Interactive Online Learning: Positive Results

Posted on July 29, 2012 by Bruce Rosenbloom

A significant study was published in May 2012 by Ithaca S + R which bills itself as a “strategic consulting and research service . . . dedicated to helping the academic community use digital technologies . . .”  The study, entitled “Interactive Learning Online at Public Universities: Evidence from Randomized Trials,”  (link to study) received major funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and represents a significant effort to use strict research protocols to measure the effectiveness of hybrid learning in a randomized trial.

Overview

The study was significant since it focused on six public universities (CUNY and SUNY were represented) with substantial student diversity. The hypothesis involved whether such institutions could use hybrid course delivery to reduce costs associated with introductory courses and provide greater scheduling flexibility in the process.  The courses used an ILO (interactive online learning) system developed by Carnegie Mellon for an Introductory Statistics course. The ILO system, still in its early stages, is a “sustainable and customizable platform for online learning” and is part of Carnegie Mellon’s Open Learning Initiative (link here) that “provides open, high quality courses, continuous feedback and research to improve learning and transform higher education.”

CUNY Central has supported hybrid learning for several years via small faculty development grants to CUNY schools. Since students from two CUNY colleges participated in the study, it is quite relevant to the potential of hybrid/online in this institution. Moreover, the study points to the efficacy of this mode of teaching to reduce costs while improving learning outcomes.

Findings

The study found “no statistically significant differences in learning outcomes between students in the traditional and hybrid format sections.” This finding is not surprising to those of us who have followed the literature in this area.  There is even a  “No Significant Difference” website which documents many studies that have reached similar conclusions. Although there are many within the academic community that are still skeptical about hybrid/online, it is clear that any mode of teaching can be used successfully for teaching and learning.

The study also indicated that students, although they performed as well in the class, seemed to prefer a traditional teaching approach. This finding is contrary to the bulk of the published literature.  I suspect that since students were randomly assigned to either a traditional or hybrid class, those who were assigned to the hybrid felt they were not provided a choice in the matter and were negatively influenced.  In addition, hybrid/online works best with mature, self-motivated students. The passive education received in many NYC public schools does not prepare students for taking a more active role in their learning process. Lastly, even the ILO designers admitted that the interface was not “aesthetically pleasing” and the user experience would be greatly improved in subsequent versions of the course.

My Thoughts

All of these studies concerning hybrid/online are important to advance the field and reduce resistance to online. As the major trend in higher education in the past decade, online learning is a powerful force that has the potential to transform the academy and learning generally. I always find it ironic that professors who teach in a traditional class rarely have their pedagogy questioned or classroom learning measured.  Of course that is changing, largely due to increasing demands for accountability. However, professors in the forefront of developing hybrid and online courses need to receive institutional support for their efforts and also be rewarded in the tenure and promotion process for such work.

There is no doubt that at some point in the future, cost-savings can be achieved in terms of space utilization and more productive use of teaching faculty. I don’t feel this is the primary justification for exploring hybrid/online, especially recognizing the fact that there are many upfront costs in developing and supporting such programs. It would be better to see hybrid/online as investments in learning that should pay off in the medium term—around 3-5 years. With that perspective, added resources can go into developing better learning methods and systems, faculty development, and additional staffing (e.g. instructional designers and managers).

The potential for interactive online learning systems is tremendous. It offers the possibility of customizable learning per student, relevant feedback to both students and instructors, additional remediation done remotely and without instructor intervention, and a creative and enjoyable learning experience for the student.  Any professor, no matter how skilled, would not be able to address all of these aspects of learning. In essence, these learning systems can supplement existing instruction, and extend the reach and effectiveness of professors in virtually any field.

Sources:

Bowen, W., et al, (2012), “Interactive Learning Online at Public Universities: Evidence from Randomized Trials,” ITHAKA S+R , May, 22, 2012. Retrieved from:

http://www.sr.ithaka.org/research-publications/interactive-learning-online-public-universities-evidence-randomized-trials

Meyer, L, (2012), “Interactive Online Learning Produces Learning Outcomes on Par with Traditional Teaching Methods,” Campus Technology, July 23, 2012.  Retrieved at:

http://campustechnology.com/articles/2012/07/23/interactive-online-learning-produces-learning-outcomes-on-par-with-traditional-teaching-methods.aspx

Posted in CUNY Practices, Envisioning Online, Online Learning Policies, Procedures, Systems | Comments Off on Interactive Online Learning: Positive Results

Giving Academia the Business

Posted on July 22, 2012 by Bruce Rosenbloom

An interesting commentary from William W. Keep in the Chronicle is entitled “The Worrisome Ascendance of Business in Higher Education” (June 21, 2012).  The article starts out illustrating the conflict between administrators with business experience and faculty’s worldview. In this instance, the University of Virginia trustees with experience in “real estate, construction, and investing, apparently saw an opportunity to transfer their knowledge to higher education.”

In essence, this Board of Trustees dismissed President Teresa Sullivan (see article) an act that was unceremoniously reversed a few weeks later amid an uproar of support for her. Keep goes on to say that “Though colleges can learn many things from the ways businesses operate, treating college strictly like a business would be a mistake.” I would agree and have some views to share on this topic.

A Telling Tale

Over two decades ago, I was a member of a thriving food coop in Westchester County, called The Way of Life Coop. Like-minded, idealistic and health-conscious persons pooled their talents, time and monies to build and run this organization, which operated productively for many years. The coop hired a very competent manager and was guided by a dedicated Board of Directors.  I volunteered in various capacities, ending up as editor of their monthly newsletter, for which I earned work credit.

