justin e. tilton and jim farmer as presented at the e-learning 2006 conference february 12, 2006 |...
TRANSCRIPT
Justin E. Tilton and Jim Farmer
As presented at thee-Learning 2006 Conference
February 12, 2006 | Savannah, Georgia USA
Learning Environment 2015
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Publisher’s note
This presentation at the ITC eLearning 2006 was abbreviated so a presentation of LAMS could be made as an implementation example of learning design.
The presentation has been returned to its original form.
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Predictions
• Students will select what they want to learn, how they want to learn and when they want to learn.
Jason Cole at MoodleMoot Savannah
• Colleges and universities will “certify” competencies expressed as “mastery of courses.”
• Students will evaluate the quality of learning content and sequence.
• Cost of instruction will matter
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Predictions
• The learning systems in 2015 will be a few from those available today.
• All learning systems will be based on learning design.
• Course content with be “engineered”
• Continuous assessment of effectiveness of learning systems.
Perspectives:others view of higher
education
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
The public perception
Tuition and Required Fees Public Universities
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004
Pe
rce
nt
cha
ng
e
Tuition public universities
Consumer price index
Digest of Education Statistics 2004, NCES
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
The student’s perspective
“The explosion of knowledge”
DerivativesHedging
Commercial PaperLoans
Bonds BondsStocks Stocks
1962 2002Finance Course, UCLA Anderson School of Management
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ityThe government’s view
Estimated Changes in ProductivityU.S. Public Colleges and Universities
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05
Cu
mu
lativ
e C
ha
ng
e
FTE Student, Public 4
FTE Student, Public 2
U.S. Non-farm Business
Adjusted for inflation using the CPI
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
The new reality
Funding U.S. Public Higher Education Students
-8%
-4%
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05
Fiv
e Y
ea
r C
ha
ng
e
Enrollment
State Appropriations
FundingGap
State Fiscal Conditions and Higher Education Funding, ASCU, Aug 2004
Appropriations adjusted for inflation
Funding Gap
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Government response
• Dual enrollment
• Early admissions
• International Baccalaureate
• Credit for Advanced Placement examinations
• Distance Learning
• Credit by examination (CLEP: College Level Examination Program)
• Improved articulation and advising
“Study on Acceleration Mechanisms in Florida,” Dec 2003
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Expenditures per FTE student
PublicPrivate
not-for-profitPrivatefor-profit
Doctoral, extensive $37,738 $73,462Doctoral, intensive 21,290 26,426 $12,915Master's 13,886 16,234 8,231Baccalaureate 12,309 21,672 10,418Specialized 101,090 34,675 11,652Two-year 9,183 14,494 11,048Average 20,606 33,069 10,781
For 2001, Digest of Education Statistics 2003, Dec 2004
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Use of eLearning
• “We did not hear that colleges looked to distance learning as a common strategy to help accommodate students and minimize loss of access. We do want to point out that one college that serves a large portion of its students through distance learning did find it economical to increase this portion. … with the infrastructures already in place, they could accommodate additional students in these programs more easily than in classrooms.”
Ensuring Access with Quality to California’s Community Colleges, May 2004
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ityPresidents on e-Learning
• “Based on his work with the University of South Australia and his conversations with presidents and financial officers, [Bill Becker] said there is a general belief that eLearning increases the cost of education. He said the cost of the distance learning courses at the University of South Australia exceed those offered in the classroom because of the amount of time that faculty spend responding to students.”
“Access and Persistence Symposium,” September 8, 2005, Washington, DC
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ityBut we predict in a few
years• The colleges and universities will begin
efforts focused on improving productivity
• Education technology will be viewed as necessary to improve productivity
• Major investments will be made in the learning environment based on the experience of the current “distance learning” programs
• Leadership in teaching and learning will move from the research universities to the teaching universities and community colleges.
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Future 3-unit course costs
Costs based on percentages from Arizona community colleges distance learning program in 2001 adjusted to current average undergraduate course costs and projections of change.
