May 27, 2015

UBC develops an institutional strategy for learning technologies

Listen with webReader
The Amalfi Coast

The Amalfi Coast, Italy

Bates, S. et al. (2015) UBC’s Learning Technology Ecosystem: Developing a Shared Vision, Blueprint & Roadmap Vancouver BC: University of British Columbia

I’ve not been posting much recently as I am taking a three week holiday in Europe (the photo is my view as I write this), but this report from the Provost’s Office at UBC is too significant to ignore.

What is it about?

The report basically sets out a vision and a set of strategies for the future development and management of learning technologies at UBC, a large Tier-1 research university in Canada. Although produced by a small Project Committee, it is the outcome of extensive discussions throughout the university and also externally with other institutions with successful learning technology strategies.

What is in the report?

1. Recognition of learning technology as an eco-system

A learning technology ecosystem represents faculty, staff and students interacting with their learning technology environment, composed of tools and services. There are dependencies in this ecosystem; between technologies, between technologies and services but also between users, technologies and services. The ecosystem is self-organizing, dynamic, constantly changing and evolving. Technologies are birthed, and they also are removed as new ones take their place.

2. Assessment of the current state of learning technologies

UBC uses a very interesting way of assessing the current state of learning technology within an institution, using the following conceptual framework:

UBC's current state assessment process framework

UBC’s current state assessment process framework

This has enabled the team to identify gaps in services, governance, funding and infrastructure.

Another interesting outcome of this process is that the report estimates that UBC is currently spending almost $10 million annually on supporting its LMS, of which 78% is incurred at a Faculty/academic department level, mainly in technical support for the LMS, the rest centrally, including licensing. Thus one technology tool is costing almost as much as the rest of the LT eco-system.

2. Vision and principles for LTs at UBC

UBC's LT vision and principles 2

3. Functions and services

Working group members identified functional gaps in the LT ecosystem, along with their relative importance. Similarly, members of the Working Group identified both phase-specific support required during LT life cycles, as well as support services required across the lifecycle. They identified which of the gaps required the most improvement and also prioritized them according to their relative importance.

4. Support models

UBC uses both central and local/departmental support models and because of the size and complexity of the organization, no major changes were suggested for support models (but see Governance below)

5. Governance

The working group found significant shortcomings in the current governance structure for LTs. In particular there was inadequate academic input into priorities for the selection and use of LT tools and services, and the student voice was not heard. The Working Group proposed a stronger governance model as a result.

6. Other issues

The report goes on to cover a number of other issues, such as a roadmap and success metrics and resource issues such as the need for better learning analytics and increased bandwidth.

Why this report?

Good question, Tony, and here I will have to speculate a little, as I no longer work at UBC. UBC has a long history in both distance education and learning technology development. In the early 1990s it received government funding of over $2 million to explore the use of learning technologies, one outcome of which was WebCT, the first learning management system to be widely adopted. Blackboard Inc eventually bought WebCT, and UBC still uses Blackboard Connect as its LMS.

In the early 2000s,  a ‘nascent’ governance structure for learning technologies was suggested, and in recent years governance has focused mainly on the transition from Blackboard Vista to Blackboard Connect. However, over the last couple of years, UBC has also developed a major flexible learning strategy which is now being extensively implemented throughout the university. There has been considerable frustration and dissatisfaction with the implementation of Connect which has been getting in the way of the flexible learning strategy, so I see this report as a way of fixing that disconnect (sorry for the pun.) Or, as the report puts it:

Faculty desire a greater choice of tools, so that the one with the best fit for the pedagogical purpose can be selected….the functional footprint of the LMS is shrinking over time though the footprint of the entire [LT] ecosystem is arguably increasing. We anticipate a shrinking LMS footprint while still envisaging the need for a core within the ecosystem.

