December 18, 2014

EDEN research papers on learner characteristics, course design and faculty development in online learning

Listen with webReader
Some of the participants at the EDEN Research workshop, 2014

Some of the participants at the EDEN Research workshop, 2014

EDEN has now published my review of some of the research papers submitted to the EDEN research workshop in Oxford a couple of weeks ago. All the full papers for the workshop can be accessed here.

Main lessons I culled from these papers:

Learner characteristics

  • open and distance learners/online learners are much more heterogeneous than on-campus students: social background, institutional differences, prior education/learning experiences, all influence their readiness for online learning
  • as a result, ODL students need much more personalization or individualization of their learning: one size does not fit all
  • special attention needs to be paid to ‘at risk’ students very early in their studies: intense personal/tutor support is critical for such students.

It can be seen that such findings are important not only for the design of for-credit programs but also for MOOCs.

Course design

There were surprisingly few papers directly on this topic (although papers on other topics such as assessment and quality are also relevant of course).

The main lessons for me from this research on course design were:

  • technology offers opportunity for radically new course designs and new approaches to student learning,
  • such new designs need to be driven and informed by sound pedagogical theory/principles and prior research.

Faculty development

Main lessons:

  • we should be working to use technology to decrease faculty workload, not to increase it, as at present
  • this will probably require team teaching, with different skills within the team (subject expert, learner support staff, course designer/pedagogue, technology specialist); it is unrealistic to expect faculty to be expert in all these areas
  • to individualize learning, increased use of adaptive technology and the creation and support of personal learning environments will be necessary to help faculty manage the workload.

Next

Two more reports are expected shortly, covering OERs/MOOCs, quality and assessment, research methods and overall conclusions.

Online learning, faculty development and academic freedom

Listen with webReader

 faculty development word tag

The move to ‘professionalize’ teaching

One of the issues that came up at last week’s conference for university Boards of Governors was the growing need for faculty to be trained in teaching methods, if students are to be fully prepared for life after university. The argument goes something like this:

1. There is increasing pressure from employers, the business community and also from educators for faculty to set clear learning outcomes, and to develop in a deliberate and conscious manner high-level intellectual and personal skills in students, which requires moving away from a model of information transmission to greater student engagement, more learner-centered teaching, and new methods of assessment that measure competencies as well as mastery of content.

2. The move to online learning and a greater use of learning technologies offers more options and choice for faculty. In order to use these technologies well, faculty require not only to know the strengths and weaknesses of different kinds of technology, but also need to have a good grasp of how students learn best. This requires a combination of knowing about the research into learning, different theories of learning related to different concepts of knowledge (epistemology), and instructional design skills. Without this basic foundation, it is difficult for faculty to move away from the only model that they are familiar with, namely the lecture and discussion model, which is limited in terms of developing what are often called 21st century skills.

3. Faculty are trained, through the doctoral route, to do research, but there is no requirement to be trained in teaching methods. At best faculty development is voluntary for faculty once appointed, and although post-doctoral students may be offered short courses or in some instances even a certificate in preparation for classroom teaching, this is again voluntary and minimal. Nevertheless teaching will take up a minimum of 40% of a faculty member’s time, and much more for many college instructors.

In effect, this is a productivity issue. The argument is that faculty will get better results, particularly in terms of learning outcomes, if they are professionally trained. Since professional training is exactly what faculty try to do for others, such as scientists, business students, pilots, doctors, health workers, teachers, and engineers, why is it not appropriate for faculty themselves?

Faculty development

The current professional development model is broken

I have argued many times that the current professional development model for faculty – and almost as much for instructors in colleges – is broken. The major problem is that for university faculty – at least in Canada – professional development is mainly voluntary. There is no requirement to take any faculty development courses for tenure or promotion, and faculty can choose to do whatever they think is most appropriate as professional development, such as attending conferences or taking sabbaticals that may have nothing to do with teaching the subject.

Professional development also is mainly focused on faculty once they are in service, rather than on training them before they have tenure or full-time contracts. But it’s hard to teach an old dog new tricks. Many people working in faculty development offices will tell you that professional development is like parents’ evening in schools: you never see the people who really need to be there. And faculty development staff themselves often carry very little clout or status with other faculty, especially outside their own subject domain.  Faculty development staff are often selected for their classroom teaching expertise but may know nothing about teaching online.

