eLearning Africa debate on OER

The program for the 6th International Conference on ICT for Development, Education and Training in Tanzania in May is available online. Among others things on a varied and engaging sessions list is a debate on the motion:

This house believes that the OER movement is fundamentally flawed because it is based on the false assumption that education institutions are willing to share resources freely and openly.

I'd love to be there!

Enhancing the quality of student learning - systems to monitor, evaluate, review

ACODE 55 Enhancing the quality of student learning: systems in place to monitor, evaluate and review kicked off on a wet Sydney morning in March. The irony – there is always irony with ICT – is that the chosen technology for the opening keynote wasn’t quite up to the task.

Keynote

The speaker, Atlanta-based Regional Education Board Director Bruce Chaloux’s engaging talk on Closing the gap in online quality: emerging models in our continuing challenge, was interrupted on slide 3. Poor lip synch had already raised eyebrows and sighs, then the Skype connection broke. Question: did the choice or the technology let the side down?

Bruce's message still came through loud and clear though - the growth of online learning (in the US) is faster than the growth of participation in HE, now serving 6 million from a total of 20 million students. A national benchmarking study revealed perceptions of general satisfaction around quality – although some respondents still believe it’s the same as face to face or somewhat superior. Next (rhetorical) question – what is the opportunity cost of conducting this kind of survey?

The Sloan Consortium Framework for Quality Assurance got good press - Bruce is a past President of the Board of Directors at Sloan C, and knows it well. A six volume series Elements of Quality in Online Education includes:

6: Engaging communities

5: Into the mainstream

4: Practice and direction

3: Elements of quality online education

2: Online education: Learning effectiveness, faculty satisfaction, and cost effectiveness

1: Online education: Learning effectiveness and faculty satisfaction

Summaries are available as PDF from the website, but the books come with a price tag and the order facility requires a log in (free to set up).

Last mentioned was the Quality Matters Program Rubric, which addresses eight broad standards and provides a useful framework for looking at different dimensions of quality for online courses. http://www.qmprogram.org/rubric

Local quality enhancement initiatives

The day outside brightened up as some local (Australasian) initiatives showcased practical ways they monitor, evaluate and review programs and courses. Prof Stephen Towers, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), gave an impressive presentation of their annual Courses Performance Report, produced by a system that consolidates voluminous data in a simple dashboard. Some institutions don’t allow such public shows of information, but the value outweighs any concerns in this self-defined ‘university for the real world. A description of the process is on QUT's website

University of Southern Queensland were up next, with the Course and Program Management System. This is another impressive quality assurance system that follows through from initial accreditation to dissemination of student outcomes aligned with learning journeys. The system mediates and facilitates key administrative functions, and provides key data to staff and students. No details are returned from a search of the institution’s website, but Dr Michael Sankey who presented may be able to assist with any enquiries.

Both these systems looked practical, comprehensive, superbly fit for purpose and able to present very disparate pieces of information in a useful format for the host institutions. My question here is, will systems like these become standard one day? I certainly hope so.

Case studies

After lunch, the meeting moved on to case studies and group discussions. A/Prof Maree Gosper one of our hosts at Macquarie University looked at how results of a study of student experience and aspirations for use of a range of technologies are being used in participating institutions to support planning and development.

Rhonda Leece from University of New England gave a stand out show featuring an “automated wellness engine’. The name didn’t make it immediately obvious (to me) what this engine did, but the performance was innovative and most impressive. UNE’s Engagement and Retention Project is designed to identify students at risk, and does so quite effectively by trawling nightly through a number of online systems for triggers associated with an overall student ‘wellness’ index. A student support task force responds with triage and and/or referral for students at risk. The project has already hit the headlines in a Computerworld article.

Derek White - University of Waikato is leading a project to integrate all grade items results and system activity into a single repository. The aim here is also to identify at risk students, and to generate comprehensive views of student progress. Although the project didn’t follow an ‘ideal’ path, it is reaching the the intended goals of building infrastructure to support this reporting, tackling the issue of curriculum change, data entry practices and building reporting functionality - something I think most of our institutions would like to do (better).

