December 5, 2016

Building a national survey of online learning in Canada

Listen with webReader
Image: Canada Explore

Image: Canada Explore

The players

Since April I have been leading a small team that has been trying to build from scratch a national survey of online learning in Canadian post-secondary institutions.

For many years the Babson Survey Research Group has been tracking the growth of online learning in higher education in the USA. With the U.S. Federal Department of Education now collecting this data through its annual IPEDS survey, Jeff Seaman of Babson has been working with Russ Poulin of WCET to help interpret the IPEDS data.

Through the intervention of Tricia Donovan, the director of eCampus Alberta, Jeff and Russ approached me to see if I would be willing to get a Canadian national survey off the ground. I guess I was chosen because through my blog I had been strongly critical of the lack of such data in Canada. (Warning to bloggers: be careful what you ask for as you may end up doing it yourself.)

As a Research Associate with Contact North, I approached its President, Maxim Jean-Louis, for his support. He immediately offered $10,000 towards the cost of the survey. This was a crucial contribution as it enabled me to sound out possible consultants for the project, because Babson had found that the most important contributor to success was ensuring close communication and co-operation with the institutions themselves before the survey was even designed.

The Contact North funding enabled me to approach Dr. Ross Paul, formerly President of two Canadian universities and more importantly, as the author of “Leadership Under Fire”, a book about the role of university presidents in Canada, he was extremely well connected with and knowledgeable about the whole Canadian university sector.

Maxim Jean-Louis also put me in touch with Brian Desbiens, a former college president and also a former chair of the Canadian College Presidents Network, another consultant with an immensely impressive network in the Canadian college sector.

Finally it was immediately clear to us that we needed someone with knowledge and expertise in the francophone sector, and through the assistance of REFAD, the francophone distance education network, Denis Mayer, a former Associate Vice President of Student Services at Laurentian University, also joined the team.

So we now had a steering group for the survey:

  • Tony Bates (lead researcher)
  • Ross Paul (universities)
  • Brian Desbiens (colleges)
  • Denis Mayer (francophone)
  • Tricia Donovan (provincial government agencies)
  • Jeff Seaman (survey design and implementation)
  • Russ Poulin (US liaison)

The process

Our first task was to ensure that we had support, or at least not opposition, from the institutions, about 80 universities and over 200 publicly funded colleges. Fortunately in Canada there are almost no private universities and there is a clear distinction between provincially funded and supported colleges and private career and language schools. Our survey is focused then solely on the public system of post-secondary education, consisting of just over 2 million students.

One challenge is that there is no overall federal responsibility for the delivery of post-secondary education in Canada. This means that there are 10 provinces with 10 slightly different systems of post-secondary education. In addition there are anglophone, francophone and bilingual institutions.

Nevertheless there are two key national organisations, Universities Canada (UC), and Colleges and Institutes Canada (CICAN), that between them cover most of the institutions, so one of our first tasks was to brief them and gain their support in communicating with the institutions. Also there are several francophone organisations that represent the interests of francophone universities and colleges, and the unique system in Québec of CEGEPs, publicly funded pre-university colleges that offer a pre-university qualification that is necessary for admission to Québec’s universities (except for mature students). Secondary school and undergraduate degrees are both one year shorter in Quebec as a result.

These initial contacts with the national or regional organisations enabled us to identify the population base for the survey: the list of institutions to be covered. This enabled the consultants to e-mail directly the provosts and VPs Academic of every institution for their support and participation in the study.

At the same time, the Steering Committee was engaged in a series of discussions around the design of the questionnaires. We had the advantage of the prior work of the Babson Survey Research Group in the USA, but the questionnaires had to be adapted to the unique Canadian post-secondary education system. At the same time we are anxious to ensure that we can make international comparisons. It became quickly clear that we will need several different versions of the questionnaire, as follows:

  •  anglophone universities
  • anglophone colleges
  • francophone universities
  • CEGEPS
  • francophone colleges (outside Québec).

