Following the meeting, he produced a very interesting document for HEQCO entitled: A Research Framework for the Online Learning Institute aka A [...]]]> Maxim Jean-Louis, the President of Contact North, was one of the participants in the recent HEQCO meeting to discuss possible areas of research that would inform the development of a new Ontario Online Institute.

Following the meeting, he produced a very interesting document for HEQCO entitled: A Research Framework for the Online Learning Institute aka A Process to Take the Ontario Online Learning System to the Next Level. He has agreed to share a condensed version of this paper, a full copy of which can be obtained from Maxim on request. Each recommendation is linked to HEQCO’s mandate.

The Seven “Big” Applied Research Challenges

1.    Significantly improving the level of student engagement in online learning courses. (Program and Course Quality Issue)

2.    Rethinking the practice of instructional design to move away from content/skills mastery into higher level skills and competencies – moving learners to Level 5 literacy. (Program and Course Quality Issue).

3.    Partnering with RIM, Apple, Google and others to develop next generation “apps” to better enable innovation for mobile learning. (Innovation Issue)

4.    Developing the processes map for rapid course development – what does it take to develop better courses in half the time? (Systems Design Issue)

5.    No Ontario post-secondary institution has online learning at the core of its strategic intent. What would it take for an institution to shift its focus to this and see its role as securing one third of its students online by 2015 and more than half by 2020? (Systems Design Issue)

6.    What are the appropriate metrics for the accountability of online courses and programs in terms of quality, cost-effectiveness and value? (Accountability Issue)

7.    What online learning practices are best suited and are effective for Aboriginal learners at the post-secondary level? (Accessibility and Quality  Issue)

The Management of Innovation – the Other Focal Point for Research

A study of an Innovative Management process requires us to understand:

• The resilience and resistance of established systems
• The readiness of institutions, organizations and networks for change
• The barriers to change
• The re-engineering of expectations, processes and resource allocation
• The leadership and change management skills of key personnel

Measuring quality

Finally, Maxim had some very interesting things to say about measuring quality, arguing that Ontario needed to measure quality according to the fitness of purpose of an institution. Maxim’s suggestions on quality are so useful that they need a separate posting.

Conclusion

The intent is to stimulate a dialogue – a challenge to see a research agenda as part of the process of creation (hence the focus here on applied research) of the institute. Rather than being independent and to the side, Maxim argues that this agenda should be a critical piece of the jigsaw used to design and build the new institute. If evidence based decision making is to occur, he argues that it is key that the seven big questions be used to guide applied R&D investments to issues that not only matter, but where evidence could make a real difference to practice.

I was involved in developing a post-graduate certificate in technology-based distributed learning which later morphed into a full Master in Educational Technology at UBC. Both [...]]]> I believe that we will see no real innovation, no fundamental change, in post-secondary education, at least from within, unless all instructors have basic training in teaching at a post-secondary level.

I was involved in developing a post-graduate certificate in technology-based distributed learning which later morphed into a full Master in Educational Technology at UBC. Both of these though were optional programs – you don’t need these qualifications to teach in post-secondary education. And as a result, most of the students in these programs are not tenured faculty in post-secondary education.

However, let’s suppose we had a benevolent dictatorship (some would argue we have that already in Canada) and he/she mandated that all post-secondary instructors must be qualified before they can teach in universities or colleges. What would such a program look like? Here are my thoughts on this.

Any training program is a balance between the minimum that a learner needs to know to operate effectively and the time available for training. A full one year master’s program will obviously cover much more ground than an eight week part-time program. Initial training does not have to be perfect and satisfy all requirements, because I see professional development as a continuous process throughout one’s career. I will concentrate here on what I consider the minimum that an instructor needs to know to teach effectively in post-secondary education (assuming that they already have a good knowledge base in the subject area):