It happened gradually, but all of it was to come to a disappointing end when an enterprising businessman decided to build a string of for-profit health food stores in the northern suburbs. The efficiency and convenience of his stores made our coop offerings less competitive and many of our potential customers decided to shop there.  The inevitable end, delayed by denial and stopgap solutions, saw the food coop lose money for the last years of its existence, eventually succumbing to the new reality.

Higher education will not be so easy a victim as our food coop.  Up to this point, it holds a virtual monopoly on the credentialing process in the form of degrees, which employers value and students see as a ticket to a promising future. This model, as many have pointed out, is currently being challenged by alternative methods of obtaining credentials (a future blog post), by higher education’s high price tag, by the failure to educate many students (see Academically Adrift study), and by the failure to secure post-graduation employment for many students. In my view, taking a cue from business may stem the bleeding, but will not alter the outcome.  Like other industries that have been drastically changed by the forces of globalization, privatization and technology, colleges will have their day of reckoning.

Higher Education: A Model Of Inefficiency?

Books have been written about why higher education needs a dramatic re-envisioning and re-structuring.  I will only highlight a few points below.

Real Strategic Planning

Businesses that hope to survive and thrive embrace strategic planning as an integral part of their operations. Most of the Fortune 1000 companies use tools like the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton) to envision, plan, communicate, implement and measure the success of their companies. For the most part, higher education has not seen the need for a real strategic planning process other than the pro-forma 3-year plans that routinely pass for strategic planning. For the most part, these efforts are not strategic in any manner, shape or form, and are rarely actionable. Without such a roadmap, universities become slow and reactive to outside changes in their environment.

 Accountability

With all respect to civil servants who do an excellent job (like both my parents), we need to acknowledge that often such employees are neither civil, nor do they serve. Lifelong employment often means lack of accountability in terms of service, demeanor, attendance, and job performance. Colleges often have their offices staffed by unionized workers with such protection from real-world performance measures. For example, I had the frustrating situation of trying to get my office cleaned. Over the span of several years, we’ve had a constant array of custodial staff from truly awful to minimally competent. Their job performance was lacking despite frequent contact with their managers. On several occasions, the custodial manager needed to trail his employees to ensure they picked up the garbage. Off the record he told me that he was in trouble with their union for insisting they do their jobs.

Alas, the same may be said even of tenured professors who fail to perform. (Tenure is a topic for another post)  Collective bargaining has its place, but has the pendulum swung too far in protecting the non-performers? I believe it has, but that in no way implies that we must do away with unions. In addition, I feel there is an inverse correlation between innovation and unionization, with innovation being resisted most forcefully in unionized settings. Such changes are seen as diminishing faculty prerogatives and/or faculty governance agreements long fought for over years of collective bargaining. However, the trend for accountability, particularly among public institutions, is growing and is currently impacting higher education.

Adaptability

Given the balkanized nature of many higher education institutions, change comes slowly, and, grudgingly, if at all. Given the range of constituencies that need to be consulted, informed, empowered etc., it is amazing anything gets done at all. So initiatives like changing the mode of instruction, or length of the semester, or ability to transfer credits between institutions within the same university, may become occasions for pitched battles between administrators, faculty and other constituencies.  As a result, change is delayed, denied, or diminished.

With time, educational institutions will use many methods to enhance the delivery of their core mission. Increasing efficiency, however necessary, will be insufficient for colleges seeking to respond to the many environmental challenges ahead. Alternate credentialing, massive open online courses (MOOC), open educational resources, and other trends will ultimately impact negatively on institutions that fail to evolve. I believe these changes are on the level of “paradigm shifts” that require a fundamental re-thinking regarding the nature of teaching, learning and the university.  Will CUNY and other universities be up to the challenge?

References:

Keep, William, (2012), “The Worrisome Ascendance of Business in Higher Education,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, (June 21, 2012). Retrieved from:

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Worrisome-Ascendance-of/132501/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

Ellsberg, Michael, “The Glorious End of Higher Education’s Monopoly on Credibility” Business Week, (June, 12, 2012). Retrieved from:

http://business.time.com/2012/07/12/the-glorious-end-of-higher-educations-monopoly-on-credibility/

Newfield, Chris, “All Hell Breaks Loose at the Professional-Managerial Divide: University of Virginia Edition,” Remaking the University Blog, June 19, 2012.  Retrieved at: http://utotherescue.blogspot.com.es/2012/06/all-hell-breaks-loose-at-professional.html

Posted in CUNY Practices, Envisioning Online, Paradigm Shift, Strategic Planning for Online | 1 Comment

Instructional Technology: A Sea Too Wide

Posted on May 24, 2012 by Bruce Rosenbloom

I often refer to instructional technology (IT) as a large, deep ocean. Large because of the many technologies out there to potentially aid teaching and learning, deep in terms of the numbers of products, vendors and features that need to be weighed prior to a purchasing decision.

My colleague, Natalia Kapli, and I did some preliminary work on characterizing the various IT categories for the purpose of understanding what the field of instructional technology covers. The IT List is in its formative stages and we can certainly make additions or changes to this list as needed.  Feel free to respond with any such changes as you see fit. I find it a useful starting point for the conversation regarding whether a college or institution engages in a systematic approach to instructional technologies. So let’s imagine that we, like the early explorers, are considering this journey across the ocean called “instructional technology.” What are the questions worth asking?

Is the crossing worth it?

