May 25, 2013

LINQ conference on learning innovations and learning quality, Rome

Listen with webReader

What: LINQ 2013 invites all experts, practitioners and interested stakeholders in the fields of lifelong learning, education and training from Europe and all countries worldwide to present, share and discuss experiences, expertise and open questions on Innovations and Quality in Learning, Education and Training

Where: Global Headquarters of United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in tRome, Italy.

When: 16-17 May, 2013

Who: The conference is organized by the University of Duisberg-Essen, Germany. More information can be found here: http://www.learning-innovations.eu/

Registration: Early Bird rate: 90 euros. To register click here.

New journal: INNOQUAL

Listen with webReader

If you have an interest in innovation and quality in the field of e-learning, the European Foundation for Quality in E Learning (EFQUEL) is preparing the launch of the “International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning” (INNOQUAL). This will provide an international perspective on the theory and practice of innovation and quality in the field of learning at all educational levels and in all training contexts.

One important goal is to create more open dialogue on research in the area. INNOQUAL invites you to join the open discussion on five selected papers, which are candidates for  acceptance for the INNOQUAL inaugural journal to be published in April 2013. No registration, no downloads, no long review forms are needed. You can simply comment on the papers directly via google docs following INNOQUAL’s easy ground rules.

All five papers are presented at the INNOQUAL website:

  • “Knowledge Exchange Across Borders – Internationalization of Open Education using Trusted Educational Networks”
  • “Transtitution – Transforming higher educational institutions through modernization of middle management”
  • ·“E-Learning quality assurance as a tool for open innovation in educational institutions: an Estonian case”
  • “A view on Personal Learning Environments through approaches to learning”
  • “Evaluating teaching and management innovations in an online university: the case of the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya”

Get inspired, support authors who are willing to make review procedures more open, find peers who are also interested in discussing research in this area openly.

Please note that INNOQUAL combines these open discussions with a double-blind review. Your comments will be taken in consideration by dedicated paper reviewers. You can learn more about INNOQUAL and our Hybrid Review Model online.

Feel welcome to let INNOQUAL know what you think and/or spread the word, e.g. via twitter using the Journal hashtag #INNOQUAL

 

How to make an omellette without breaking eggs: innovation and open-ness in university teaching

Listen with webReader

The EFQUEL forum in Granada, Spain

It has been impossible for me to blog about online learning over the last four weeks because I have been on holiday for most of the time, in places deliberately chosen because there were no Internet connections.

The EFQUEL Innovation Forum

However, the first week away was spent at a very interesting forum organized by the European Foundation for Quality in e-Learning (EFQUEL). The focus was in the interface between open learning and innovation in post-secondary education. There were about 120 participants from all round Europe, including Russia and Serbia, as well as the usual suspects from the UK, Spain, Finland, Germany, Italy and Belgium.

One of the goals of the conference was to enable EFQUEL to identify its priorities over the next 12 months, in a context where most European governments are grappling with austerity and the resulting financial pressures on universities. Online learning of course is being heavily promoted by governments as a means of increasing productivity through innovation, and the bulk of the participants were anxious to ensure that the issue of maintaining or increasing the quality of the educational experience through online learning received as much attention as the technology and cost issues. In particular, papers and keynotes concentrated on the relationship between open educational resources, innovation, and quality.

Somewhat to my own surprise, I found myself in my opening keynote arguing the case for sustaining innovation rather than disruptive innovation for universities, because I want the core values of universities (knowledge preservation and creation; rationality; evidence-based research) to be maintained, while improving quality and cost-effectiveness. Thus the trick is to bring about the necessary changes without destroying the very benefits that make universities so important to our society. Thus my talk was titled: ‘How to make an omellette without breaking eggs.’ In fact, some eggs will get broken, but the egg will still be there in the omelette.

I argued that for innovation to succeed in universities, it needed to be supported and to some extent managed, and I discussed several strategies for supporting innovation in teaching and learning. A copy of my slides can be downloaded from Dropbox. You will need to request this by sending me an e-mail to: tony.bates@ubc.ca. Please ask for my EFQUEL presentation.

