30 years into the future in terms of  new learning technologies is an audacious act by any measure, but is even more compelling by the graphic poster that is both beautiful and informative.

This visualization is the result of a collaboration between the design for learning experts, TFE Research, and emerging technology strategist Michell Zappa, who describe this work below.

“This visualization attempts to organize a series of emerging technologies that are likely to influence education in the upcoming decades. Despite its inherently speculative nature, the driving trends behind the technologies can already be observed, meaning it’s a matter of time before these scenarios start panning out in learning environments around the world.”

Zappa and his team divided the chart into three areas: the classroom, the studio, and the virtual. Undoubtedly, the classroom is the most endangered of the three teaching venues, and within the span of two decades, it will be unrecognizable from the classroom of today. Current whiteboards and tablets will be displaced in the near future by digitized classrooms with performance-based dashboards, cascading knowledge maps, desk-sized screens and eye-tracking. Ultimately, physical classrooms will yield to studio and virtual spaces.

The studio marks an intermediate space between the traditional classroom and a completely virtual one. They describe the studio as “a peer to peer environment where groups coalesce to discuss, learn, and solve problems with each other and the teacher as facilitator.” There is a lot of current activity in this sphere which includes educational games, achievements and badges, educational programming tools, student- developed applications, and self-paced learning. The essential characteristic of the studio is that learning is a student-driven and “gamified” endeavor that is engaging and enjoyable.

The virtual sphere is where the “opening of information” trend occurs, a significant threat to traditional institutions of higher education. Virtual is defined as “disembodied environments, where learning, discussion and assessment happen regardless of physicality or geography.” Open courseware, online communities, video courses (like MOOCs), education app stores, and the digitization of books, are developments that will happen in this area.

One trend that I have blogged about in the past is what they term “disintermediation,” by which they mean “undoing the traditional student-teacher model, these technologies offer a scenario where AI (artificial intelligence) handles personalization while teachers focus on teaching.” This is similar to my blog post of the “disaggregated professor,” where the traditional role of the professoriate being broken up into discrete parts are farmed out to computer-generated programs or to poorly-paid graders. Assessment and student grading is ripe for a computer takeover, and so is content dissemination based on individualized student performance. Some technologies in this area include mobile platforms, student-to-student teaching platforms, and assessment and assignment algorithms.

A lot more can be said about this tremendous visualization of ed-tech’s future. What is clear is that we are currently in the middle of a major paradigm shift in terms of teaching practice, one that is accelerated by “disruptive technologies.” Teaching and learning will never be the same–and maybe that’s a good thing.

License and Credits

“Envisioning the future of education technology” has a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, which means that you are free to use it as an individual (or in your organization) whichever way you see fit, as long as you credit the authors.

Posted in Envisioning Online, Instructional Technology, Online Best Practices, Online Learning Policies, Procedures, Systems, Online Trends, Paradigm Shift | Comments Off on Envisioning Educational Technology’s Future

Online Shorts: Late Fall 2012

Posted on December 16, 2012 by Bruce Rosenbloom

Note: This is a continuation of a new format for my blog, namely, short summaries and commentary on a series of recently published reports and articles.  The sheer volume of newsworthy academic and press reporting about online learning makes this new format a necessity for covering a wider array of interesting developments in this field. The theme for these short synopses is open online education and future online trends.

Online Learning Organizations Ban Together to Promote Online Agenda

http://campustechnology.com/articles/2012/10/05/online-learning-task-force-outlines-steps-to-advance-distance-education.aspx

This article indicates that several distance-learning organizations have put aside their differences for the common good—the advancement of online. With a unified voice, this group can speak with legislators and policy makers to better ensure that these programs get supported and recognized. For example, regarding employment, this group seeks to:

“Make the connection between online learning, the economy, workforce development, and access, and communicate that connection to policymakers and higher education leaders.”

Competition in Online Space

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/10/nonprofit-colleges-spark-new-competition-online-study-finds

Non-profits are starting to compete with for-profit online organizations in terms of dominance in the online space.  As online becomes more mainstream, increasingly price and reputation are attributes of non-profit programs that may provide a competitive advantage. The days of online programs being associated primarily with the University of Phoenix or similar for-profit institutions may soon be over as other players challenge their dominance in this marketplace.