Comment

Although specific to UBC, this report will resonate with many other institutions. It should be essential reading for any Provost concerned with moving their institution forward into digital learning, as institutions struggle with legacy technology systems. The report adopts a clear, evidence-based analytical approach to sensitive issues around management, technology choice, and pedagogy, even if occasionally the business-speak language grates a little.

So back to my glass of Prosecco on the sun-drenched terrace.

EDUCAUSE looks beyond the (current) LMS environment: is it a future we want?

Listen with webReader
The future of educational technology? Image" © biotech01, DeviantArt

The future of educational technology?
Image: © biotech01, DeviantArt

Brown, M, Dehoney, J., Millichap, N. (2015) The Next Generation Digital Learning Environment: A Report on Research EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative

What is it about?

EDUCAUSE has published a very interesting white paper that:

explores the gaps between current learning management tools and a digital learning environment that could meet the changing needs of higher education.

What problem does the paper address?

The LMS has been highly successful in enabling the administration of learning but less so in enabling learning itself. Initial LMS designs have been both course- and instructor-centric, which is consonant with the way higher education viewed teaching and learning through the 1990s.

Higher education is moving away from its traditional emphasis on the instructor, however, replacing it with a focus on learning and the learner. Higher education is also moving away from a standard form factor for the course, experimenting with a variety of course models.

What solution does the paper propose?

A next generation digital learning environment (NGDLE):

although the NGDLE might include a traditional LMS as a component, it will not itself be a single application like the current LMS or other enterprise applications. Rather, the NGDLE will be an ecosystem of sorts….

It must address five domains of core functionality:

  • Interoperability and Integration
  • Personalization
  • Analytics, Advising, and Learning Assessment
  • Collaboration
  • Accessibility and Universal Design

All five are core functional dimensions of the NGDLE, meaning that progress toward the full realization of the NGDLE is possible only if the whole set is addressed…..

We will need to take what might be called a “Lego approach.” Indeed, if the mash-up is the way that individuals and institutions will assemble their own NGDLE, then one way to enable that model is to populate the landscape with a set of tools and resources that are NGDLE conformant. This would result in a toolbox of applications, content, and platforms that could be assembled in custom ways. The key is defining what is meant by “NGDLE conformance.” Legos work because of a design specification that ensures the pieces will interlock, while enabling a wide variety of component parts. For the NGDLE to succeed as we describe here, a similar set of specifications and services will need to be defined that constitute the conformance needed to make the Lego approach workable….

We are suggesting an NGDLE-conformant standard or specification, which would be based on adherence to a coordinated set of component standards. Once such a standard is in place, future investments and development efforts could be designed around the NGDLE specifications.

The culture of higher education teaching and learning must evolve to encourage and even demand the realization of the NGDLE. We need to adopt “NGDLE thinking,” whereby the functional domain set described above feels to us like a natural fit for any learning environment.

Comments

First, this is one of the most interesting papers on the future of digital learning that I have read for some time. I have had to shorten it considerably but I highly recommend reading the whole paper carefully. It contains many interesting ideas and a useful set of resources that could be directly incorporated into current teaching and learning. This is not surprising as it is  the result of ‘consultations with more than 70 community thought leaders’.

Now who am I to argue with 70 community thought leaders? Certainly I wouldn’t disagree with the shortcomings of current learning management systems, and I find Lego absolutely awesome, along with collaboration and common technical standards. I myself have previously reported that LMSs are a necessary evil, but need to evolve.

But on the second reading of the paper I started getting a really uncomfortable feeling. I’ll try and unpack that discomfort.

1. Be careful what you wish for

First, this seems to be much too much of a top-down approach to developing technology-based learning environments for my taste. Standards are all very well, but who will set these standards? Just look at the ways standards are set in technology: international committees taking many years, with often powerful lobby groups and ‘rogue’ corporations trying to impose new or different standards.

Is that what we want in education? Or will EDUCAUSE go it alone, with the rest of the world outside the USA scrambling to keep up, or worse, trying to develop alternative standards or systems? (Just watch the European Commission on this one.) Attempts to standardize learning objects through meta-data have not had much success in education, for many good reasons, but EDUCAUSE is planning something much more ambitious than this.