Core questions would be the same across all versions, but others would reflect the unique nature of each institution (e.g. what qualifications were offered partly or wholly online).

To get early feedback on the questionnaire design, two consultants attended the CIRPA conference of Canadian institutional researchers and held a special session devoted to feedback on the initial questionnaire design and especially in the definitions of fully online and blended/hybrid learning.

The first full versions of the questionnaires have now been designed. We have identified 10 universities and eight colleges across all 10 provinces who have volunteered to give feedback on the pilot questionnaire, and they have been asked to reply by the end of December. We are planning one more round of piloting after that, and hope to have the final version of the questionnaire distributed to all the universities and colleges in March.

In order to keep the questionnaire as short as possible, we are collecting as much key data about the institutions, such as their size, from other sources. For instance, the Canadian Virtual University has provided data on distance education enrolments for its dozen or so member institutions that go back to 2001. In the end, we will have an extensive and comprehensive database of Canadian post-secondary educational institutions, and of their activities in online learning.

I am working with Jeff Seaman on the design of the questionnaire analysis, and we will use the Babson Survey Research Group’s data entry and analysis facilities to process the questionnaire data. We envisage one overall, national report in English and French and a number of smaller reports focused on specific sectors, including a specially written report on the francophone sector. These will be published in the summer of 2017, and the results will be presented at the ICDE’s World Congress on Online Learning in Toronto in October.

Lastly, we will not be identifying any individual institution, unless they expressly request to be identified, but we do aim to make the data open and accessible to other researchers. We hope to locate the data with one or more of the organizations representing the institutions.

Funding

The Babson surveys in the USA benefited from financial support from the Sloan Foundation and also from a number of private sponsors, such as publishers.  Funding frankly has been the biggest challenge so far for the Canadian survey.

We decided to divide the funding requirements into three stages. The first stage would be to acquire funds to develop the institutional support needed, build the database, and design and pilot the questionnaire. The second stage of funding would be to cover the costs of the data collection, data entry, data analysis, report writing and dissemination, as well as having sufficient funds to start the development of the following year’s survey. The third phase would be to cover long-term and regular funding for future annual surveys.

We have successfully completed the first phase of fund raising, thanks to the help of Contact North and the provincial eCampuses (BCcampus, eCampus Alberta, Campus Manitoba and eCampus Ontario). This has raised $45,000.

We are still seeking funding for the second phase. We estimate that we will need somewhere around $100,000 to complete the second phase, and for the third phase we will need to raise about $125,000 a year.

We have submitted requests for second stage funding to eCampus Ontario’s Research and Innovation Fund and to a Canadian foundation, and we are waiting to hear from them. The Canadian arm of a major publisher has also expressed an interest in supporting the survey. However, we are now at the point where we urgently need to secure firm funding for the second stage.

What we need

The project is now at a critical point in its development. We have secured the support of the institutions, we are ready to pilot the questionnaire, and we are building the institutional database. However, we still need the following:

  • money to cover the costs of the actual survey and report writing (in both English and French)
  • feedback on the definitions of online learning, whether we have the right questions, and whether institutions can actually provide the data requested; the piloting will provide this feedback
  • all institutions, large and small, whether they have strong or no online programs at all, to complete the questionnaire.

The benefits

If we are successful in completing the study, we hope that we will have achieved the following:

  • established a reliable snapshot of the state of online learning across Canada in post-secondary education
  • created a comprehensive, national database of Canadian post-secondary educational institutions that could be used for further research purposes
  • provided a baseline for future studies of online learning, so trends can be tracked
  • identified the areas where online learning is growing or declining
  • identified some of the key issues that institutions are facing regarding online learning
  • enabled institutions to see how they compare with other institutions in Canada in terms of their online learning development
  • enabled Canada to compare itself with developments in online learning in other countries.