Democratizing Higher Education: Sebastian Thune

http://events.mediasite.com/Mediasite/Play/82b693c44d94441ba4b9c08c75df31351d

This video summarizes the importance of MOOCs (massive open online courses) in the entire educational space by the founder of Udacity.  Sebastian is truly a visionary, and in this video he explains the genesis of his company and MOOCs, and their potential to radically change the educational experience of future generations of students. His approach is “student-centered” as opposed to the “instructor-centered” model of traditional teaching.

10 Universities Team Up to Offer Credit for MOOCs

http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2012/11/26/10-Universities-Team-To-Offer-Cross-Institution-Online-Courses-for-Credit.aspx?=CTNU&p=1

http://www.centerdigitaled.com/news/10-Universities-Join-Together-to-Offer-Online-Courses-for-Credit.html

Several universities are banding together to offer MOOCs for credit for students, both within their institutions as well as those not currently enrolled.  This and other similar efforts represent a “shot across the bow” of traditional colleges who might think they are immune from competition. The concept that you achieve credentials only from enrolling at a traditional college is starting to erode.  Quality instruction will increasingly be offered outside the ivy-halls of academia, and challenge the concept of place-based education to its core.

Low-Risk E-book Platform for Utica College Library

http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2012/11/13/Utica-College-Adopts-Low-Risk-E-Book-Platform.aspx?=CTNU&p=1

Traditionally, libraries have been one of the slowest sectors in higher education to change. Most libraries today are being built without the traditional “stacks”  where books are housed off-site. Instead they typically have computers with access to an array of digital books, articles and resources. This article reflects another step in this trend whereby libraries are using e-books with pre-loaded content as a substitute for expensive journal subscriptions.

MOOCs and Employers: A Win-Win

http://chronicle.com/article/Providers-of-Free-MOOCs-Now/136117/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

Another barrier to the acceptance of MOOCs is about to fall.  Coursera, a company specializing in massive open online courses, is getting into the headhunter business. For example, a software company interested in hiring a programmer may now have access to successful students completing a MOOC in Artificial Intelligence. So the connection between online learning and employers is beginning to be made without the traditional institution of higher learning as an intermediary.

The Carnegie Credit Hour—Being Re-evaluated

http://chronicle.com/article/Carnegie-the-Founder-of-the/136137/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

The long-held standard, Carnegie credit hour—is now up for re-examination and change. This measure, also associated in a pejorative sense with “seat time,” has been made obsolete with increasing content delivered outside the classroom, and lack of effective “quality control” of traditional instruction. In other words, the lecture is dead, or at least on its last legs, and generations of bored students will be happy to hear it’s gone.  However, the new performance-based model will make it more difficult for students to sit through classes and think they can pass the course with minimal effort. At the same time, a new generation of faculty will need to be trained in whatever pedagogical and assessment tools will replace the traditional classroom experience. This credit-hour development is reflective of how significant “disruptive technologies” have been in higher education in terms of institutional change.

 

Posted in Instructional Technology, Online Trends | Comments Off on Online Shorts: Late Fall 2012

Online is Inevitable

Posted on December 11, 2012 by Bruce Rosenbloom

The October 5th, 2012 Chronicle of Higher Education Special Report on Online Learning marks a turning point of sorts. While it is true that there have been several past Chronicle supplements concerning online learning, this issue marks a major departure in terms of tone and content. If I would have to characterize it, I would say the “war is over, and online has won.” Whereas past supplements either cast doubts about the effectiveness of online or its staying power, the proverbial while flag has been raised in this issue. There are articles on the impact of MOOCs, online collaborations, finances, and pedagogy–all positive regarding the future of online and its efficacy. There are also several articles written by professors who were formerly skeptics or opposed to online that now embrace this format.

Increasingly I see the forces promoting online learning coalescing on different fronts. These days, the issue of economics is never far from the minds of campus administrators, particularly at public universities. While I would never suggest that a cost-saving rationale for adopting online is a good thing, more and more the impact of online is being felt positively on the bottom line of many universities.  For example, in her article entitled, “The Economics of Online Education,” Goldie Blumenstyk makes the case that 40% of UMass-Amherst’s School of Management online business program supplying 60% of the total revenue of that school, with online students having twice the revenue impact per student as the traditional business student. According to business school Dean Fuller, this has meant opening” new markets for high-quality students with work experience who are place bound.” (pg B-14). How long can traditional institutions ignore this type of bottom-line impact?

