© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLC All Rights Reserved. Page 1 What’s Next in Learning Technology in Higher...

© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.

What’s Next in Learning Technology in Higher Education?

May 2006

– Rob Abel– CEO, IMS Global Learning Consortium– office: +1.407.792.4164– mobile: +1.407.687.7255– skype: rob_abel– [email protected]– http://www.imsglobal.org/

mailto:[email protected]




http://www.imsglobal.org/




“Never make forecasts, especially about the future.”

- Sam Goldwyn


Learning Objective• Understand what is IMS and our role in supporting

the education community• Think about the evolution of learning technology in

the larger context of key industry challenges and the industry landscape

• Consider what might be coming next in terms of mainstream learning applications in higher education

• Introduce Integrated Learning and other IMS initiatives


Agenda• Background on IMS Global• The education industry context• The learning technology industry

context• What’s next?• The coming of Integrated

Learning


IMS Global LearningConsortium

• In service to the community of organizations and individuals enhancing learning worldwide

• IMS/GLC is a global, nonprofit, member organization that provides leadership in shaping and growing the learning industry through community development of standards, promotion of innovation, and research into best practices


IMS and the Global Tech IndustryInvesting in

LearningInnovation


IMS and Global Education

Leaders inLearning


IMS Global LearningConsortium Role

• Community of practitioners• New affordable participation levels• Facilitation of best practice and outcomes

research


GroundbreakingCollaborative Research

• Online Learning• Open Source• Digital Content• Vendor Satisfaction


Agenda• Background on IMS Global• The education industry

context• The learning technology industry


Learning


“You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because

you might not get there."

– Yogi Berra


Impact of the University on Society

Society Institutions

Create

InfluenceNorth, D. C. (1994). Economic performance through time. The American economic review,

84(3), 359.


Evolution of Education in Society

Pre-1700’s Unification with culture, religious affiliations

1700’s Enlightenment, liberation

1800’s Literacy and industrialism

1900’s Mass education and the nation-state

2000’s ??? - Bransford: Adaptive expertiseBransford, J., National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Developments in the Science of

Learning., & National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice. (2000). How people learn : Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.


U.S. Higher EducationChallenges Today

Symptoms What Has Changed?• U.S. rank in % with college

degrees declined from #1 to #7• No increase in % participation• Stratification• Severe capacity challenges in 20

states• Graduation rates: flat for 30

years @ <60% with longer time to degree

• Cost: Price has risen at 2x the rate of inflation last 25 years

• Financing: Dramatic increases in student loans and debt burden

• 73% of college students today are “non-traditional” - with significantly lower completion rates

Abel, R. J. (2005). What’s Next in Learning Technology in Higher Education . 2 (2). October, 2005. Lake Mary, FL: The Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness, Inc. from http://www.a-hec.org/research/in-depth_articles/whats_next1005/

whats_next1005_toc.html


Summary of Education Industry

Challenges• Access to quality• Scale • Cost• Adjusting to the explosion in knowledge• Student achievement & success• Lifelong learning• Multicultural learning• Institutional performance and

accountability• Perceived impact on society


Agenda• Background on IMS Global• The education industry context• The learning technology

industry context• What’s next?• The coming of Integrated

Learning


What is Learning Technology?

• No widely accepted definition• Used colloquially as “technology” that supports

learning, including processes, specifications, etc.• Also “Educational technology”

• For the purpose of this presentation:

Tangible products or services that primarily support individual, cohort, or organizational learning transactions in the context of an integrated information technology infrastructure.


Product Landscape

CourseManagementAssessment

Digital ContentSearch

Interactivity& Rich Media

PortalsClassroomCapture Personalization

& Accessibility

ePortfolios

RepositoriesPortableDevices

AdaptiveTutors

CollaborationEnvironments

ProgramMonitoring

StudentMonitoring


Lessons -MainstreamSuccesses?

• Ubiquitous networking infrastructure• Course management systems (CMSs) as online

communications hub• Better online alternatives for distance learning


Lessons - Not there yet?

