May 24, 2013

Follow on Twitter

You are here: Home / Archives for Strategies, planning and management / current state of the art

Queen’s University’s report on online learning

April 7, 2013 By 3 Comments
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.

Filed Under: Bibliography, blended learning, current state of the art, developing intellectual skills, MOOCs, planning, policies and management - institutional, quality and quality assurance, Strategies, planning and management, Teaching and learning Tagged With: , , ,

Africa is the world’s fastest developing e-learning market

January 29, 2013 By 3 Comments
Listen with webReader

Computers for student use at Tshwane University of Technology, South Africa

Adkins, S. (2013) The Africa Market for Self-paced eLearning Products and Services: 2011-2016 Forecast and Analysis Monroe WA: Ambient Insight

This is one of the most interesting reports I have come across in a long time. Even the abstract is packed with information and data. I have pulled out here just a small selection of particular interest to online learning in higher education.

According to this report, e-learning is forecast to grow in Africa as a whole at a rate of 15% per annum over the next four years, with growth rates in individual countries at the following:

  • Senegal: 30%
  • Zambia: 28%
  • Zimbabwe: 25%
  • Kenya: 25%

In terms of volume of revenues from e-learning, South Africa is the dominant country but will be overtaken by Nigeria by 2016.

There are several drivers of this development in Africa:

  • the recent arrival of fiber optic connectivity. Prior to this, satellite access was the primary connectivity medium, which is very expensive. This was inhibiting the uptake of Internet connectivity
  • a price war with telecoms and ISPs dropping prices to attract customers. This has also created a boom in the adoption of Internet and mobile technologies
  • Internet penetration in Kenya essentially doubled from 2010 to 2011, growing from 28% to 52% in just one year. Internet penetration more than tripled in Rwanda between 2011 and 2012, growing from 8% to 26% in one year.
  • The wide scale digitization of academic content in every country analyzed in this report
  • The explosion of online enrollments in higher education institutions
  • the sharp spike in the adoption of eLearning in the corporate segments in the booming economies.

According to the report:

The boom in online higher education enrollments in Africa is nothing short of astonishing. Many countries are adopting eLearning as a way to meet the strong demand for higher education – a demand they simply cannot meet with traditional campuses and programs:

  • The University of South Africa (UNISA) UNISA is a pan-regional virtual university with over 310,000 students (3,500 come from outside Africa.) Over half of all UNISA students take at least one online course a year. New virtual universities are springing up everywhere in Africa.
  • In May 2011, the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) announced the launch of a pan-African virtual university branch of IGNOU with headquarters in Ethiopia. IGNOU has partnerships with institutions in 20 African countries.
  • Innorero University, a private institution in Kenya, launched their Virtual Campus in January 2012.
  • The Virtual University of Uganda (VUU) claims to be the first online university in East Africa and started taking students in January 2012.
  • In June 2012, the Kenyan government funded the development of a new online education institution called the Open University of Kenya in an effort to meet the strong demand for higher education in the country.
  • The African University College of Communications (AUCC) and the India-based AVAGMAH Online School of Bharathidasan University announced in October 2012 that they would launch a virtual university in Ghana in January 2013 
  • in January 2012, the African Development Bank approved a US$15.6 million grant to help strengthen the capacity of the African Virtual University (AVU). As of 2012, the AVU had 31 active higher education partners across Africa, which it helps in building e-learning centres and training content developers. The new funding will be used to build 12 new e-learning centres.

With very few exceptions, most of the countries in the region now have official government policies on the use of technology in education. There are now dozens of new national digitization projects funded directly by the central governments with and without the aid of external donors.


Filed Under: access, Africa, Bibliography, current state of the art, national, regional and international strategies, planning, policies and management - institutional, Strategies, planning and management, Technology Tagged With: , , , , ,

Another way to rank universities?

January 29, 2013 By Leave a Comment
Listen with webReader

Oxford University

Mundell, I. (2013) EU rolls out university ranking European Voice.com, January 24

The European Union is promoting a new system of rankings for Europe’s universities to encourage international comparison. The system, called U-Multirank, aims to correct a perceived bias towards research performance in other international rankings, and so present a more balanced picture of university activities.  The perceived research bias of existing rankings is seen as problematic because it fails to recognise that universities may have other goals and their users may have other priorities. The EU initiative aims to bring out these other university activities and allow institutions to be compared accordingly.

The possibility that U-Multirank offers an alternative has been cautiously welcomed in some quarters, but rejected in others. The League of European Research Universities, which represents 21 elite institutions including Oxford and Cambridge, left the U-Multirank pilot project and remains opposed to its implementation, particularly with public funds.

Comment

First, I welcome a move to provide any alternative system to the fundamentally flawed university ranking models currently in use, which certainly overvalue research and undervalue teaching. The main concern though is that current rankings are deliberately rigged to promote the standings of existing elite universities in the USA and to a lesser extent in the UK. The EU is trying to redress that.