• epistemology: understanding different kinds of knowledge, for instance the difference between objectivism (often reflected in the teaching of science and engineering) and the social construction of knowledge; a discussion of the nature of networked knowledge. Recognizing that there are differences in beliefs in how knowledge is validated and an understanding that there are different perspectives on this will provide a foundation for choosing appropriate teaching strategies in different domains of knowledge (science or arts, for instance);
• the biological basis of learning: a basic introduction to how the brain works, particularly regarding memory, cognition, and emotions (especially motivation); this will become important in interpreting the emerging field of brain research and learning
• learning theories (linked to epistemology), such as behaviourism, cognitivism, the social construction of knowledge, and possibly connectivism
• the design of teaching: applying theory to practice: this would include needs assessments related to learner differences, an introduction to instructional design, defining learning outcomes and objectives, learner activities (especially around the social construction of knowledge) and the link between learning outcomes, knowledge representation (see below), and assessment; using open content; course evaluation methods; different types of courses (face-to-face, blended, distance); and an introduction to course and program planning
• learning technologies: this would start with an assessment of the instructor’s current IT skills and up-skilling where necessary; the relationship between technology and knowledge representation; functions and structures of learning management systems and web 2.0 tools; relationship between different technologies and theories of learning; strategies for media and technology selection
• project work: designing, delivering and evaluating a course

Each of these areas would be worth the equivalent of three credits except the project, which would be worth six credits, and together would lead to a post-graduate certificate or diploma in post-secondary teaching (21 credits in all). Thus the program would be completed in under a year of full-time study, preferably as part of a graduate program.

To obtain a master degree in post-secondary teaching, the learner would need to add three elective courses (making 30 credits) as follows:

• electives: these might include a course on research in teaching and learning; on emerging technologies; on cultural and international issues in teaching and learning; on planning and managing courses; on the application of a particular technology tool; on teaching strategies for a particular subject discipline; or other topics of choice by the learner as independent study.

All programs would be available online, or face-to-face, or in a blended mode. There would be at least one institution in every state or province licensed to offer the program, and the program would be nationally recognised and a condition of employment as an instructor in post-secondary education.

So over to you. What would you include? Do you disagree with what I have included? Could you think of a more imaginative way to provide training?

And yes, I realise that this will never happen: who needs training in teaching anyway? Can’t anyone do this?

Congratulations to Kelly Edmonds, who has recently successfully defended her EdD thesis at the University of Calgary. Kelly has kindly agreed to provide a short summary of her thesis.

Introduction

The higher education field in North [...]]]> Edmonds, K. (2010) Understanding the Perspectives of Online Graduate Students: Implications for Educational Leaders Calgary AB: Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Calgary

Congratulations to Kelly Edmonds, who has recently successfully defended her EdD thesis at the University of Calgary. Kelly has kindly agreed to provide a short summary of her thesis.

Introduction

The higher education field in North America is experiencing change impacted by globalization, evolving economies, emerging technologies, growing populations, and shifting student demographics. These conditions have led to calls for education that address market demands, is accessible, and incorporates technology. However, educational leaders must take into account the needs of an expanding and diverse student population. Therefore, the intent of this study was to explore effective leadership practices for managing online learning programs in mainstream universities. Input for this study was gained from online graduate students who provided feedback on online programs, resources, services, instruction, and instructional design. They also shared how they learned best online along with descriptions of needed support. More specifically, this study examined the characteristics, motivations, and perceptions of graduate students who were enrolled in an online academic program in a graduate division in a faculty of education at a Western Canadian university.

Methodology

The conceptual framework used in this study drew on the notion that online learners in mainstream higher education institutions are not the same as traditional face-to-face students in terms of characteristics, motivations, and learning needs. As such, the assumptions made for this study were that online graduate students:

• Have distinguishing characteristics from traditional learners
• Possess specific motivations to engage in online learning, and
• Due to the online learning environment, have unique needs

This doctoral study, undertaken by Kelly Edmonds during 2008 and 2009, examined 163 graduate students enrolled in online academic programs at a western Canadian university. Through the use of mixed research methods, and drawing on survey, focus group, and interview data, findings revealed the diverse views and needs of participants.

Findings

On average, participants were middle aged, female, and married. They were North American and lived in an urban or rural setting. It was over seven years since they were in a formal degree program, and they had taken more than four fully online courses. Their technical and information literacy skills were adequate enough to manage online learning. Overall, participants were very busy adults in high-end careers, with some managing online learning in their workplace. They had full lives with many life and work responsibilities that put demands on their time. Considering their demands, they still managed an average of 20 hours per week for work in each course, and their time was split between online and offline tasks. They worked online at home after dinner most nights, and on the weekend. They were self-disciplined.