However, we don’t allow pilots to fly commercial aircraft without training, we place very high standards on doctors before they are allowed to practice medicine, and we wouldn’t tolerate engineers building roads, tunnels or bridges without very high levels of training. Then why is it OK for faculty to spend 40% or more of their time doing something for which they have had no or minimal training, and which for most students is the most important thing they are paying tuition fees for?

Barriers  to training faculty to teach

It is hard to explain to people outside the higher education institutions why this situation exists. There are many possible reasons that could be put forward, such as

  • faculty are too busy or overworked with research and administration, and actually doing the job of teaching, to find time for training,
  • the reward system grossly favours research over teaching, so it’s not worth the effort,
  • teaching is an art, not a science, so can’t be taught (so much for art schools)
  • senior research professors don’t want their grad students to waste their time being trained to teach instead of learning how to do research
  • being an expert in a subject area makes you an expert on how to teach it.

There may be an element of truth in each of these arguments, but I believe the main reason lies in faculty’s interpretation of academic freedom.

Academic freedom and teaching

Nothing is more sacrosanct in a university than academic freedom. The concept is critical, and no less important today than in earlier times, when it was a protection against the dogma of the church or the interests of the king. In today’s world, with incredibly powerful multinational companies, governments with narrow political agendas, and the pressure for social conformity, the ability of an academic to research and talk freely, rationally and with expertise about any topic is an essential pillar of democracy, freedom and the search for truth.  It’s one of the core values of a university.

Many academics believe though that academic freedom should apply not only to their choice of what they teach, but also to how they teach it. This stems partly from their expertise in the subject area itself: ‘Don’t tell me how to teach my own subject!.’ There is also some substance in that argument. Science should be taught differently from history: the subject demands it. The fear is that by being trained to teach professionally, outside standards or processes will be imposed on academics and thus force them into some kind of bureaucratic conformity that does not meet the needs of the subject or field of study.

However, I believe that this particular argument is false. The aim is not to restrict the faculty member’s academic freedom through training in teaching, but to widen it by providing more choice. The aim is to provide alternatives and to make what the faculty member wants to do more effective, by drawing on the best research in the teaching of that subject. If you want to develop in undergraduate students high level research skills, here’s what the research tells us and here’s how to do it effectively. Here’s how technology could help to deal with more students with just as good learning outcomes.

So what should be done?

I do believe that we know enough about effective teaching in post-secondary education (see for instance Christensen Hughes and Mighty, 2010) that we should require those who wish to teach in post-secondary education to be formally qualified and to keep current in new methods. This would mean providing post-graduate students with courses and modules on teaching as well as research, if they wish to get a job as a faculty member, and requiring college instructors to take a minimum number of courses on teaching before renewal of contracts.

However, if this is imposed from outside, by government or even senior administration, especially through the collective agreement process, faculty are likely to resist strongly such pressure. It would be far better if faculty push for this themselves. After all, who would not like to get better results for the same amount of work – or even less work? Many faculty currently live in fear of new technologies. We are like the generals at the beginning of the second world war, sending 18 year old pilots to fly fighters or bombers with almost no training – only we are taking mid-career professionals instead, and trying to make them fighter pilots. Proper training can help reduce that fear, and provide much needed confidence in knowing when and when not to use technology for teaching. But this needs to be done at the outset of their careers.

Government and senior administrators also need much more determination in insisting on proper training, while at the same time making it possible. This may mean finding extra money to support the training of post-graduate students in particular. However, this initial investment will pay for itself many times over in more successful students, better learning outcomes and less stress on faculty, freeing up more time eventually for research.

Getting your input

So here are some questions for your input:

1. Can or should we professionalize teaching in higher education? Or is it already happening?

2. Do you believe that the standard professional development model is broken?

3. Why do faculty resist attempts to provide training in teaching? (I’d love to hear from faculty on this).

4. Is this a threat to academic freedom – or is academic freedom being used as a smokescreen to avoid accountability?

5. If we need professional training to teach in universities, how can this best be implemented?

6. Where is faculty training being done comprehensively and well? Why?

Summing up

Of all the challenges facing online learning, I believe the need to train faculty properly to be the most difficult. Without adequate training in teaching methods, I don’t see how learning technologies can be used effectively. We cannot afford to go on creating a whole parallel industry of instructional designers to hold the hands of faculty who can’t teach effectively. Higher education is costing too much to have amateurs doing the teaching.