Wrap up

Discussion and wiki posting of relevant experience and practices at participating institutions rounded off another long but productive meeting of ACODE Reps. The parting question is: how can we disseminate these discussions more widely within and across our institutions. That may be on the agenda next time. Here is one piece of my humble attempt. Thanks for reading it.

Why 'successful' elearning projects 'fail'

What Tom Franklin calls ‘success’, and in particular, long term sustainability of elearning projects are a constant challenge to me in my role as Head of an eLearning Group in a large university. I absolutely agree with Tom’s January 2011 ALT Newsletter item that forward planning, budgeting for ongoing support and change management are important aspects to consider. However, in this I see tensions, first of all with funding body requirements (fixed term funding, intention to support start ups / exploratory projects etc) but more importantly, with the nature of innovation itself.

The kind of project that I want to see supported past the initial funding stage starts out with a great learning design idea and a creative teacher with a problem to solve. They [may] get start up funding, then use of the ‘product’ grows beyond their wildest aspirations. Colleagues in other faculties and institutions use – and even become dependent on it. In some cases, many thousands of students are involved, and no one questions the benefits to teaching, learning and productivity. But no one is ready to support long term sustainability either. This may be because it doesn’t come with the IT Services seal of approval, or because initial funding was from an external e.g. Government or one off source. There are probably many other reasons such ‘successful’ systems persist with just one or a few people to support them, and no institutional commitment. I see the lack of institutional response systems and processes as a key one.

The major difficulty of planning for change management and ongoing support with projects such as these is that the impact could not be anticipated at the time of the original proposal. That is the evolutionary nature of innovations, and the education sector – as a whole and in parts - seems woefully ill equipped to step in and provide the necessary support. I’d welcome any suggestions as to how these issues might be resolved. I have my own ideas, but they involve organizational change rather than change management at practice level. Further details in my 2010 article Sustainability factors for elearning initiatives, ALT-J (Research in Learning Technology) 18, no. 2: 89-103.

Seize the opportunity of online learning - once more unto the breach...

Collaborate to Compete is the latest release (Feb 2011) in a stream of reports on how universities can use technology and online pedagogy to achieve quality and cost-effectiveness in meeting student demands for flexible learning. In a nutshell, how to create the best opportunities, and get the best return on investment in online learning. The terms of reference for HEFCE’s Online Learning Taskforce focused on the UK higher education sector, though the case studies and recommendations have broader relevance.

I know I’m not alone in responding with a degree of scepticism to the announcement of another report on how to exploit the potential of online learning. The fact that we are still talking about potential means that work remains to be done to exploit it. Collaborate to Compete: Seizing the Opportunity of Online Learning for UK Higher Education) offers many valuable insights. For me, it also has one key limitation in the range of voices it represents. However, the impact of this latest set of recommendations – as the report notes about estimating the size of the market for online learning - is hard to predict.

A summary of recommendations (with my comments added):

1. Students need greater support to ensure their study and academic literacy skills are fit for the digital age (and staff need greater incentives, support and evidence of benefits to ensure their skills are up to the mark).

2. Investment is needed to build consortia to achieve scale and branding in online learning. (Cases where previous attempts failed are featured in the report. While I support the kind of multiskilled teams described by Edelson (2006), and believe collaboration can harness the strengths of diverse roles and organizations, I wonder if the consortium is a realistic proposition for how they will be put together? There are obvious benefits, as risk will be shared and dissemination more effective from the start, but where will the necessary investment come from in these tight financial times?)

3. Better market intelligence about international demand (this can only help to avoid repeating expensive mistakes of the past. Zemsky & Massy (2004) made a strong retrospective case against using inappropriate forecasting methods to anticipate demand and drive investment. There does indeed need to be ‘clarity about the markets in which ventures will operate’, but the wisdom of hindsight says more about what not, than what to do. What specific strategies will allow this to be achieved?)

4. Institutions take a strategic approach to realign structures and processes to embed online learning (this is my strongest wish). Such changes will not happen rapidly enough without effective organizational structures and processes (the mantra is good, articulation seems to be the problem, or perhaps it’s different interpretations of what effective means in this context.) Institutions need to ensure that staff understand the range of challenges and opportunities provided by online learning, and ensure what they do is cost effective and high quality (and experienced staff need to help their institutions understand what is involved in addressing these challenges and opportunities with cost-effective and high quality solutions.)