Participants felt they could attain a higher degree and could adapt to new environments, such as with online learning. Logistically, they were concerned about the program’s cost and credibility. Personally, they were uncertain if they could learn online, or feared they lacked the necessary technical skills. Participants’ learning styles varied from active and socially inclined to reflective and independent. As adult learners, they needed some accommodations. For instance, they needed more choice in learning activities. Participants shared their perceptions of online learning, as well, and spoke about their need for support from faculty and staff members. They also spoke about their need for an engaging online learning environment, instructor, and activities, and asked for an online community and rich communication. Participants repeatedly asked for online learning to be designed well, and that it consider the nature of the online environment and distant learner. Overall, participants were busy and self-directed adults who wanted structured courses and programs as well as timely and available materials. They were ready to learn and needed the right environment to do so.

Conclusions

As a context for discussing implications, leadership issues and concerns were addressed when considering the needs and perceptions of participants. For instance, program issues addressed included the credibility and costs of online programs. As well, faculty presence, readiness, and technology levels to work in online environments were raised as an issue by participants. They also mentioned online student services as an area of concern, such as providing program information, developing students’ technology and information literacy skills, and offering various online communities. An added issue was the instructional design of online learning environments. This entailed a discussion about defining institutional specific online pedagogy, offering blended learning opportunities, assessing student learning styles, avoiding contentious learning activities (such as the overwhelming number of online postings and group work), and using course design teams. From this discussion leadership recommendations were offered, such as conducting or considering research on effective ways to deliver learning and services online. Suggestions for effectively planning, implementing, and delivering online learning were given, as well as marketing online programs. Additionally, developing good human relationships in online learning was recommended, such as working effectively with faculty and ensuring students had quality online experiences.

Dr. Kelly Edmonds’ dissertation is available on the University of Calgary Institutional Repository at: https://dspace.ucalgary.ca/handle/1880/47706 . She can be contacted at edmondsmk@shaw.ca

From the publisher’s blurb:

Written for Higher Education teaching and learning professionals, Learning with Digital Games provides an accessible, straightforward introduction to the field of computer game-based learning. Up to date with current trends and the changing learning needs of today’s students, this text offers [...]]]> Whitton, N. (2010) Learning with Digital Games New York/London: Routledge

From the publisher’s blurb:

Written for Higher Education teaching and learning professionals, Learning with Digital Games provides an accessible, straightforward introduction to the field of computer game-based learning. Up to date with current trends and the changing learning needs of today’s students, this text offers friendly guidance, and is unique in its focus on post-school education and its pragmatic view of the use of computer games with adults.

The chapters are as follows:

1. Introduction
2. Recognizing the character of digital games
3. Understanding the pedagogy of digital games
4. Identifying types of digital games for learning
5. Integrating digital games into the curriculum
6. Designing a digital game for learning
7. Assessing the impact of digital games on learning
8. Using existing digital games for learning
9. Developing new digital games for learning
10. Evaluating digital games for learning
11. Case studies (6)
12. Conclusions

Nicola Whitton is a Research Fellow in the Education and Social Research Institute at the Manchester metroplitan University, UK. She has a web site: Learning with Digital Games

I look forward very much to reading this book and will post a review when I have done so.

This is the last in a series of ten blogs on the topic: ‘Is e-learning failing in higher education?’ My blogs on this topic were prompted by my dissatisfaction with the Canadian Council on Learning’s report on ‘The State of e-Learning in Canada.’ (Click here to see my review of their report.)

I suggested that in [...]]]> Background

This is the last in a series of ten blogs on the topic: ‘Is e-learning failing in higher education?’ My blogs on this topic were prompted by my dissatisfaction with the Canadian Council on Learning’s report on ‘The State of e-Learning in Canada.’ (Click here to see my review of their report.)

I suggested that in order to assess the success or otherwise of e-learning, we should lay out our expectations, then check the current status against each expectation. This resulted in the following previous blogs:

• Is e-learning failing in higher education? Posted June 16, 2009
• Expectations and goals for e-learning Posted June 18, 2009
• Has e-learning increased access to learning opportunities? Posted June 19, 2009
• Does technology really enhance the quality of learning? Posted June 22, 2009
• e-Learning and 21st century skills and competences Posted June 24, 2009
• It’s all about millennials – or is it? Posted on September 10, 2009
• Using technology to improve the cost-effectiveness of the academy: Part 1 (the challenge for modern universities) Posted October 10, 2009
• Using technology to improve the cost-effectiveness of the academy: Part 2 (a vision for the future) Posted October 14, 2009
• Using technology to improve the cost-effectiveness of the academy: Part 3 (barriers to change) Posted October 26, 2009

In this last blog on this topic, I will try to summarise the main points of my argument, the gist of which is that e-learning has been successful in some ways, but not sufficiently to lead to the changes needed on the higher education system. Overall, it gets a fail grade.