But I also believe that most faculty do want to teach well, and will respond to help in the right form. So I really look forward to your feedback on this.

Reference 

Christensen Hughes, J. and Mighty, J. (2010) Taking Stock: Research on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Montreal and  Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press

2020 Vision: Outlook for online learning in 2014 and way beyond

Listen with webReader

 2020 visionTaking the long view

Doug Saunders in the Globe and Mail on  January 4 wrote an interesting piece on prediction, entitled: “Gadgets alone don’t make the future.” Having shown how amazingly accurate technologists in 1961 were in predicting what technologies would roll out in the future, he also showed how poorly they predicted how these gadgets would impact on our lives. In summary:

‘We are very good at guessing where our inventions might lead. We are very poor in understanding how humans might change their lives….the decision of what kind of life to live between the screens remains a political one, shaped not by our inventions but by our own decisions.’

Last year I spent some time discussing the value of predictions. One point I didn’t mention is the limitation of predicting just one year ahead, because you can’t identify the long term directions, and so often you’re driven by what happened in the very recent past, i.e. last year, because that’s the latest and often only data you have. More importantly, though, looking one year ahead assumes that there is no choice in what technologies we will use and how we will use them, because they are already entering our society. Also, this is likely to be the last year in which I make predictions for the future. I will be 75 in April, and I plan to stop all paid professional activities at that point (although I will keep my blog, but more as a journalist than as a practitioner).

So this seems to be a good point to look not just at 2014, but where we might be going five to ten years from now, and in doing this, I want to include choice or human decision-making as well as technological determinism. In other words, what kind of online learning do I expect in the future, given what I know so far?

The disappearance of online learning as a separate construct

In 2020, people won’t be talking about online learning as such. It will be so integrated with teaching and learning that it will be like talking today about whether we should use classrooms. In fact, we may be talking much more about classrooms or the campus experience in 2020, because of online learning, and how it is changing the whole way that students are learning. There is likely to be heated discussions about the role and purpose of campuses and school buildings, the design of classrooms, and who needs to be there (teachers and students) and more importantly what for, when students can do so much of their learning online – and generally prefer to, because of the flexibility, and of their control over their own learning. The big changes then are likely to be on-campus, rather than on-line.

Steelcase Node Classroom

Steelcase Node Classroom

Multi-mode delivery concentrated in fewer institutions – but more diversity

Quite a few public and smaller private post-secondary institutions will be gone or radically transformed by 2020. Particularly at risk are smaller, low status state or provincial universities and colleges or their campuses in metropolitan areas, where there is local and regional competition for students. They will have lost students to more prestigious universities and high status vocationally oriented institutions using online and flexible learning to boost their numbers. Government will be increasingly reluctant to build new campuses, looking to more flexible and more cost effective online delivery options to accommodate increasing demand. Nevertheless, politics will occasionally trump economics, with small new universities and colleges still being created in smaller towns away from the larger urban areas. Even these though will have much smaller campuses than today and probably as much as 50% of all course enrollments online, often in partnership with more established and prestigious universities through course sharing and credit transfer.

Those institutions that have survived will be offering students a range of choices of how they can access learning. Courses or programs will be deliberately designed to accommodate flexibility of access. Thus students will be able to decide whether to do all their studying on campus, all of it online, or a mix of both, although courses or programs are likely to have a common assessment strategy (see below). This will not be driven so much by academic or even political decisions, but by students voting with their feet (or mouses) to study at those institutions that provide such flexibility.

Multi-purpose, open delivery, with multiple levels of service and fees

Content will be multi-purposed, depending on a learner’s goals. Thus the same content can be part of a credit-based degree-level course, program or competency, part of a non-credit certificate or diploma, or available as open access. Learners will also be able to choose from a range of different course or program components, dependent on their needs and interests. Because most content will be open and modular, in the form of open textbooks, open multimedia resources, and open research, institutions will offer a variety of templates for courses and programs built around open content. For example, for a degree in physics, certain topics must be covered, with a strong recommendation for the sequence of study, but within those core levels of competency, there will be a variety of routes or electives towards a final degree, where broadly based learning outcomes are set, but multiple routes are offered for progress to these outcomes. Those content components can be accessed from a wide range of approved sources. It is the competency and academic performance of the learner that the institution will accredit.

