CUNY Survey of Online Learning-Part 1

Posted on February 25, 2012 by Bruce Rosenbloom

Note: For the sake of brevity, the term “online” used in this post and the survey described, includes hybrid or blended teaching in addition to fully online courses. The distinction between “hybrid” and “online” concerns the extent to which a course has some face to face component; online has 0-20% classroom teaching, hybrid has between 30 and 80%.

Background

As part of my interest in online learning within CUNY, in the Fall of 2011 I proposed conducting a CUNY-wide survey concerning planning and implementation for online teaching. My main intent with this project was to get a measure of online development at CUNY’s 20+ campuses since I felt there were common issues among all CUNY schools regarding online teaching that needed to be researched, presented and discussed.

Among the issues of interest to me include:

  • Who on campus is involved with online planning?
  • Is there a strategic plan for online?
  • What is the current extent of online teaching?
  • What are the major implementation issues for online?
  • What, if any, policy areas needed to be addressed?
  • What are recommendations for future action?

With the approval of Dr. George Otte, CUNY’s Director of Technology, and the cooperation of the CUNY Committee on Academic Technology (CAT), I was given permission to proceed with the survey. The CAT committee and other colleagues vetted the survey prior to distribution. Individuals identified as the “point person” on their campus most responsible for hybrid/online planning and implementation were asked to complete the survey. Of the 22 campuses or professional schools surveyed, 18 responded to the survey, which, I believe, makes it fairly representative of the state of online learning within CUNY at that point in time.

The Panel Discussion

On December 1, 2011, findings from the survey were presented in a panel discussion at CUNY’s 10th Annual Technology Conference at John Jay College. The panel discussion entitled, “Strategic Planning for Online: Potential for CUNY Campuses,” included myself, Bruce Rosenbloom (City College), Janey Flanagan (Borough of Manhattan Community College) and Michelle Fraboni (Queens College). The survey results were reviewed and each panelist had a chance to comment on the findings. Questions were then fielded from the audience, and an engaging discussion ensued.

The Survey consisted of 24 questions covering a range of planning and implementation issues concerning online learning. I believe this process was a concrete step toward examining current online practices with an eye toward re-envisioning strategies critical to online success at CUNY campuses.

Note: Subsequent blog posts in the near future will detail specific results from the survey and my recommendations based on survey results.

Additional Resources:

A.  I have created a screen capture file that provides a more extensive overview of the panel discussion and considerations regarding the survey. Moreover, I address the need for the survey and review some of the preliminary slides from my conference presentation.

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

B.  Conference Program Description (from 10th Annual CUNY IT Conference)
______________________________________________________
Strategic Planning for Online: Potential for CUNY Campuses

Online teaching at CUNY is undergoing a transition, from early ad-hoc approaches to one whereby campus administrators and faculty are determining more focused, structured approaches for hybrid/online activities on their campuses. A recent CUNY-wide survey of campus administrators was conducted to delineate online strategies, policies and practices. Findings from this survey will be interwoven with insights from panelists to better stimulate a dialogue on achieving the potential for online teaching and learning throughout CUNY.

Janey Flanagan, Director of E-Learning, Borough of Manhattan Community College
Michelle Fraboni, Lecturer, Elementary & Early Childhood Education / Online Teaching Initiative Coordinator, CETL, Queens College
Bruce Rosenbloom, Director, Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, City College, Online Learning Coordinator-Title V, City College, Adjunct Professor, CUNY Online BA Program

View PowerPoint Slides
_______________________________________________________ 

(Source: Converge Online; Website: http://www.convergemag.com/events/CUNY-IT-Conference-2011.html

C.  Survey Questions: PDF File:
Survey_CUNY_Online_Learning

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

Institutional Process Toward Online: Part 3

Posted on February 12, 2012 by Bruce Rosenbloom

In previous posts I discussed the early phases of online development from traditional through online courses (Part 1) to the creation of hybrid/online programs and degrees (Part 2). In this post, I will address the critical juncture in the institutional process toward online, namely, strategic partnerships and collaborations.

Institutional Process Toward Online

The collaboration and strategic partnership phase is the culmination of an online institutional process spanning many years. During this process, there is buy-in from college leadership, faculty and governing boards that such direction is consistent with the mission, values and goals of that institution.  In other words, that online learning is an integral part of the teaching and learning repertoire, if not integral to that institution’s strategic plan. This realization of the strategic importance of online learning to a college is happening with increasing frequency at public and private colleges throughout the U.S.  A recent Babson study indicated that nearly 77% of academic leaders at large public institutions considered online learning as a strategic component of their academic mission.