The purpose of the exercise

Basically, I’ve been trying to do the job that the Canadian Council on Learning ducked in its report: to examine why, despite widespread adoption of information and communications technologies, there has been no systemic change in our post-secondary institutions, what could be done to encourage systemic innovation and change, and how to achieve measurable benefits from e-learning through systemic change.

Why are we doing it?

In the blogs, I set out a number of goals or rationales for using technology for teaching and learning in post-secondary education. I argued that although different stakeholders will have different goals and priorities, no-one should embark on e-learning without being clear about why they are doing it, and then being clear about what would count as success, and how they would know it was a success or otherwise. Far too often, though, instructors and institutions drift into e-learning without any clear goals or strategies for success. The up-front investment, in both money and time, is too great for this to be a casual exercise.

Priorities for e-learning

I ranked my priorities for e-learning as following:

1. to improve the cost-effectiveness of the post-secondary education system.

I argued that the cost-effectiveness of the system must be improved. This is because the changing needs of a rapidly growing knowledge-based economy has required (or resulted in) a massive expansion of post-secondary education systems in economically advanced countries. Consequently, the conflicting pressures for increased access, higher quality, and controlling costs require us to consider radical changes to the way post-secondary education is provided.

The increased use of technology offers one possibility to improve cost-effectiveness, but not on its own. It must be accompanied by major structural changes in both the design and delivery of teaching, and the re-organization of the institution.

However, I also argued that currently, we are failing to use e-learning to improve the cost-effectiveness of the system. Currently we are merely adding cost to the system, without any clear, measurable benefits. This is because there are deeply embedded structural barriers, and a complete lack of incentive, to improving the cost-effectiveness of higher education. So it is not so much that e-learning has failed higher education on this rationale, but more that those within the system neither accept the need for radical change, nor see technology as an essential component of such change.

Thus the rationale for using e-learning to improve the cost-effectiveness of the post-secondary education system is unlikely to be successfully achieved until the system is nearing collapse, or until some remarkable leadership emerges at the highest political level. So it might be more accurate to say that on this rationale or goal, the higher education system is failing to use e-learning to its full potential, rather than e-learning is failing in higher education. So: an F grade on this goal.

2. To develop the skills and competencies needed in the 21st century

My second priority for e-learning focuses on ensuring that learners have the skills such as digital literacy, initiative, flexibility, problem solving and independent learning, needed in their discipline, profession or career in the 21st century. This is an easier ’sell’ to those working within the system than the first priority. Most academics are aware of the increasing importance of digital technology within their subject discipline. Information technology is no longer just a useful tool that supports university and college administration and to a lesser extent teaching and learning; rather it is now an integral and essential component of almost all core higher education activities, and as such needs to be used, managed and organised accordingly.

However, I also pointed out that using technology for teaching is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for developing the knowledge and skills needed in the 21st century. It has to be accompanied by curriculum reform (the content), by changes in teaching methods that facilitate the development of 21st century skills, and by changes in assessment that focuses on measuring such skills. More and more instructors are successfully working towards embedding digital literacy skills within their teaching, but there is still too little focus on the broader 21st century skills that teaching with technology can facilitate.

Thus while I would not say e-learning is entirely failing on this goal, many instructors and institutions still have a long way to go before we can start counting this goal as being universally achieved. So: a C- on this goal.

3. To increase access to learning opportunities/increase flexibility for students.

There is strong evidence that e-learning is partially succeeding in this goal. We have seen that enrolment in online courses is increasing far more rapidly than enrolment in campus-based courses, and there are indications that demand for online learning far exceeds the supply, at least in North America. There is also evidence that the trend towards more online learning will intensify over the next five years. (See Allen and Seaman, 2008; Ambient Insight Research, 2009)

The reason for this has as much to do with the changing nature of the student demographic in North America as it has to do with the greater effectiveness of online learning (although there is some evidence for this as well – see Means et al, 2009). Because of increases in tuition fees (inevitable given the increased access to higher education and reluctance to increase taxes to pay for this), more and more students are working at least part-time to pay for their initial undergraduate and graduate education. Furthermore, because of the demands of knowledge-based occupations such as health, telecommunications and computer software engineering, there is increasing demand from lifelong learners to return for post-graduate studies and continuing education. Thus more and more students are combining work, family and study. Online learning provides the flexibility that such students need.