Not surprisingly, there were several articles on MOOCs in this edition. The issue of free classes of high quality, structured for the convenience of the student in ways that allow for highly interactive, self-paced learning, should strike fear into the heart of traditionalists. While their tenured positions may be secure for their careers, innovations like MOOCs are causing a sea-change in what constitutes effective pedagogy and how learning is delivered to students. Articles entitled, “5 Ways that EdX Could Change Education, ” and “MOOC Mania” give you a sense of where these articles come down. One point I found interesting is that MOOC resources could potentially be used to supplement hybrid courses or even traditional courses. Such sharing could allow for a transition period where courses evolve to include more online content.  Eventually, there will be a continuous spectrum of courses utilizing digital content in teaching, even in face-to-face classes.

The EdX article also spoke of computers being used to grade computer programming code and provide students automated feedback.  This frees professors from the drudgery of grading routine assignments, hopefully so they can create new and compelling content.  Some of that content would be “gamified” to create entertaining and enjoyable environments where students can engage with real-world contexts for their learning.  An example of this is Sim City, a program that simulates managing a city for students studying this field. Students wrestle with the impact their decisions have on their virtual city, and try to cope with the consequences of their actions.  This type of program is clearly superior in learning impact to the case studies provided in books or lecturers by professors.

The article, “From Self-Flying Helicopters to Classrooms of the Future,” profiles the co-founders of Coursera, a new start-up that houses some of the largest MOOCs in existence today. The founders are two Stanford computer scientists, with a goal of transforming education from the outside. The company’s main directives are to do what’s best for students, which means keeping costs down (currently free) and giving students from around the world access to high-quality courses. In a short period of time, this company has already entered into agreements with over 30 higher-ed institutions, with an online base of over 1.5 million students. The scope of Coursera already dwarfs any brick and mortar university in the world, and more institutions are entering into agreements with them each passing month.

The Chronicle Special Report reflects a blizzard of recent new articles about these new modes of teaching and learning in the conventional and academic press. It reflects a trend that is not a passing fad, but rather, a disruptive and transformative shift in the delivery and structure of learning organizations. The flexible and innovative nature of companies like Coursera will pose even greater challenges to traditional colleges if and when they solve the crucial issues of credentialing and employment links. CUNY, and other public institutions, need to start looking at and even embracing the coming changes to teaching and learning ushered in by these “disruptive technologies.”

Reference:

(October 5, 2012). “Online Learning: MOOC Madness: An Inside Look,”  Special Supplement, The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: http://chronicle.com/article/Volume-59-Issue-6-October-5/134788/

Note: Some of the articles  referred to in this post are designated as “premium content” by The Chronicle of Higher Education and will only be available to subscribers.

 

Posted in Envisioning Online, Instructional Technology, Online Best Practices, Online Learning Policies, Procedures, Systems, Online Trends, Paradigm Shift | Comments Off on Online is Inevitable

Navigating the Sea of Instructional Technologies

Posted on November 29, 2012 by Bruce Rosenbloom

One of the events I most look forward to each year is the annual CUNY IT Conference held in late November or early December. CUNY has many dedicated and talented people who do excellent work in the trenches using technology for both academic and administrative goals.  The conference program for 2012 is a good reflection of the scope and depth of work being done at this institution. Dr. George Otte, CUNY’s Director of Academic Technology, has done yeoman’s work planning and organizing this event for the past 11 years.

This year, I am on two panels, one concerning research and publishing in the field of online education (see blog post), the other a panel discussion I initiated entitled “Navigating the Sea of Instructional Technologies at CUNY Campuses.” I have included a link to the PowerPoint presentation for that panel (Navigating_IT_112812 v4.) Part of the presentation concerned a review of a short survey on instructional technology distributed to key IT decision-makers throughout CUNY. We received responses from over 20 CUNY schools (out of about 23 requests) so I feel that most of the colleges were represented. I have attached the PDF file for the survey and resulting data (SurveySummary).

Genesis of Survey and Panel

I am fortunate to have a challenging and rewarding job as Director for CCNY’s Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning for the past six years. In that capacity I have seen the need for policy, planning and resourcing the area of instructional technology. These are tools that serve a real pedagogical purpose, and thus extend and promote the ability of instructors to engage students in learning, while potentially promoting better learning outcomes. Yet, often the importance of these technologies is not sufficiently recognized by college administrations, or properly addressed in terms of staffing and other funding. As instructional technology has grown rapidly in the past decade, there is a large gap between the potential of these technologies for teaching and learning, and what is being delivered “on the ground,” hence this panel.

