May 22, 2013

Queen’s University’s report on online learning

Listen with webReader

 

Senate Academic Planning Task Force (2013) Draft Report March 2013 Kingston ON: Queens University

Queen’s University in Ontario, Canada, was one of the first universities worldwide to offer distance education courses, in 1888. It has recently released an 84 page report on online learning, developed by its Senate Academic Planning Task Force.

The SAPTF was mandated to study virtualization and online learning within the Queen’s context after the university’s academic plan was adopted, and to put forward recommendations for Senate. “The task force began its work by considering the wealth of commentary and debate generated around online learning during the academic planning process,” said SAPTF Chair Christopher Moyes, who is also a professor in the Department of Biology. The SAPTF met with individuals and groups over the course of preparing its draft report, in addition to using surveys to gather information about current ‘virtualization’ and online learning practices at Queen’s. The report, which was released March 21, proposes 18 specific recommendations aimed at informing Queen’s policy and planning around virtualization and online learning in the broader context of the overall student experience.

Key recommendations and conclusions

There are 18 recommendations listed, but many are conclusions rather than recommendations. For example:

  • 2. Senate recognizes that there are benefits and risks to using online technologies in teaching and learning, and the relative balance depends on how the technology is employed and supported.
  • 9. Senate rejects the notion that courses adopting online technologies for delivery of content or facilitating particular styles of learning are likely to be demonstrably inferior to traditional alternatives.

The more actionable recommendations are:

  • Queen’s should do a better job identifying and recognizing faculty and staff who are innovators in teaching and promote synergies between them.
  • Queens should explore ways in which the various pedagogical and technical support units can reorganize to support online learning more effectively.
  • The [Task Force] recommends that more financial, technical, and pedagogical support is needed at all levels to make the most of use of online teaching tools
  • The SAPTF sees an appropriately staffed Curriculum Committee as the best gatekeeper for assuring that changes in the mode of teaching meet their teaching and learning criteria (i.e. there should be the same approval/review process for online courses as for classroom courses to ensure quality).
  • Schools/Faculties should articulate standards in terms of design, delivery and support for online courses and work in partnership with their departments/areas to ensure that these are met
  • two recommendations to facilitate better integration/working relationships between academic departments and the Continuing and Distance Studies unit with respect to the design and teaching of online courses
  • The SAPTF recommends that Queen’s does not become involved in MOOCs until and unless there is greater support for online learning (within the university.)
  • Queen’s should remain involved in discussions exploring the creation of the Ontario Online Institute.

The main report provides the rationale/background that led to each recommendation.

But perhaps the most important statement in the report is a conclusion:

We get the impression that a great deal of time is being spent on discussing the merits of online technologies when the reality is that online courses will become more prevalent whether we participate or not. The overarching message that the SAPTF would like to send is that it is time to accept the case for the merits of online teaching technologies, and devote our collective energy to ensuring that Queen’s renews a focus on course quality. Whether or not the OOI is created, and if so, whether or not Queen’s joins the consortium, well-constructed, well-supported,technology enabled courses will have an important role in our curriculum.

Comment

Reading this report was like peering over the wall of a monastery watching the monks diligently tending their vegetables with trowels and hoes, then along comes someone who suggests that they might want to use a tractor.

It seems that the majority of Canadian universities have either just completed, are currently engaged in, or are about to develop reports, plans and strategies for online learning. I myself will have visited 13 different Canadian universities (out of a total of 72) over six months to talk to faculty, senior administrators and even Boards of Governors about strategies for online learning, the resources required, and ways to ensure quality teaching and learning online. Queen’s University has not been one of the 13, and this is clearly a report on, rather than a plan for, online learning, covering both blended/hybrid and fully online learning. Nevertheless it provides a valuable insight into the current thinking about online learning and its status in one of Canada’s more prestigious if conservative universities.

Most readers of this blog would be unlikely to argue with most of the conclusions or recommendations in the report. They reflect positions now that will be found in most Canadian universities to varying degrees.  Nevertheless it is important that the Task Force provided such obvious statements about online learning, since it appears that some faculty at Queens still have serious reservations, or perhaps more accurately, lack of knowledge or experience in online learning.