The conference provided a pretty good overview of the European context regarding approaches to open educational resources (full copies of the paper presentations can be accessed here.) The challenge in Europe as elsewhere is to find ways to integrate and build on OERs, but the focus still tends to be too much on just making materials open without any thought of how they can best be used. However, the forum provided a good way to bring players from all across Europe together to share ideas and to promote better quality in e-learning through the use of open content and approaches.

 

Innovation in teaching in Ontario universities

Listen with webReader

 

Council of Ontario Universities (2012) Beyond the sage on the stage: innovative and effective teaching and learning in Ontario universities Toronto ON: COU

This document provides an overview and analysis of innovative teaching practices in Ontario’s 24 universities:

There are many examples of innovative and effective teaching and learning strategies at Ontario universities, some of which will be shared here. The examples set out in this document reflect both practices that are well-established in many universities, and those that are evolving. 

With regard to online learning and the use of learning technologies, the document lists the following examples (this is a selection of what I found the most interesting – for example, I don’t find the use of clickers innovative):

  • Video recording: 

Carleton University: Robert Burk’s General Chemistry course (700 students): lectures, tutorials and other course materials are broadcast via cable television, webcast, video on demand, iTunes and a course website, combined with personal e-mails to every student. The materials are the most downloaded items from Carleton University; some have been downloaded almost 250,000 times in two years. A full third of his students never set foot in his lecture hall, yet their grades are identical to the two-thirds who are studying on campus. For an example, see: Making Nylon

  • Hybrid learning: 

Lakehead University: Dr. Glenna Knutson: the Masters in Public Health, designed initially to serve the needs of public health professionals across northwestern Ontario, uses WebCT and media streaming to ensure that distance students, who make up three-quarters of the class, can participate fully. In addition to taking part in large and small group discussions during class, they can use the technology platform to work with classmates outside of class time, preparing projects and presentations. To further accommodate the professional and family commitments of students, the program provides the option of completing it in six terms, or even 12, to make it more flexible.

  • Digital entrepreneurs: 

Ryerson University: The Digital Media Zone is a business incubator that supports digital entrepreneurs with business knowledge, resources and, above all, space to work and collaborate. It was the brainchild of President Sheldon Levy, who saw the need for universities to go beyond helping students find jobs. DMZ also focuses on helping students create the jobs and companies of the future. Since its launch in 2010, it has grown to accommodate some 200 innovators, spawning more than 40 companies and creating over 400 jobs in the process

University of Waterloo: the  VeloCity Mobile and Media incubator residence is the world’s first student residence designed to enable budding entrepreneurs to work with like-minded colleagues on mobile communications and digital media. It is a “dorm-cubator” for top students who want to turn their bright ideas in web, mobile and digital media applications into successful businesses. The value of companies created by VeloCity alumni is estimated to be about $50 million based on initial feedback from over 200 alumni who have lived in VeloCity. Participation in this program builds a supportive community that helps students succeed. Outcomes measured are not grades, but rather the success that students have both personally and professionally, by engaging in the business world outside of the institution. VeloCity incorporates peer mentorship and connects students  to the world of global start-up hubs (Waterloo, Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Boston, New York, San Francisco). Students learn how to manage risks, focus their skills and decide if building their own company is something they want to do after they graduate or even while they are still at the undergraduate level.

  • Universal Instructional Design

Trent University: The Transcribe Your Class project is an example of how the benefits of Universal Instructional Design modifications to a course can extend to all the students in a course, beyond students who have a learning disability. Through this project students with disabilities attending post-secondary education and National Disability Organizations use advanced Speech-Recognition Technology to improve access to information. Lectures are first recorded as webcasts through a software program, Panopto 7, and then transcribed. The transcriptions are integrated into a multimedia platform, which includes audio, video and presentation slides. The transcribed text is also searchable within the Panopto platform. At present, six first-year courses are included in this project. Prior to the implementation of the Transcribe Your Class project, students who required an accommodation for speech-to-text transcriptions worked with the Disability Services Office to have lectures recorded using digital audio recorders, and then paid a commercial firm to have them transcribed. The Transcribe Your Class project means that the instructor can automatically record lectures with a touch of a button. The recordings are uploaded immediately after the lecture and sent to IBM for speech-to-text recognition. The transcribed lectures are available to students within 48-96 hours of the original recording. This  is a significant improvement over the typical five-day turnaround time for edited transcripts through commercial services. The transcripts are made available to all students enrolled in the course.