2. Is LEGO the right metaphor for a learning environment?

A next generation digital learning environment where all the bits fit nicely together seems far too restrictive for the kinds of learning environments we need in the future. What about teaching activities and types of learning that don’t fit so nicely?

We need actually to move away from the standardization of learning environments. We have inherited a largely industrial and highly standardized system of education from the 19th century designed around bricks and mortar, and just as we are able to start breaking way from rigid standardization EDUCAUSE wants to provide a digital educational environment based on standards.

I have much more faith in the ability of learners, and less so but still a faith in teachers and instructors, to be able to combine a wide range of technologies in the ways that they decide makes most sense for teaching and learning than a bunch of computer specialists setting technical standards (even in consultation with educators).

3. Model educational technology on human behaviour, not on computing

I am becoming increasingly disturbed by the tendency of software engineers to force humans to fit technology systems rather than the other way round (try flying with Easyjet or Ryanair for instance). There may be economic reasons to do this in business enterprises, but we need in education, at least, for the technology to empower learners and teachers, rather than restrict their behaviour to fit complex technology systems. The great thing about social media, and the many software applications that result from it, is its flexibility and its ability to be incorporated and adapted to a variety of needs, despite or maybe even because of its lack of common standards.

When I look at EDUCAUSE’s specifications for its ‘NGDLE-conformant standards’, each on its own makes sense, but when combined they become a monster of parts. Do I want teaching decisions influenced by student key strokes or time spent on a particular learning object, for instance? Behind each of these activities will be a growing complexity of algorithms and decision-trees that will take teachers and instructors further way from knowing their individual students and making intuitive and inductive decisions about them. Although humans make many mistakes, they are also able to do things that computers can’t. We need technology to support that kind of behaviour, not try to replace it.

4. Read the paper and make up your own mind

I think that despite my concerns this paper is really important. It offers one possible future for educational technology that we need to consider very carefully. I may be over-reacting in my response. You must draw your own conclusions from the paper – as I know you will. But do read it if you care about the future of education.

Is the classroom model appropriate for teaching in a digital age?

Listen with webReader
© University of Science and Arts Oklahoma

© University of Science and Arts Oklahoma

Chapter 5 of my open textbook, ‘Teaching in a Digital Age‘, is now published. In Chapter 5, I developed the concept of a learning environment.

I am now working on Chapter 6, ‘Models for Designing Teaching and Learning.’

What is to be covered in Chapter 6

This may change as I get into the writing but my plan at the moment is to cover the following topics:

  • What is a design model?
  • The classroom model
  • Classroom models in online learning
    • LMSs
    • lecture capture
  • ADDIE
  • Competency-based learning,
  • Communities of practice (inc. cMOOCs)
  • Flexible design models
  • PLEs
  • AI approaches.
  • Conclusion

In this post I introduce the concept of a design model and discuss the appropriateness of the classroom design model for a digital age. My next post, which follows almost immediately, does the same for the ADDIE model.

Purpose of the chapter

At the end of this chapter the reader should be able to:

  1. Describe key models or approaches to the design of teaching and learning
  2. Analyse each model in terms of its value for teaching in a digital age
  3. Decide which model or combination of models will fit best with their own teaching
  4. Use the model as a basis for designing their own teaching

What is a design model?

By a design model, I mean the organized steps taken to convert a desired learning environment into teaching and learning activities. Project management is a typical example of a design model, in that it presents a framework for taking a plan or goal and turning it into action. In project management, there are certain steps to be followed which are relatively independent of whatever project is being implemented.

However, there are many different kinds of approaches to design implementation besides project management. I intend to examine several of the most common design models that can be used in teaching, and in particular to examine them for their suitability for teaching in a digital age.