There was some discussion in the report about events outside the university, such as a push from the Ontario provincial government for more online learning, and, as a result, the intent of the Council of Ontario Universities to establish an Ontario Online Institute. This led the Task Force to conclude that Queen’s faculty and departments should stop arguing about online learning and just get on with it in a thoughtful and cautious manner.

In my view there is no need for Queen’s University to wait for the government or the Council of Ontario Universities. Queen’s already has a number of interesting blended and fully online courses and programs, such as its EMBA. But if 2013 marks the year of the most advanced development of online learning in universities, this report suggests that Queen’s is still operating to the standards of 1995. Students everywhere are wanting more online and more flexible learning opportunities. The government wants to increase the participation rate in post-secondary education. Ontario already has a province wide infrastructure of learning centres through Contact North that can be used to recruit students for Queen’s University’s online courses. Queen’s should stop poking the tractor and drive it.

This report is an essential first step in catching up. What Queen’s now needs is a plan that sets clear goals for online learning, identifies the resources needed, and makes the necessary organizational and structural changes. In particular, it also needs to start to think about how best to use its beautiful campus when students can do a large part of their learning more conveniently and more effectively online.

A MOOC platform open to all?

Listen with webReader

© RubyLane.com, 2013

Empson, R. (2013) edX Merges With Stanford’s Class2Go To Build An Open-Source Online Learning Platform Tech Crunch, April 3

Empson, R. (2012) Class2Go: Stanford’s New Open-Source Platform For Online Education Tech Crunch, September 17

Markoff, J. (2013) Essay-Grading Software Offers Professors a Break New York Times, April 4

Stanford engineers have developed an open source MOOC platform called Course2Go that is different from the proprietary platforms developed and used by Coursera and Udemy.

What makes it different is

its early dedication to building and maintaining a totally open-source platform. This means that the platform aims to be both free of cost and of pricey IP, while professors are free to contribute to Class2Go’s code and get involved in the development of the platform, as well as to collaborate with other institutions and organizations.

Rather than build its own platform, edX has decided to make use of Course2Go.

Although not stated in those terms, Class2Go will no longer be focused on building its own, independent platform, and instead its team will devote all of its attention to helping edX go open-source. In other words, Stanford will be integrating all of the features of its existing Class2Go platform into the edX platform, using Class2Go’s infrastructure as an internal platform for online coursework for on-campus and distance learners.

As of June 1, the company said, developers everywhere will be able to freely access the source code of the edX learning platform, including code for its Learning Management System (LMS); Studio, a course authoring tool; xBlock, an application programming interface (API) for integrating third-party learning objects; and machine grading API’s. In addition, edX will look to encourage participation from third-party developers by providing technical and process guidelines as well as additional support.

At the same time, edX has announced that it has developed a tool for automatically grading essay-type answers based on the use of artificial intelligence.

The EdX assessment tool requires human teachers, or graders, to first grade 100 essays or essay questions. The system then uses a variety of machine-learning techniques to train itself to be able to grade any number of essays or answers automatically and almost instantaneously.

The software will assign a grade depending on the scoring system created by the teacher, whether it is a letter grade or numerical rank. It will also provide general feedback, like telling a student whether an answer was on topic or not.

The New York Times article also presents some of the standard criticisms to automated essay marking, which to date has serious issues regarding validity, i.e. nonsense answers that use the right words get highly graded, while valid answers that use non-standard wording are failed or marked lowly.

Comment

The development of an open source MOOC platform seems to me to not only make a lot of sense technologically (how many different MOOC platforms do we need?), but more importantly allows any institution to offer its own MOOC without having to go through commercial operators such as Coursera. This will substantially bring down the cost of participating in MOOCs for most institutions (see a later post coming shortly). However, more consideration needs to be given to less objectivist or behaviourist approaches to teaching when developing these tools. For instance, it would be good to see Course2Go developing software (and the accompanying human approaches) to manage discussion groups on a large scale.

The bigger question is when will these Ivy League engineers start talking to educators about pedagogy, educational validity, and the nature of learning? I have no objection in principle about researching and developing teaching approaches that will work on a very large scale, so long as they adequately deal with the essentials of teaching and learning, and not just build what is relatively easy to develop in engineering terms.