  • E-portfolios

University of Guelph: E-portfolio use is incorporated throughout the Bachelor of Arts and Science Program. The basic function of the e-portfolio is to serve as a repository where students can compile their course work, writing and other material, including material from internships and other types of placements. E-portfolios enable students to engage in a process of reflection about the knowledge and skills they have acquired in their program of studies, and provide students with a useful tool for making connections about what they are learning.Both faculty and students report that they get to know each other better through“About Me” pages that are constructed in e-portfolio. Senior students may develop personalized e-portfolios to showcase their education and skills to prospective employers, and for applications to post-graduate programs.

Wilfred Laurier University: Kimberley Barber of the Faculty of Music has initiated an e-portfolio for her first-year voice performance students. Throughout the first term, students complete weekly e-portfolio presentations, including logs of their practice sessions and reflections on that practice, and their performances to help them evaluate their strengths and areas for improvement. They are also encouraged to upload digitized files of their performances to the e-portfolio system so that, over the course of their four-year program, they will be able to review their work and see their own progress. Student self-evaluation and critique are essential in the development of musical skills for both performance and education; early results have shown it to be a very useful pedagogy. E-portfolios also enable students to assess their entire university education holistically. This system is an efficient method for both compiling work and exchanging assignments and information between professors and students. There is no need for the exchange of paper documents, and students can receive feedback quickly from their professor and/or peers.

For another 40 examples of innovative teaching in Ontario universities and colleges, see: Pockets of Innovation from Contact North

Comment

First, kudos to COU for showing that there is much more going on in Ontario universities than just boring lectures. Having examples of the ways campus-based institutions are integrating technology is always very useful.

Second, what does ‘innovative teaching’ really mean? Certainly, for those instructors who have developed these approaches, it will certainly be innovative. However, one man’s meat is another man’s poison. Don’t get me going on clickers, for example. They are about as innovative as a caveman waving his club. For many readers of this blog, the reaction to some of these examples is likely to be a shrug of the shoulders; for some, it may reinforce your own ideas of where your teaching should go; for others it will, I hope, provide a spark that will lead to your own innovation in teaching.

Third, there were many other examples in this document of innovative teaching that did not involve any technology. They were about different pedagogical approaches (e.g. inquiry-based learning, applied and practical learning, and new ways of providing professional development.) This reinforces my view that just using technology is not innovative, even if the technology is new. It has to do something different and better, in terms of teaching and learning.

Just a couple of negative points. First, where were the formal evaluations of these projects? This is more an institutional responsibility. Innovations in teaching should be independently evaluated, and if successful, efforts should be made to spread the innovation beyond the innovator. Second, what is the institution’s overall strategy for supporting innovation? The COU says, as a body representing universities, that it supports innovation in teaching on principle, but moving beyond individual pockets of innovation to a culture of innovation across an institution needs more than a pat on the head as a strategy. Developing a strategy for innovation is a responsibility of senior academic management.

Nevertheless, it is good to see universities not only responding to the need for innovation in teaching and learning, but also letting everyone know what they are doing. We can all learn something from this document.


Guest post: a review of the Ontario government’s discussion paper on transforming post-secondary education

Listen with webReader

Ontario (2012) Strengthening Ontario’s Centres of Creativity, Innovation and Knowledge Toronto ON: Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities

in the ides of summer (June 27), the Ontario provincial government published this very interesting discussion paper about the future of the Ontario post-secondary/higher education system.I am delighted to have a guest post from Dr. Tom Carey that reviews the paper.

 Tom is a Research Professor at San Diego State University and a Visiting Scholar and Adjunct Professor at the Technology-Enhanced Knowledge Research Institute of Athabasca University. Tom was formerly a professor, faculty development leader and Associate Vice-President for Learning Resources and Innovation at the University of Waterloo, and recently completed a term as Senior Partner at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching  in Stanford, California. Here is his post:

Purpose of the discussion paper

“As our government begins the process of transforming the higher education sector”…well, that line in a discussion paper from the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities is sure to motivate interest from institutions, faculty, students and anyone else connected to higher education in the province (even if the discussion paper was released just before the Canada Day holiday weekend, typically a dead zone for attention).