As the headwinds at a specific public university point to more online courses and programs, they reach a critical inflection point. The roll-out of potential programs and courses is expensive, slow, and inefficient, despite the potential of such programs to expand the market, bring in additional revenues and meet the need for greater scheduling flexibility — on the part of students, faculty, and university scheduling offices. At this point, university leadership looks to strategic partnerships and collaborations to assist in the institution’s  process toward online. In essence, the university realizes that it’s in its own interest to collaborate with other entities for their mutual benefit.

The diagram above indicates the variety of partnerships and collaborations that are possible. What it shows is that institutions need continued and ongoing support in every aspect of expanding online programs including other educational institutions, publishers and content providers, technology vendors, sources of students, turnkey systems providers, and global relationships.  Each of these would require its own post to fully develop, but each is summarized below.

Other Educational Institutions: Partnerships with other colleges that serve a similar student population can be tremendously advantageous.  For example, School A may have an online program that complements School B and working together, they can more quickly establish a fully online degree program in a particularly promising program niche. In this manner, smaller schools can work together to create online partnerships that add academic value to their current offerings.  Many combinations and permutations of this theme can play out.

Publishers and Content Providers: Traditional publishers see their print textbook monopoly threatened by the onslaught of both open source materials and digital books. Pearson and others have taken the initiative to provide libraries of digital content and actual digital courses for campuses to select from.  Many of these publishers have content that are compatible with the major course management systems currently in use.  Institutions may cut the development time for online courses, improve the quality of courses with engaging digital content, and even offer customization of courses.  Increasingly, these types of partnerships will become prevalent for many online programs.

Technology Vendors: Besides CMS providers are armies of companies selling technologies that can enhance online delivery.  These range from lecture capture and webinar tools, to social networking and Web 2.0 tools, to ePortfolios and collaborative learning spaces. Such tools can add depth and engagement to existing products being used at a particular institution while enhancing the capabilities of course designers to produce improved courses.

Sources of Students: The returning veterans of the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts are entitled to G.I. benefits that include education.  Recently, I got a call from a recruiter inquiring whether my college had any online programs that veterans could enroll in. We (CUNY) didn’t and that opportunity was lost. However, many other higher education institutions are developing such opportunities and actively partnering with U.S. governmental agencies, private companies, and even online high schools to corral students into their online programs. For example,  on November 6, 2011, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that the University of Maryland conducts online classes for troops serving in Afghanistan. This trend will only increase.

Turnkey Systems Providers: There are new companies whose business model is to partner with colleges having limited online experience and presence.  They provide the expertise, training, course management system, marketing, and other essential systems up front for a percentage of the revenue when students enroll. Colleges that sign up get up and running quickly with planning, training and other services included as needed for their online programs.  This arrangement affords colleges the opportunity to attract new students.  A company like Academic Partnerships provides these services to colleges throughout the U.S.

Global Relationships: It’s become evident to experienced online administrators that there is a potential source of students overseas. Although most of the marketing for current online programs first addresses local, then regional, then national needs, we are clearly becoming a global village. At this stage, an institution might make some initial forays into partnerships with foreign colleges. I’ll leave it to a subsequent blog post to describe a later stage of online development which I term “global reach.”

In summary, there are various strategic partnerships and collaborations that can be explored to advance an institution’s online position in the marketplace. In my estimation, CUNY is not yet at this stage of online development and, in fact, may be several years away. What is needed is a clear and compelling vision for online at this institution, supported by CUNY management and by faculty governance bodies. With those initiatives  in place,  a central office for online learning can be part of the team researching, negotiating and implementing strategic partnerships for online.  For this partnership stage to start being actualized, online learning needs to be an integral part of CUNY’s upcoming strategic plan, with sufficient resources allocated to ensure success.

Credits: “Types of Online Collaborations” graphic designed by Fulya Olgac.

Sources:

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

Hartman, J., Dziuban, C., Moskal, P., (2007). Strategic Initiatives in the Online Environment: Opportunities and Challenges, On the Horizon, Vol. 15, pp157-168.

Heeger, Gerald, “State Universities Meet Online Needs Through Academic Partnerships,” Retrieved from, http://www.academicpartnerships.com/News/Education%20Needs/Article.html

Pearson Online Learning website: http://www.pearsonlearningsolutions.com/online-learning/

Peter, Tom, (2011) “For U.S. Soldiers in Afghanistan, Online Courses Fill a Valued Niche,” Retrieved from, http://chronicle.com/article/For-US-Soldiers-in/129603/

Posted in Envisioning Online, Online Trends, Strategic Planning for Online | 3 Comments

The “Central” Issue

Posted on November 24, 2011 by Bruce Rosenbloom

Should there be a greater central office presence at CUNY for hybrid/online?  In my estimation, this is a central issue for the future development of CUNY’s hybrid/online programs. As I have suggested over a series of blog posts, there are several factors which point to the need for a greater role by a new (currently non-existent) CUNY Office for Hybrid/Online Learning (COHOL). Among these factors are:

  • The strategic importance of hybrid/online to CUNY as representing an important institutional asset
  • The current stage of hybrid/online development at CUNY requires a greater centralized effort to progress to the next stage in development
  • Inefficiencies inherent in 23 separate institutions reinventing essentially the same hybrid/online policy wheel
  • The need for coordination and synchronization of efforts among CUNY colleges, particularly a focused strategy for online that encompasses the entire institution
  • The potential for strategic collaborations between CUNY campuses, as well as  external collaborations with other entities
  • A proven track record by successful online programs that are largely administered centrally, balanced with a component of local input.