Your help

Although we are still pursuing a number of possible sources of funding, if you have ideas of where or how to secure the the second and third stages of funding, please contact me at tony.bates@ubc.ca.

In particular, I urge Canadian readers of this blog to give their support within their institution to ensure that we get as good a response as possible to completing the questionnaire so that we have a reliable and comprehensive survey.

Any other comments about the value of the survey or the strategy we are following will also of course be welcome.

In the meantime, watch this space for further developments.

References

Paul, R. (2011) Leadership Under Fire: The Challenging Role of the Canadian University President Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, pp. 333

 

Towards an open pedagogy for online learning

Listen with webReader
Image: © University of Victoria, BC

Image: © University of Victoria, BC

The problems with OER

I was interviewed recently by a reporter doing an article on OER (open educational resources) and I found myself being much more negative than I expected, since I very much support the principle of open-ness in education. In particular, I pointed out that OER, while slowly growing in acceptance, are still used for a tiny minority of teaching in North American universities and colleges. For instance, open textbooks are a no brainer, given the enormous savings they can bring to students, but even in the very few state or provincial jurisdictions that have an open textbook program, the take-up is still very slow.

I have written elsewhere in more detail about why this is so, but here is a summary of the reasons:

  • lack of suitable OER: finding the right OER for the right context. This is a problem that is slowly disappearing, as more OER become available, but it is still difficult to find exactly the right kind of OER to fit a particular teaching context in too many instances. It is though a limitation that I believe will not last for much longer (for the reasons for this, read on).
  • the poor quality of what does exist. This is not so much the quality of content, but the quality of production. Most OER are created by an individual instructor working alone, or at best with an instructional designer. This is the cottage industry approach to design. I have been on funding review committees where institutions throughout a province are bidding for funds for course development or OER production. In one case I reviewed requests from about eight different institutions for funds to produce OER for statistics. Each institution (or rather faculty member) made its proposal in isolation of the others. I strongly recommended that the eight faculty members got together and designed a set of OER together that would benefit from a larger input of expertise and resources. That way all eight institutions were likely to use the combined OER, and the OER would likely be of a much higher quality as a result.
  • the benefits are less for instructors than students. Faculty for instance set the textbook requirement. They don’t have to pay for the book themselves in most cases. With the textbook often comes a whole package of support materials from the publisher, such as tests, supplementary materials, and model answers (which is why the textbook is so expensive). This makes life easier for instructors but it is the students who have to pay the cost.
  • OER take away the ‘ownership’ of knowledge from the instructor. Instructors do not see themselves as merely distributors of information, a conveyor belt along which ‘knowledge’ passes, but as constructors of knowledge. They see their lecture as unique and individual, something the student cannot get from someone else. And often it is unique, with an instructor’s personal spin on a topic. OER’s take away from instructors that which they see as being most important about their teaching: their unique perspective on a topic.
  • and now we come to what I think is the main problem with OER: OER do not make much sense out of context. Too often the approach is to create an OER then hope that others will find applications for it. But this assumes that knowledge is like a set of bricks. All you have to do is to collect bricks of knowledge together, add a little  mortar, and lo, you have a course. The instructor chooses the bricks and the students apply the mortar. Or you have a course but you need to fill some holes in it with OER. I suggest these are false metaphors for teaching, or at least for how people learn. You need a context, a pedagogy, where it makes sense to use open resources.

Towards an open pedagogy

I am making three separate but inter-linked arguments here:

  • OER are too narrowly defined and conceptualized
  • we need to design teaching in such a way that it is not just sensible to use OER but unavoidable
  • we should start by defining what we are trying to achieve, then identify how OER will enable this.

So I will start with the last argument first.

Developing the knowledge and skills needed in the 21st century

Again I have written extensively about this (see Chapter 1 of Teaching in a Digital Age), but in essence we need to focus specifically on developing core ‘soft’ or ‘intellectual’ skills in our students, and especially the core skills of independent learning and knowledge management. Put in terms of learning outcomes, in a world where the content component of knowledge is constantly developing and growing, students need to learn independently so they can continue to learn after graduation, and students also need to know how to find, analyse, evaluate, and apply knowledge.