(some examples)• New forms of online digital content for studying• Commercially driven student portals• Faculty “course developers” (vs. course

organizers)• Use of third-party digital courses• Aggregation of courses from multiple

institutions• High production value courses• Smart classrooms significantly improving the

teaching or learning experience


Purchasing Landscape

Budget Allocations forLearning Solutions Still Lower Than AdministrativeSystems, But Growing

Online Learning asA Key Strategy In Many Organizations

Consolidation ofProduct and ServiceOrganizations

Open SourceInitiatives:New Alternative


Satisfaction by Category

Summary of Vendor Satisfaction Ratings By Category March 1, 2006

Category

Abbreviation

Mean Rating

Scale: 1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = somewhat dissatisfied, 3 = somewhat satisfied, 4 = very satisfied, 5 = perfect

Quizzing and Assessment QUIZ 3.93

Services SERVE 3.72

Classroom Capture CLASS 3.69

Presentation / Authoring PRES/AUTH 3.69

Digital Content DIGC 3.60

Portal PORT 3.57

Course Management CMS 3.50

Content Management / Repository CM/REP 3.50

Student Information System SIS 2.68 Abel, R J. (2006). Best Practices in Internet-Supported Learning in

Higher Education Study Trends and Vendor Satisfaction Update March 2006. March, 2006. Lake Mary, FL, The Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness, Inc.


Satisfaction by Vendor/Product

Summary of Vendor Satisfaction Ratings Across All Categories March 1, 2006

Vendorà

Category

Low 95% Confidence Rating

Mean Rating

Scale: 1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = somewhat dissatisfied, 3 = somewhat satisfied, 4 = very satisfied, 5 = perfect

Respondus QUIZ 3.62 3.95

Tegrity CLASS 3.46 3.86

SunGard Collegis SERVE 3.45 3.83

Microsoft Powerpoint PRES/AUTH 3.44 3.62

Flash PRES/AUTH 3.44 3.83

Questionmark Perception QUIZ 3.37 4.00

Elluminate PRES/AUTH 3.36 4.00

Merlot DIGC 3.28 3.60

SmartThinking SERVE 3.27 3.63

Microsoft Frontpage PRES/AUTH 3.26 3.62

Macromedia Breeze PRES/AUTH 3.25 3.67

Dreamweaver PRES/AUTH 3.23 3.71

Abel, R J. (2006). Best Practices in Internet-Supported Learning in Higher Education Study Trends and Vendor Satisfaction Update March 2006. March, 2006. Lake Mary, FL, The Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness, Inc.


Student PerceptionsImportance of Various Technologies to Student Success

(1 = not important at all, 2 = low importance, 3 = somewhat important, 4 = very important, 5 = essential)mean and 95% confidence interval

2.40

3.05

2.61

3.49

3.16 3.25

3.63

2.96

3.99

3.72 3.743.96

2.252.452.652.853.053.253.453.653.854.054.25

Use of iPods or other MP3 players to storeand review learning audio or video

Use of eBooks

Use of ePortfolios

Use of PowerPoint or other lecture materials

posted online

Video or audio recording and archiving oflectures for access online

Use of laptops, notebooks, or tablet PCs inthe classroom

Use of Google for studying or research

Use of Wikipedia for studying or research

Use of the course managem

ent system (such

as Blackboard, WebCT, Desire2Learn, Angel)

Online or phone technical support forstudents

On-campus technical support for students

Online access to library resources

Data fromsurvey of 152students participating in Internet-supported learning study


Faculty, Staff, Admin Perceptions

Data fromsurvey of 126Faculty, staff, and administrators participating in Internet-supported learning study

RANK OF MOST IMPORTANT IMPROVEMENT NEXT 12 MONTHS Factor (1=highe st, 16 =lowest)

Field Rank

Improving course quality 1 Implementing a learning objects repository 15 Getting more faculty involved in or committed to our Internet-supported learning initiatives

8

Improving student retention in Internet-learning supported courses or programs 7 Putting more programs online 9 Adding more rich media and interactivity to our online experience 3 Getting better use of our course management system 11 Convincing the administration that online is important 16 Getting better at measuring student outcomes 2 Getting better at determining what courses or programs should be the focus of our Internet-supported learning expenditures

12

Better reflecting our institution's unique pedagogy and culture in our Internet-supported learning courses and programs

13

Obtaining more resources and support staff to make progress feasible 4 Achieve more effective marketing of our Internet-supported learning courses and programs

6

Becoming more program-focused as opposed to course focused 10 Achieving a more stable and reliable online learning technical environment 14 Improving student services for online students 5


Influence of Open Source -1Estimated Market Adoption of Select Open Source Application Software

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Kuali

Sakai

uPort

al

LionS

hareMood

leOSP

IOKI

OpenOffice

SCT L

uminis

Unicon A

cadem

us

Not ConsideredRejectedConsideringChosen- not fully implementedImplemented

Abel, R J. (2006). Best Practices in Open Source in Higher Education Study The State of Open Source Software. March, 2006. Lake Mary, FL, The Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness, Inc.