If adopted by CUNY, what would such a program encompass?  As the diagram below indicates, a COHOL entity would cover several essential hybrid/online issues, including policy, coordination, collaboration, resources, guidance, and strategy.  I will briefly describe the need for each.

 

Policy — While there are 23 colleges within the CUNY system, potentially hybrid/online issues cut across all of these entities, programs, and disciplines. Some policies need to be determined centrally, others locally. For example, contractual issues (like online courseload for faculty), tenure and promotion concerns teaching online, copyright and intellectual property concerns, full acceptance of hybrid and online courses in a college, and a myriad of other issues, require central policy. Although it may be debated how much authority a central office may exercise in this regard, I believe the need for central policies in this area are essential. (I will elaborate on this in a subsequent blog post.)

Coordination — A central office can do a great deal to help coordinate the efforts of local campuses without the heavy hand that some fear. Faculty development, technology research and purchase, documentation for faculty and students, and establishing  administrative systems to allow for cross-campus registration are just a sampling of how a central office can be of assistance to local campuses. Failing such coordination, a tremendous amount of duplication of effort, inefficient resource and budget allocation and lack of overall planning will result.

Collaboration — If college A has an online program that may dovetail nicely with select courses from College B, a central office may help facilitate that collaboration. Collaborations of a strategic nature, be it internally within CUNY or externally with other schools, vendors, or entities, is reflective of more mature online programs. It represents, according to my schema, the next step in online development after online program implementation. For these collaborations to really help the institution rather than just the individual college, you need a central office to properly plan such collaborations.

Resources — When budgets are tight, as they currently are, a central office may be able to assist with additional resources, as they already have with hybrid faculty development funds for CUNY campuses. A central office may also assist with grant-writing support and staff to coordinate cross-campus hybrid/online activities. While it would not be prudent or practical to have all resources administered centrally, a reasonable balance can be struck between the needs of centralized versus decentralized funding mechanisms. One further note: With online enrollments growing at 10 times the rate of traditional programs (1), there needs to be a reasonable chargeback program by the central office for enrollment increases created by online courses.

Guidance — Although many on the campus level doubt that any central entity can ever be worthy of guiding hybrid/online development, and some bristle at the suggestion of any central “mandates” as they call it, the reality is that there is plenty of room for guidelines that may assist campuses in resolving hybrid/online issues.  For example, these issues come to mind:

Should enrollments be capped for online courses?
Should students need to meet some criteria prior to enrolling in a hybrid/online course?
Should faculty training or certification be mandatory prior to teaching a hybrid or online course?
Are hybrid/online courses considered “experimental” or lacking full acceptance as traditionally taught courses?
How is developing and teaching a hybrid/online course weighed in tenure and promotion decisions?

I have collected over 30 such policy issues (for another post) that 23 colleges are currently addressing separately.  Some guidelines, even short of actual policies, would go a long way to help resolve lingering and ongoing questions in this arena.

Strategy — As I’ve discussed in a previous post, hybrid/online is in alignment with CUNY’s mission, values and programs. However, we lack an overall strategy and vision when it comes to hybrid/online. A central office can start a process, with input from all campuses, toward building a real strategic plan for hybrid/online at CUNY. Every successful online program has such a plan — some even available publicly. The plan speaks to the role of hybrid/online within the institution, what that institution aims to accomplish, the resources available for hybrid/online, and a timeline for implementation by that institution.

In summary, I believe that given the current stage of hybrid/online development at CUNY, the time is ripe for a greater centralized presence in this critical area. I am proposing a new office — The CUNY Office for Hybrid Online Learning — to fill a policy, strategy, coordination and implementation gap that currently exists. This office can help bring this institution to subsequent stages in hybrid/online development.

Source:

(1) “The 10% growth for online enrollments far exceeds the less than 1% growth of the overall higher education student population.” (Page 4 of Babson report)

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

Credit:
Fulya Olgac, Graphic designer for “The Central Issue” graphic.

Posted in CUNY Practices, Envisioning Online, Online Best Practices, Online Learning Policies, Procedures, Systems | Comments Off on The “Central” Issue

The 400% Solution

Posted on November 19, 2011 by Bruce Rosenbloom

Assume you are the point person on your campus for hybrid and online faculty development efforts. I come to your office and suggest I have an approach that would increase the impact of what you’re doing by four times (400%).  Would you be interested?