Why would we attempt such a journey?  This is the “why” issue and certainly there are many compelling arguments that point to the importance of instructional technology in teaching. I have attached a slide from a recent presentation  of mine that addresses this fundamental issue. If we are serious about our educational mission, not using the potential of instructional technology borders on pedagogical malpractice.

Where do we hope to end up?

This is the “where” or goals issue. As Steven Covey suggests as one of his “Seven Habits for Highly Effective People,” “begin with the end in mind.” As with many things, it’s not so much the destination, but the journey that is important. For the pace of technology innovation will always exceed the capacity of staid institutions to effectively respond. When one technology is successfully implemented, three others come to either supplant it or even make it unnecessary. Rather than become enamored with one technology or another, it’s advisable to be open to change and carefully pilot new innovations prior to fully committing to them. Was it not that long ago that many campuses were giving laptops to all incoming freshmen? Would now an IPAD or tablet be more appropriate?

How can we prepare for such a journey?
What’s needed for the journey? 

This is the process question followed up by a resource question. The funders or backers of this expedition need to be assured they have a reasonable chance to have a successful outcome. Hence, careful research, planning, piloting and budgeting are all essential elements in this process. In addition, it makes sense to canvas all stakeholders to make sure they are “on board” for the trip.

The issue of budgeting will address all the provisions needed for the journey, boat and crew. It is not sufficient, for example, to purchase a technology without also budgeting in training and support costs to better ensure successful implementation. It is axiomatic that cash-flow issues often bankrupt small businesses leading to failure.  The same can be said for well-intentioned, but under-funded IT projects.

Is the vessel seaworthy?
Do we have an experienced, reliable captain and crew?

You wouldn’t attempt an ocean crossing in a dingy, and especially one filled with non-experienced sailors. On some campuses, audio/visual people are pressed into service to evaluate instructional technologies, or people with technical skills who have never taught, or professors who have little project management expertise.  All of these individuals could have real input in a project team convened for this purpose.  This is how Penn State and other schools evaluate IT–with teams of experts who then make recommendations to their respective administrations. I would also suggest that there needs to be an IT “captain” who can assemble the crew, motivate the crew, and lead the crew across that ocean. It is a sad commentary on the state of many campuses that such a designation of responsibility has yet to happen, nor the establishing of an office for this purpose.

Does the crew understand where they’re going and their role?

Occasionally, it may be a good idea to tell your staff what you’re hoping to accomplish and how their efforts are critical to the success of this journey. Failing that, you risk lethargy at best, and mutiny at worst. It is shocking to me that after all we know about good management practices, the one practice that consistently is lacking on campuses is good communication and follow-through. Often, once a strategic plan or initiative is announced, it is never heard of again. This can only ensure cynicism, if not outright sabotage, of new initiatives.

How can we tell if the journey has been a success?

We may explore and map new oceans and continents, but at what point has our journey been worth the effort? Are there course milestones to meet? What are the projected benefits of the journey and have they been actualized? Is it possible to declare victory and start a new journey? So many initiatives, whether they be technology or teaching, are abandoned or merely peter out. Can we honestly examine these, learn the lessons, and maybe promise not to repeat them in our next trip? It is imperative that the journey be documented, assessed, and summarized for future generations of explorers.

Concluding Remarks

Instructional technology, like most endeavors worth starting, needs real answers to the questions posed above. The instructional technology waters are fraught with the latest over-hyped solutions, overpriced and under-performing software, vendor bankruptcies and mergers, legal and accountability issues and a myriad of other complicating factors. Without a real plan for the IT voyage, you are more likely to be shipwrecked than successfully cross that ocean. May your journey be a safe one.
——————————-

Slide below source: Taken from a presentation by Bruce Rosenbloom on May 24th, 2012 concerning Instructional Technology at CCNY.

 

Posted in Envisioning Online, Instructional Technology | 3 Comments

CUNY Survey of Online Learning—Part 3

Posted on May 6, 2012 by Bruce Rosenbloom

It’s been a few months since I conducted the CUNY-wide survey for Online Learning, culminating in a panel discussion at CUNY’s 10th Annual Technology Conference at John Jay College on December 1-2, 2011.  Findings from the survey were presented in a panel discussion entitled “Strategic Planning for Online: Potential for CUNY Campuses,” that included myself (Bruce Rosenbloom, City College), Janey Flanagan (Borough of Manhattan Community College) and Michelle Fraboni (Queens College). In a previous post, I discussed the rationale for the survey, background and methodology, and a second post reviewed the results for the first half of the survey.  In this post, I will cover the highlights from the second part of the survey.

Early Phase of Online Adoption

The majority of CUNY colleges responding to the survey are clearly in the adoption phase for hybrid and online.  Few campuses had more than 4% of their courses online or hybrid, with the majority having 3% or less of their courses online.  For comparison purposes, this compares with SUNY, which has close to 20% of their courses either hybrid or online. However, there currently seems to be a greater urgency at most campuses to explore online, given the PMP (Performance Management Process) that now measures online courses as one of numerous criteria by which college presidents in CUNY are evaluated. In fact, 50% of respondents agreed with the statement, “PMP has spurred hybrid/online development on my campus.”

Another question asked about future expansion plans for hybrid/online at each campus. Not surprisingly, 100% agreed with the statement that “we expect to expand our hybrid/online offerings in the next year.”  Fewer (38%) indicated that their campus was planning conversion of entire programs to hybrid/online format. Even less were interested in exploring partnerships within CUNY (31%), partnerships outside of CUNY (12.5%), or global collaborations (37%).  These results show that most CUNY campuses are still in the early stages of online development (see model for online development).

