March 28, 2015

Conference: mobile learning – all at sea!

Listen with webReader
Splendour of the Seas

Splendour of the Seas

What: The mobile learning voyage: From small ripples to massive open waters

This event brings together some of the leading researchers and practitioners in the field of mLearning.  It also appeals to a wide range of audiences who are interested in enhancing learning with designing content and developing systems for mobile devices and wireless networks and all others with an interest in mobile and ambient learning. Benefits:

  • mLearn 2015 will provide researchers, academics, industry practitioners and commercial vendors all the benefits of participating in one of the premier international conferences and being exposed to the exciting and rapidly growing field of mobile and contextual learning.
  • mLearn offers unrivalled opportunities for networking with key academic and commercial contacts.
  •  mLearn is the only conference endorsed by the International Association for Mobile Learning (IAmLearn), a membership association which promotes excellence in research, development and application of mobile and contextual learning.

When: 17-24 October, 2015

Where: On a cruise ship (the Splendour of the Seas) departing from Venice, Italy

Who: The International Association for Mobile Learning (IAmLearn) (www.iamlearn.org) is the custodian of the mLearn conference series. The main institutions involved in organising the 2015 conference are:

  • North West University, South Africa
  • University of South Africa
  • MidRand Graduate Institute, South Africa

Other sponsors are being sought: click here if interested in being a sponsor

How: 

  • Closing date for the submission of abstracts  – 17 April 2015. To submit an abstract, click here 
  • Last date for early-bird registration – 1 July 2015. To register click here
  • Notification of acceptance – 9 May 2015
  • Full paper submission – 1 August 2015
  • Full paper and/or slide show for Technology Showcases – 1 September 2015

How much:

The conference fee will include:

  • accommodation
  • 3 Meals with all drinks included
  • Gala event
  • Access to Plenary and Parallel sessions
  • All taxes and port charges
  • All gratuities.

The fee itself is yet to be announced.

Comment

Whether you think this a boondoggle or a carefully crafted educational experience where networking and focus is guaranteed, it should be great fun – if you (or your institution) can afford it.

In a world of hackers….editing of my book is interrupted

Listen with webReader

Books lots! 2

I’m struggling to complete the final edit on my online open textbook, Teaching in a Digital Age. All chapters are completed in first draft, but I am trying to shorten the book from its current 460 pages, by condensing a few chapters.

In the middle of the editing, however, I’ve been having technical problems logging into the admin area of the book’s web site due to a massive hacking attack on the site. This has not affected the public site, but it means I have only intermittent access to the admin site.

You may notice then over the next few days some odd discrepancies in the public site. For instance, there is no Chapter 3 at the moment as it’s being edited down and incorporated into Chapter 2. The numbering of the chapters and sections will be out of synch. But I can’t get into the site at the moment to make the necessary changes.

I hope to have this all sorted out by the weekend, and in any case 90% of the book is available in its final form, but in the meantime, I apologise and hope you will understand if some bits of the book look a little odd.

Yale University to offer an online master of medical science

Listen with webReader

Yale University 2

Korn, M. (2015) Yale Will Offer Web-Based Master of Medical Science Degree Wall Street Journal, March 10

This for me is much more significant than the announcement of the first xMOOCs. It is a sign that even the elite Ivy League universities are recognising the validity of online learning for credit, even in the most demanding of subject areas, after ignoring or even denigrating online learning for many years.

However, before you all rush to sign up, note the sticker price: US$83,162 – the same cost as for the on-campus program, which has been limited to 40 students a year. One reason probably for such a high price for an online program is that Yale is contracting 2U Inc to help with the design and delivery of the program.

Another high cost factor is that the program requires hands-on clinical stints at field sites near students and at least three meetings on Yale’s New Haven, Conn., campus for activities such as cadaver dissection. Yale is aiming eventually for about 360 students across both the on-campus and online programs.

Yale’s move reinforces my view that there is still room for major expansion by top research universities into the online professional masters’ market. However, it will be important to price these at a level that makes them attractive to lifelong learners.

So good on Yale for leading the way for other Ivy League institutions. Now let’s hope someone else can do this at a more reasonable tuition fee (which in my view would be in the range of $15,000-$25,000 for the equivalent of a one year master’s program).

Rethinking learning spaces in a digital age: an example from Singapore

Listen with webReader
Nanyang Technlogical University's new Learning Hub

Nanyang Technological University’s new Learning Hub

Hohenadel, K. (2015) Singapore’s New “Learning Hub” Rethinks University Classroom Design in the Internet Age SLATE, March 12

I have written in earlier posts about the need to rethink learning spaces as more and more institutions move to blended and hybrid learning. This design by Britain’s Thomas Heatherwick (who designed the Googleplex in Silicon Valley) incorporates ’56 “tutorial rooms” [that] don’t have corners or obvious fronts or backs and provide students with open spaces and terraces for collaboration and breaks.