I’m not here to sell you on any technology or open source CMS, but rather, to suggest there may be a more effective way to approach your hybrid/online efforts. The solution I am suggesting is not original, and in fact, is a major recommendation of the 2005 AHEC  (Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness) report on best practices in internet-supported learning. The solution they describe as a “secret sauce” to online success is a programmatic approach that involves putting entire programs online.

“A focus to getting programs (a full degree program) fully online (a programmatic approach) as opposed to single courses fully online or web-enhanced courses, greatly increase the chance of achieving ‘overwhelming success’ by a four to one margin.”(A-HEC Report, page 2)

Why would fully online programs produce such dramatic improvement over individual online courses?  The study suggests seven programmatic processes that they believe contribute to online success, including:

  1. Allocation of resources to support a specific program
  2. Development of a project plan including schedules and milestones
  3. Prioritization from institutional leadership to choose most impactful programs
  4. Program re-design sessions to facilitate faculty leaders creating a better e-learning program
  5. Pedagogy defined to reflect uniqueness of program
  6. Involvement of enrollment management in the program planning
  7. Development of success measures such as enrollment targets. (A-HEC Report, page 32)

As the report continues, “A review of the list of seven practices shows a strong emphasis on achieving a very clear and definable objective that provides a framework for measurement. We would conjecture that the ability to measure progress, academically and otherwise, is much more challenging in a course-focused approach.” (A-HEC Report, page 32)

I would suggest additional factors that explain the success of the “programmatic approach,” including:

  • Program review as part of converting to an online format creates a better fit between courses and better alignment with learning outcomes for an entire program of study.
  • Potential synergies and cooperation among faculty within a school or department working on their courses and supporting each other in this process.
  • Having a fully online program attracts a new set of students to your program—possibly more mature, more self-directed learners, and with real-world experience.  These students add a great deal to the learning experience.
  • Professors start to see the potential for enhancing their online courses using new technologies and instructional strategies that engage students.
  • Online programs imply greater institutional acceptance of online teaching, which may tend to encourage junior faculty, reluctant due to tenure concerns or political ones, to do anything perceived as “experimental.”

There are many other items I could add to this list. What is of critical importance, I believe, is having all stakeholders on campus pulling in the same direction and coordinating their efforts to achieve the greatest success. Without a “programmatic approach” we frequently see partial, sporadic and conditional support from stakeholders that need to be on board with the entire program.

However, getting an entire program online is a difficult task in an institution that is known for being highly fragmented into competing interests and that often don’t cooperate. To the extent that such fragmentation exists, whether it’s here at CUNY or elsewhere, is the extent to which online programs will reach their full potential. Do we settle for one star and call it a success when four can be within our reach?

To Be Continued: Part 2 of “The 400% Solution” will focus on what individual schools and programs can do to improve the impact of their hybrid/online teaching.

Source:

Abel, Ron (2005), Achieving Success in Internet-Supported Learning in Higher Education: Case Studies Illuminate Success Factors, Challenges, and Future Directions, Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness, Retrieved from: http://www.a-hec.org/research/study_reports/IsL0205/TOC.html

Posted in Envisioning Online, Online Best Practices | Comments Off on The 400% Solution

Babson Study Confirms Strategic Importance of Online

Posted on November 16, 2011 by Bruce Rosenbloom

The latest Babson (formerly Sloan-C) study on the state of online learning in the U.S. was released last week. (Babson study link) Going the Distance: Online Education in the United States 2011, by Elaine Allen and Jeff Seaman is the ninth annual report in this series, which represents both the broadest survey of online learning among over 2500 higher education institutions, and the longest ongoing study of this phenomenon.

Several findings I find noteworthy include:

  • The general acceptance of online learning’s strategic importance to a wide spectrum of higher education institutions, and even greater support within public institutions
  • A significant gap between an institution’s professing the importance of online learning versus those specifically citing online in their institution’s strategic planning process
  • A moderating growth rate of online learning from previous years, yet growth in online still 10 times that of traditionally taught classes.

Although the meteoric growth rate of online has leveled off to around 10% a year from a decade of 20% average per annum growth, this is to be expected. Like the growth of any new startup, tremendous expansion in the initial years is unsustainable, and when it enters its “adolescent” phase of growth, there is a marked slowdown.  We are seeing a similar trend in online education, which over the past decade has been one of the most significant trends in higher education. Once seen as apart from the norm in terms of teaching and learning, online has made significant inroads in institutions of all types and most significantly in public colleges and universities.