However, I doubt whether it is feasible or even desirable to reduce a complex organization such as a university to a single numerical ranking. In any university, some departments will be better than others. Different students will want different things from a university. Rankings tell you nothing about the flexibility they provide for learners. University rankings are an attempt to rig a simple metric to drive high international fee payers to certain institutions. Don’t play or support this stupid game.

See also: World University Rankings: A Reality Based on a Fraud

Filed Under: accreditation, Bibliography, current state of the art, Strategies, planning and management Tagged With: , , , , ,

Most U.S. higher education students are also working

January 25, 2013 By 1 Comment
Listen with webReader

© U.S. Census, American Community Survey, 2013

Davis, J. (2013) School Enrollment and Work Status: 2011 Washington DC: U.S. Census  Bureau

This is a most significant study for online learning:

  • More than half of all U.S. students in college or university are working more than 20 hours a week.
  • Almost 50% of graduate students are working full-time
  • 20% of undergraduate students are working full-time.

The U.S. is now in a position when less than half of students could be considered fullt-ime students. In other words, students who can attend campus five days a week nine-to-five, are now a minority.

For the majority of students in higher education, flexibility of access to learning is now critical for their success. For these students, one trip a week to campus is probably is as much as they can manage. Thus online learning is not now something that helps just a minority of students, but is essential for a majority of students.

Is your institution prepared for this?

Filed Under: current state of the art, futures, national, regional and international strategies, planning, policies and management - institutional, Strategies, planning and management, United States of America, USA Tagged With: , , ,

Measuring the growth of online learning: the Babson College 2012 survey

January 13, 2013 By 1 Comment
Listen with webReader

©2013 by Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC

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

Based on responses from more than 2,800 colleges and universities, this year’s study, like those for the previous nine years, tracks the opinions of chief academic officers. The figures refer to fully online courses, i.e. courses where over 80% of the content is delivered online. Most of you will have seen at least the headlines about this report, but it is so significant that I am providing a detailed analysis.

Main findings:

Online course enrollments

  • The number of students taking at least one online course increased by over 570,000 to a new total of 6.7 million.
  • The online enrollment growth rate of 9.3 percent is the lowest recorded in this report series (but higher than enrollment growth overall, which dropped to below zero in 2011-2012.)
  • The proportion of all students taking at least one online course is at an all time high of 32.0 percent
  • The continued growth in online enrollments has come from the transition of institutions with only a few online courses moving to offer fully online programs, and from institutions with online programs expanding their offerings and building their enrollments.

©2013 by Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC

Learning outcomes

  • In the first report of this series in 2003, 57 percent of academic leaders rated the learning outcomes in online education as the same or superior to those in face-to-face.  That number is now 77 percent.
  • A minority (23%) of academic leaders continue to believe the learning outcomes for online education are inferior to those of face-to-face instruction.
  • Academic leaders at institutions with online offerings have a much more favorable opinion of the relative learning outcomes for online courses than do those at institutions with no online offerings.

Faculty acceptance 

  • Only 30 percent of chief academic officers believe their faculty accept the value and legitimacy of online education.  This rate is lower than the rate recorded in 2004.
  • Chief academic officers at institutions with fully online programs have the most positive view of their faculty acceptance, but even for them the proportion agreeing is less than a majority (38 percent).

Time to teach online

  • The percent of academic leaders that believe it takes more faculty time and effort to teach online has increased from 41 percent in 2006 to 45 percent this year.
  • Private for-profit institutions are the lone group whose level of agreement has dropped (from 32 percent in 2006 to 24 percent in 2012).

Who offers online programs?

  • Virtually all publicly funded institutions (90%+) had online courses even in 2002.  One big change for these schools is the big gain in the proportion whose online offerings now include complete online programs (49% in 2002 and 71% in 2012).
  • The number of private nonprofit institutions with online offerings increased from 22% in 2002 to 48% in 2012.

MOOCs

  • Only 2.6 percent of higher education institutions currently have a MOOC, another 9.4 percent report MOOCs are in the planning stages.
  • The majority of institutions (55%) report they are still undecided about MOOCs, while one-third (33%) say they have no plans for a MOOC.
  • Academic leaders remain unconvinced that MOOCs represent a sustainable method for offering online courses, but do believe they provide an important means for institutions to learn about online pedagogy.
  • Academic leaders are not concerned about MOOC instruction being accepted in the workplace, but do have concerns that credentials for MOOC completion will cause confusion about higher education degrees.
Online learning as strategic to institution’s plans
  • The proportion of chief academic leaders that say online learning is critical to their long-term strategy is now at 69 percent – the highest it has been for this ten-year period.
  • Likewise, the proportion of institutions reporting online education is not critical to their long-term strategy has dropped to a new low of 11 percent.
Methodology
  • A total of 2,820 responses were included in the analysis, representing 62 percent of the sample universe (all active degree-granting institutions in the USA).  Because non-responding institutions are predominately those with the smallest enrollments, the institutions included in the analysis represents 83 percent of  higher education enrollments.
Comments

1. Elaine Allen and Jeff Seaman have provided a unique and invaluable service for the last ten years. Initially supported by the Sloan-C foundation for the first nine years and now supported by Pearson, this survey has provided the only comprehensive analysis of the growth of online learning in the USA. Its particular value is the consistency of methodology which allows for valid comparisons from year to year.