If we want students to develop these and other ‘soft’ skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking, evidence-based argumentation, what teaching methods or pedagogy should we adopt and how would it differ from what we do now?

The need for teaching methods that are open rather than closed

The first thing we should recognise is that in a lecture based methodology, it is the instructor doing the knowledge management, not the student. The instructor (or his or her colleagues) decide the curriculum, the required reading, what should be covered in each lecture, how it should be structured, and what should be assessed. There is little independence for the learner – either do what you are instructed to do, or fail. That is a closed approach to teaching.

I am suggesting that we need to flip this model on its head. It should ultimately be the students learning and deciding what content is important, how it should be structured, how it can be applied. The role of the instructor then would not be to choose, organise and deliver content, but to structure the teaching to enable students to do this effectively themselves.

This also should not be a sudden process, where students suddenly switch from a lecture-based format as an undergraduate to a more open structure as a post-graduate, but a process that is slowly and increasingly developed throughout the undergraduate program or a two-year college program where soft skills are considered important. One way – although there are many others – of doing this is through project- or problem-based learning, where students start with real challenges then develop the knowledge and skills needed to address such challenges.

This does not mean we no longer need subject specialists or content experts. Indeed, a deep understanding of a subject domain is essential if students are to be steered and guided and properly assessed. However, the role of the subject specialist is fundamentally changed. He or she is now required to set their specialist knowledge in a context that enables student discovery and exploration, and student responsibility for learning. The specialist’s role now is to support learning, by providing appropriate learning contexts, guidance to students, criteria for assessing the quality of information, and quality standards for problem-solving, knowledge management and critical thinking, etc.

A new definition of open resources

Here I will be arguing for a radical change: the dropping of the term ‘educational’ from OER.

If students are to develop the skills identified earlier, they will need access to resources: research papers, reports from commissions, case-study material, books, first-hand reports, YouTube video, a wide range of opinions or arguments about particular topics, as well as the increasing amount of specifically named open educational resources, such as recorded lectures from MIT and other leading research universities.

Indeed, increasingly all knowledge is becoming open and easily accessible online. All publicly funded research in many countries must now be made available through open access journals, increasingly government and even some commercial data (think government commission reports, environmental assessments, public statistics, meteorological models) are now openly accessible online, and this will become more and more the norm. In other words, all content is becoming more free and more accessible, especially online.

With that comes of course more unreliable information, more false truths, and more deliberate propaganda. What better preparation for our students’ future is there than equipping them with the knowledge and skills to sift through this mass of contradictory information?  What better than to make them really good at identifying the true from the false, to evaluate the strength of an argument, to assess the evidence used to support an argument, whatever the subject domain? To do this though means exposing them to a wide range of openly accessible content, and providing the guidance and criteria, and the necessary prior knowledge, that they will need to make these decisions.

But we cannot do this if we restrict our students to already ‘approved’ OER. All content eventually becomes an educational resource, a means to help students to differentiate, evaluate and decide. By naming content as ‘educational’ we are already validating its ‘truth’ – we are in fact closing the mind to challenge. What we want is access to open resources – full stop. Let’s get rid of the term OER and instead fight for an open pedagogy.

Report on SFU’s experiences of teaching with technology

Listen with webReader
Simon Fraser University (on a rare day when it wasn't raining)

Simon Fraser University’s Burnaby campus (on a rare day when it wasn’t raining)

I always enjoy going to a university or college and seeing how they are using learning technologies. I am always a little surprised and I am also usually intrigued by some unexpected application, and today’s DemoFest at Simon Fraser University was no exception.

About Simon Fraser University

SFU has just over 35,000 students with campuses in Burnaby, Vancouver downtown, and Surrey, all in the lower mainland of British Columbia, Canada.