Institutional acceptance of online is reflected in the Babson report by how academic leaders view its importance. “The percent of institutions that agree ‘Online education is critical to the long-term strategy of my institution’ reached its highest level in 2011 (65.5%).” That viewpoint among academic leaders has increased nearly 20% from when the survey was originally conducted in 2005. Moreover, in public colleges and universities within the U.S., over three-quarters, 77% (p. 29, table) of institutions report the strategic importance of online learning. One can safely conclude that online learning in the past decade has made significant inroads at institutions similar in mission and fundamental principles as CUNY.

A second significant finding relates to the “gap” between what institutions report as strategic, versus what they codify in their actual strategic plans.

“All three surveys of campus leaders revealed a striking gap: Close to, or more than two-thirds of the responding CEOs recognized that online programs are strategically important to the institution, yet close to, or less than one-half of respondents actually included online programs in the campus strategic plan. This gap exists even at a time when the number of students taking at least one online course continues to expand at a rate far in excess of the growth of overall higher education enrollments.” (Allen & Seaman, 2011, p. 9)

For public universities, this gap represents more than a third of institutions that do not include online learning as part of their strategic plan despite professing its strategic importance. In my view, you may profess what you wish, but it is not a plan, nor one of strategic importance, until it is clearly stated in writing, and that document is publicly available.

Where does CUNY fit into this report’s findings?  Is online learning of strategic importance within CUNY? Does CUNY include hybrid and online learning as key indicators of its strategic process? Does CUNY have an actual strategic plan for online learning? These questions are at the heart of this blog, and my motivation to be an agent of change for this process to move forward. Currently, I don’t see online learning considered to be of strategic importance to this university by the CUNY administration.  As a university, there is no strategic vision for online at CUNY, and no current process toward shaping an online strategic plan. However, it is my belief that these goals are both desirable and necessary, and within the not-too-distant future, achievable at this university. It starts with Envisioning Online Learning . . .

Source:

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

Posted in Online Learning Policies, Procedures, Systems, Online Trends, Strategic Planning for Online | 4 Comments

A Cloud in Hybrid/Online’s Future?

Posted on November 10, 2011 by Bruce Rosenbloom

Cloud computing is one of the major instructional technology trends in the past 5 years and is likely to remain so.  Vendors, with specific software applications, provide comprehensive solutions to IT departments and colleges that are often cash-strapped and lacking the staff to support new, cutting edge applications.  In the past, colleges typically used a “CPE”  (customer premise equipment) model where new applications were stored on dedicated campus servers maintained by campus technical staff. Along with the application, users’ files were also stored on these servers, and in-house staff supported the users. This is the traditional model, which is undergoing a major change at U.S. colleges and universities.

Cloud-based software is also called “Saas,” or Software as a Service. It “involves purchasing the application as a service from the vendor that delivers it via the ‘Cloud’ where it is accessed over the Internet.” (1) The vendor maintains both the application and needed infrastructure “in the cloud,” namely at their own site. In essence, the user gets the advantages of the new application without the overhead required by on-campus servers, applications and support. The potential may be revolutionary in terms of its impact on campus IT and more narrowly, hybrid/online courses.

The rationale for cloud-based computing is specifically laid out for lecture capture software in an excellent white paper entitled, “Lecture Capture Deployment Models” published by Wainhouse Research. Although I have been skeptical about lecture capture technology in a previous blog post, I am becoming more open to its usefulness in the context of hybrid and online classes. However, regardless of the specifics of lecture capture, the report clearly delineates many advantages of the Saas model for cloud computing. Among the important advantages of cloud-based computing for campus IT departments are:

  • Portability: tremendous flexibility as to where an application can be used and recorded
  • Scalability: can easily be scaled up to meet demand on campus
  • Upgradability: done by vendor when new features become available
  • Management: reduced costs of purchasing, installing and maintaining servers and applications for campus IT centers
  • Bandwidth: campus bandwidth can be spared from heavy use of data/process-intensive apps
  • Fail-safe operations: vendor can employ sophisticated redundancy techniques that provide more fail-safe service and performance
  • User Support: focus can shift from maintaining the software to supporting and piloting its use.

These pluses are very compelling. Each is described in greater detail in the white paper cited above.

What are some potential downsides of cloud computing for a university?

Costs: Many institutions end up saving money by using cloud services rather than trying to run them in-house.  Realize, the vendor specializes in this product and would likely have the technical support and sufficient economies of scale to provide the service at a lower cost than an individual campus could. As the white paper explains, there are various pricing models used by vendors. When these applications are customized to specific college requirements, there is usually significant cost-savings involved, but expenses for these services need to be closely analyzed and monitored.

Legal: Agreements with any software vendor often involve lengthy negotiations between campus and vendor legal teams. What colleges are concerned with includes privacy issues, intellectual property concerns, access to work by third parties, duration of cloud-based materials and other concerns. Given the conservative and cautious nature of campus legal departments, these negotiations may end up with no agreement or may delay implementation for too long to be practical.