In their description of the project, Heatherwick Studios state:

The purpose of a university is to foster togetherness and sociability, so that students can meet their fellow entrepreneurs, scientists and colleagues in a space that encourages collaboration.

Another inspiration for the hub was a wish to break down the traditional square forward-facing classrooms with a clear front and hierarchy, and move to a corner-less space, where teachers and students mix on a more equal basis.

In this model the students work together around shared tables, with teacher as facilitator and partner in the voyage of learning, rather than ‘master’ executing a top-down model of pedagogy.

The goal was to create a space that promotes accessibility, serendipity, and connectivity on a human scale.

It’s good to see an architect trying to create a building that supports the ‘magic of the campus’ in a digital age. I would have liked a little more detail though about the technology within the spaces, such as screens for sharing work.

It will be interesting to see if the design actually leads to changes in teaching methods, or whether faculty try to impose the hierarchical model of lecturing on these spaces.

Lastly, students seem to be very good at reducing architectural postulations to their bare essentials; students have already labelled the Learning Hub ‘dim sum’, because of its similarity to stacked dim sum steamer baskets.

Thanks to Clayton Wright for directing me to this.

dim sum steamer baskets 2

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics: WCET’s analysis of distance education enrolments in the USA

Listen with webReader

Out-of-state students 2

Russell Poulin and Terri Straut have done an invaluable analysis of recent data on distance education enrolments in the USA in the following three blog posts:

Straut, T. and Poulin, R. (2015) IPEDS Fall 2013: Higher Ed Sectors Vary Greatly in Distance Ed Enrollments Boulder CO: Western Co-operative for Educational Technologies

Straut, T. and Poulin, R. (2015) IPEDS Fall 2013: Distance Education Data Reveals More Than Overall Flat Growth Boulder CO: Western Co-operative for Educational Technologies

Straut, T. and Poulin, R. (2015) IPEDS Fall 2013: Less than Half of Fully Distant Students Come from Other States Boulder CO: Western Co-operative for Educational Technologies

These reports should be read in conjunction with these equally valuable posts:

Hill, P. and Poulin, R. (2014) Investigation of IPEDS Distance Education Data: System Not Ready for Modern Trends Boulder CO: Western Co-operative for Educational Technologies/e-Literate

Allen, I.E. and Seaman, J. (2013) Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the United States  Wellesley MA: Babson College/Quahog Research Group

I am pulling this together in this one post for convenience, but I strongly recommend that you read carefully the original reports.

There are serious methodological issues in the USA data

Over the last ten years or so, the most consistent analyses of enrolments in online learning have been the annual Babson College surveys conducted by Elaine Allen and Jeff Seaman, with support from the Sloan Foundation. However, this was a voluntary survey, based on a carefully drawn sample of chief academic officers across the USA. The Babson Surveys showed consistent growth of online course enrolments in the order of 10-20 per cent per annum over a the last 10 years, compared with around 2-3 per cent growth in on-campus enrolments, with in 2013 approximately one third of all higher education students in the USA taking at least one fully online course.

However, since the Babson surveys were voluntary, sample-based and dependent on the good will of participating institutions, there was always a concern about the reliability of the data, and especially that the returns might be somewhat biased towards enrolments from institutions actively engaged in online learning, thus suggesting more online enrolments than in reality. Despite these possible limitations the Babson Surveys were invaluable because they provided a comparable set of national data across several years. So while the actual numbers may be a little shaky, the trends were consistent.

Then in 2012 the U.S. Federal Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) survey, conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics, a division of the U.S. Federal Department of Education, for the first time included distance education in its compulsory annual survey of enrolments in higher education. (One might ask why it took until 2012 to ask for data on distance education, but hey, it’s a start.) Since this is a census rather than a survey, and since it is obligatory, one would expect that the IPEDS data would be more reliable than the Babson surveys.

However, it turns out that there are also major problems with the IPEDS survey. Phil Hill (of the blog e-Literate) and Russell Poulin have indicated the following limitations with IPEDS:

  • problems of definition: Babson focused only on students enrolled in fully online courses; IPEDS asks for enrolments in distance education. Although many institutions have moved their print-based courses online, there are still many print-based distance education courses still out there. How many? We don’t know. Also the IPEDS definition rules out reporting on blended or hybrid courses, and is not precise enough to ensure that different institutions don’t interpret who to include and who to exclude on a consistent basis
  • under-reporting: IPEDS collected data on the assumption that all students enrolled through continuing education departments were taking non-credit distance education courses, and therefore these enrolments were to be excluded. However, in many institutions, continuing education departments have continued to administer for-credit online courses, which institutions have seen as just another form of distance education. (In other institutions, distance education departments have been integrated with central learning technology units, and are thus included in enrolment counts.)
  • the IPEDS survey does not work for innovative programs such as those with continuous enrolments, competency-based learning, or hybrid courses.