Most institutions will have an open education portal, that contains not only a wide range of open educational resources, but also a range of open services, such as program templates or free academic guidance for specific target groups, as part of their enrollment strategy. Although such portals are likely to include materials from a wide range of sources from around the world, special emphasis will be given to open content developed by their own faculty, based on their latest research or scholarship, as a way of branding their institution. iTunesU, MIT’s Opencourseware, OpenLearn, and MOOCs are early prototypes, but content quality in the future will be greatly improved in terms of pedagogical and media design to accommodate online learners. Also states and provinces will also establish system-wide portals of open educational resources, particularly at the k-12 and two year college level (see eLearnPunjab and open.bccampus.ca as prototype models).

Because academic content is almost all open, free and easily accessible over the Internet, students will not pay tuition fees for content delivery, but for services such as academic guidance and learning support, and these fees will vary depending on the level of service required. Thus students who want a traditional course that covers guidance on and access to content, tutorial help, access to campus facilities, feedback and assessment will pay full fee (some of which may still be government subsidized in the public system). Students who want just open access will pay nothing, but will get few if any support services, and if they need a formal assessment, they will need to pay for this (although again this may be subsidized in a public system). Other students may want feedback and some form of continuous assessment, but will not want to pay for full tutorial support.

There are several consequences of this increased flexibility. Some institutions will specialize in small-class, on-campus education at high cost. Others will focus on high quality delivery through a variety of delivery modes, with a particular emphasis on course design and learner support. Some institutions will focus on low cost, competency-based open access programs, supported by businesses requiring specific skilled labour, and a few institutions will be specialists in fully online distance delivery operating on a national or international basis, at a lower cost but equally high quality as campus-based institutions. The majority of institutions though will become multi-purpose, multiple delivery institutions because of the economies of scale and scope possible.

Goodbye to the lecture-based course

In most institutions, courses based on three lectures a week over 13 weeks will have disappeared. There are several reasons for this. The first is that all content can be easily digitalized and made available on demand at very low cost. Second, institutions will be making greater use of dynamic video (not talking heads) for demonstration, simulations, animations, etc. Thus most content modules will be multi-media. Third, open textbooks incorporating multi media components and student activities will provide the content, organization and interpretation that are the rationale for most lectures. Lastly, and most significantly, the priority for teaching will have changed from information transmission and organization to knowledge management, where students have the responsibility for finding, analyzing, evaluating, sharing and applying knowledge, under the direction of a skilled subject expert. Project-based learning, collaborative learning and situated or experiential learning will become much more widely prevalent. Also many instructors will prefer to use the time they would have spent on a series of  lectures in providing more direct, individual and group learner support, thus bringing them into closer contact with learners.

This does not mean that lectures will disappear altogether, but they will be special events, and probably multi-media, synchronously and asynchronously delivered. Special events might include a professor’s summary of his latest research, the introduction to a course, a point mid-way through a course for taking stock and dealing with common difficulties, or the wrap-up to a course. It will provide a chance for an instructor to makes themselves known, to impart their interests and enthusiasm, and to motivate learners, but this will be just one, relatively small, but important component of a much broader learning experience for students.

61730023

Goodbye to the written exam – and welcome to the final implementation of lifelong learning

For most post-secondary qualifications, written exams will have been replaced by assessment through multimedia portfolios of student work. These will show not only students’ current knowledge and competencies, but also their progression over time, and a range of equally important skills, such as their ability to work collaboratively, self-management of learning, and general communication skills. Assessment will be mainly on a continuous, on-going basis.

As well as change in the method of assessing learning there will be greater variety in the range of accredited qualifications. Degrees, certificates and diplomas will still be important, but these will be complemented with a wide range of assessments of informal or non-formal learning, such as badges, some offered by post-secondary institutions, others offered by employers’ organizations or co-operatives of professionals. University and college diplomas and degrees will increasingly be seen as milestones on the journey to lifelong learning, and for demographic and economic reasons, the lifelong learning market will become a much larger market than the high school leaver market.

