COHEREBlended learning: a strategy for online higher education research

Calgary, October 17-19, 2012

MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF TECHNOLOGY:

ARE WE FAILING AS MANAGERS?

Dr. Tony Bates,Tony Bates Associates Ltd,

Vancouver, BC, Canada

1

Overview

1. Introduction

2. Why managing LTs is important but difficult

3. Research: lessons from 11 case studies of LT management

• Leadership and planning• Quality• Resources• Training• Governance

4. Supporting innovation

5. Questions/discussion

Introduction

How many of you think that the current model of post-secondary education is

sustainable?

3

Why managing learning technology is important

• Not a ‘side-issue’ any more

• Effective use of LTs key to

• innovation

• productivity

• 21st century skills development

• blended learning

• flexible learning

• lifelong learning

4

Virtual border crossing: Loyalist College

Changing modes of delivery

no e-learning fully e-learning

face-to-

face

classroom

aids

hybrid(reduced f2f +

online)

fully

online(distance)

blended learningdistributed learning

What kind of institution?

where on the continuum should the institution be?

what factors should influence this decision?

how do we turn goals into reality?

who should decide?

Question

Does your institution have a plan for learning technologies, or flexible delivery, or innovation in

teaching? (or is currently developing one)?

Is it any good?

7

Why managing learning technology is difficult

• universities/colleges difficult to manage

• all management is messy (Mintzberg)

• LT only one, new aspect of management;

• academic + technology + management

• rapid technological change

• culture: fear of managerialism; resistance to change

8

What do we know about managing learning technologies?

• Less than 10% of publications on topic

• Ontario: few institutions have a plan for LTs; need help

• So: Bates and Sangrà (2011): 11 case studies: 6 in Europe; 5 in North America

• Changes since then: more institutions now doing serious LT planning (e.g. UBC, Saskatchewan)

• Results from case studies still apply9

Measuring/evaluating learning technology integration: some

criteria1. Central in strategic plan

2. Good technology infrastructure

3. Digitalized admin/student services

4. Strategic rationale for use of LTs

5. % faculty and students using LT

6. Innovative uses of LT

7. Support/training in use of LT for teaching

8. Better learning outcomes as a result 1

0

Leadership and planning• Institutions with LTs in strategic

plan did better

• Strengthens change agents

• Main goals for technology in case studies:• ‘modern’ infrastructure• digitalize administrative services• enhance quality of classroom

teaching

• ‘Weak’ goals: rarely innovation, flexible learning, new markets, never productivity

11

12

The importance of strategic thinking

strategic thinking more important than plan, focusing on:

•Being clear on the broad goals for LTs

•How best to achieve these goals in teaching and learning through faculty:

•visioning

•discussing

•planning programs

•designing courses12

Set clear goals for online learning

1. increase flexibility of access for diverse student body

2. increase personalization of learning and interaction

3. develop 21st century skills

4. develop hybrid learning

5. increase cost-effectiveness (better services; lower cost)

13

For example:

14

Academic goal

Strategies Intended outcomesPerformance

indicators(within 5 years)

Flexible learning

1.Offer online professional masters

a. Increase lifelong learning market

b. Develop self-financing programs

c. Retain alumnid. Increase links with

employers

1. 5 online masters in development

2. Target enrollments/revenues achieved

3. New research faculty hired

4. 10 organizations contributing to programs (cases, hiring grads, adjuncts, etc.)

2. More hybrid learning in undergraduate teaching

1. Increased interaction with instructors

2. Improved cognitive skills

3. Improved student satisfaction

1. Survey of faculty + students

2. Better student assessments/grades

MEASURABLE GOALS(after strategic thinking)

15

Quality assurance

Approach of ‘best’ case studies:

• Standard program approval processes

• Learning design, project teams, IDs to ensure quality

• Formal QA processes NOT used

• Lack of evaluation/research of LTs at strategic level 15

16

ResourcesNo institution knew the real cost of e-learning

Few institutions knew where the money would come from

Accounting/budget processes do not capture ‘true’ technology costs in teaching

Increased spending on LT support units

Unintended consequences: larger classes, more contract instructors, increased faculty workload

Important to replace activities (or increase revenues)