Culture: Campus cultures move slowly, unlike some private enterprises. Engaging stakeholders, getting consensus on a vendor or approach, and obtaining the requisite approvals can be a painstaking and frustrating process, especially in a fragmented, siloed and bureaucratic institution.  “While heavy adoption of cloud-based services is well-documented in the corporate world, education has lagged. “ (1)

According to the 2010 Campus Computing Project, “75 percent of all private colleges and universities have or are creating a strategic plan for cloud computing. Across all higher education institutions, this figure is 55%.” (2) Public institutions lag their private counterparts in adopting cloud solutions on their campuses by nearly 2 to 1.

In summary, there are compelling reasons to explore, pilot and adopt cloud-based computing within CUNY. Although this process has been delayed, the momentum is undeniable. I feel it is imperative that individual CUNY campuses attempt to make some inroads into cloud computing services without waiting for CUNY CIS to provide university-wide solutions.

Upcoming Blog Posts: A re-examination: why and how lecture capture may have a place in hybrid/online courses, and why the cloud is relevant to hybrid/online implementation.

Sources:

1. Greenberg, Alan & Nilsen, Andy, (2011), “Lecture Capture Deployment Models: Tracking Costs for Scalability,” Wainhouse Research Whitepaper, Accessed 11/10/11 at http://wainhouse.com/files/papers/wr-lecture-capture-deploy.pdf.

2. Green, Kenneth, (2010), “Campus Computing 2010”,  (Encino, CA, Campus Computing Project), http://www.campuscomputing.net.

Posted in Instructional Technology, Online Trends | 1 Comment

Institutional Process Toward Online: Part 2

Posted on October 29, 2011 by Bruce Rosenbloom

In Part 1 on this topic, I discussed the evolution of hybrid online learning from traditional pedagogy to the point where hybrid/online courses are first offered (as illustrated in the diagram below).  This process is characterized by instructors willing to take chances and experiment with new technologies and modes of teaching, even prior to official sanction at their campuses. However, once this process reaches a critical mass and the “early adopters” have led the way, then more institutional support and oversight begin. Faculty development, student support, faculty governance issues, and assessment of hybrid/online courses become an institutional priority.

This post will delve into the next steps in this evolution, namely the planning of hybrid/online programs. In my estimation, CUNY is at this critical junction in the evolution of online, where campus leaders will soon consider, at first individually, and then collectively, whether disparate hybrid and online courses can eventually morph into programs and even entire degree programs. But why would such an evolution be desirable?

Let’s examine a typical scenario. Department X in a college has several professors who are either currently teaching hybrid or fully online classes, and several more who are interested in doing so. The department chair may even be open to these new modes of teaching.  There would be several advantages to reviewing an entire program of study in terms of offering hybrid and online courses throughout that curriculum. These advantages would include:

  • Accelerate time to degree by current students
  • Create synergies among interested faculty to support each other
  • Allow for a program review in terms of determining the best courses to be offered in either online or hybrid mode
  • Potentially reduce bottlenecks for particular in-demand courses
  • Allow greater flexibility in scheduling and classroom utilization, and
  • Increase access and convenience for students and instructors.

These and other compelling reasons may be cited for a particular department, school or college to consider when taking the next evolutionary step toward online, namely offering an array of hybrid/online course options for students in particular programs. At the point when students demand these options and faculty resistance to hybrid/online learning is lessened, then, I believe, we will see a greater adoption of hybrid/online programs throughout CUNY.

Fully online degree programs pose additional hurdles. The state (New York in this instance) must approve all new degree programs, regardless of mode of teaching. That process takes time and requires a laborious amount of paperwork and program justification prior to approval. Currently, only the School of Professional Studies has fully online programs within CUNY, although John Jay College is also in the process of planning such programming in the not-too-distant future. It should be noted that the CUNY Online BA program has expanded to include other degree areas like Psychology (starting Spring 2012), Sociology, and even a masters program in Business. I believe the success of these fully online programs will spur interest at other CUNY campuses.

At this juncture in CUNY’s online development, some senior campus leaders will get more involved with guiding their respective colleges exploring hybrid/online. I anticipate several hybrid/online pilot programs throughout CUNY in the upcoming years, initiated at the campus level. For example, I have heard that several CUNY nursing programs are actively exploring how their students may benefit from non-clinical online courses. These efforts will invariably encounter resistance from some traditional campus bastions, yet the trend toward hybrid/online programs will be largely unstoppable once the benefits to the institution, faculty and students become obvious.

In Part 3 on this topic, I will cover the next phases in the institutional process toward online — that of strategic alliances/partnerships with the ensuing global vision and reach. These stages are seen in more mature online programs at institutions with a longer track record in online learning. I suspect that at CUNY, these last stages in my diagram are several years away from realization.