Cost of instruction 795 53% 957 58% 360 30%
Allocated content 0 0% 99 6% 420 35%
Academic support 180 12% 149 9% 132 11%
Student services 75 5% 132 8% 96 8%
Institutional support 285 19% 248 15% 144 12%
Physical plant 165 11% 66 4% 48 4%
Total $1,500 100% $1,650 100% $1,200 100%
TraditionalClassroom
BlendedLearning
LearningEnvironment 2015
The emerging learning environment
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ityAccommodating student
needsEarly work by Pat Suppes has demonstrated that students have different learning styles, which he represented as “trajectories” of learning based on when different students mastered course content.
The flexibility of eLearning suggest opportunities to transform classical “term-based” learning.
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Learning trajectories
Based on the work of Pat Suppes at Stanford University
Conte
nt
Mast
ery
Cours
e G
rad
e
TimeEnd of
Scheduled Term
ABCDF
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Quick learner
Conte
nt
Mast
ery
Cours
e G
rad
e
TimeEnd of
Scheduled Term
ABCDF
Boredom vs. supplementary course content?
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Early intervention
Conte
nt
Mast
ery
Cours
e G
rad
e
TimeEnd of
Scheduled Term
ABCDF
Monitoring tools can quickly identify students that are at risk
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ityUnexpected externality
Conte
nt
Mast
ery
Cours
e G
rad
e
TimeEnd of
Scheduled Term
ABCDF
Unforeseen events resulting in inactivity
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Success or failure?
Conte
nt
Mast
ery
Cours
e G
rad
e
TimeEnd of
Scheduled Term
ABCDF
Immutable time constraints limit a capable student
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Observations
Based on observations by Bryan Williams, remote-learning.net, in supporting Moodle services.
• Students will continue learning if the eLearning resources are available.
• Quick learners will go beyond the scope of a course if materials are available.
• Those slow to learn or interruptions to their learning will succeed if given additional time.
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Types of e-Learning
Seizing the Opportunity: The Quality and Extent of Online Educationin the United States, 2002 and 2003, Sloan Consortium, Sep 2003
Portion Online Type of Course0% Traditional
1 to 29% Web Facilitated30 to 79% Blended/Hybrid
80+% Online
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Student effortH
ours
per
week
to a
chie
ve
conte
nt
mast
ery
Method of instruction
Lecture/Discussion3h 2h 1h
Blended Collaboration Tutorial
12
9
6
3
0
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Basis for projections
• Twenty minutes of eLearning “drill and practice” time is equivalent to sixty minutes in a traditional classroom.
• Students are expected to spend three hours in study for each hour in lecture.
• Collaboration time differs sharply depending upon the characteristics of the group.
• Tutorials take additional time because of the interest and focus of the student (and achieve more than expected “course mastery.”
The emerging “market” for eLearning
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Proposed open /closed courseware
Open Courseware Learning Object
Courseware
Study hours 16 - 32 120 - 240 Tutors No Yes Tech support No Yes Examination Personal guidance As required Certification No Yes Pedagogy Yes Yes Peer group Informal Enrolled students
Forums By subject By course
Proposed, Open University of the Netherlands, Feb 2006
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Expected results
• “Learning on demand” in chunks (at no cost to the student)
• Incentive to either• Subscribe to tutorial support
• Participate as a student
• Seek “certification” by examination
paying current tuition
• Increase value of “brand” and gain course enrollments
The emerging learning environment
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ityInvesting in courseware
Cost of Course Content per Studentfor various levels of Course Development costs
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
10 100 1,000 10,000
Class size, 3-year, 6-term course life
Cos
t per
stu
dent
US$6,000US$37,500US$120,000US$1,000,000
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
“Engineered courses”
Lübeck University of Applied Sciences
• Learning objectives (using EU transfer course objectives)
• Contract author only for draft text and media suggestions
• Development Manager• Instructional design
• Media development
• Assessment authoring
In separate units
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Academic services
Lübeck University of Applied Sciences
• Technical support (separate from faculty)
• Tutor
• Domain competence
• Native language of the student regardless of the language of the course
• Selected for ability to communicate
• Academic Services Support System
(see also University of Oxford and Open University UK)
The technology
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ityInformation technology
SUNY Learning Initiative
• “Industry” standards + higher education standards and practices
• “Platform and tools”• Tools and interface appropriate for multiple
levels of faculty competencies – from simple text through multi-media to learning design
• Focus on “long tail” of specialized learning tools
• Integrated with administration, library and external information sources
Learning technology
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Summary of trends
• Professional specialists• Move process control from faculty to learning
designers (and learning systems)
• Mergers or consortia to achieve economies of scale
• Public pressures to improve cost/benefit
• More granular content, more flexibility in schedule, multi-format learning materials
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Barriers to success
• Change in culture from faculty-centered instruction to student learning
• Change in organization form – functional organization
• Acceptance of increased “automation”
• Development of feedback to achieve adaptive leaving activities
• Adoption of standard learning objectives for many undergraduate courses.