The classroom design model

Classroom old 2

Some design models are so embedded in tradition and convention that we are often like fish in water – we just accept that this is the environment in which we have to live and breath. The classroom model is a very good example of this. In a classroom based model, learners are organised in classes that meet on a regular basis at the same place at certain times of the day for a given length of time over a given period (a term or semester).

This is a design decision that was taken more than 150 years ago. It was embedded in the social, economic and political context of the 19th century. This context included:

  • the industrialization of society which provided ‘models’ for organizing both work and labour, such as factories and mass production
  • the movement of people from rural to urban occupations and communities, with increased density resulting in larger institutions
  • the move to mass education to meet the needs of industrial employers and an increasingly large and complex range of state-managed activities, such as government, health and education
  • voter enfranchisement and hence the need for a better educated voting public
  • over time, demand for more equality, resulting in universal access to education.

The large urban school, college or university, organized by age stratification, learners in groups, and regulated units of time was an excellent fit for such a society. In effect, we still have a predominantly factory model of educational design, which in large part remains our default design model even today.

However, over the span of 150 years, our society has slowly changed. Many of these factors or conditions no longer exist, while others persist, but often in a less dominant way than in the past. Thus we still have factories and large industries, but we also have many more small companies, greater social and geographical mobility, and above all a massive development of new technologies that allow both work and education to be organized in different ways. This is not to say that the classroom design model is inflexible. Teachers for many years have used a wide variety of teaching approaches within this overall model.

I don’t want to devote much space to the classroom design model, as we are all so familiar with it, and there is so much invested in the ‘default’ model that it is impractical to rip everything up and start with something completely different. Nevertheless, we have at least the seeds of change already showing. ‘Flipped’ classrooms where students get lectures on video and come to class for discussion and the re-design of large lecture classes are moves to modify the default model, while fully online programs and MOOCs are a manifestation of more radical change by offering education at any time and any place.

The real danger though is that we fail to grasp the opportunities that are now available to us, because we are so comfortable and familiar with the classroom design model. Even worse is trying to force the old default model on to new developments, when what is needed is a totally different approach if we are to meet the needs of a digital age. I give two examples below of forcing new technologies into the old classroom design model.

Old wine in new bottles: classroom-type online learning

When commercial movies were first produced, they were basically a transfer of previous music hall and vaudeville acts to the movie screen. Then along came D.W. Griffith’s ‘Birth of a Nation’, which transformed the design of movies, by introducing techniques that were unique to cinema at the time, such as panoramic long shots, panning shots, realistic battle scenes, and what are now known as special effects.

Learning management systems

Most learning management systems, such as Blackboard, Desire2Learn and Moodle, are in fact a replication of a classroom design model. They have weekly units or modules, the instructor selects and presents the material to all students in the class at the same time, a large class enrollment can be organized into smaller sections with their own instructors, there are opportunities for (online) discussion, students work through the materials at roughly the same pace, and assessment is by end-of-course tests or essays.

The main design differences are that the content is primarily text based rather than oral, the online discussion is asynchronous rather than synchronous, and the course content is available at any time from anywhere with an Internet connection. These are important differences, and skilled teachers and instructors can modify or adapt LMSs to meet different teaching or learning requirements (as they can in physical classrooms), but the basic organizing framework of the LMS remains the same as for a physical classroom.

Nevertheless, the LMS is still an advance over online designs that merely put lectures on the Internet or load up pdf copies of Powerpoint lecture notes, as is still the case unfortunately in many online programs. Good online design should take account of the special requirements of online learners, so the design needs to be different from that of a classroom model.

Lecture capture

This technology, which automatically records a classroom lecture, was originally designed to enhance the classroom model by making lectures available for repeat viewings online at any time for students regularly attending classes – in other words, a form of homework. Flipped classrooms are an attempt to exploit more fully this potential, but the biggest impact has been the use of lecture capture for ‘instructionist’ massive open online courses (MOOCs), such as those offered by Coursera, Udacity and edX. However, even this type of MOOC is really a basic classroom design model. The main differences are that the classroom is open to anyone (but then in principle so are many university lectures), and MOOCs are available to unlimited numbers at a distance. These are important differences again, but the design of the teaching – lectures delivered in chunks – has not changed markedly.