5. Realign training and development to enable the academic community to play a leading role in online learning (if the academic community can’t I don’t know who can!). Promote understanding of potential, and put greater priority on partnerships between technologists, learning support specialists and academics (with emphasis on partnership amongst equals).

6. Invest in the development and exploitation of open educational resources to enhance efficiency and quality (Open education is not just about sharing resources, initiatives such as the OPAL Open Educational Quality Initiative show that practice is equally important. The conceptual model here is one where producer and recipient practices meet comfortably in the middle.) There is no point in duplicating effort to create content that is already available, (but there is more than a grain of truth in the saying ‘to change something you have to understand it and to understand it you have to change it’. The ‘not invented here syndrome’ may have deeper psychological roots than we acknowledge.)

Key points I take away from the report are that a) adapting organizational structures and processes may require a significant change in academic and organizational culture; b) institutional promotion criteria (accountability measures), selection criteria for awards etc. would provide incentives for staff; and c) strong leadership and commitment to a clear strategic approach are fundamental to effect change in institutional policies and procedures.

With my academic / professional development hat on, I appreciate the report's acknowledgment that professional development for online learning is not just the responsibility of a small team of people in a central service unit, but the broad and joint responsibility of institutions and national and professional bodies.

Collaborate to Compete ‘highlights many things that have been said before but not widely heeded’. The authors state their belief in the title, and assert that the report has come ‘at a time when technology, internationalism, curricula and the power and nature of the student voice have moved forward, thus making the report timely and important’.

While I agree that the report is both these things, I also believe it is missing one very important voice, and thus not truly reflective of the spirit of the title. Composition of the task force does not quite model the kind of collaboration that some of us ‘chalk face’ workers are such strong advocates of - i.e. collaboration across all levels within organizations. I believe there is much to be learned from the experience of the lead practitioner, the average academic and the early career tutor, all of whose professional practice the online learning strategy seeks to reshape. Consultation with people in teaching and research roles is one thing, collaboration with them is quite another. The taskforce has captured the voices of leaders, directors, chief executives and managers and students through the President of the National Union. While case studies may reflect the practice of lecturers and tutors across institutional levels, I do not hear their voices in the report I have just read. This is the part of organizational culture and process I think will take longest to change - mainly because it doesn't even seem to be on the agenda yet.

References

Edelson, D.C. 2006. Balancing innovation and risk: Assessing design research proposals. In Educational Design Research, eds Van Den Akker, J, Gravemeijer, K, Mckenney, S and Nieveen, N, 100-06. London and New York: Routledge.

Zemsky, R. and W. Massy. 2004. Thwarted Innovation: What Happened to e-Learning and Why?: Final Report of The Weatherstation Project, The Learning Alliance, University of Pennsylvania. http:// www.irhe.upenn.edu/Docs/Jun2004/ThwartedInnovation.pdf

#ascilite 2010

The topic is trending in twitter - though not all tweets are equal, some are twivia.

Ascilite 2010

The problem with this excellent conference program is that I can’t be in three or four places at once. The range of topical and well-grounded elearning r&d work on offer is of the usual high standard.

Day one

9.35 Skipping over a day of workshops followed by a socially rich reception at UTS (Sydney University of Technology) stunning refurbished city centre facility – the events opened with a keynote by Professor Jan Herrington. Jan reviews the 20+ year old model of authentic and constructivist learning in the context of emergent technologies, concluding that the model is more important than ever in a rapidly transforming educational landscape. Discussion of the need for further research and how studies can be conducted is included. A great mix of practical and entertaining examples of what 'authentic learning' really means.

11.00 A sponsor presentation from Blackboard, one of the dominant designs in Learning Management Systems (LMS) carries the enigmatic title ‘the nexus of your enterprise VLE (virtual learning environment)’. The focus is on transition from the LMS to a more diverse VLE, and how their product supports an open and powerful enterprise approach as it evolves and grows. I can tell the presenter is a sponsor. He's wearing a tie.