This means academic departments will need to develop programs and courses that range from introductory or foundational through undergraduate degrees to professional masters to lifelong learning, again using similar content modules adapted to different markets, as well as creating or adapting new content, based on the latest research in a field, for these newer markets. Much of the lifelong market will lend itself to online and hybrid learning, but in different structures (short modules, for instance) than the undergraduate and higher degree market. Universities and colleges will increasingly compete with the corporate training industry for these post-postgraduate learners, who will be able and willing to afford top dollar for top-level lifelong learning opportunities, based on the latest research coming out of universities, government and businesses.

However, a large part of the lifelong learning market will become occupied by communities of practice and self-learning, through collaborative learning, sharing of knowledge and experience, and crowd-sourcing new ideas and development, particularly assisted by an evolution of what are now known as cMOOCs. Such informal learning provision will be particularly valuable for non-governmental or charitable organizations, such as the Red Cross, Greenpeace or UNICEF, or local government, looking for ways to engage communities in their areas of operation. These communities of learners will be open and free, and hence will provide a competitive alternative to the high priced lifelong learning programs being offered by research universities. This will put pressure on universities and colleges to provide more flexible arrangements for recognition of informal learning, in order to hold on to their current monopoly of post-secondary accreditation.

Image: © Etienne Wenger, 2010

Image: © Etienne Wenger, 2010

New financial models

Because most content will be freely accessible, and because students will pay incrementally for a wide variety of services, new financial models will need to be developed, to support the flexibility and range of services that students will increasingly demand and require. The biggest move is likely to be away from block funding or enrollment-driven funding by government towards pay-for-service through student fees for teaching. There will be further separation of the funding for research and teaching (this has already happened in some countries, such as in England and Wales.) As a result government financing may well change, so that students are given a post-secondary grant at the age of 17, and have the right to decide how to spend that grant on post-secondary education, rather than funding institutions directly for teaching.

This may have some unexpected benefits for academic departments. Under this model it makes much more sense to fund programs directly from fees for the program, than to pool grants and fees centrally then break out money for teaching and filter it down through the departments. Thus program fees or service fees  would come to academic departments (or more accurately the program areas) directly, then the programs would pay for university services such as registration and financial services on a direct cost basis, plus a percentage for general overheads. This is already happening in some public universities at post-graduate levels, where tuition fees for online professional masters more than cover all the costs, direct and indirect, of a program, including the cost of full-time research professors who teach on the program.

This model would also have two other benefits. It would put pressure on service departments, such as HR, financial services, the Registry, etc., to become more cost-efficient, because direct costs to programs become more transparent. Second, since online students do not need a range of campus services such as campus building maintenance, lighting, and heating, it would lead to the different costs of online vs campus-teaching becoming more transparent and comparable, with an economic incentive to move more towards the most cost-efficient delivery model.

There are also disadvantages. Some model would be needed to support more expensive programs to deliver, or programs that are specialized but important in a university community. However, a program-based financial model may help save small departments who are struggling for minimal enrolments from their local market. Online courses can open the market to regional or international students and offer the chance of collaboration and partnership with other institutions, through course and student sharing.

The disaggregation of institutional activities required for the flexible delivery of programs in a world where content is free offers opportunities for rethinking how teaching and learning is funded.

Systematic faculty development and training

Since content will be freely accessible, institutions’ reputation and branding will increasingly depend on the way they support learners. This will put much greater emphasis on instructors having good teaching skills as well as subject expertise. Thus most universities and colleges will require faculty to have assessed teaching skills before tenure or permanent appointment, and equal attention will be given to teaching expertise as research in promotion. This will mean incorporating teaching practice and methods within most post-graduate subject areas, college instructors having compulsory pre-service teacher training, and regular faculty having systematic ongoing professional development as new technologies and new teaching approaches develop over time. The immediate benefit of this will be better student retention rates and higher quality learning outcomes.