Posted in Envisioning Online, Online Learning Policies, Procedures, Systems, Online Trends | Comments Off on Institutional Process Toward Online: Part 2

A Strategic Plan for Online: Guiding Principles

Posted on October 28, 2011 by Bruce Rosenbloom

Strategic plans are written documents, and therein lay their value. For once a college or university creates and publicizes their strategic plan for hybrid/online learning, that policy has weight that mere proclamations by chancellors or presidents do not. The process of a written plan for online learning creates an impetus for implementation, program assessment and accountability.

A first and critical element of a strategic plan for online learning would be writing clear and unequivocal guiding principles.  Ideally, these principles, reflective of the thinking of senior institutional management, would state the following:

  • We consider hybrid and online teaching to be both consistent with, and in alignment with, the mission, values and goals of this institution;
  • We consider hybrid and online teaching to be of equivalent value and merit to traditional pedagogy;
  • We consider hybrid and online learning as an important strategic asset to this institution; and
  • We will actively support and empower a realistic, viable and effective strategic plan toward envisioning hybrid/online programs within our institution and will take the requisite steps toward realization of that vision.

Within CUNY, as with many institutions, access to, and promotion of, quality education are two major tenets of our mission. Simply stated, hybrid/online instruction is entirely consistent with CUNY’s mission and values.

Is hybrid/online teaching considered of equal merit and stature to traditional pedagogy? Many faculty might question this, yet it is essential for the administration to state that these newer teaching modes have an equal place within the institution. Can we teach 21st century skills to students by employing centuries-old pedagogy? We are in the midst of a paradigm shift from the instructor-based model to a learning community model that needs to be fully acknowledged and reflected in our teaching practices.

Does the administration recognize the potential for hybrid/online as a strategic asset? If not, then other priorities will get attention and hybrid/online initiatives will become token technology programs, having little institutional impact. As I wrote in a previous blog post, the potential impact of hybrid/online at CUNY could be the equivalent of 2-3 full campuses in terms of teaching and learning. Such a perspective, if adopted by the Chancellor, would mandate careful and thoughtful planning, managing, promoting and resourcing that asset.

Once hybrid/online is regarded as a strategic asset by an administration (as argued for in an APLU landmark study) then a realistic plan for its development and growth would be needed.  A shared vision for online, fostered by a process where various stakeholders have real input in its planning, can thus be achieved. I believe the drafting of “guiding principles” is a critical cornerstone to envisioning online learning at CUNY.

 

Posted in Envisioning Online, Online Learning Policies, Procedures, Systems, Online Trends | Comments Off on A Strategic Plan for Online: Guiding Principles

Landmark Report: Strategic Planning for Online Learning

Posted on October 17, 2011 by Bruce Rosenbloom

The Association for Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU), working with the Sloan National Commission for Online Learning, has produced a landmark study entitled “Online Learning as a Strategic Asset.” This extensive and comprehensive study reinforces some of the main themes of my blog which include:

  • The need for strategic planning by institutions regarding their online efforts
  • The perspective of seeing online as a valuable strategic asset
  • The understanding of college leaders of the need to properly fund, manage, publicize and grow online programs
  • The need for central administration oversight over many aspects of institutional online programs
  • The importance of a written policy that states online teaching is a mode of instruction that has equal institutional standing and support as traditional pedagogy
  • The importance of a written policy that online is fully in alignment with, and supportive of the institution’s mission
  • The need for dynamic and ongoing advocacy for online by top leaders within the institutional hierarchy
  • The need for empowered committees representative of all stakeholders within the institution to advise leaders on policy and planning issues regarding online
  • The need for sufficient, steady and reliable funding mechanisms for online learning
  • The importance of reviewing organizational strategies, policies and procedures to foster success of online implementation
  • The essential element of uniform, high-quality faculty development and support of online teaching technologies, and
  • The imperative for transparency and two-way communication in the formulation and dissemination of online policy to all stakeholders.

This extensive two-part study involved in-depth interviews and surveys of top university administrators (including chancellors and college presidents), faculty and students at 45 public institutions. Over 11,000 responses were taken and analyzed for this “benchmarking” report designed to “illuminate how public institutions develop and implement the key organizational strategies, policies, processes and procedures that contribute to successful and robust online learning initiatives.” (Executive Summary, Volume 1, page 5)

In one of my earlier blog posts, entitled “Online as a Strategic Asset,” I wrote about the need for CUNY to see online learning as an important asset, one that requires support, direction, and policy. I strongly believe that findings from this report can help CUNY in terms of developing strategies for adopting online learning into our teaching and learning agenda.

In upcoming posts, I will detail more of the findings of Volume 1 from this study, (“A Resource for Campus Leaders”) with an eye toward examining institutional policies and perspectives regarding online teaching and learning. Toward that end, I will be distributing a survey to online administrators within CUNY to gauge their views on the state of online at their colleges. Findings will then be reported at the CUNY Technology Conference (December 1st) in a panel I will lead entitled “Strategic Planning for Online: Potential for CUNY Campuses.”