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
To be successful
• Content interoperability is imperative
• New consortium-developed or commercial software with new functions and new architecture
• Open standards are required to reduce IT maintenance costs
• Specialization will require retraining current staff
Collaboration is key to lower unit costs
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Transformation is feasible
• eLearning has produced an experienced and knowledgeable cadre (many attending eLearning 2006).
• Increased effectiveness and reduced costs have been broadly demonstrated.
• All needed information and education technologies have been developed and are being used somewhere.
1993
2001
“Learning Activities” Matter
Ernie Ghiglione
LAMS Project Manager
Macquarie University
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
The LAMS System
Learning Activities Management System
Both while working at the Open University UK and then as head of the e-Learning Strategy Unit of the UK Department for Education and Skills (DfES), Diana Laurillard has called for the widespread adoption of learning design. On February 17th she will keynote the LAMS Workshop at the University of London.
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Credits
This presentation is based on a presentation made by Justin Tilton at the “Open Source in Government Conference,” March 16, 2004, at George Washington University and his subsequent research at the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business.
im+m’s Jon Allen provided graphical design and graphics, and suggestions on presentation.
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Permissions
JA-SIG and im+m publications are in the public domain and can be freely reproduced. Information in this presentation was taken from public sources or with permission and can be redistributed.
The presentation itself can be reproduced and redistributed provided there are no changes made to the content and it is reproduced in its entirety.
Supplementary material
Student Perspectives
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Administration
Instruction
Library
Research
The higher education web world
Actual screen shots of production applications, Justin E. Tilton, 2003
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Students expectations shaped by...
• [In the U.S.] Their experience applying for admissions and financial aid
• Their use of financial services portals
• Their use of the Internet
• Their life in a “real-time, information rich” environment.
Be prepared:
94% of Internet-using (78%) youths age 12-17 use the Internet for school research, 71% say it is the major source for their school projects and reports, 58% use a school or class Website, 17% have created a Webpage for school, 74% use Instant Messaging.
Pew Internet, August 2002
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Students now expect...
• Customer service 24 hours a day,7 days a week
• Complete information froma single source
• Information by Web, e-mail, telephone, facsimile, and wireless devices• response time of 15 seconds for telephone, 10
seconds for Web, and 2 hours for e-mail and facsimile
• access to a complete customer history
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Students prefer
• A portal
• Single sign-on even if that means revealing personal logons and passwords [aggregation/credential caching]
• Selection of content [portlets] and layout [user profile]
• Common portlet navigation and icons [consistent look & feel]
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Serving students
Mode of Service Per interaction
Web chat $7.50
Telephone chat 4.50
E-mail 2.50
Telephone self-service 1.85
Web self-service 0.65
Gartner/Avaya, CFO Jan 2005
eLearning: some results
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Types of e-Learning
Seizing the Opportunity: The Quality and Extent of Online Educationin the United States, 2002 and 2003, Sloan Consortium, Sep 2003
Portion of Content Delivered Online Type of Course Typical Description
0% TraditionalCourse with no online technology used - content is delivered in writing or orally.