For a long time it has had the largest distance education program in British Columbia, but the rapid development of fully online and blended learning in other BC and Canadian institutions means that other institutions are rapidly gaining ground. It is also the academic base for Linda Harasim, who is a Professor of Communications at SFU.

As with many Canadian universities, most of the DE programs are run out of the Centre for Online and Distance Learning in Continuing Studies at SFU. However, the university also has a large Teaching and Learning Centre, which provides a range of services including learning technology support to the faculty on campus.

The university recently adopted Canvas as its main LMS.

I was spending most of the day at SFU for two reasons:

  • to identify possible cases for Contact North’s ‘pockets of innovation’ project
  • to report on the survey of online learning in Canadian post-secondary institutions.

I will be giving more information on both these projects in separate blog posts coming shortly.

The DemoFest

DEMOfest 2016 is about how instructors are using ….technologies in ways that produce exciting and original educational experiences leading to student engagement and strong learning outcomes.

Making lectures interactive

Not surprisingly, several of the short, 10 minute presentations were focused on tools used in classroom teaching or lecturing. In particular, the tools are going mobile, in the form of apps that students can use on their mobile phones, tablets or laptops. I was particularly impressed with TopHat, which incorporates online quizzes and tests, attendance checks, and  discussion. REEF Polling is a similar development developed by iClicker, which is effectively a mobile app version of iClicker. Both provide students and instructors with an online record of their classroom activity on the app.

There was also a couple of sessions on lecture theatre technologies. As in other universities, lecturers can find a range of different interfaces for managing lecture theatre facilities. SFU has a project that will result in a common, simple interface that will be available throughout the different campuses of the universities, much to the relief of faculty and visiting speakers who at the moment have no idea what to expect when entering an unfamiliar lecture theatre or classroom.. There was also another session on the limits of lecture capture and how to use video to make learning more engaging.

Online learning development

However, I found nothing here (or anywhere else, for that matter) that has convinced me that there is a future in the large lecture class. Most of the technology enhancements, although improvements on the straight ‘talk’ lecture, are still just lipstick on a pig.

The online learning developments were much more interesting:

  • online proctoring: Proctorio. This was a demonstration of the ingenuity of students in cheating in online assessment and even greater ingenuity in preventing them from doing it. Proctorio is a powerful web-based automated proctoring system that basically takes control of whatever device the student is using to do an online assessment and records their entire online activity during the exam. Instructors/exam supervisors though have options as to exactly what features they can control, such as locked screens, blocking use of other urls, etc.. Students just sign in and take the exam at any time set by the instructor. Proctorio provides the instructor with a complete record of students’ online activity during the exam, including a rating of the ‘suspiciousness’ of the student’s online exam activity.
  • peer evaluation and team-based learning: SFU has a graduate diploma in business where students are required to work in teams, specifically to build team approaches to problem-solving and business solutions. Although the instructor assesses both the individual and group assignments, students evaluate each other on their contribution to the team activities. The demonstration also showed how peer assessment was handled within the Canvas LMS. It was a good example of best practices in peer-to-peer assessment.
  • Dialectical Map: an argument visualization tool developed at SFU. Joan Sharp, Professor of Biological Sciences, and her research colleague, Hui Niu, have developed a simple, interactive, web-based tool that facilitates the development of argumentation for science students. Somewhat to my surprise, research evidence shows that science students are often poor at argumentation, even in the upper years of an undergraduate program. This tool enables a question to be posed by an instructor at the tope of the map, such as ‘Should the BC government allow fracking for oil?’ or ‘Should the BC government stop the culling of wolves to protect caribou?’ The online map is split into two parts, ‘pro’ and ‘con’, with boxes for the rationale, and linked boxes for the evidence to support each rationale offered. Students type in their answers to the boxes (both pro and con) and have a box at the bottom to write their conclusion(s) from the argument. Students can rate the strength of each rationale. All the boxes in a map can be printed out, giving a detailed record of the arguments for and against, the evidence in support of the arguments and the student’s conclusion.  Hui Niu has done extensive research on the effectiveness of the tool, and has found that the use of the tool has substantially increased students’ performance on argument-based assignments/assessment.