 “This paper and the resulting consultation process seek to identify ways to improve productivity through innovation in the Ontario PSE system. Increased innovation…will improve student learning options, meet the needs of lifelong learners, enhance quality, and ensure long-term financial sustainability…in addition to addressing the priorities of acceleration, productivity, technology, quality and student choice.”

Context

Let’s start with three bits of context. First, the current government in Ontario has been a strong supporter of post-secondary education, sparing colleges and universities – along with the schools and health – from the worst of the trimming applied to other expense areas in the 2012 budget. The stated goal is to maintain a leadership role for the province in post-secondary education: while other regions in North America strive to catch up to where Ontario is now, the government intends to move the goalposts to a rate of 70% of Ontario’s adult population attaining some form of post-secondary credential.

Secondly, no amount of good will from government can insulate the colleges and universities from the reality of unsustainable costs. Annual cost increases greater than growth in the economy can’t go on, and the discussion paper cites a number of global trends requiring that the sector provide access for more students and raise the bar on student outcomes for higher quality.

Finally, the discussion paper emphasizes Innovation through Productivity, reflecting a theme appearing across the government. The paper references the larger agenda to realize the goal that “Ontario’s economy is an Innovation Economy” and the words Innovation and Productivity each appear on average once per page. Often they appear together: “How do we further strengthen the culture of innovation in the sector in order to enhance quality and productivity? What are the barriers and roadblocks to innovation and productivity today?” By linking these terms so strongly, the discussion paper may have managed to secure the dreaded P-word a place in the discussion with college and university faculty.

Implications for online learning

Let’s focus now on the implications for online learning (others have commented elsewhere on the wider issues).  The section Around the World in Post-Secondary Education highlights the growing importance of online learning. Two excerpts will convey some of the tone:

    • Technology-enhanced learning…can enable new ways for students to learn from and interact with faculty and each other…digital delivery of course content can free faculty in traditional institutions to engage in direct dialogue and mentorship with students”.  Notice the finesse around the issue of non-traditional institutions, and the stubborn persistence of a delivery metaphor for education.
    • “Technology is driving world-wide changes in education, and it is important that Ontario recognize and respond to these changes so that credentials from Ontario PSE institutions hold their high value.” 

This could be interpreted in many ways. On one level it may be saying that if Ontario institutions fall behind in their use of technology to support learning, their image and credibility internationally will suffer – witness the rush of elite institutions jumping on the MOOC bandwagon (well, content delivery MOOCs at least, not a more connectivist model) to stay in step with their aspirational peers.

On another level, the point being made could be around productivity gains in order to preserve value in high quality outcomes as enrolment expands without commensurate funding increases. And on another level yet – OK, I don’t really think our friends in the Ministry are going this far – the point may be that we need to prepare students for a world where personal networks, online communities and fluid, opportunistic learning will be the norm for developing capability in our careers and in our lives as community members and global citizens.

Consultations

The last half of the paper then sets the stage for the ongoing consultations with the sector, which have an aggressive timetable for completion over the summer. Each of the major discussion topics gets a page to tweak interest: Expanded Credential Options and Supplements, Credit Transfer and Student Mobility (an area where the discussion paper acknowledges Ontario’s trailing-edge position), Year-Round Learning, Quality Teaching and Learning Outcomes, Technology-Enabled Learning Opportunities, Tuition Frameworks, Entrepreneurial and Experiential Learning.

Is this a radical change for online learning in Ontario?

Readers of this weblog will recognize that online learning actually has a role to play in advancing each of these areas: we can’t talk about supplements to a transcript, for example, without delving into e-portfolios. So it is a bit disappointing that the page of discussion issues specific to Technology-Enhanced Learning is limited to impacts on traditional modes of instruction: capably done, as far as it goes, but does it go far enough? There are a couple of issues that may suggest the government is prepared to think about more radical change – sharing course development services across institutions, a degree-granting Ontario Online Institute (still with no budget more than two years after announcement) – but overall this is not a report that rocks the boat where online learning is concerned.

And that is the concern I am left with after digesting the discussion paper: however realistically it may reflect life on the ground in the province’s post-secondary sector, however worthwhile it may be to discuss these suggestions, there is no radical innovation (let alone anything disruptive) and nothing that has not already occurred in other jurisdictions. If a discussion paper emphasizes the need for innovation but restricts itself to only incremental change, will it ultimately refute its own argument?

Tom Carey