1 to 29% Web Facilitated
Course which uses web-based technology to facilitate what is essentially a face-to-face couse. Uses a course management system (CMS) or web pages to post the syllabus and assignments, for example.
30-69% Blended./Hybrid
Course that blends online and face-to-face delivery. Substantial proportion of the content is delivered online, typically uses online discussions, typically has some fact-to-face meetings.
80+% OnlineA course where most of the content is delived online. Typically has no face-to-face meetings.
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ityRio Salado College and Plato
Math• Using commercially developed Interactive
Mathematics Rio Salado offered four courses with one instructor.
• The number of students in a section increased from 35 to 100.
• A course assistant was added to help with course management, freeing the instructor to focus on student learning.
Academic Systems Inc. Profile, October 2002
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Northern Oklahoma College
• Using Interactive Mathematics, the pass rate for Elementary Algebra increased from 45% to more than 70%.
• Sixty percent of the incoming students at Northern Oklahoma College are deficient in mathematics.
• “Students are passing math and staying in school,” Debbie Quirey said. “75 percent of our students who take one or more developmental math classes go on to pass college algebra.”
Plato Implementation Story, April 2004
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Student motivation to learn
• “Quirey and others in the department attribute the success to students being able to review the Interactive Mathematics instructional module over and over again until they understand it.”
• Plato Implementation Story, April 2004
• “According to instructors, students using Interactive Mathematics reported that they tended to go back and review the software’s instruction more often than ask questions of the instructor or ask for help from tutors.”
Thomas Coe, Mathematics Department Chair, Rio Salado CollegeAcademic Systems Profile, October 2002
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Student willingness to learn
• Students can accelerate their learning and finish more than one course level per term.
• “I have had up to 10 percent of my students complete two courses in a single semester. A few have even completed three courses.”
Kim Brown, Mathematics Department Chair, Tarrant County College
Plato Implementation Story, April 2004
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Students learn at different rates
Time to Course Completion
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 25 50 75 100
Percentage of Students
Ca
len
da
r D
ays
0
5
10
15
20
25
Co
mp
ute
r C
on
ne
ct H
ou
rs
Calendar Days
Connect Time
Log. (Calendar Days)
Sillinger and Suppes, 1999
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Students work differently
Distribution of Time of a SessionAlgebra 2
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Number of Hours per Session
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of S
tud
en
ts
Expected changes
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Content and teachingTraditionalClassroom
BlendedLearning
LearningEnvironment 2015
Content delivery none or linear sequenced adaptive
Content format text, imagestext, images, audio, video
text, images, audio, video
Content source faculty faculty + supportinstructional design and multimedia specialists
Collaboration e-mail, forumse-mail, chat, forums, Wiki
e-mail, chat, forums, Wiki, audio and video conferencing
Learning station Web browserWeb browser with plug-ins
Web browser with plugins, personal learning environment for some courses
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Learning supportTraditionalClassroom
BlendedLearning
LearningEnvironment 2015
Library On-line catalogOn-line repository (JSTOR + ArtStor)
Course content, repositories, remedial learning objects
Faculty roleLecture, office hours
Lecture or review, on-line office hours
Lecture or review, on-line video-enhanced office hours
Academic supportTeaching assistants
Teaching assistants, help desk, assessment center
Tutors, help desk
Progress monitoring Interim grades Interim gradesContinuous assessment of mastery, learning styles, and effort
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Content development
TraditionalClassroom
BlendedLearning
LearningEnvironment 2015
Process Faculty choiceFaculty choice + multimedia development
Specialized course development roles and software, multimedia production facilities
Scope of content Faculty defined Faculty definedInterinstitutionally defined learning objectives (transfer)
AssessmentsFaculty authored
Faculty authored
Assessment specialist authors
Reuse None or limited None or limitedPublished and open learning objects and media objects