Devolved decision-making and organizational models

A move to program-based funding, the need for effective course designs to attract students, the differentiation of services, the increased professionalism in teaching, and freely available open content will result in a move to systematic program planning and team teaching. A typical team will consist of a senior research professor, several junior or adjunct professors, an instructional designer/project manager and a media/web designer. The senior faculty member, in collaboration with the other team members, will be responsible for decisions about curriculum content, methods of learner support, and assessment standards. The team will develop assessment criteria and rubrics, and where necessary hire additional instructors for learner support and marking of assessments , under the supervision of the senior faculty members.

One consequence will be the disappearance of central centres for teaching and technology, except in small institutions. Instructional design staff will be located in program areas and will be responsible with academic faculty for faculty development activities, as well as with overall course design input. There will be increased demand for media designers, while instructional designers will be in less demand in the future, but still necessary to support faculty, especially as new learning technologies develop.

Student privacy, data security and student online behaviour will become more difficult

Learning will increasingly be delivered through student-owned devices, and learners will increasingly integrate social life, work and study in a seamless manner. Services will increasingly be delivered through the cloud. Security agencies, Internet-based companies and knowledge-based companies will constantly be seeking access to student data, especially student learning performance and online behaviour, as this information will be increasingly valuable for state security and commercial reasons. As a result it will become increasingly difficult for institutions to protect student data and their privacy. This may turn out to be the biggest challenge for students, institutions, and government in the next 20 years and could seriously inhibit the development of online learning in the future, if students or faculty lose trust in the system.

The future is about choices

This is my view about where we could be going with online learning in the next five to ten years. However, I will not be making the decisions, as I am retiring in April. If you do not like this vision, then you are in a position to influence a different kind of vision. Although as McLuhan says, we are shaped by our devices, we also shape the world around these devices. The worst thing we could do is to leave it to computer scientists to decide our future.

The value such a vision lies not in its detail, but in identifying some of the key choices or decisions that will need to be made. So here are the decisions that are thrown up by this vision for the future, for students, faculty, institutions and government (and some of these, such as those about campus facilities, should be being made right now):

Students and learners

  • at this point in my life, what are my learning goals? What is the best way to meet these? Where can I get advice for this?
  • do I need a qualification and if so, what kind?
  • what is the best way for me to access this learning? On-campus; online; or a mix of both?
  • what kind of learning support do I need?
  • how much do I want to – or must I – pay for these services?
  • what institution or other method of delivery will provide what I want? Where can I get independent advice on this?
  • how can I protect my privacy when I am online studying?

Faculty and instructors

  • why do students need to come to campus? What am I offering on-campus that they couldn’t get online? Have I looked up the research on this?
  • what teaching methods will lead to the kind of learning outcomes that students will need in life?
  • what should be my role if content is freely available online?
  • what kind of teaching spaces do I need for what I want to offer on campus?
  • how should I best use my time in teaching? In what kind of teaching activities can I really make a difference for students?
  • if I create new or original content for my teaching, should I make it openly available to anyone to use?
  • what methods of assessment should I use in a digital age? How do I assess prior or informal learning?
  • what kind of courses or programs should we be offering for lifelong learners?
  • what do I need to know about student data, and the protection of student privacy?
  • what training or professional development do I need to ensure that I can meet the learning needs of my students?

Institutions

  • what kind of campus will we need in 10 years time?
  • what proportion of course enrollments are likely to be accessed off-campus?
  • what will be the best way to accommodate more students – online learning or more buildings?
  • what kind and number of teaching spaces will we need?
  • what partnerships or strategies should we adopt to protect our enrollment base?
  • what are our strategies and policies regarding open educational resources?
  • what is our strategy for lifelong learning?
  • what financial models should we put in place to encourage innovation in teaching and to attract students?
  • how do we ensure that faculty have the skills necessary for teaching in a digital age?
  • how can we best reward innovation and high quality teaching?
  • what kind of organization and staff do we need to support faculty in their teaching?
  • how do we best protect student data and privacy (as well as our staff’s) in a digital age?

Government

  • what kind of post-secondary system, in terms of institutional differentiation, program delivery and innovations in teaching, do we need in a digital age?
  • how many, and what kind of, campuses do we need when students are also studying online? What is the best way to accommodate expansion in the system?
  • how can we best support system-wide open education, to reduce costs and increase quality?
  • how should we fund post-secondary education in a digital age? How much and what should ‘first-time’ students pay for themselves? What should lifelong learners who have already been through the system pay? What funding models would encourage innovation in teaching and help improve quality?
  • how can online learning help to increase the productivity of the post-secondary educational system? What can we do to encourage this?
  • what does government need to do to protect student data and student privacy?