16

17

Resources

• Few administrators understood fully the cost implications or main cost drivers

• Technology too often an added cost for no measurable benefit

• The time of the instructor is main cost; need course design models that control time and costs in using technology

17

It’s the teaching, stupid!(or: Human resource development)

‘There is increasing empirical evidence…that prevailing practices in higher education do not

encourage the sort of learning that contemporary society demands…

However, there is an impressive body of evidence on how teaching methods and curriculum design affect

deep, autonomous and reflective learning…

Yet most faculty are ignorant of this scholarship, and instructional practices are dominated by tradition

rather than research evidence.’Knapper, 20101

8

19

Training• Instructors in most

institutions were not adequately prepared to teach well (with or without technology)

• Training of all instructors in teaching should be systematic and compulsory (especially in universities)

• ‘Core’ pedagogical training needed

• Systemic difficulties in doing this

19

20

Training

• Academic administrators in most institutions were not adequately prepared to make good decisions about technology

• Administrators on appointment need special orientation for technology decision making

• An online course for administrators? 20

Governance

Case studies:

• Growth of LT support units

• Growth of technology committees, but no clear mandates/decision-making authority

• Duplication and gaps in technology support/decision-making

• Need for a clear governance structure for technology that includes teaching and learning

21

Kezar and Eckel (2004: 371-398): a multi-level concept including several different bodies and processes with different decision-making functions

Who makes decisions about what?

How and where are they made?

Who is responsible once a decision is made?

What is governance?

Different models of governance for non-profit organizations (Gill, M.

2002)

Functions of governance(for learning technologies)

• Set mission/goals/direction

• Assign responsibilities

• Determine decision-making authority

• Manage (LT) resources

• Manage risk

• Evaluate results

• Others? (ethics, ......)

Why is governance an issue?

• Good governance leads to a better institution

• Provincial governments showing greater interest in technology governance

• Many institutions do not have clear governance structures for learning technologies: gaps/overlap, e.g. should IT dept support mobile learning?

Areas of governance

Institutiona

l

Technolog

y

LT

Academic Admin

IT

Two ways of looking at governance

Managerial by position

Board

President

VP Academic VP Admin/Finance

DeanAVP Academic Dean Director, IT Registrar

Director, Centre for Teaching/Learning/Technol

ogy

Two ways of looking at governance

Programs

Departments

Courses

Instructors

Students + clients

Executive team

Boar

d

Technology committee

Functional: where decisions are made about learning technologies

Academic plan

Strategic plan

Technology plan

Centre for Teaching/Learning/T

ech.

IT Services

IT governance

IT/admin. plan

influencesPlansService units

Governance

F

28

Governance of

learning

technologies

(From Bates and

Sangrà, 2011)

Governance

• Needs to be formalized

• Responsibility of institutional executive

• In universities, decisions taken throughout institution

• Important to have right people at the table

• Integrated planning essential 2

9

30

Innovation in teaching as a strategic direction

• Knowledge-based work: Ontario: 70% with post-secondary education

• Mass higher education

• Advances in teaching methods

• Impact of technology

• Fiscal constraint: more with less

• Not changed teaching models from 19th century

What kind of innovation?

• Improvement or change?

• Disruptive (new markets) e.g. MOOCs

• Sustaining: evolves existing market with better value (e.g. hybrid courses)

• Sustaining to maintain core values: knowledge preservation and creation; rationality; evidence-based research; +21st century skills: clarity essential

31

Strategies to support innovation

• Leadership is critical

• Make innovation in teaching a strategic priority

• Innovation too often in pockets

• Resource and reward

• Evaluate and disseminate across relevant areas

32

Institutional strategies for innovation

Strategic thinking (planning)

Governance (decision-making

structures)

Development of human resources (training)

33

Questions

Do we need to disrupt or sustain higher education?

Can you plan for innovation?

Are we using learning technologies strategically?

Why do blended learning?

Is it possible to make the necessary changes? If not, why not?

34

References

Bates, A. and Sangrà, A. (2011) Managing Technology in Higher Education: Strategies for Transforming Teaching and Learning San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Kezar, A., Eckel, P. D. 2004. “Meeting Today’s Governance Challenges.” The Journal of Higher Education Vol. 75, no. 4: 371-398.

35