‘Instructionist’ MOOCs have resulted in some important design changes to the classroom model, such as using computer-marked assignments to test students or give feedback, and the use of peer review (both often used also in physical classroom design of course), but the predominant design model of instructionist MOOCs is that of an admittedly massive classroom.

The limitations of the classroom design model

Old wine can still be good wine, whether the bottle is new or not. What matters is whether classroom design meets the changing needs of a digital age. Just adding technology to the mix, or delivering the same design online, does not automatically result in meeting changing needs. It is important then to look at the design that makes the most of the educational affordances of new technologies, because unless the design changes significantly to take full advantage of the potential of the technology, the outcome is likely to be inferior to that of the physical classroom model which it is attempting to imitate.

The second danger of just adding new technology to the classroom design is that we may just be increasing cost, both in terms of technology and the time of instructors, without changing outcomes. Thus even if the new technology, such as lecture capture and computer-based multiple-choice questions organised in a MOOC, result in helping more students memorise better or learn more content, for example, this may not be sufficient to meet the higher level skills needed in a digital age.

Education is no exception to the phenomenon of new technologies being used at first merely to reproduce earlier design models before they find their unique potential. However, changes to the basic design model are needed if the demands of a digital age and the full potential of new technology are to be exploited in education.

Over to you

1. Do I manage to make clear what I mean by design ‘models’? If not, how can this be made clearer – or is the concept not helpful in the first place?

2. Do you agree that the classroom design model is a product of the 19th century and needs to changed for teaching in a digital age? Or is there still enough flexibility in the classroom model for our times?

3. To what extent do you feel you have to teach in a certain way because of the classroom model – or are you able to work flexibly within this model?

4. Do you agree that LMSs are basically a classroom model delivered online, or are they a unique design model in themselves. If so, what makes them unique?

What’s next?

My next post looks at the appropriateness of the ADDIE model for teaching in a digital age.

The danger of cloud based LMSs

Listen with webReader

Davis, B. (2013) Desire2Learn ‘in recovery mode,’ says there has been no data loss to university systems The Record.com, February 1

Bryen, W. (2013) Desire2Learn second system outage ‘very disruptive’ for CU-Boulder faculty, students Daily Camera, University of Colorado, January 31

Many universities in the USA and Canada have been hit by a serious outage of their learning management system, Desire2Learn. It appears that all universities who use Desire2Learn’s cloud computing facility have been affected. Those running D2L on their own servers will not be directly affected.

Virginia Jamieson, D2L’s senior director of corporate communications, stated:

We are experiencing significant challenges in one of our cloud data centers and that is dramatically impacting some students’ online experience. This stems from the file virtualization hardware not interacting well with the storage environment.

Among the universities affected are the University of Waterloo and Wilfred Laurier University, from where many of the staff at Desire2Learn have graduated, and the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Apparently Desire2Learn has been hit by several outages recently.

Why no back-up?

I didn’t expect one of my 2013 predictions to happen so soon – see ’10. Expect the unexpected.’

I obviously have misunderstood cloud computing. I thought the whole point was independent back-up, so if one server goes down, others can pick it up. Please enlighten me.

Why learning management systems are not going away

Listen with webReader

Will new LMSs change the teaching and learning environment?

Contact North has just published online a series of six short papers (10-12 pages) under the title of Learning Management Systems: Disruptive Developments, Alternative Options and the Implications for Teaching and Learning. The papers are:

Module 1 – Learning Management Systems in Ontario: Who’s Using What? (also covers all Canadian post-secondary institutions)

Module 2 – Thinking About Choosing a Learning Management System?