Note though that this is primarily a phenomenon of economically advanced countries. E-learning does nothing to reduce the digital divide. If anything it exacerbates it. Thus e-learning may be increasing for on-campus  students who are already accepted for higher education within developing countries, and where the institution can cover the costs of on-campus access to computers and Internet infrastructure, but it is still difficult or impossible for the vast majority of those excluded from formal education to access online opportunities. Either the technology access is unavailable or prohibitively expensive, in such countries. Even where technology is available on campuses in many developing countries, the applications of e-learning are limited to supporting a transmissive model of classroom teaching.

Yet e-learning is indeed essential for such countries if they are to develop better paying jobs, indigenous businesses, and to achieve the globalization benefits of the Internet. Only in this way can such countries break free of the tyranny of single crop economies, lowest cost labour, and dependency on foreign investment.

So I would give a B or B+ for most economically advanced countries on this goal, and a C- or worse for developing countries, although some institutions in countries such as South Africa, India, China and Mexico would definitely get a B for effort.

4. Enhancing the quality of learning

In a comment to my original blog, Ros Woodhouse defined quality as ‘teaching that facilitates deep and transformative learning.’ This is a definition I like very much.

These uses of technology to enhance quality include:

• course outlines, lecture notes, clickers, lecture capture, links to external resources
• e-mail contact with students, online discussions, assessment questions, collaborative project-work
• usually, but not always, learning management systems such as Blackboard or Moodle to organise the online learning materials
• no reduction in regular (face-to-face) class time.

My belief is that this is still the most prevalent use of information and communications technology in post-secondary education, although fully online courses continue to expand rapidly, and hybrid courses continue to expand more slowly.

However, I do not consider using technology to enhance classroom teaching as an appropriate goal for e-learning. You cannot justify the high investment in technology if it is merely added on as an enhancement to what we already do. We are merely increasing costs without any measurable benefits. This use of technology does not address the need to change a teaching model that poorly serves mass higher education. Nor does it make the best use of technology in terms of fully exploiting the educational ‘affordances’ that technology can offer. We are using a donkey to pull a rocket in this way. Where we use technology only for this purpose, I would give it a D: maybe some improvement in quality, but not easy to identify or measure, and maybe just as achievable without the extra cost of technology.

5. Serving the needs of millennials

This rationale or goal suggests that millennial students will learn better through e-learning because it fits their experience and ways of behaving. it is important for instructors to take into account the needs of all learners they are dealing with. Young people see technology much the same way they see air and water – part of everyday life. It is natural then that they will see technology as a ‘normal’ component of teaching and learning.

However, there is a danger in stereotyping. Not all ‘millennials’ behave the same way or have a total immersion in technology. Nor are all students these days millennials. An increasing number of students are ‘pre-millennial’, being older and returning to study or entering post-secondary education later in life. Lastly, there are some inherent requirements in education – such as a disciplined approach to study, critical thinking, evidence-based argumentation, for example – that cannot or should not be abandoned because they do not fit a particular student’s preferred learning style.

All our students should be engaged and challenged, stimulated by learning, and find the joy and excitement of discovery, not just millennials.  Intelligent use of technology can help, certainly, but it is not sufficient on its own; it needs to be harnessed to effective teaching strategies, such as collaborative learning, problem- and project-based teaching, and enabling students to take responsibility for their own learning.

However, in terms of using technology to engage our students, there is continuing evidence that students think instructors are not doing well with technology. For instance, a recent report (CDW-G, 2009) found that:

• Students rate faculty lack of tech knowledge as the biggest obstacle to classroom technology integration and see it as a growing problem
• Just 32% of students and 22% of faculty strongly agree that their college/university is preparing students to successfully use technology when they enter the workforce.

It is not so much a fact then that we are not serving millennials well in our use of technology – we are failing all our students.

Conclusions

This is not a good score card: out of five goals for e-learning, we have three fail grades, one C- (for developing 21st century skills and competences), and one B (for increasing flexible access). As they say, could do much better.

This is probably an overly pessimistic rating. There are many individual instructors and institutions doing  a much better job. We need much better data to be confident in any rating of the success of e-learning. What though is clearly lacking is ambition, imagination and a will for radical change across the system as a whole.

So some questions for the readers of this blog:

1. Do you agree with this overall rating? If not, why not?
2. Have I set the standard too high?
3. Do I have the right goals or criteria against which e-learning should be judged?
4. Lastly, if you do agree with the ratings, what should be done to improve them?