The Reasons for Online

Question 16 in the survey sought to determine the major reasons for campuses offering hybrid/online courses. The following factors received the greatest votes:

  • Increase student access to learning (100%)
  • Improve scheduling flexibility (87%)
  • Improve faculty teaching options (82%)
  • Improve teaching at my institution (75%)

Other noteworthy responses included increasing student learning outcomes (68%), improving student retention (62%), and increasing participation in the learning process (68%). Clearly, there are numerous compelling reasons that are driving CUNY’s growth in hybrid/online learning.

Faculty Resistance, Rewards and Attitudes

The survey indicated that faculty attitudes toward online run the gamut between “mostly open and receptive” (12%), to very wary and resistant (6%). The largest number of respondents to the survey (36%) checked off “too varied to characterize.”  It should be noted that this query was measuring administrators’ views on faculty, rather than directly surveying faculty views. I would very much like to see a future CUNY faculty survey on hybrid/online learning.

When the question listed “barriers to successful implementation of hybrid/online at your campus,” most respondents considered faculty resistance as definitely (36%) or somewhat (47%) impeding online efforts.  Another important factor holding back online adoption was stated as “insufficient recognition of faculty for tenure and promotion.” This is an ongoing issue whereby traditional criteria for tenure and promotion have not kept pace with newer technology-related developments like digital scholarship or even creating an online course.  There is also the perception that hybrid/online courses take more time to develop and teach, and this is not recognized or rewarded (53% thought this was definitely an issue).

Another interesting question in the survey concerned whether hybrid/online produced a fundamental rethinking of teaching at my college (13% agreed), a significant change (50%), or very little change (37%). The issue is whether online is a “disruptive technology” that can change institutional practices. I feel that since CUNY is at an early stage in its online development, little systemic change has occurred to improve pedagogy across disciplines.  However, for the small group of faculty that have gone through this process of creating a hybrid/online course, I know from experience that often it has forced a rethinking of teaching methods and practices—generally for the better. The seeds of institutional change can gradually come from individual instructors–the early adopters—and their ability to influence their colleagues, departments, and schools.

Concluding Remarks

This survey represents a labor of love, as it were.  The entire process — from conception through implementation — from convening the panel through doing the summary/analysis, has taken many hours.  I gladly did this in service to the university and because I genuinely was interested in this area.  However, these questions and others need to be asked in a consistent, ongoing and organized manner by CUNY Central.  I have advocated in several previous blog entries, for the need of a central office of hybrid/online learning (see post).

At CUNY, we are in a critical stage of online development, transitioning from mostly ad-hoc, decentralized efforts with online courses, to administration-sponsored online initiatives on campuses entailing more planning, accountability and controls. As our hybrid/online efforts mature across this university, I strongly believe there is a need for a greater role by CUNY Central in this process. This yearning was reflected in the last question in my survey, which asked about that role. Clearly, the campus administrators who responded to the survey express the need for greater central office support in terms of policies and procedures (59%), budget and resources (88%), and strategic planning (58%). If this survey, and the work that went into it can accelerate that process toward a greater centralized role, then I feel the time was well spent.

Additional Resources

I recorded a question-by-question summary and commentary for all survey questions using Camtasia/Screencast. These screen captures complement my blog posts concerning the survey and presentation of results at the CUNY Technology Conference.

Overview of Survey (14 minutes)
http://www.screencast.com/t/nnirCt3LwKa

Survey Results: Part 1 (17 Minutes)
http://www.screencast.com/t/ANdhPLJ945A

Survey Results: Part 2 (14 Minutes)
http://www.screencast.com/t/6fCH6C3D

PDF File of Complete Survey Results (Survey Monkey graphic format)

Posted in Envisioning Online | Comments Off on CUNY Survey of Online Learning—Part 3

Kudos to Kirschner

Posted on May 4, 2012 by Bruce Rosenbloom

The more I get to know the numerous quality people at CUNY who understand technology, the more hopeful I am that CUNY may achieve significant improvements in teaching with technology.  As many of my blog entries indicate, as an institution, we can be doing much better on this score.  However, Ann Kirshner’s article in the April 8th Chronicle Review, has bolstered my spirits. In an article entitled, “Innovations in Higher Education? Hah!” the author, University Dean at the Macaulay Honors College at CUNY, has the courage to address the major issue in higher education today, institutional inertia.

Dr. Kirschner writes of her 10-year stint in the private sector leading a major technology/media business and returning to academia after a decade to find “the basic building blocks of higher education — its priorities, governance, instructional design, and cost structure — have barely budged.” This pace of change, “somewhere between sluggish and glacial,” is in sharp contrast to other industries and sectors of the economy that have undergone fundamental shifts.

Higher education has been immune to such changes up to this point since they hold a virtual monopoly on the credentialing process, an educational fortress that is beginning to show some major cracks as “disruptive technologies” and the rise of alternative credentials begin to threaten some of that hegemony. “The ultimate threat to universities could come from the disaggregation of the degree, as students take advantage of the growing availability of open-source learning networks to present evidence of competency to prospective employers.”

Her article deserves a close read.  She argues that several factors produce educational inertia including:

  • A decentralized decision-making structure that makes any significant change in the academy a daunting task. “No wonder most presidents focus more of their time on fund-raising and burnishing the prestige of their brand than on the dangerous work of reinventing the university.”
  • University trustees who believe their role is to support the current administration, and accrediting agencies, “which are the watchdogs of the status quo.”
  • Faculty governance and rules of tenure that preserve faculty prerogatives, often at the expense of better teaching, new teaching methods, and incorporation of technology into the curriculum.
  • And, an educational monopoly on offering credentials that is being eroded by for-profit colleges, online learning, difficulty of many college graduates to find work (while incurring record debt in the process), and state budgetary constraints.