Analysis of Results

A quick synopsis of survey results show the following:

  • Most CUNY schools have designated a point-person for instructional technology.
  • Many stakeholders have input regarding instructional technology at their colleges.
  • A variety of instructional technologies are being used at most CUNY campuses.
  • A systematic evaluation process in terms of choosing ITs seems to be lacking at most campuses, although most use some standard criteria for making decisions.
  • A lack of sufficient resources for instructional technology in terms of people, and funds to purchase, pilot and implement these tools is the primary complaint heard from many campuses.

In an institution as complex and large as CUNY, there will naturally be many pressing needs competing for funding. Any program area, if surveyed, would likely complain for lack of resources. So why should instructional technology be an area singled out for attention? There can be many compelling arguments, but let me offer these insights.

First, I believe that academic technology has been chronically underfunded at CUNY. Many colleges have gotten by only through the dedication of hard-pressed, often overwhelmed staff. While the “early-adopter” faculty has largely gone-it-alone using these instructional tools, many faculty who need encouragement and support incorporating technology into their courses have not been helped much in that process. 

Second, CUNY as an institution (and each college with the university) need to specifically put instructional technology into their vision statements, strategic planning documents, and budgetary processes. With all students contributing a technology fee as part of their tuition, it is only recently that campuses have had a reliable funding stream for technology. Even so, to foster 21st century technology skills for our students, we need to empower faculty to use and model such technologies in the classroom. I believe that despite progress  in this area, we have a long way to go in supporting instructional technology usage by faculty.

Third, the structure of many campuses is often too balkanized to have a coherent and effective strategy for instructional technology.  Implementation of ITs is often hampered by not knowing who is in charge, or having multiple decision-makers in the process. Both CUNY as an institution, and the individual campuses suffer from the “too many chiefs” syndrome, and often these “chiefs,” however well-intentioned, are not well-informed about this field. So, IT departments, Academic Affairs offices, academic departments and schools, individual faculty members, various deans, Centers for Teaching and Learning, and many other entities are making decisions without fully consulting or even recognizing  the need of other campus constituencies.  This can produce a technological “House of Babel” with multiple technologies, vendors, contracts, etc. What is often lacking is a coordinated, systematic approach to decision-making and implementation.

Fourth, what are the qualities that make for a good instructional technology manager or director? A person in this position must bridge the chasm between teaching and technology, and consequently needs to be versed in both areas.  Moreover, this individual needs to be able to canvas the needs of their college, synthesize the findings and make a compelling case to administration for adequate funding. And, if that is not enough, the director of instructional technology needs to be a consensus-builder, have faculty development and teaching experience, be proficient with budgets, be able to create and articulate a vision, and hire and motivate a team of professionals.  This is not an easy task, and often the people assigned to these positions are lacking in one or more of these requisites. Consequently, there is a need for college-wide teams working toward a common goal of finding the best answers for teaching with technology at each campus.

To conclude, I believe that an institution as large as CUNY needs to create and foster structures within the university whereby instructional technology staff from all campuses can collaborate and brainstorm issues common to all colleges. Adam Wandt, Deputy Chair for Academic Technology at John Jay College, has been carrying the ball with his Skunkworks project which evaluates instructional technologies used at CUNY within a specific category (i.e., student response systems). Beyond this, I feel there is a real need for IT staff to periodically get together and compare notes in terms of strategies and approaches. Toward that end, I hope to host such a meeting at CCNY during the intersession. The good work of many people in the IT trenches need to see the light of day, and maybe even, as with this conference, have occasion to promote and acknowledge the progress being made at CUNY colleges.

Additional Resources:

Instructional Technology Lists  (a work in progress)
Note: These lists are reflective of the depth of IT and its dynamic nature. Please reply to this post if you wish to add to the list or with other suggestions.

IT List created by Dr. Natalia Kapli and Bruce Rosenbloom, CCNY Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning

IT List created by Joe Ugoretz, Associate Dean of Teaching, Learning and Technology, Macauley Honors College

Excellent Skunkworks Rubric to Evaluate Educational Technology:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1606261/Skunkworks/R%26D_Rubric.pdf

 

Posted in CUNY Practices, Envisioning Online, Instructional Technology, Online Best Practices, Online Learning Policies, Procedures, Systems, Online Trends, Strategic Planning for Online | Comments Off on Navigating the Sea of Instructional Technologies

Focus on Online: Opportunities to Publish

Posted on November 24, 2012 by Bruce Rosenbloom

Understandably, professors on the tenure track are quite concerned about finding journals to publish in.  The field of online learning presents many opportunities for those interested in adding to their CV’s. Given that online teaching and learning has been a dominant trend in higher education for over a decade, it is not surprising that a plethora of peer-reviewed journals have been created to document, research, and evaluate this mode of teaching. But online courses and programs are part of a much larger universe of interesting subjects including; new paradigms of teaching/learning; institutional change and resistance to change; disruptive technologies and their impact on the academy; strategic planning and envisioning a future “learning organization” (Senge); institutional policies and structures; alternative credentialing; and new ways to measure student learning. In many ways, online learning stands at a critical intersection of these trends.