Over to you!

References

Allen, I. E. and Seaman, J. (2008) Staying the Course: Online Education in the United States, 2008 Needham MA: Sloan Consortium

Ambient Insight Research (2009) US Self-paced e-Learning Market Monroe WA: Ambient Insight Research

CDW-G (2009) The 2009 21st-Century Campus Report: Defining the Vision Vernon Hills IL: CDW-G

Means, B. et al. (2009) Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies Washington, DC: US Department of Education

The four research articles in this issue address the themes of motivation, group work and community in the online distance education environment.

In the Dialogue section of this issue Randy Garrison challenges us to think about the foundational principles and practices of distance education [...]]]> The Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 23, No. 2 is now available online.

The four research articles in this issue address the themes of motivation, group work and community in the online distance education environment.

In the Dialogue section of this issue Randy Garrison challenges us to think about the foundational principles and practices of distance education and whether these remain relevant when distance education is increasingly online and technology-supported. Sarah Guri-Rosenblit furthers this discussion in Distance education in the digital age: Common misconceptions and challenging tasks.

Zehra Akyol and her colleagues provide a critique of Liam Rourke and Heather Kanuka’s article, Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature (JDE 23.1).

In the FYI section there are two articles that report on innovative distance education initiatives in the health education field.

There are also reviews of two newly-released books: Distance learning in higher education by Alfred Rovai, Michael Ponton & Jason Baker and E-Learning research by Richard Andrews and Caroline Haythornthwaite.

Plenty of good reading here!

1. Is e-learning failing in higher education?

2. Expectations and goals for e-learning

3. Has e-learning increased access to learning opportunities?

4. Does technology really enhance the quality of teaching and learning?

5. e-Learning and 21st century skills and competences

Meeting the needs [...]]]> This is the sixth blog on the topic: ‘Is e-learning failing in higher education?’. The previous five were:

1. Is e-learning failing in higher education?

2. Expectations and goals for e-learning

3. Has e-learning increased access to learning opportunities?

4. Does technology really enhance the quality of teaching and learning?

5. e-Learning and 21st century skills and competences

Meeting the needs of millennials

One of the goals sometimes claimed for e-learning is that it meets the learning styles/needs of millennial students, or put another way, millennial students will learn better through e-learning because it fits their experience and ways of behaving.

I am going to argue that this is not a strong justification for the use of e-learning – or rather, the focus on e-learning as a means to meet the needs of millennials is too narrow.

Who are the ‘Millennials’?

This is a term used for those born between the mid 1970s to early 1990s inclusive. Other terms used for people born in these years are Generation Y, the Net Generation, or digital natives. The term is used to describe learners who have grown up with technology such as computers and the Internet all through their life. They are assumed to be technology-savvy, are able to multi-task, have developed specific skills such as video games playing, and are sometimes described as having a sense of entitlement (‘it’s all about me’) – after all, they are the children of ‘boomers’ (Alsop, 2008).

More specifically, with regard to higher education, Oblinger and Oblinger (2005a) identify the following characteristics as being typical for millennials:

• digitally literate in the sense of being comfortable and familiar with digital technology
• connected to friends and the world through technology
• ‘immediacy’: rapid multi-tasking, fast response to communications
• experiential: they prefer to learn by doing rather than being told
• highly social: ‘they gravitate toward activities that promote and reinforce social interaction’
• group work: they prefer to work and play in groups or teams
• a preference for structure rather than ambiguity
• engagement and interaction: an orientation towards action and inductive reasoning rather than reflection
• a preference for visual (i.e. graphics, video) and kinesthetic learning rather than learning through text
• active engagement in issues that matter to millennials

The argument made by writers such as Prensky (2001) and Oblinger and Oblinger (2005b) is that education needs to be adapted to meet the needs of these learners. Millennials need to be actively engaged, need to be motivated and interested to learn, and above all need to be immersed in a technological environment for learning.

Does the Millennial student really exist?

Bullen et al. (2009) though challenge these findings.

‘A review of literature on the millennial learner and implications for education reveals that most of the claims are supported by reference to a relatively small number of publications…. What all of these works have in common is that they make grand claims about the difference between the millennial generation and all previous generations and they argue that this difference has huge implications for education. But most significantly, these claims are made with reference to almost no empirical data. For the most part, they rely on anecdotal observations or speculation. In the rare cases, where there is hard data, it is usually not representative.’