To her list of factors producing inertia, I would add the following factors:

  • Outright faculty resistance to teaching with technology, online learning, or any significant changes to the traditional mode of teaching, particularly with older, tenured faculty, often over-represented in faculty governance structures;
  • Lack of a clear vision of instructional technology on campuses and in the central office; and
  • Inability to understand and implement a strategic planning process that recognizes the threats and opportunities in the current higher educational landscape and addresses these via a coherent strategic planning process that is integral to institutional decision–making.

More can be said, but it will wait for future posts.  The takeaway from Dr. Kirschner’s article is that more leaders within CUNY and other large institutions need to speak and write about the imperative for the academy to change.  Admittedly, it is my belief that technological changes are coming at too fast a pace for the bureaucratic structures within higher education to adapt. Yet with forward-thinking, courageous academic leaders like Ann Kirschner, I feel more hopeful that the future might be one in which we may fully  embrace the potential of technology to transform teaching and learning at this institution.

Reference:

Kirschner, A., “Innovation in Higher Education-Hah,”  Chronicle of Higher Education, April 13, 2012, p. B6-B9. Retrieved at: http://chronicle.com/article/Innovations-in-Higher/131424/

Posted in CUNY Practices, Instructional Technology, Paradigm Shift | 1 Comment

CUNY Survey of Online Learning–Part 2

Posted on March 31, 2012 by Bruce Rosenbloom

It’s been a few months since I conducted the CUNY-wide survey for Online Learning, culminating in a panel discussion at CUNY’s 10th Annual Technology Conference at John Jay College on December 1-2, 2011.  Findings from the survey were presented in a panel discussion entitled, “Strategic Planning for Online: Potential for CUNY Campuses,”  that included myself (Bruce Rosenbloom, City College), Janey Flanagan (Borough of Manhattan Community College) and Michelle Fraboni (Queens College). In a previous post, I discussed the rationale for the survey, background and methodology.

Survey Results

The Survey consisted of 24 questions covering a range of planning and implementation issues concerning hybrid/online learning. In the resources section below, I have provided a PDF file of survey results and three Screencast files (from 10-17 minutes each) with a question-by-question review and analysis of the survey.  This blog post will address some of the highlights from the survey and provide context.

Who’s in Charge?

The survey was distributed to the “point-person” at each campus deemed most responsible for implementing hybrid/online learning. The titles of these individuals ran the gamut, from Provost/Associate Provost, to Director of Online Learning or Instructional Technology, to Directors of Centers for Teaching and Learning, to faculty with oversight in this area. This variance underscores the different organizational structures at each campus in addition to various stages of hybrid/online implementation at CUNY campuses.

A question was asked about whether there was a specific department on campus devoted to hybrid/online learning. Half of the respondents replied “no,” while the remainder responded in the affirmative or indicated they were planning such a department. A related question asked whether there was a person officially charged with online implementation.  Usually such an assignment indicates a higher priority to online learning at a campus since there is individual accountability. Sixty percent responded “yes” to this question, which clearly shows that online learning is gradually making inroads at CUNY campuses. Many of those replying in the negative commented that they are looking into establishing specific departments and directors for online in the near future.

Another area of interest involved the process of creating hybrid/online policy. Even if a department or individual is tasked with online implementation, I wanted to know how policy was established. The majority of responses indicated that a variety of players at each campus had some involvement, including the Provost’s Office, a committee for online policy, Faculty Senate, individual academic departments, Deans and even students. In terms of building consensus for hybrid/online, this is a promising finding.  Without buy-in from all stakeholders in this process, hybrid/online development can be stymied by one group or the other. However, for efficiently implementing online at a campus, buy-in from all stakeholders can be a time-consuming process.

Strategic Plan?

I was interested whether hybrid/online learning was part of an overall strategic plan for each campus and whether there was a specific plan for hybrid/online. The majority of campuses (88%) indicated that hybrid/online is considered critical for the long-term success of their college, yet only 52% indicated that it was included in the college’s overall strategic plan. Only 53% of responders agreed with the statement that “hybrid/online has my administration’s full commitment and support,” with the same percent having a specific plan for hybrid/online at their campus. These numbers, I feel,  either indicate some ambivalence at CUNY colleges to fully embrace online learning or may reflect preliminary stages of online development.

One curveball I included in this survey asked whether “a specific methodology or process was used for planning your hybrid/online offerings?”  Without such a methodology being used, one might question the validity of the strategic planning process, and indeed whether it was strategic in nature or even a plan. Ironically, 53% stated that a methodology was used for their hybrid/online plan, which either is a misunderstanding of the question, or a very positive sign for those campuses who had foresight in the planning process.

An important question concerned the process of creating a strategic plan (question 10).  It was encouraging to see that about 65% of responding campuses within CUNY had a written plan and that it was reviewed on a regular basis (85%). Moreover, the plan included benchmarks for success (64%), faculty development policies (58%), and communication of the plan to the greater college community (52%). Where there was some room for improvement involved student input into the planning process (29%) and approval of the plan by faculty governance (23%).