 

With the help of researcher Gina Medranda, I have assembled a list of peer-reviewed journals in this exploding field. With the right approach to a journal, many would offer a realistic opportunity to get published in this field. I will briefly offer some advice for novices to this field considering this possibility.

Research the Field

Any academic research starts with a review of the literature.  I would recommend reading several journals for the past few years and also consulting the academic press (Chronicle and Higher Ed News, NY Times for example) to give you a better sense as to what topics are in vogue, significant trends, distinguished online researchers/thinkers, and the current jargon / acronyms in this field. Part of this research would be contacting editors of these publications, going to major conferences (listed here), and speaking with a variety of people in the field. All of this might be warranted prior to “having an idea” for an article.

Focus Your Research

Since the field of online teaching and learning is so broad, it may be useful to focus your efforts on a specific area like online assessment or student success online. Whatever area you choose, attempt to have a genuine interest in the subject, as a “labor of love” may carry you through numerous rejections of your queries and manuscripts. Another reason to focus your research is to be in a better position to select the most promising journals from the list of 20+ publications  listed above (not an exhaustive list). If you are able to whittle down this list to a few promising journals, your next steps will be more achievable.

Contact the Editors

This advice is not new to experienced academics.  After closely reading the guidelines for submitting articles, you may still need to know what are the preferred topics an editor is seeking, recommended length and format, and other details that go beyond the standard description. Just as important, contact with the editor may start a rapport that can assist you in developing the article to be published, potentially with more articles to follow. If, however, the editor explicitly discourages such contact, it would be wise to honor that request.

Collaborations

For research to have a wider impact, it may be useful to propose a collaboration between institutions, disciplines, or organizations. Increasingly, grantors require collaborative efforts to receive funding,  The downside of this approach is obvious–there will be multiple contributors and therefore you may receive little credit for your efforts.

The Good Idea

I’m of the mindset that there is nothing like a good idea — maybe original, maybe standing on the shoulders of others in the field. A good idea needn’t be expensive to research and write up, nor be exorbitantly time-consuming or esoteric. Good ideas are the genesis of good papers and, personally, I wouldn’t proceed without it. I will give just two examples to illustrate my point.

a. After tragic incidents at several institutions of higher learning, a few researchers came up with the idea of exploring emergency preparedness from the aspect of “academic continuity.” Their research was simply to explore college websites to determine if such a contingency was in their emergency planning. They discovered, in the vast majority of cases, no such provisions were in a college’s planning, and certainly not part of their website. At the conclusion of the article, recommendations were made to address this oversight (my blog post on their paper).

b. In another study, researchers had online instructors keep a journal of their thoughts, insights, and impressions of teaching online courses over a three year period.  These reflections became the basis of an important article about three major areas to address in terms of faculty development for new online professors (my blog post on their paper).

The elegance and simplicity of a good research question carries tremendous momentum toward the eventual publication of an article. Undoubtedly, these and other factors will all contribute to improve your chances of seeing your paper in a respected journal. The arena of online teaching and learning, I believe, are ripe for discovering your next idea in print.

References:

Meyer, Katrina & Wilson, Jeffery (2011). The Role of Online Learning in the Emergency Plans of Flagship Institutions. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume IV, Number I, Spring 2011, University of West Georgia, Distance Education Center. Retrieved from:http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring141/meyer_wilson141.html

Lin, H., Dyer, K., and Guo, Y. (2012). Exploring Online Teaching: A Three-Year Composite Journal of Concerns and Strategies from Online Instructors, Online Journal of Distance Learning Administrators, Vol. 15, Issue 3 (Fall 2012).
Retrieved from: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall153/lin_dyer_guo153.html

Research Credit:  Gina Medranda, CCNY Student Technologist, Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning.

Graphic Credit: Fulya Olgac, CCNY Student Technologist, Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning.

Posted in Instructional Technology, Online Best Practices, Online Learning Policies, Procedures, Systems, Online Trends, Paradigm Shift | 2 Comments