11.25 Presenters from a number of Australian universities address the question ‘is teaching and learning in virtual worlds worth the effort?’ The answer is yes and no. Yes because learners have access to the virtual equivalent of high risk situations and collaboration across distance. No because it comes at high cost, at the top of a steep learning curve and sometimes lacks sound theoretical frameworks. This truly is an emergent technology that either has to get easier and more accessible or fail to enter the mainstream. Its a nice change to have avatars in whacky clothes and hairstyles instead of Powerpint. My tweet that it needs to graduate from mediation through a keyboard raises the response that joysticks work as well. Wicked!

13.00 The Ascilite AGM reports another successful year and a healthy financial position. New Executive members have come on board and the prospects all look excellent. Rob Philips has a question!

14.00 A vendor presentation from The Learning Edge shows how to create a content rich (!) and integrated learning environment using the Pearson suite of products.

14.40 Glenda Cox, University of Cape Town, talks about sustaining innovations in educational technology from the perspective of the institutions innovators. The Centre for Educational Technology (CET) uses various mechanisms to support the individuals who drive the innovations so they don’t have to travel the hard road of the lone enthusiast, and the institutions achieves higher return on investment in start up grants. This is the same topical area I’m working with a group of ACODE reps on at the moment, so this is an opportunity to cast a wider net.

15.30 The first serious clash in my viewing schedule involves four competing streams: ‘Tinkerers, learning organizations and sustainable innovation’ from Deirdre Wilmott at Deakin University, ‘Transforming the teaching of science and engineering report writing’ featuring an ALTC (Australian Learning and Teaching Council) funded project from Helen Drury at Sydney University, ‘A scholarship programme for academic staff to develop exemplary online learning tasks’ from Tony Herrington (Curtin University) and colleagues a symposium on ‘Teachers, technology and design’ from Peter Goodyear and various colleagues. I’ll use the opportunity to read proceedings and meet with colleagues to discuss the sessions I can’t attend. I tend to favour the symposium format at conferences, as its generally more engaging.

ACODE workshop - Open Educational Resources

I always find ACODE meetings fruitful - a group of senior university reps meet to engage with topical issues in elearning. No institutional politics, no need to convince anyone that elearning works.

The workshop on Open Educational Resources on November 11^th was no exception – in fact, the outcomes were more productive than anticipated. A working group convened to further explore the topic of my most recent publication ‘how to promote sustainability of elearning initiatives’. This challenge has been around since at least 1990. Start up grants are used up, and where does support come from then? Options include commercialization, institutionalization and limping along on the smell of an oily rag! None of which seems to be ideal. My ALT-J article (Gunn 2010) offers one solution. Guthrie et al (2008) offer a different one. Either way, the problem hasn’t gone away.

Other unanticipated outcomes were more challenging – opinions I didn’t know I had came shooting to the surface and caused a great deal of discomfort for someone in my profession.

The open educational resources (OER) movement brings a very different perspective to issues of sustainability, reuse and ownership. An OECD report defines the term OER as ‘materials offered freely and openly for educators, students and self-learners to use and reuse for teaching, learning and research’. I often wonder if formal definitions are necessary. Things remain what they are without such descriptions, though the academic community and others insist on applying them.

Anyway, the concept of open access is useful - compelling even – and is more than a blip on some distant horizon. At the end of the day, decisions about the future of this movement may not be made by academics or governments.

After formalities, the workshop opens with some future gazing by Prof James Taylor from Uni of Southern Queensland. So many more students are going through tertiary education that open scholarship will provide the only viable (cost-effective) means of sustaining access on the scale required. This statement is set against the backdrop of a news report I watched at Auckland airport the same morning. Thousands of students kicking in the door of conservative party headquarters in London because of recently announced education budget cuts and the end of fee capping. Prof Taylor has a good point about long term viability, but where does that leave the academic community as we know it? Chasing the dinosaur perhaps?

Clearly in a stroppy mood that day, a session on ‘ethics and intellectual property’ left me wondering if we have to try to squeeze absolutely everything into existing shapes and systems. Statements described as ‘anarchy’ and ‘provocation’ from the floor tell me the answer is ‘yes we do’ - unfortunately though - not ‘yes we can’! The walls are breaking down, even as we maintain the illusion of security within.