If a college had a plan, it covered many aspects of hybrid/online development and implementation including faculty development (68%), student support (56%), vision statement (43%), on-going program evaluation (50%), and faculty incentives (50%). Less common items in these hybrid/online plans include intellectual property issues (25%), delineation of roles and responsibilities (18%), tracking student learning outcomes (37%), and measures of on-going program success (31%).

In a subsequent post (Part 3), I will complete the presentation of survey results and discuss some implications of the findings.

Additional Resources

I recorded a question-by-question summary and commentary for all survey questions using Camtasia/Screencast. These screen captures complement my blog posts concerning the survey and presentation of results at the CUNY Technology Conference.

Overview of Survey (14 minutes)
http://www.screencast.com/t/nnirCt3LwKa

Survey Results: Part 1 (17 Minutes)
http://www.screencast.com/t/ANdhPLJ945A

Survey Results: Part 2 (14 Minutes)
http://www.screencast.com/t/6fCH6C3D

PDF File of Complete Survey Results (Survey Monkey graphic format)

 

Posted in CUNY Practices, Strategic Planning for Online | 1 Comment

A Vision for Academic Technology at CUNY

Posted on March 30, 2012 by Bruce Rosenbloom

Note:  As CUNY is in the process of creating a 3-year master plan for the university, what follows is a modest proposal concerning the technology component of that plan, specifically, a vision for academic technology at CUNY.  In my view, a compelling vision is a critical first step toward formulating a strategic plan, and hence, this contribution.

CUNY has a vision for academic technology.

It is a vision that teaches our students both information and technology literacy skills needed to make them productive in the 21st century.

It is a vision that recognizes the integral role that technology can play in enhancing teaching and learning at this institution to better engage, motivate and guide students in their learning process.

It is a vision that uses technology to foster the greater “community of learners” via such community-building tools as the CUNY Academic Commons.

It is a vision that recognizes, encourages and rewards faculty piloting various technologies in their classes and employs new methods of digital publication for the purposes of tenure and promotion.

It is a vision that recognizes both hybrid and online courses are fully consistent with CUNY’s mission of access to quality education for all our students and is fully accepted as a pedagogical mode equal to that of traditional instruction.

It is a vision that fully understands the idea of online programs as a strategic asset to this university, one that needs to be fostered, managed and properly resourced to become actualized.

It is a vision that at its heart understands that openness to change, openness to new tools, and openness of institutional structures and processes are essential elements in realizing technology’s potential at this or any institution.

It is a vision that incorporates the best aspects of Senge’s “Learning Organization” while using strategic planning tools like Kaplan-Norton’s Balanced Scorecard to implement that vision.

It is a vision that understands there are well over 40 different categories of instructional technologies (represented by hundreds of vendors) and commits the University to actively research, test, pilot and fund innovative technologies for teaching, learning and research (e.g. Skunkworks).

It is a vision that recognizes there are opportunities, challenges and threats in the higher educational realm, and consequently actively seeks strategic partnerships and collaborations concerning technology that may significantly advance CUNY’s mission.

And lastly, it is a vision born of countless hours of work by CUNY faculty, administrators and staff working for the good of the University and sustained by their belief in the efficacy of these tools for teaching, learning and research.

Followup Note: This vision statement was included in the draft by the CAT committee to CUNY in regards to the section on academic technology.  While the rest of that plan made it into the final draft of the CUNY Strategic Plan, this vision statement was deleted from that submission.

Posted in CUNY Practices, Envisioning Online, Instructional Technology | Comments Off on A Vision for Academic Technology at CUNY

An Online Policy Conundrum: Structure versus Freedom

Posted on March 15, 2012 by Bruce Rosenbloom

The current issue of the Online Journal of Distance Education Administration has a timely and important paper concerning institutional policies about online course structure. “An Analysis of Organizational Approaches to Online Course Structures” explores the sometimes conflicting territory of faculty control over their courses versus the need of institutions for standardizing courses in terms of structure and content. This long-standing turf battle is now being played out in the online arena concerning the critical issue of course development.

Authors Lee, Winslow and Dickerson analyze institutional approaches to structuring online courses. The authors believe that such online course policies are important to new online instructors.

“Unfortunately, instructors are sometimes asked to teach an online course without understanding what is expected, or what administrators, peers, or students consider to be ‘good’ or the ‘norm’ in terms of course structure and design. Sometimes this is because there is no norm, and other times it is because the expectations are not widely understood or communicated.”

Three Institutional Approaches . . . and CUNY

The authors divide institutional approaches to online course navigation and structure into three categories:

  1. The Fully Autonomous Approach—The instructor is the sole arbiter of how the course is structured.
  2. The Basic Guidelines Approach—The instructor follows a general list of suggested course components.
  3. The Highly Specified Approach—The instructor must adhere to an extensive series of determined components.

Which of the three approaches is taken at any institution depends on many factors including faculty governance and autonomy, history of online development, LMS platform, institutional mission, and degree of central control over institutional teaching policies. Typically, early forays into hybrid and online teaching are ad-hoc in nature.  As institutions develop their online offerings, they enter a stage where more centralized structures and approaches are needed.  However, new online policies often come into conflict with the efforts of early-adoptor faculty who may now chafe at any new impositions from central offices. How do institutions respond to this conflict? The authors clearly note the high price to pay for not changing policies as institutions evolve their online efforts into more mature phases of online growth.