 

Posted in Online Trends, Strategic Planning for Online | Comments Off on Landmark Report: Strategic Planning for Online Learning

White Elephant Technology

Posted on September 11, 2011 by Bruce Rosenbloom

There are technologies that capture our imagination, hopes and desires—but then fail to deliver in the end.  It’s what I call “white elephant” technologies; dazzling at first glance, but what do you do with it day to day? In past years it was the lore of videoconferencing technology, then smart boards, and now, lecture capture.  Although some productively use these tools, for the majority of users, they have been a disappointment.

My experience with videoconferencing is representative.  I was involved with a large videoconferencing project to connect cultural, educational and business organizations in the borough of the Bronx. Funded by a Bell Atlantic grant, we used ISDN lines and Polycom 360 desktop and room units.  From the start, there were technical issues with the lines and the equipment never worked reliably, if at all.  The images were grainy and frequently either the audio or video would drop in the middle of a conference. The phone company and vendor were always pointing fingers at each other, but mostly the telecommunication lines were not properly configured for videoconferencing. In the end, the entire project failed, and the staff, myself included, was laid off.

That experience caused some skepticism when I subsequently worked at a CUNY community college and users were promised videoconferencing between campuses.  The first demonstration of the system was a total disaster, and I knew the system would never be reliable, easy-to-use, or be beneficial at all.  Even the greatest advocate of the technology would soon give up in frustration. Predictably, after several years, the project was abandoned and largely forgotten.

What can be learned from these “white elephants”?  I have a few ideas regarding new technologies for teaching and learning:

  • Make sure there is an actual need.
  • Make sure it actually works.
  • Make sure it is user-friendly.
  • Make sure there is sufficient support.
  • Make sure it won’t soon become obsolete.
  • Make sure it’s cost-effective (and other less costly solutions don’t exist).
  • Make sure that the users are part of the decision-making process.

These suggestions seem obvious to those of us involved with technology implementation over the many, many years. The fact that I have seen these wonders come and go, gives me a more critical perspective than one who sees the pluses without the downsides. Although I have been critical of faculty resistance to new technology, on this score, I’m not.  Over the years, faculty have been burned by promises of technology purporting to improve classroom teaching, only to have reality provide a sobering antidote to any initial enthusiasm. For example, for every smart board (used generically) put up in a K-12 classroom that is being fully utilized, there are at least ten languishing in classrooms around the country. Either faculty have not been adequately trained on these devices, find their use too difficult to be bothered with, don’t feel the benefits are worth the hassle, or don’t get the support they need when a problem arises. The end result is a waste of resources, and another “white elephant” gets relegated to an educational cage.

Sometimes the issue is not necessarily that the technology itself that serves a real pedagogical purpose and even is relatively simple to use. Lecture capture may be a good example. The rationale is that students can view a professor’s lecture at their leisure, as many times as is required to master the material. From the professor’s vantage point, some of these systems are as simple as pressing a button to start recording, and pressing another one to finish.  The file is labeled, uploaded to a server, and links provided for students.  What can be simpler?

The problem as I see it, is that no real analysis was done initially to see the larger picture. What is the context of this technology for teaching and learning?

  • Does this technology promote good pedagogy?
  • Are there other means (even less costly ones) to achieve the same ends?
  • How are students using this technology?
  • Can students record lectures themselves?

The more you dig into the specifics of lecture capture, the more issues arise that work against its value.  For example, isn’t lecturing an example of an older style of pedagogy that often turns students off and reinforces a passive approach to learning? Does this technology merely reinforce in electronic form a style of teaching that is in bad need of revamping? An early criticism of online courses was that they were mere “electronic page turners.” Well, isn’t this mere “electronic lecture recording?”

Not to pick on lecture capture, but there are other technologies like webinars that allow for two-way dialoguing with students, cost less to set up, and may be used remotely when the professor cannot attend class. If the lecture capture setup is fixed in a classroom, what happens if the teacher can’t make it to class? With webinars, the show may go on.

What is needed to avoid such situations?  Although there are no guarantees, I feel that a representative committee of technologists, faculty and administrators need to carefully consider, research, test, and plan for various instructional technologies on their campuses. Such decisions should not be the sole domain of an administrator or even the Director of Instructional Technology. Stakeholders need to weigh in and have their reservations heard and considered. Although this process can be messy and time consuming, it may result in “white elephants” becoming as rare as “black swans.”

Image Credits:

White Elephant (from Wikipedia: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/RoyalWhiteElephant.jpg)

Videoconferencing System (from website: http://www.medwow.com/video-conferencing-equipment.xth191_200_160.jpg)

Black Swan (from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory)

Posted in Instructional Technology, Online Learning Policies, Procedures, Systems | 1 Comment