INNOVATIONS IN ONLINE LEARNING

Moving Beyond No Significant Difference

Copyright Statement

Copyright Carol A. Twigg  , 2002. This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author.

“The biggest obstacle to innovation is thinking it can be done the old way.”

Buy faster horses!

Get better riders!

Faced with the invention of the telegraph . . .

. . . the first motion picture that stopped filming stage plays

Technique Lags Behind Technology

TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

SeminarsLectures

“BOLT-ON” INSTRUCTION

CONTINUUM OF ONLINE PROGRAMS

Teacher-led Traditional

schedules Residencies,

fixed sites Developed by

individual faculty One-size-fits-all

Learner-centered Modularized, self-

paced Anyplace, anytime Developed by

teams Individualized

mentoring

Individualization: The Key to Innovation

HOW CAN WE ADDRESS HIGHER EDUCATION’S CHALLENGES?

Quality Access Cost

The promise of information technology

MOVING THE ATMS OUTSIDE THE BANK

The Traditionalists The Groundbreakers The New Pacesetters

INCREASING ACCESS: ELIMINATING CONSTRAINTS

The Groundbreakers– Rio Salado, U of Phoenix, Cardean U– Revolutionary college calendars– Consumer focus and convenience

The New Pacesetters– Rio Salado, Excelsior College, Ohio State, Drexel U – Academic resources– Full degree programs– Modularization

IMPROVING QUALITY: CREATING A RESOURCE MODEL The Groundbreakers

– Rio Salado, U of Phoenix, BOU, Cardean U

– Systems approach to course development

– High level of instructional design

The New Pacesetters– Virginia Tech, Ohio State, Drexel U– Mass customization– Buffet of learning opportunities– Measurable increases in learning

QUALITY IMPROVEMENT TECHNIQUES

Initial assessment of knowledge/skill level and preferred learning style

An array of interactive materials and activities

Individualized study plans Built-in continuous

assessment Appropriate varied human

interaction

IMPROVED LEARNING OUTCOMES Penn State - 68% on a content-knowledge test vs. 60% UB - 56% earned A- or higher vs. 37% CMU - scores on skill/concept tests increased by 22.8% U of Idaho – 30% earned A’s vs. 20% FGCU - 78% on exams vs. 70%; 54% A’s and B’s vs. 31% OSU - greater success on exams (mean of 78.3 vs. 70) UNM – 63% received a C or higher vs. 60% USM - scored a full point higher on writing assessments IUPUI, U of S Maine, U of Tenn and U of Ala - significant

improvements in course content understanding

5 of 10 (Round I), 6 of 10 (Round II), 8 of 10 (Round III) have shown improvement.

IMPROVED DFW RATES

FGCU - 45% to 21% UNM - 42% to 25%. Drexel - 49% to 38% IUPUI - 38.9% to 24% U of S Maine - 28% to 19% Penn State - 12% to 9.8%

5 of 10 (Round I), 4 of 10 (Round II), 4 of 10 (Round III) have shown improvement.

TRADITIONAL ONLINE COURSES

Emerging paradigm 20:1 ratio

Increases cost Relies on a monolithic

faculty role How can IT alter this

paradigm and enable us to serve more students cost-effectively?

REDUCING COSTS: TAKING ADVANTAGE OF IT

The Groundbreakers– U of Phoenix, Dallas CCD, BOU,

Cardean U – Upfront investment in course

development– Differentiated personnel strategies– Problem: costly delivery methods

The New Pacesetters– Rio Salado, UIUC, Virginia Tech, Ohio State, Drexel U– Increased student/faculty ratios– Capital-for-labor substitutions– Measurable reductions in cost

COST REDUCTION TECHNIQUES

Initial assessment of knowledge/skill level and preferred learning style

An array of interactive materials and activities

Individualized study plans managed by CMSs.

Automated continuous assessment

Appropriate varied human interaction

COST SAVINGS RESULTS

Redesigned courses reduce costs by 40% on average, with a range of 20% to 86%.

Collectively, the 30 courses project a savings of about $3.6 million annually.

Final Round I results show a savings of $1,006,506 compared with projected $1,160,706.

THE NEW PACESETTERS

What does this picture have to do with improving quality and reducing costs?

A BUFFET OF LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES

Focuses on individualization (student-centeredness): the key to innovation

Exploits the capabilities of the Internet Moves further along the continuum from

teacher-led to learner-centered Embodies principles of mass customization Employs a “pull” strategy rather than a “push”

strategy Radically improves quality while reducing costs

The Emergence of a New Instructional Form!

FOR MORE INFORMATIONWWW.CENTER.RPI.EDU

Innovations in Online Learning: Moving Beyond No Significant Difference http://www.center.rpi.edu/PewSym/Mono4.html

Pew Grant Program in Course Redesign

“IT’S NOT HOW FAST YOU RUN; IT’S HOW YOU RUN FAST.”

Are you taking full advantage of information technology?