Bullen and his colleagues are right to draw attention to the source of such claims. Going back to the original research is always a good idea, and often on this topic the empirical data base is very weak, with small samples and often samples skewed towards high users of technology. However, it is also important to look at what exactly is being claimed. For instance, Oblinger and Oblinger (2000a) question whether it is age that relates to these characteristics but rather exposure to technology:

‘Although these trends are described in generational terms, age may be less important than exposure to technology. For example, individuals who are heavy users of IT tend to have characteristics similar to the Net Gen.’

In another paper in the same publication, Hartman, Moskal, and Dziuban (2005) report on a survey of students at the University of Central Florida. The University of Central Florida (UCF) regularly conducts formative and summative surveys of students’ online learning experiences (UCF has a high proportion of blended and fully online courses). In the 2004 survey there were 1,489 online student responses, representing a return rate of approximately 30 percent. They found for a start that there was ’substantial age diversity in the distributed learning population in metropolitan universities.’ Over half the students (55%) were in fact Generation X students, and almost as many students were Boomers (22%) as Millennials (NetGens) (23%). Over five years the proportion of millennials will have increased, but in most institutions they are likely to remain a minority of students, because of the increasing number of older students returning to post-secondary education. However, these older students will in most cases also have had an increased level of exposure to technology than their predecessors.

Another finding from the Hartman, Moskal and Dziuban paper is that Millennials indicated less engagement with online learning than their older counterparts. Although this may be counter to the argument that Millennials are more comfortable with technology and therefore need technology based teaching, it is consistent with the finding that older or more mature students do better at online and distance learning.

There are really three separate issues here:

1. Are millennial learners distinctly different from other students currently in college? Millennial students exist, of course, as they are defined by age. One thing we can say is that they will be younger than non-Millennial students – at least for a couple more years until the next generation arrives. However, Millennials are not a majority of students in many post-secondary educational institutions and there is evidence to suggest that exposure to technology is equally as important as age in determining the learner characteristics described by Oblinger and Oblinger. So I would not put a lot of emphasis on date of birth as a determining characteristic of today’s learner.

2. Are students in college today different from students in college 25 years ago? Despite the lack of rigour of the claims for ‘millennial learners’, I would be surprised, if given their exposure to technology over the last 25 years, current students are the same as students 25 years ago. Thus the characteristics described by Oblinger and Oblinger are likely to apply to many students today. However, there are also other differences that are even more important, in terms of educational strategies, such as a much greater of proportion of students today being older, studying part-time, and requiring more flexible access to learning.

3. If students are different, what should instructors do? This is a much more difficult question to answer, and I will try to do this more extensively below.

All students are important

Although the argument has some merit that students entering post-secondary education now are qualitatively different from previous generations of students – some commentators go so far as to argue that their brains are ‘wired’ differently –  one needs to be careful in interpreting this argument in education. Research has shown that skills developed in one context (e.g. solving problems in video games) do not necessarily transfer to other contexts (e.g. problem-solving in business). In particular, students’ use of the Internet for social and personal purposes does not necessarily prepare them adequately for academic applications of the Internet, such as searching for reliable sources of information (CIBER, 2008).

Also, there is a danger in stereotyping. Not all ‘millennials’ behave the same way or have a total immersion in technology. Nor are all students these days millennials. An increasing number of students are ‘pre-millennial’, being older and returning to study or entering post-secondary education later in life. Lastly, there are some inherent requirements in education – such as a disciplined approach to study, critical thinking, evidence-based argumentation, for example – that cannot or should not be abandoned because they do not fit a particular student’s preferred learning style.

Accommodating to differences in learners

Nevertheless, it is important for instructors to take into account the needs of all learners they are dealing with. Young people see technology much the same way they see air and water – part of everyday life. It is natural then that they will see technology as a ‘normal’ component of teaching and learning.

Full-time Millennial students on campus though have frequently reported that they do not expect technology to replace face-to-face contact with their teacher, and they they expect teachers to help them to know how best to use technology for learning. There is not an automatic transfer of technology skills from social and personal use to academic use, and most students are aware of this. The important issue here is that instructors need to understand how technology can be appropriately used for studying, and need to ensure that teaching makes the best use of technology possible. Some students will need more help than others in their use of technology for learning, but all students need to learn how to integrate technology successfully within their subject discipline.