This is what makes the current focus within x-MOOCs so infuriating. There is clearly huge potential for some major breakthroughs in developing large-scale, low-cost education, but some recognition that this needs to be a team effort that requires educational as well as engineering input on an equal basis is absolutely essential, otherwise it can end up being an extremely dangerous and destructive development, given the weight given to Ivy League developments in the mainstream media.

Innovative online bachelor’s degree from University of Washington

Listen with webReader

© Glenn Rikowski, 2012

Long, K. (2013) UW to offer first all-online degree-completion program The Seattle Times, March 28

Although many universities offer online courses at the bachelor’s level, and fully online master programs, whole bachelor’s programs offered fully online are comparatively rare from major public research universities (although much more common from for-profits, such as University of Phoenix).

The University of Washington program, which begins this fall, is a bachelor of early childhood education, based on ‘years of research done at the UW on the best ways to teach preschoolers.’ More details of the program can be found by clicking here.

There are several interesting features of the program:

  • designed mainly for students transferring in with already an associate degree or 70 or more eligible credits for transfer
  • focused on people already working in child care (preference to registered Washington state residents)
  • partnership with several local community colleges for credit transfer
  • uses video of ‘good’ examples of teaching practice (as well as televised lectures)
  • students make their own videos of themselves practicing those techniques in preschool classrooms
  • limited to 100 students initially, but possibly growing to 300 students a year later
  • aims to fill a major labour market gap in the state
  • much lower average cost for students: $160 per credit = $7,000 for full degree
  • supported by a grant, which with student tuition fees enables the program to be fully cost-recoverable without state funding

UW’s President stated that UW will ‘soon’ be offering several more bachelor degree completion and even some full bachelor’s programs fully online.

Comment

This online strategy appears to be particularly well developed. One major barrier to fully online bachelor programs is that students straight out of high school are often considered unready for online learning, given the self-discipline required and their perceived lack of independent learning skills. However, as this program indicates, not all people wanting a bachelor degree are 18 year olds. Many already have a college certificate or diploma, and relevant work experience.

I was also interested in the proposed use of video. The cost of making reasonable quality video has dropped dramatically, and although there is a long history of the use of video in teacher education, education is not the only field where practices and procedures can be demonstrated via video, both by instructors and by student practitioners.

Lastly, this is a public research university operating a different business model that not only lowers costs to students, but is self-financing without state funding. This is because the University of Washington received funding for this program from the Next Generation Learning Challenge program, which is funded mainly by the Gates and Hewlett Foundations. The NGLC program is having a  major impact across the USA in encouraging institutions to experiment with online and open learning in innovative ways (I was one of the many grant proposal evaluators – but did not evaluate this proposal).

We don’t have access to such grant programs in Canada, at least in recent years. This is a role perhaps that is needed from the Canadian Federal government, but this is unlikely to happen under the current Conservatives, unfortunately, as they wish to decrease rather than increase the federal government’s role in health and education. However, as this program indicates, the return on investment from such grants for the system as a whole is high. In any case, this model could help reduce at least student tuition costs, with state FTE funding being used to replace the philanthropic funding.

Over to you

Can you let me know of other fully online bachelor degrees being offered by public research universities or state universities?

 

 

A bill of rights for online learners?

Listen with webReader

Morris, S.M. and Stommel, J. (2013) A Bill of Rights and Principles for Learning in the Digital Age Hybrid Pedagogy, January 22

I’ve just caught up with this (work keeps getting in the way of blogging, damn it) so forgive me if you’ve already seen it. This statement has been developed by a group meeting in Palo Alto, California, and has some well-known names attached, such as John Seeley Brown, Audrey Watters and Sebastian Thrun.