The paper effectively outlines the advantages/disadvantages of each institutional approach in terms of faculty, students and the institution.  For example, a fully autonomous approach (as clearly exists at CUNY) is popular with faculty who cite the need for “academic freedom” in their courses, free from “administrative mandates,” seen by many faculty as arbitrary, capricious and ill-informed. However the authors point to the downside to this fully-autonomous, laissez-faire approach, making the points that:

  • “Students will encounter very different and potentially confusing online learning experiences.
  • Instructor observations/evaluations by peers and supervisors can be unclear and even contentious based on different perspectives of what constitutes good overall course design.
  • Inexperienced online instructors may feel adrift in terms of how to design and develop their online course.
  • Quality and consistency across online at the program or institutional level could become an issue during external reviews such as accreditation visits and program audits.
  • The organization runs the risk of online programs developing reputations of being inconsistent, unorganized and/or unmanaged because of the wide array of instructor interpretations.”

These are some of the risks this paper cites for not recommending a basic online course structure.  I would add that increasingly, progressive institutions are seeing the need to brand many aspects of their communications with students and the world outside of their campuses. The “look and feel” of an institution’s online programs is an important component of these branding efforts.

Foundations and Conclusion

Despite a wide array of institutional approaches to online teaching, the authors propose ten “foundational components” to a college’s online course structure. At a minimum, they recommend specific areas for announcements, course information, instructor information, course modules, discussions, submissions (for assignments), assessments, grades, email facility and course support.

Authors Lee, Winslow and Dickerson conclude:

“As online learning increasingly becomes a normalized modality, educational organizations need to consider the standardization of course structure. Faculty who teach online should understand institutional philosophies and policies before beginning the design and development of online instruction so they may avoid negative evaluations, poor student achievement, and diminished reputations . . . Standardizing the components will facilitate course navigation, promote efficient content reusability, and improve the potential for student success.”

I believe that as institutions evolve, policy needs to evolve accordingly.  A consistent standard for online course structure is one of many policies for an online program. To date, although hybrid/online is in a dramatic stage of growth within CUNY, there has not been a concomitant evolution in centralized structures and policies. This article clearly points to the downside of such policy voids.

References:

Lee, C.L., Dickerson, J., & Winslow, J. (2012). “An Analysis of Organizational Approaches to Online Course Structures,” Online Journal of Distance Education Administration, Volume XV, Number 1, March 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring151/lee_dickerson_winslow.html

Rosenbloom, B. (2011-2012). Envisioning Online Learning. CUNY Academic Commons. Related blog posts:

Institutional Process Toward Online: Part 1

Institutional Process Toward Online: Part 2

Institutional Process Toward Online: Part 3

The Central Issue

 

Posted in CUNY Practices, Envisioning Online, Online Learning Policies, Procedures, Systems | Comments Off on An Online Policy Conundrum: Structure versus Freedom

Cal State Online: Implications for CUNY

Posted on March 10, 2012 by Bruce Rosenbloom

This past week saw a major announcement from California State University (CSU) concerning online learning (link to story).  That university is moving forward with plans to create a “centralized online learning hub” or gateway portal for online courses at their 23 campuses. The article (which I encourage all the read) goes on to give some parameters for this online portal plan including:

  • Program goal of extending course offerings to address increased student demand for, and access to, education
  • Central administration of online programs to facilitate program sharing and student cross-campus enrollment in courses
  • Agreement to keep in force all faculty/union agreements and governance structures
  • “In-house” CSU faculty will be responsible for developing and teaching online courses for which faculty will receive additional compensation for online development
  • Quality standards and the program approval process will “meet or exceed” current ones in place for existing programs
  • Program buy-in and participation from each campus is optional (at the discretion of each campus)
  •  Eight-week terms to be introduced to parallel traditional academic schedule
  • Online course development will be considered in future tenure and promotion decisions.

The article notes that faculty skepticism and resistance to this new plan is prevalent and, as such, any online program will need to win over reluctant faculty to this mode of teaching.

CUNY Parallel 

Each university system has its own mission, structures, target student base and learning environments.  Yet, with that said, the parallels to CUNY are quite obvious.

  • Both universities are large public institutions (CSU with 450K students, CUNY with 250K students).
  • Both institutions have been slow to adapt their academic programs to online teaching.
  • Both universities have strong faculty unions and a large base of tenured faculty.
  • Both universities have a largely decentralized structure whereby academic decisions are made on a per-campus basis, which hinders university-wide initiatives such as online learning.
  • Both universities are operating in financially difficult environments (dire in the case of CSU) and have been hard-pressed to address even their local potential student demands given the constraints of existing brick and mortar capacity.

Implications for CUNY

The steps that California State University are taking, however tentative and accommodating, point to real steps that CUNY can explore. It may only be a few years off that CUNY is faced with the draconian cuts that the public California systems have been forced to deal with. Top administrators at both large university systems in California have reached similar conclusions, namely, online learning is a legitimate, viable, academically sound, and potentially cost-saving approach to addressing the academic needs in the 21st century.

CUNY, in contrast to the University of California and California State University, will have some more time in terms of financial imperatives, to properly plan for online learning.  I would suggest that rather than wait for the financial storm to arrive, that we build toward a future where online programs and courses can start to seriously serve our community of learners.  What steps would be needed for such planning? As suggested in previous blog entries, I would advocate:

  • Online learning be prominently featured in the new CUNY five-year strategic plan and it be stated that “online learning is consistent with the goals, mission and strategy” of this institution (my blog post)
  • The recognition that online learning is a strategic asset to the university that needs to be properly managed and fostered (my blog post)
  • A university-wide committee for online learning be formed to review best practices in online, strategic planning for online, and assist campuses in online development
  • A university-wide online portal to be developed to facilitate student access to online courses at all CUNY campuses
  •  A review of tenure and promotion criteria to reward innovative uses of technology and online course development (upcoming blog post)
  • A review of existing contractual arrangements to address online teaching for both a faculty and administrators
  • A CUNY central office of online and hybrid learning be formed to address policy issues and support campus implementation of online learning (my blog post).