Influence of Open Source -2


Three Year Predications on Deployment of Open Source Products at Respondent's Institution: All Respondents

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Open Source Infrastructure Products Open Source Application Products

PervasiveSubstantialOne or Two Products in UseOccasional ConsiderationNone


Influence of Open Source -3


3-Year Predictions of Open Source for Specific Software Product Types - Respondents Indicating Some Use of Open Source in Three Years (1 of 2)

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Databa

se

Word Pr

ocessi

ng/Desk

top Ap

ps

Cours

e Man

agem

ent

Operat

ing Sy

stem

Librar

y

ePortfo

lio

File Sh

aring

Stude

nt Inf

ormati

on Sy

stem

DefinitelyVery LikelyLikelySomewhat UnikelyVery UnikelyDefinitely NotCannot even guess


Industry Factors - Synthesis

• Increasing student success requires integration across learning and administration systems

• This is being reflected in the growth of enterprise learning technology categories and proportion of expenditures

• While the future of open source is uncertain, it is important in its influence on innovation (focus on cost is counterproductive to industry development)




Learning


What is the role of technology in

addressingthe key industry

challenges?


Impact of Learning Technology

Challenge Low Medium HighAccess to qualityScaleCostAdjusting to the explosion in knowledgeStudent achievement & successLifelong learningMulticultural learningInstitutional performance and accountabilityPerceived impact on society

Today

Potential


Why do some ideas and products make it to the

mainstream while others do not?


Theories ofChange - Crossing

the Chasm• Geoffrey Moore in his classic book, Crossing the

Chasm, indicates that new technologies achieve adoption by mainstream users and markets where there is the highest “compelling reason to buy.”

• The value is so clear and the positioning against other alternatives is so favorable that it is a slam-dunk.

Moore, G. A. (1991). Crossing the chasm : Marketing and selling technology products to mainstream customers. New York, N.Y.:

Harper Business.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.


Theories ofChange - Managingin the Next Society

• Peter Drucker in his book, Managing in the Next Society, points out that in technological revolutions most of the changes are changes in how we do things, not what we do.

Drucker, P. F. (2002). Managing in the next society (1st ed.). New York: St. Martin’s Press.


Theories ofChange - Seeing

What’s Next• Clayton Christensen in his book, Seeing What’s

Next, provides theories for understanding when truly disruptive innovations (as opposed to sustaining innovations) take hold, pointing to the important opportunity provided by “nonconsumers.”

• Nonconsumers are those that are the non-users of a product or product category. They are generally not using because the product is too complex or not offered in the right context.

Christensen, C. M., Anthony, S. D., & Roth, E. A. (2004). Seeing what’s next : Using the theories of innovation to predict industry

change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.


Theories ofChange - Synthesis

• There is an extremely compelling reason to adopt, meaning it’s almost hard to imagine life without it

• Enhances how the user does something they already do, but does not radically change what they do.

• It is particularly appealing to the nonusers - providing them an appealing approach to accomplish something they feel they probably need to do yet haven’t had an easy enough way to get it done


Predictions

Abel, R. J. (2005). What’s Next in Learning Technology in Higher Education. A-HEC In-Depth 2 (2). October, 2005. Lake Mary, FL: The Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness, Inc. from http://www.a-hec.org/research/in-depth_articles/whats_next1005/ whats_next1005_toc.ht

ml




Learning


What is IntegratedLearning?

• Service-oriented architectures that expose learning functionality and data across the education enterprise

• Enables key business processes associated with learning: student service, learner performance assessment, assessment of institutional performance


IMS InitiativesCommon Cartridge for Plug &

Play Digital Course ContentRich Media Learning Applications

and SystemsPlug & Play Interface Between

Learning Applications and Digital Repositories

Learner Personalization & Accessibility

From Smart Classrooms to Learning-Centered Campuses

Enterprise Services for Integrated Learning

Interoperability Among Open Source and Proprietary Applications

Setting the “Gold Standard” for Online Learning and Academic Services

Talent Management - Integration of Corporate HR Functions with Learning and Higher Education


Don’t Follow - Lead!• Get involved in IMS best practice research: join the Learning Industry Leaders

Forum (LILF)• http://www.imsglobal.org/• Participate in IsL research: http://www.questionpro.com/akira/TakeSurvey?id=302729• Attend annual Conference: June 19-22, hosted by Indiana U:


http://www.questionpro.com/akira/TakeSurvey?id=302729

© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLC All Rights Reserved. Page 1 What’s Next in Learning Technology in Higher...

Documents

Transcript of © Copyright 2006 IMS/GLC All Rights Reserved. Page 1 What’s Next in Learning Technology in Higher...