It’s really in two parts, the first setting out a collection of rights for learners and the second a statement of principles for providers of online learning. You will need to read the full article to get a more detailed description of each, but here is a very brief listing:

Rights (of learners)

  • to access: ‘Everyone should have the right to learn.’
  • to privacy
  • to create public knowledge
  • to own one’s own personal data and intellectual property
  • to financial transparency
  • to pedagogical transparency
  • to quality and care
  • to have great teachers
  • to be teachers

Principles (to which online learning should aspire)

  • global contribution: ‘Online learning should originate from everywhere on the globe, not just from the U.S. and other technologically advantaged countries.’
  • value: ‘The function of learning is to allow students to equip themselves to address the challenges and requirements of life and work.’
  • flexibility: ‘Ideally, they [the best online programs] will also suggest and support new forms of interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary inquiry that are independent of old gatekeepers such as academic institutions or disciplines, certification agencies, time-to-degree measurements, etc.’
  • hybrid learning: ‘online learning should …. be connected back to multiple locations around the world and not tethered exclusively to the digital realm. ‘
  • persistence
  • innovation: ‘Online learning should be flexible, dynamic, and individualized rather than canned or standardized.
  • formative assessment
  • experimentation
  • civility
  • play

Comment

I have to admit being somewhat puzzled, not so much by the rights and principles themselves, but why it is thought necessary to codify and then publicize them.

First, would not most of these rights and principles be subscribed to already by most people that support public higher education, at least in North America, Europe and Australasia?  (I can’t speak for the Chinese or North Korean governments.)

If that’s the case (and it may be worth discussing this more), then the issue then is not the goals but the means to achieve the goals. Online learning is one, but in no way the only, means to some of these rights and principles. It is also true that while many working in or supporting public higher education would subscribe to these rights and principles, we often fall way short of implementing them, for a variety of reasons, such as lack of adequate resources or a poor choice of priorities. But that’s another discussion.

The question then comes to my mind as to why it has been necessary to spend time discussing and agreeing on principles and rights that most people in public education already accept.

One reason I suspect is a concern that developments in online learning outside formal, public education have the potential to run roughshod over these rights and principles. For instance, highly selective, campus-based, elite universities, at least until very recently, have not subscribed to some of these rights and principles, yet are now ‘discovering’ open learning through MOOCs, while still denying many of these rights to potential on-campus students.

Also, there is probably concern that MOOCs themselves are being exploited, at least by some organizations, for commercial reasons and this may result in some of these principles or rights being ignored or trampled on.

However, it could also be that some working in elite institutions have discovered God, and He is open, and so they need some commandments or a bible.

Thus having a statement of such rights and principles may be valuable, although how these rights or principles can be enforced is not at all clear to me – and what’s the use of a right if it can’t be protected?

Over to you

Do you think setting out these rights and principles is valuable?

Do you think public higher education generally subscribes to or adheres to these?

Why do you think such a statement has been made? Is it trying to say more than it does?

Don’t just tell me: join the conversation at https://twitter.com/search?q=%23learnersrights

See also: Kolowich, S. (2013)’Bill of Rights’ Seeks to Protect Students’ Interests as Online Learning Rapidly Expands Chronicle of Higher Education, January 23

 

 

Book review: OERs and Change in Higher Education: Reflections from Practice

Listen with webReader

Glennie, J. et al. (2012) Perspectives on Open and Distance Learning: OERs and Change in Higher Education: Reflections from Practice Vancouver BC/Paris: Commonwealth of Learning/UNESCO. The book is available for free downloading.

From the publisher’s web site:

Although OER activities are taking place globally, most large and well funded projects have been in North America and Europe. As a result, little is known about important questions such as how the more acute levels of resource constraint typical of developing countries impact on demand for OER and on their reuse. The case studies and reflections in this book cover OER practice and policy in a diverse range of contexts, with a strong focus on events in developing countries. However, the focus on experiences from the developing world is not exclusive, as valuable “generic lessons” applicable also to developing countries can be drawn from research in the more developed countries.

Review of the book

Hammer, S. (2013) Review of Perspectives on Open and Distance Learning: OERs and Change in Higher Education: Reflections from Practice British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol.44, no. 2

At the end of her review, Dr. Hammer states:

A key strength of this book is the breadth of coverage of issues that are relevant to OER combined with the particular challenges and opportunities that their use presents to poorer developing nations. I would recommend it to any educator interested in finding out more about this amazing movement and even starting to put these ideas into practice