A really provocative question surfaced in a lively presentation from OER Foundation Director Wayne Mackintosh. ‘Why would you replicate the loaves and fishes episode if the hungry couldn’t afford to eat them?’ Nice analogy Wayne! I think the answer lies somewhere on the capitalism - politics continuum. It was cool to see an e-book being pulled together so quickly and easily from freely available resources, but will we really look back and wonder why it took us so long to get on the sustainable / renewable resource bandwagon. Or will we be too engrossed in licking the wounds of redundancy for the question to even arise?

With such disturbing thoughts buzzing around, an albeit highly informative session on creative commons licensing smacked of the establishment attempting to survive in a rapidly changing world. What happens if authors don’t specifically grant permission at the point of creation? Are they guilty until proved innocent?

Another session featured some interesting case studies including one where students created OERs as their course assessment. The high point of the workshop for me was when the student / presenter learned how many hits that work had attracted. Discussion and a call to action rounded off a stimulating day, which is recorded in more ‘conventional’ thought forms in the workshops section of ACODE’s website at http://acode.edu.au/activities.php Though I have to note that some areas of the site are not... open… for public viewing.

#hz10anz

Strategic Technology Summit and pre-launch of 2010 Horizon Report for Australia and New Zealand, Massey University, Wellington, 30^th September 2010.

There's a lot of opinion and information in this post. For a ‘quick fix’, I've presented key points from the launch in illustrated ‘exec summary’ style, with background notes on the New Media Consortium, production of Horizon Reports and discussion points from the local event. This follows my own thoughts on the subject. All comments welcome.

Visit the NMC website for more - and more accurate information - my note taking is far from perfect.

IMHO

In recent years, the global elearning community has become familiar with - and perhaps even reliant on - the annual series of Horizon Reports; the product of an ambitious attempt at technology future gazing from Texas based New Media Consortium (NMC). The reports are released under Creative Commons License by a small but perfectly formed organization, which is ‘too small for politics’ according to Vice President, Community & Chief Technology Officer Alan Levine! So we are all officially jealous on that score (thanks for the line, Milan), though probably not of NMC’s commitment to making realistic predictions on the new technologies that will move from horizon to mainstream educational use in the short, medium and long term.

Evidence is consistent; the only reliable prediction is that change will happen. Some of it will come out of left field and take most of us by surprise. Some will produce what Edward Tenner (1996) calls ‘the revenge effect’. Memories of wasted $millions and outrageous hype about online education are just a decade old. The ‘thwarted innovation’ explanation from Zemsky & Massy (2004) feels like salt in a wound to that era’s genuine elearning innovators who failed to attract even minimal funding for sound projects. So how can a group of even the most experienced researchers and practitioners attempt to forecast the future in a reliable and systematic way? The answer for NMC lies in broad consultation and a collaborative tool (wiki) that was itself just rising over the horizon just a few years ago.

Both online and face to face consultations seem to serve the purpose well. For most of us, it’s sheer pleasure to strip out institutional ‘stuff’ and engage with respected colleagues about real issues that confront us all. In this instance, discussing trends and opportunities, identifying critical audiences and projects of local significance wasn’t too hard. But I sensed the energy flagging and focus hazing over when it came to action plans to progress projects and involve key players. It might have been me losing the plot towards the end of an action packed day, but the discussion seemed to shift to answer an easier question: how can we disseminate the Horizon Report within the local context? Not really the purpose, but I guess if we all knew how to promote new technology and educational change, we’d be doing a more effective job than we currently are. One point in particular pushed my buttons. It’s easy to say and convenient to believe that professional development is the critical missing factor. From where I stand, I see environments conducive to innovation; that foster engagement; encourage risk taking and experimentation as equally important - and notable by their absence. Can anyone name an elearning innovation that grew from professional development alone? Or a professional development strategy to reconcile a conceptual mismatch between pedagogy and the affordances of new technology? Only time and experience can really transform practice!

Great ideas were put forward for discussion though, as the images below demonstrate. My own small but imperfectly formed contribution to the proposed new technology dissemination initiative is this post, which I hope will raise some thoughtful comments, constructive criticism, productive discussion, and best of all, some positive action!