General comments

I was very grateful for the invitation and enjoyed nearly all the presentations. The Teaching and Learning Centre is encouraging research into learning technologies, particularly developing a support infrastructure for OERs and looking at ways to use big data for the analysis and support of learning. This practical, applied research is being led by Lynda Williams, the Manager of the Learn tech team, and is being done in collaboration with both faculty and graduate students from different departments.

Students and a professor of computer science worked with the IT division and Ancillary Services to develop a student app for the university called SFU Snap, as part of a computer science course. This not only provides details of the bus services to and from SFU at any time, but also provides students with an interactive map so they can find their classrooms. Anyone who has tried to find their way around SFU (built at multi-levels into a mountain) will understand how valuable such an app must be, not just to students but also to visitors.

So thank you, everyone at the Teaching and Learning Centre at SFU for a very interesting and useful day.

 

Initiating instructors to online learning: 10 fundamentals

Listen with webReader

10-fundamentals-jpg

Click to download the pdf

What? Not ANOTHER book from me? Well, no, not quite.

Teaching in a Digital Age‘ has been a great success but it appears it is being primarily used by faculty and instructors already committed to online learning, or on courses for post-graduate students, who don’t have much choice if it is set reading. That’s great, but even though it’s been downloaded over 40,000 times and is being translated into seven languages, there are still hundreds of thousands of faculty and instructors in North America alone who are either not interested in teaching online or are very nervous about it. The Babson 2013 survey for instance found that 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.

One reason for this is that there are many misconceptions about online learning. At the same time, there are legitimate concerns about online learning being more work or about the quality of online instruction. Of course, reading Teaching in a Digital Age might help dispel the misconceptions and the concerns, but instructors resistant to online learning are not likely to engage with a 500 page textbook in the first place.

I therefore did a series of blog posts aimed at encouraging ‘resistant’ faculty and instructors to at least give online learning a try. The series was initially called ‘Online learning for beginners‘. Contact North liked the idea and suggested that the 10 posts should be re-edited into a 37 page booklet that can be given to faculty and instructors. This booklet is now available. It can either be downloaded as a pdf from the Contact North|Contact Nord website, or printed locally on demand and then can be physically given to instructors. Of course it is likely to be most effective if used in conjunction with Teaching in a Digital Age, but the booklet is written to stand on its own.

So I am hoping that you will find the 10 Fundamentals booklet useful, that you will pass it on or make it available to ‘resistant’ or undecided instructors, and that this will encourage them to seriously consider teaching online.

Let me know whether you think the booklet is likely to work, and, if not, what else could be done.

Welcome back and what you may have missed in online learning over the summer

Listen with webReader
Working in my study

Not a lot of work done this summer!

I hope you all had a great summer break and have come back fully charged for another always challenging year in teaching. I thought it might be helpful to pull together some of the developments in online learning that occurred over the summer that you may have missed. My list, of course, is very selective and personal.

Online learning for beginners

During the summer I developed a series of ten posts aimed at those considering teaching online, or brand new to online teaching:

This was in response to concerns that many instructors and faculty were not well briefed or aware of best practices and what we already know about effective (and more importantly, ineffective) approaches to online teaching.

The posts of course were linked to my online, open textbook, Teaching in a Digital Age. However, the book itself is likely to appeal to those who have already made a major commitment to teaching well online. The blog posts in contrast aim to address some common myths and misconceptions about online learning and online teaching, and in particular to help instructors make decisions about whether or not to do online learning in the first place, and if so, what they need to know to do it well. Think of it as a prep for the book itself.