It is my hope that this major CSU announcement will be heard by all CUNY stakeholders concerned with affordable, accessible, and quality education for our current and future students. Like CSU, we will soon find ourselves at a crossroad that many public universities have already explored successfully.  Will we have the vision, courage and integrity to work together and forge the online path for CUNY?

Sources:

Kolowich, Steve, “Cal State’s Online Plan,” Inside Higher Education, March 5, 2012

Website link: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/03/05/california-state-rolls-out-plan-centralized-online-learning-portal

Posted in Envisioning Online, Online Trends, Strategic Planning for Online | 1 Comment

Online and Emergency Planning

Posted on February 28, 2012 by Bruce Rosenbloom

I came across a wonderful study published in the Journal of Distance Learning Administration (Volume IV, Number 1, Spring 2011) entitled, “The Role of Online Learning in the Emergency Plans of Flagship Institutions.” Authors Katrina Mayer and Jeffrey Wilson had a simple but elegant idea to research the websites of “50 state flagship higher education institutions to investigate whether and how online or distance learning were included in the institution’s emergency plans as solutions to emergencies like H1N1.” (Mayer and Wilson, 2011).  This study, conducted several years after the Hurricane Katrina crisis, is significant since it is the first to connect the potential role for online learning to keep academic programs functioning in times of emergencies (they used the term “academic continuity”). They were disappointed to find that most college websites lacked any reference to how academic programs would continue to function, and if they did, provided no specific methods for faculty to make that a reality.

Discussion

Most large institutions have emergency plans in place if a crisis occurs—a major weather event, a natural disaster, a terrorist incident, or a disease outbreak. For colleges, it is essential that their major mission—educating students—be fully restored as quickly as possible after a disaster or crisis. Increasingly, online learning (and instructional technology generally) is seen as a cornerstone of a college’s disaster preparation plans. However, even if these plans have been formulated, are they being communicated to key stakeholders within the academic community? Alas, in most cases, not well, if at all.

Mayer and Wilson’s research shows that many institutions had “remarkable plans or guides on their websites” which often lacked any reference to academic continuity using online resources. Even those institutional websites that mentioned academic continuity, “most were non-directive, such as stressing ‘alternative ways’ of delivering instructions without mentioning how to make this happen…” Only a handful of institutions (links provided below) backed up their directive for academic continuity with actual plans for faculty to follow. Some of the standouts include:

University of Washington: Academic Continuity Toolkit

University of Alabama: Emergency Planning Website

University of Oregon: Academic and Research Continuity Planning Initiative

Personal Story

I have taught an online class for the CUNY Online BA Program for several years.  During a winter storm last year, CUNY campuses had to be closed for 2-3 days for safety reasons. Academic work stopped during that period, and the semester’s schedule was thrown off track for many professors. Online courses, however, were not impacted. In other emergencies of a longer duration, like a SARS virus outbreak, the option of online can be a lifeline to the university.

Caveat: Any crisis that would impact the electrical or communications grid (e.g. severe solar storm or nuclear attack) would make the online option moot, as well as most routine aspects of our existence.

Implications for CUNY

While it is true that CUNY has much company in this regard, a search for “emergency plans” (or synonymous phrases on the CUNY website) would produce nothing of value in terms of a plan. The CUNY Alert function, while useful in an emergency for notification, would not be the means of providing detailed instructions on academic continuity in the scenarios I have cited.

Certain colleges do have a plan on their website. One of the best is the College of Staten Island Emergency Management page that, although extensive, does not cite anything substantive about academic continuity or even mentions online courses. This is unfortunate since all CUNY matriculated courses in a college’s schedule of classes have a Blackboard course shell created for it. Professors can be apprised of this fact, and be given minimal instruction on how to access the class—even to send out emails.

John Jay College was recently awarded a major grant on assessing emergency planning within the entire CUNY system (announcement). Ironically, their emergency plan (PDF link) has nothing about academic continuity or how online classes could be an option for instructors. Even a cursory review of CUNY websites points to a large gap in our emergency planning as an institution of learning, namely, how to continuing learning in times of real emergency.

A Modest Proposal

Any worthwhile emergency plan within CUNY – or any university – needs to include:

  1. An accessible website about emergency planning and preparedness.
  2. A clear statement that after concerns of safety have been addresses, the University affirms that academic continuity is the number two priority in times of crisis.
  3. A clear explanation to the CUNY community how faculty, staff and students can restore academic continuity.
  4. To publicize the procedures, website and training opportunities to the greater CUNY community regarding how online learning might be utilized to restore academics in case of an emergency.
  5. A recommended “in case of emergency” section in syllabi for all CUNY courses.
  6. A plan and procedure for staff/administrators/faculty to meet and collaborate during the period that campuses are closed (e.g. administrative continuity plan).

A first step in this process (that may take several years) is to have the School of Professional Studies (which incorporates all of CUNY’s online programs) create and disseminate a procedure such as the one described above.

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

Benton, T. H. (2009, November 30). Teaching in the plague year. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Teaching-in-the-Plague-Year/49275.  (An excellent article about  the H1N1 epidemic and higher education’s disaster preparedness.)

Posted in Online Best Practices, Online Learning Policies, Procedures, Systems, Strategic Planning for Online | 2 Comments