Exec sum

Horizon reports are produced annually to identify key emerging technologies expected to impact on education in both the immediate and longer terms. Collective views on the topic from an experienced Australasian advisory board in 2010 are summarized as follows. (Click on images to view full size)

· 1 year or less, electronic books and mobile devices;

· 2-3 years, augmented reality and open content;

· 4-5 years, gesture based computing and visual data analysis.

There is, of course, variation across disciplines, institutions and the sector, as new technologies always present challenges and catalyze change, something tertiary institutions - fairly or otherwise - are not renowned for embracing quickly :-)

Challenges – (I’ll comment on later in the post…)

· There is a need for professional development around new technologies;

· There is conceptual mismatch between pedagogical practice and the design of new technologies;

· Formal instruction in key literacy skills is required;

· Learners value knowing where to find information more than knowing it.

The day in brief

CEO Larry Johnston opened the day with seven points to sum up current trends:

· Computing is in 3 dimensions;

· Games are reality;

· Keyboards are for old people;

· The machine is us;

· Collective is the new intelligence;

· The network is everywhere;

· The people are the network.

In context

Larry continued with an outline of the consultative process used to generate the reports - anyone can apply to join an advisory board and dynamic membership is preferred. The entire process is recorded in a wiki so transparency is assured. The reports are written with decision makers in mind, though they appeal to a much broader readership. NMC has clocked up around 600K readers, nine languages and a pretty impressive accuracy rate since the first Horizon Report came out in 2004. ANZ 2010 is the third Australia – New Zealand edition.

He used a metaphor - illustrated with exquisitely shot photographs of a waterfall - to explain the purpose of the reports. The first shot used a fast shutter speed to freeze cascading water on a blurred background at a split second in time. A wider shot and long exposure showed how the water moved and found its way around obstacles encountered in the flow. Clever shots and a powerful metaphor!

By the end of an engaging talk, I was mentally comparing the NMC to JISC - The UK based Joint Information Systems Committee, which promotes leadership in elearning through various strategies and sponsored activities. Different set up but similar aims.

Trends

Talking of trends, Gartner’s hype cycle seems to have entered the elearning vernacular as a stock phrase. What it represents is an initial phase of high visibility that wanes as the world at large realizes this new technology isn’t quite the revolution or paradigm shift early enthusiasts (or enthusiastic vendors!) believed it might be. Interest wanes, then utility kicks in to drive a more reasoned level of adoption.

Group think

Discussion groups focused on analysis of the significant challenges and action plans going forward. An engaging and visually rich system of voting with red and yellow sticky dots showed trends using a quaint, last century alternative to the now ubiquitous SRS / clickers. I didn’t get a shot of the graphs with votes on the hype cycles for each of the chosen technologies, but can report there were some similarities and some key differences to votes on the same issues in Australia earlier in the week.

The popularity of proposals put forward by groups is outlined below.

Group 1 sought a balanced view of the potential of new technologies, including notes of caution such as biological studies that show potential physical harm, and commitment to open content and educational resources.

Group 2 recommended a communication and engagement package to help organizations understand, engage with and apply new technologies, and encouraged NZ membership of Horizon Report advisory boards.

Group 4 supported a DEANZ initiative on strategic forecasting for the tertiary sector to 2016; active participation from existing professional bodies; promotion of the KAREN high speed educational network and research and development around student portals to support mobile access.

Group 5 wanted to champion creative commons licensing in a shared digital repository environment and disseminate Horizon Report content.

Group 6 focused on broad communication and engagement at senior level through NZ Vice Chancellors’ Committee (now known by a new name?)

Credits

Massey University, Ako Aotearoa, ACODE and the Ministry of Education sponsored the Wellington event. The delegates list included many of the usual suspects for NZ tertiary elearning with a few notable (and regrettable) absences. A proposal for a national forum for discussion of emergent technologies is now doing the rounds. I second that, and volunteer to assist with organization. What existing forum could be extended to support this? Ako Aotearoa seems an obvious umbrella organization, and ACODE one of a number of potential organizers.

Afterthought

The day was rich on interpersonal and visual dimensions – Larry is also a photographer. Another evocative image was a futuristic, holograph display of expensive wristwatches in a department store. A bit of irony there, since net-geners don’t invest in ‘single function devices’ like clocks and wrist watches! Seems they prefer clicks to ticks - and lots of them on every gadget!