What’s YOUR vision?

I won’t be around to make or influence these decisions, but most of you will. Are there decisions I’ve missed? What decisions would you make? What’s your vision for the future?

If you are willing to share just one response to any of these questions or decisions, this will be very much appreciated. Because the future will be increasingly about sharing knowledge.

“Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated”: a retrospective of my work

Listen with webReader
Still alive on Saturday

Still alive on Sunday

Brindley. J. and Paul, R. (2013) Understanding the building blocks of online learning: Through the writings and research of pre-eminent online learning expert, Dr. Tony Bates Sudbury ON: Contact North, October 2

It was Mark Twain who complained in this way about a premature obituary in the New York Journal. While not quite an obituary, the Contact North post is the first in a series of eight that looks at my perspectives and advice on key issues in online learning, based, as each post unkindly points out, on my nearly 50 years of working for change and reform in post-secondary education.  This series was researched and developed by Contact North | Contact Nord Research Associates, Dr. Jane Brindley and Dr. Ross Paul.

This first post discusses my views on the drivers of change in the way we teach and learn, and on the role of online learning.

It also summarizes the posts that are to follow under the heading of the Seven Key Building Blocks of Online Learning:

  • planning for effective teaching with technology
  • how emerging pedagogies map onto the new technologies
  • how faculty can support learner success
  • how faculty can ensure quality in an online learning environment
  • guidelines for faculty from educational technology research
  • costing considerations for hybrid and online courses
  • institutional and faculty roles in strategic planning.

Contact North will be publishing one post every two weeks in this series.

Comment

Although I agreed to this project, and indeed have seen and commented on all the drafts for the series, you can perhaps tell that I am slightly embarrassed by the whole thing. Jane and Ross have done an amazing job pulling together an amorphous set of resources scattered through many blog posts, journal articles and books into a series of coherent posts that are directed clearly at the interests of faculty and instructors. I think the series will be particularly useful for those poor post-graduate students who have been given my books as set readings to wade through, and for instructors dipping their toes into online learning for the first time. I am immensely grateful to and honoured by Contact North for developing and promoting this series.

The main reason for my embarrassment is that most of the stuff in the posts is not my original work. Like everyone in academia, I stand on the shoulders of giants. (Interesting to note that this quotation was used by Isaac Newton in his introduction to Principia Mathematica – and he plagiarized the quote from someone else!) So all I have done in most of my writing is to pull together other people’s research and writings, and I am still concerned that this does not come across strongly enough in the series. You will also not find any critique or criticism of my work in this series, so please use the comment section after each post. Nevertheless, I respect Contact North’s desire for simplicity and clarity.

So I hope you will follow the series and more importantly (since regular readers of this blog are more than likely to be familiar with the material), direct colleagues, instructors new to online learning, and post-graduate students studying online learning, to this series of posts.

In the meantime THIS IS NOT THE END!

What’s next?

I will continue my blog as best I can while travelling, including the series on productivity and online learning (the next will look at the issues around scaling learner-instructor interactions).

I’m also working on a new book called provisionally ‘Teaching in a Digital Age’ which is due out next year.

So yes, I’m still alive.

Una mirada personal sobre el uso de tecnologías digitales en la formación de docentes en los INFDs de Argentina.

Listen with webReader

El Ministerio de Cultura y Educación de la provincia argentina de Misiones y Fundación Telefónica capacitan a 360 docentes sobre nuevas tecnologías. © Fundación Telefónica, 2012

Ileana Farré, a quien solicité una mirada personal sobre el uso de tecnologías digitales en la formación de docentes, es profesora en el Instituto Superior de Formación Docente No 803 en Puerto Madryn, sur de Argentina. Ella quisiera enfatizar que sus opiniones están basadas en su experiencia personal y no son necesariamente representativas de todas las instituciones.

Cree que, en general, en la mayoría de los Institutos Superiores de Formación Docente faltan proyectos o estrategias institucionales para la implementación de tecnologías digitales para la enseñanza y  el aprendizaje. Es una decisión de cada profesor, si o cómo,  utilizar las tecnologías en su tarea.