2. The results themselves this year are somewhat surprising. Almost one third of students in the USA are now taking at least one online course. Although growth is slowing somewhat, online enrollments are still outpacing the overall college enrollments in the USA. Nearly 70% of chief academic officers see online learning as strategic to their future plans.

3. I was surprised to note that even as early as 2002, over 90% of state-funded universities claimed to have at least some online courses. The private nonprofit (i.e. most of the elite universities) have been much slower moving in this direction with still less than half offering for credit programs.

4. The data clearly shows the over-reporting in the main media of MOOCs. Only 12% of institutions are offering or considering to offer MOOCs and as we have seen elsewhere, these are mainly the elite institutions who to date have been slow to recognize or accept the value of for-credit online programming. It is a pity less media attention has been focused on the 6.7 million online enrollments that have built slowly but steadily over the last 10 years. But then these weren’t at  Stanford, MIT or Harvard.

5. The report has some interesting observations on the time factor in teaching online. The report states:

Before the advent of MOOCs, the prototypical online course in U.S.higher education over the past decade has not been structured to provide large increases in efficiency.  Most online courses are very similar in design to existing face-to-face courses.  These courses typically run on the same semester schedule, cover the same corpus of material, represent the same number of credit hours, and are led by a single faculty member who is directly interacting with his or her students…..One result of building online courses that mirror the existing face-to-face framework has been they place additional demands on the faculty that teach them….. The most recent results show 44.6 percent of chief academic officers now report this to be the case, with only 9.7 percent disagreeing. However, the percent of academic leaders at for-profit institutions agreeing it takes more time and effort to teach online courses had dropped from 31.6 percent in 2006 to only 24.2 percent for 2012.

This suggests that the for-profits such as Phoenix and Kaplan have been more successful in scaling up online programs. There are several ways online learning could be done more cost-effectively in public institutions, from greater use of open educational resources, especially open textbooks, flexible instructional design, more planning, teamwork and design at a programming rather than a course level, greater sharing of materials and more inter-institutional collaboration and partnerships, especially for core undergraduate programs and specialized masters programs. Now that institutions are seeing online learning as of strategic importance, I hope we will see more concerted efforts at improving the cost-effectiveness of online learning.

6. I have just one caveat with all the surveys in this series. I have a concern that they may be unintentionally over-indicating the volume of online learning. Just two straws in the wind: in 2010, the government of Ontario in Canada did a comprehensive census (i.e. all institutions) and found that 13% of all course enrollments were in online courses, which is less than half the Babson figure. At the time, I thought this might be an indication that Canada was slower than the US in developing online learning. However, earlier this week, Dr. Andreea Serban, interim vice chancellor of education services at Coast Community College District, reported that in the California community college network, the number of online enrollments equalled 11% of full time equivalents – FTEs (identical to the figure for the Ontario two-year college system). One reason for the differences may be due to the way data are reported. The Babson survey reports on the number of students taking at least one online course (32% of all students). The Ontario survey required institutions to provide a detailed breakdown of their course enrollments from their registration data, and calculated this as a proportion of FTE enrollments, and I’m guessing that is how the California figures were also arrived at. The reason for the discrepancy is that students are probably taking fewer online than face-to-face courses, thus the FTE proportion is lower. However, I would argue that the proportion of students taking online courses in terms of FTEs  is the better ‘true’ measurement of the impact of online learning.

Despite the caveat, what is more important than the actual numbers is the trend, and on this the Babson survey is extremely consistent. We are seeing some indication that the rate of growth of for-credit online learning is beginning to slow (at one time there were annual increases of over 20%), and I suspect that the move to hybrid learning is likely to slow down further the growth of enrollments in fully online courses (although increasing the total number of students studying at least partly online). Allen and Seaman in fact also collected data on blended/hybrid learning in this year’s survey and I hope they will publish this data as well.

Lastly, despite (or perhaps because of) this detailed analysis of the results, I strongly recommend you go to the original report, which contains a great deal more than I’ve reported here, is clearly written and is well worth reading in full.

Filed Under: Bibliography, current state of the art, Events, learners, measuring institutional performance, MOOCs, research, Strategies, planning and management, students, surveys, Teaching and learning Tagged With: , , , , , ,
« Older Posts