Hill and Poulin come to the following conclusions about the 2012 survey:

  • we don’t know the numbers – there are too many flaws in the the data collection methods
  • thus the 2012 numbers are not a credible baseline for future comparisons
  • there are hundreds of thousands of students who have never been reported on any IPEDS survey that has ever been conducted.

It is against this background that we should now examine the recent analyses by Straut and Poulin on the IPEDS data for  2013. However, note their caveat:

Given the errors that we found in colleges reporting to IPEDS, the Fall 2012 distance education reported enrollments create a very unstable base for comparisons.

Main results for 2013

1. Most DE enrolments are in public universities

For those outside the USA, there are quite different types of HE institution, dependent on whether they are publicly funded or privately funded, and whether they operate for profit or not for profit. Distance education is often associated in the USA with diploma mills, or offered by for-profit private institutions, such as the University of Phoenix or Kaplan. As it turns out, this is a fundamental mis-conception. Nearly three-quarters of all DE enrolments are in publicly funded universities. Less than 10% of all DE enrolments are in for-profit private institutions.

2. Students studying exclusively at a distance

Students studying exclusively at a distance constitute about 13% of all enrolments. However, non-profits rely much more on distance students, who make up half their enrolments. Less than 10% of students in public universities are studying exclusively at a distance. The significance of this is that for most students in public universities, DE is a relatively small part of their studies, an option that they exercise occasionally and as needed, and is not seen as a replacement for campus-based studies. On the other hand, there is a substantial if small minority for whom DE is the only option, and for many of these, the for-profits are their the only option if their local public universities do not offer such programs in the discipline they want.

3. DE enrolments were down slightly in 2013

IPEDS shows an overall decrease in DE enrolments of 4% from 2012 to 2013. The biggest area was the for-profits, which declined by 17%. The drop in public universities for those taking fully online courses was a marginal 2%. However, this is a major difference from the trends identified by the Babson Surveys.

This is probably the most contentious of the conclusions, because the differences are relatively small and probably within the margin of error, given the unreliability of the data. The for-profit sector has been particularly badly hit by changes to federal financial aid for students.

However, I have been predicting that the rate of students taking fully online courses in the USA (and Canada) is likely to slow in the future for two reasons:

  • there is a limit to the market for fully online studies and after 10 years of fairly large gains, it is not surprising that the rate now appears to be slowing down
  • as more and more courses are offered in a hybrid mode, students have another option besides fully online for flexible study.

The counter trend is that public universities still have much more scope for increasing enrolments in fully online professional masters programs, as well as for certificates, diplomas and badges.

4. Students studying fully online are still more likely to opt for a local university

Just over half of all students enrolled exclusively in DE courses take their courses from within state. This figure jumps to between 75-90% for those enrolled in a public university. On the other hand, 70% of students enrolled in a DE course in a for-profit take their courses from out-of-state. This is not surprising, since although non-profits have to have their headquarters somewhere, they operate on a national basis.

The proportion of institutions reporting that they serve students who are outside the U.S. remains small, no more than 2% in any sector. This again may be a reporting anomaly, as 21% of institutions reported that they have students located outside the U.S. Probably of more concern is that many institutions did not report data on the location of their DE students. This may have something to do with the need for authorization for institutions to operate outside the home state, and this is a uniquely American can of worms that I don’t intend to open.

Not good, but it’s better than nothing

I have an uncomfortable feeling about the IPEDS data. It needs to be better, and it’s hard to draw any conclusions or make policy decisions on what we have seen so far.

However, it’s easy for someone outside the USA to criticise the IPEDS data, but at least it’s an attempt to measure what is an increasingly significant – and highly complex – area of higher education. We have nothing similar in Canada. At least the IPEDS data is likely to improve over time, as institutions press for clearer definitions, and are forced to collect better and more consistent data.

Also, I can’t praise too highly first of all Elaine Allen and Jeff Seaman for their pioneering efforts to collect data in this area, and Phil Hill, Russell Poulin and Terri Straut for guiding us through the minefield of IPEDS data.

For a nice infographic on this topic from WCET, click on the image below:

WCET infographic 2