Sin embargo, se constituyen tres contextos básicos para el uso de tecnologías en los institutos:

 Ausencia

La no utilización de TIC en las propuestas de enseñanza.

 Herramientas digitales para apoyar la enseñanza tradicional

En esta situación  los formadores utilizan una plataforma institucional (LMS Ej. Moodle) y otras herramientas  para la transmisión de información y la comunicación directa entre: – dirección – profesores; profesores entre sí y  profesores – alumnos. En algunos casos se utilizan  foros de discusión. Las herramientas más usadas  son e-mail, pdf, video y presentaciones de Power Point;  éstas  refuerzan el rol central del formador.

Diseños de enseñanza para potenciar las posibilidades de las tecnologías para el aprendizaje.

Los alumnos del profesorado generalmente responden con entusiasmo cuando las tecnologías son utilizadas para lograr metas claras de aprendizaje y cuando el uso de las herramientas está apoyado desde un análisis teórico y práctico que enfatiza el rol pedagógico de las TIC para mejorar la calidad educativa.

Cuando esto ocurre, el método de enseñanza se transforma en un hibrido, de manera imprevista desde la perspectiva  organizativa por parte de la institución.

A veces es posible lograr mayor flexibilidad en la organización de los tiempos, con el reconocimiento de que el trabajo virtual es un tiempo efectivo de trabajo por parte de ambos, estudiantes y profesores.

Principales desafíos

En Argentina persisten dificultades tecnológicas infraestructurales que ponen límite a la conectividad. Este es un desafío que el gobierno, mediante la estrategia denominada “Argentina Conectada”, se propone mitigar.

Como profesora de un Instituto Superior de Formación Docente, creo que necesitamos abrir espacios de debate para construir estrategias integrales, que signifiquen más que una colección de actividades aisladas. Necesitamos una estrategia institucional basada en el análisis del contexto, que considere el rol de los profesores en los Institutos de Formación Docente;  resignificar  las vías de acceso al conocimiento, cómo se construye el conocimiento y el rol  de las herramientas  digitales como un medio para mejorar los recorridos académicos de nuestros alumnos y alumnas.

Algunas iniciativas nacionales

El espíritu de la Red Nacional de Institutos de Formación Docente  (RED INFD) es promover a las instituciones para incrementar el uso de tecnologías digitales  en la formación, desarrollando comunidades de práctica entre docentes “comunicados y conectados”. Esto resulta en propuestas de colegas que surgen desde el contexto de las instituciones. Hay numerosos proyectos que focalizan el enriquecimiento de la enseñanza de los espacios curriculares a través del uso de TIC desde un marco de aprendizaje permanente y de reflexión docente.

  • El programa Conectar Igualdad  es una iniciativa en vista a mejorar y profundizar las políticas de mejoramiento de la calidad en las escuelas públicas a fin de reducir las brechas digitales, educacionales y sociales en todo el país. Como parte del programa, para proveer acceso tecnológico universal, fueron entregadas 2,014,492 notebook a docentes y alumnos en todo el territorio argentino.
  • Conectar LAB por su parte, promueve el uso creativo de tecnología, el diseño de juegos interactivos basado en la generación de proyectos colaborativos, y otras experiencias, que surgen de la interacción entre las personas y su medio ambiente.

Existe una situación emergente en función de responder, de manera adecuada a estas iniciativas por parte de los institutos, vinculada con la necesidad de construcción de un liderazgo visible,  desde la sinergia de los grupos de profesores motivados en la investigación de diseños innovadores. Los líderes institucionales necesitan generar y apoyar oportunidades para que, docentes y alumnos aprendamos compartiendo experiencias desde la institución.

Desde un punto de vista personal, como profesores y directivos liderando las instituciones, necesitamos pensar cómo , dado el contexto actual, podemos promover los cambios esperados. Necesitamos considerar la disponibilidad de tecnología para la enseñanza y el aprendizaje  y los nuevos modos de interacción como oportunidad que abre las aulas a otras miradas (internas y externas) que pueden transformar la educación.

Muchas gracias, Ileana!

The English version is available here