This won’t be directly relevant to most readers of this blog, but please direct any instructors or faculty in your institution who are struggling to decide whether or not to teach online, or must undertake it but are fearful, to these posts, as well as the book itself.

Contact North will be repackaging these blog posts and re-issuing them this fall; watch this space for more details.

Upcoming conferences

The big conference announcement is that the next ICDE World Conference in Online Learning and Distance Education will be held in Toronto in October, 2017, and the lead organiser is Contact North. This global conference is one of the major events in the world of online and distance learning and it’s the first time since 1982 that it’s been held in Canada. Next year’s theme is guess what? Teaching in a Digital Age. Well, that’s a coincidence, isn’t it?

Another major conference coming up at the end of this year is the OEB conference in Berlin in December.

Registration is also now open for the EDEN Research Workshop in Oldenburg, Germany, in October this year.

AACE’s World Conference on eLearning takes place in Virginia, USA, in November this year.

And, if you hurry, you might just make the 4th E-Learning Innovations Conference and Expo in Nairobi, Kenya from September 12-16.

Reports and journals

These are reports that have been published (or which I found) over the summer. I have blogged about one or two of them but for the rest I’ve not had the time. (Well, the weather’s been glorious here in Vancouver this summer and golf called and was answered.)

Centre for Extended Learning (2016) How do we create useful online learning experiences? Waterloo ON: University of Waterloo.

This is an excellent guide to multimedia course design, combining Peter Morville’s user experience (UX) honeycomb and Richard Mayer’s theory and research on the use of multimedia for learning, to create a well-designed set of guidelines for online course design.

Daniel, J. (2016) Combatting Corruption and Enhancing Integrity: A Contemporary Challenge for the Quality and Integrity of Higher Education: Advisory Statement for Effective International Practice: Washington DC/Paris: CHEA/UNESCO.

No need to say more other than some of these corruptions will almost certainly be found in your institution. A great read and very disturbing.

Contact North (2016) Connecting the Dots: Technology-enabled Learning and Student Success Toronto ON: Nelson.

This is the result of a symposium organized by Nelson in Toronto earlier in the year  and looks particularly at three main issues in online learning:1. The notion of “program”; 2. The role of faculty; 3. The nature of student support services.

Garrett, R. and Lurie, H. (2016) Deconstructing CBE  Boston MA: Ellucian/Eduventures/ACE.

This is a report on a three-year study to help higher education leaders better understand competency-based education (CBE), including the diversity of institutional practices and paths forward.

Bacigalupo, M. et al (2016) The Entrepreneurship Competence Framework Brussels: European Commission JRC Science for Policy.

“The EntreComp Framework is made up of 3 competence areas: ‘Ideas and opportunities’, ‘Resources’ and ‘Into action’. Each area includes 5 competences, which, together, are the building blocks of entrepreneurship as a competence.” Something concrete at last on one of the key 21st century skills. Don’t ask me though whether I believe it – read it for yourself, if you can stand European Commission English.

IRRODL, Vol. 17, No. 4

From Rory McGreal’s editorial: ‘This one is packed with 19 articles and a book review. We begin with three articles from Africa on access, entrepreneurship, and openness. Then the focus changes to the teacher with a critique and a look at expectations and perceptions. Learning design issues are the focus of the next group of articles, including open design and guidelines. Investigations into factors affecting learning follow…. Finally, mobile learning issues are addressed in the last two articles.’ Something for everyone here.

Distance Education, Vol. 37, No.2  (journal) Special issue on building capacity for sustainable distance e-learning provision.

This is a specially commissioned set of papers around the theme of the last ICDE conference in South Africa. I found it difficult though to identify a consistent message between what are individually interesting papers.

I am well aware that there are many other ‘must-read’ reports that slipped by without my paying attention to them. Any further suggestions from readers will be welcome.

So the world didn’t stop while you were away. Enjoy your teaching this academic year.