Module 3 – From Wikis to WordPress: How New Technologies Are Impacting the Learning Management System

Module 4 – Making Decisions About Learning Management Systems: Building a Framework for the Future

Module 5 – Different Approaches to Online Learning and the Role of the Learning Management System

Module 6 – 8 Basic Questions About Learning Management Systems: The Answer Sheet

These papers need to be read together – for instance modules 2 and 4 are separate bits of the same topic. Module 6 gives the short answers but just reading that will not provide the evidence on which the answers are based – and like all evidence, it is open to different conclusions.

How the study was done

My colleague Keith Hampson and I were responsible for developing these papers, which aim to go beyond comparing different LMSs by looking at their future, especially in the light of other developments in learning technologies, such as web 2.0 tools.

Keith did most of the original research, interviewing senior managers from the LMS companies and collecting data about the use and choice of LMSs in Canada. I focused on new technologies, and how they are being used, with examples drawn from mainly from Ontario (see Contact North’s Pockets of Innovation) but also from British Columbia.

What the results mean to me

This was an interesting experience. As with all good research, the outcome was not quite what I had anticipated (I had thought before the study that LMSs would go the way of the dinosaur) and here are my personal views on the future of learning management systems.

1. LMSs are here to stay. There are several reasons for this:

  • Most instructors and students need a structure for teaching: what learning outcomes to aim for, what topics to cover and their sequence, what activities are needed for students to achieve the learning outcomes, the timing of work for students, and a place for assignments and assessment. By definition, LMSs provide such a structure (note this applies equally to classroom teaching; I see the use of some kind of digital LMS becoming standard for organizing most post-secondary teaching)
  • Instructors and students need a private place to work online. This came out frequently in the interviews. Instructors wanted to be able to criticize politicians or corporations without fear of reprisal; students wanted to keep stupid comments from going public or wanted to try out ideas without having them spread all over Facebook: password protected LMSs on secure servers provide that protection.
  • The choice is not either an LMS or web 2.0 tools. Web 2.0 tools can be used not only outside an LMS, but also with an LMS (through links) and can even be embedded within some LMSs. We are really talking about structure rather than tools – the tools sit within the structure. This is particularly true for the new generation of LMSs that are emerging which are in reality a flexible combination of tools.
  • However, the main reason is that institutions are becoming increasingly reliant on LMSs. They are increasing looking to LMSs to integrate data from teaching with administration, to provide data on student performance, for appeals against grades, and for reporting and accountability purposes. Learning analytics (or rather data analytics) in particular will drive increasingly the dependency of administrations on LMSs. I’m not saying this is a good thing, but it’s the reality. I will be discussing in a later blog some of the downside of learning analytics, but the drive for accountability is not going to diminish, and LMSs are a valuable tool for administrators.

2. Although LMSs are valuable for providing a structure or framework for learning, the significance of web 2.0 tools such as open source content management systems (WordPress), blogs, wikis, etc., is that we should be thinking more broadly than just the LMS. Instead we should be thinking about virtual learning environments and how these can be used to increase student engagement, develop learning skills as well as manage content, and bring in the outside world into our teaching, while at the same time providing the privacy and security that most instructors and students feel is an essential condition for learning. LMS will be just one part of that equation – but they will still be an important part.

Conclusion

We deliberately tried not to be directive, but to provide frameworks for discussion. So enjoy reading these papers and let me know your reaction to them.

Further reading

Demski, J. (2012) Rebuilding the LMS for the 21st Century Campus Technology, March 29

This excellent article asks (and answers) the question: Can the goals of 21st century learning be met by retooled legacy LMSs, or does the future belong to open learning platforms that utilize the latest technology?

Jones, D. (2012) Why learning management systems will probably go away The Weblog of (a) David Jones, April 6. A good counter-argument to my post.

For a good introduction to and comparison of LMSs, see: Chase, C. (2012) Blended Learning – Learning Management Systems, Make EdTech Happen, May 14