The need for student engagement in learning

Lastly, Prensky and others argue that teachers need to change their strategies, because Millennials are used to being stimulated and engaged outside school, and therefore need to be engaged inside school. This may be true, but why is it special to Millennials? Should not all our students be engaged and challenged, stimulated by learning, and find the joy and excitement of discovery? Intelligent use of technology can help, certainly, but it is not sufficient on its own; it needs to be harnessed to effective teaching strategies, such as collaborative learning, problem- and project-based teaching, and enabling students to take responsibility for their own learning. This should apply to all students, not just the Millennials.

References

Alsop, R. (2008) The Trophy Kids Grow Up: How the Millennial Generation is Shaking Up the Workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bullen, M. et al. (2009) The Net Generation in Higher Education: Rhetoric and Reality International Journal of Excellence in e-Learning Vol. 2, No. 1

CIBER (2008) Information behaviour of the researcher of the future London: British Library, UCL

Oblinger, D. and Oblinger, J. (2005a) ‘Is It Age or IT: First Steps Toward Understanding the Net Generation’, in Oblinger, D. and Oblinger, J. (2005) Educating the Net Generation Boulder CO: EDUCAUSE

Oblinger, D. and Oblinger, J. (2005) Educating the Net Generation Bolder CO: EDUCAUSE

Pedró, F. (2009) ‘New millennial learners in higher education: evidence and policy implications’, in ‘Technology in Higher Education’, to be released later by OECD/CERI. In the meantime, the document can be downloaded from the Hextlearn site: http://www.hextlearn.eu/mod/extrapages/welcome.php

Prensky, M. (2001) ‘Digital natives, Digital Immigrants’ On the Horizon Vol. 9, No. 5 (downloaded from: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf)

Well, up to a point…Extract from article:

Purdue University is using educational technology–and online “signals”–to warn some students that their grades are dropping, offer study-habit suggestions, and provide positive reinforcement to students who are acing quizzes and exams.

When students [...]]]> Carter, C. (2009) Tech helps students adopt good study habits eCampus News, Sept 2

Well, up to a point…Extract from article:

Purdue University is using educational technology–and online “signals”–to warn some students that their grades are dropping, offer study-habit suggestions, and provide positive reinforcement to students who are acing quizzes and exams.

When students log into their Blackboard course management accounts this fall, they’ll see frequently updated feedback indicators similar to traffic lights indicating their standing in each class. Each Purdue faculty member using the online system, called Signals–developed at the university and piloted for three semesters before its 2009 launch–will assign red, yellow, or green lights to their students.

Behaviourism is still alive and well. I suppose the alternative would be an e-mail or a phone call from the instructor – how last century!

Excerpts:

The Virtual University for Small States of the Commonwealth (VUSSC) is moving forward with a new online training programme, another content development workshop and progress with an international accreditations framework.

The University of the West Indies (UWI) Open Campus has launched “Managing [...]]]> Commonwealth of Learning (2009) Virtual University expands training, course development Connections, Vol. 14, No. 1

Excerpts:

The Virtual University for Small States of the Commonwealth (VUSSC) is moving forward with a new online training programme, another content development workshop and progress with an international accreditations framework.

The University of the West Indies (UWI) Open Campus has launched “Managing and Facilitating Online Instruction”, a five-unit online course on how to motivate and manage online students. Funded by COL in collaboration with the Commonwealth Secretariat, the course was offered to 23 educators from VUSSC member states.

An important VUSSC priority is developing a widely recognised system of accreditation. The Transnational Qualifications Framework Management Committee held its first meeting in Singapore from 6-10 October 2008. The Management Committee developed a consultative document for the implementation of the Transnational Qualifications Framework (TQF) for VUSSC. The TQF will be available for application in any of the VUSSC member small states of the Commonwealth.

The sixth VUSSC training workshop scheduled for Samoa in April 2009, will focus on creating course materials related to the maritime industry. VUSSC training is beginning to shift from these face-to-face workshops to online learning. As the cadre of VUSSC workshop graduates grows, there will be a need to expand their training with courses such as the UWI online instruction course. Online courses from accredited institutions in more participating VUSSC countries are expected to start in 2009.

As work continues with developing the Transnational Qualifications Framework, educational institutions in small states of the Commonwealth will begin to offer VUSSC courses through open and distance learning. This will include non-formal courses from a recognised national institution and formal courses leading to a diploma that will have approval from the country’s qualifications authority. All VUSSC courses will be approved by the national institutions and where appropriate, the national qualifications authority of the country offering the programme.

An excellent article on designing effective use of wikis for developing higher order skills and knowledge