Supplementary material

Publisher’s Note

These are excerpts from a November 2006 presentation at the JISC/CETIS Conference in the U.K. The presentation identified the difficulty in the U.S. to achieve student success for entering students regardless of the barriers. This suggests similar efforts would be required in the U.K. as the government seeks to increase the participation rate from the current 42% to 50%.

One of the participants said there is a program in the U.K. that provides additional funding for less-prepared students that may provide the additional resources this presentation suggested.

Jim Farmer

As presented at the

JISC/CETIS ConferenceNovember 15, 2006 | Manchester UK

Blended Learning: Pragmatic Innovation

Excerpts

Only

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

Types of eLearning defined

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.

Sloan Consortium, September 2003

Examples of Innovation

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

Drill and practice: algebra

Gustav Delius, “Serving Mathematics in a distributed e-learning environment, Final Report,” University of York, 24 May 2005

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

It is the process!

Unique Service Delivery

• The Student Advisor

• Drop in / Clinic provision

• Reciprocal relationship with other support services

Listen to Rachel

Edward’s Educause

2006 interview podcast

“The Learning Grid: 21st Century Learning,” Planning and Designing Technology-rich Learning Spaces, 17 July 2006

Increasing the participation rate:

some unintended consequences

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

UK commitment

“Let me emphasise what is at stake here, because there is an absurd idea around that somehow if we scrapped the 50% target all our problems would vanish. Most of our proposed expansion from 43% to 50% is focused on vocational courses including new foundation degrees, building on HNDs and developed in partnership with employers.”

Tony Blair MP, Prime Minister, 14 January 2004

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

itySome US/UK differences

U.K. U.S.

Full-time studentsworking

46% 73%

Average hoursper week

11 21

Degree completion 82% 66%

Alternate full-timeand part-time

3% 34%

25 or older 18% 27%

Thomas Weko, Higher Education Policy Institute, Oxford, March 2004

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

College and university graduates

Percent Graduating from Tertiary-Type A Education (2000)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

UnitedKingdom

NewZealand

Australia UnitedStates

Japan Sweden Canada

Per

cent

Gra

duat

ing

“International Comparisons,” U.S. Department of Education, May 2003

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ityThe working participant

Hours Worked per Week

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

U.K. U.S. Base Additional

Hou

rs p

er W

eek

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

Barriers to success

• Inadequate high school preparation

• Limited financial resources

• Constrained Time (schedule)

• Constrained Location

• Diverse learning styles

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

Participation rate and unit cost

Participation and Cost

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

Participation RateCost per FTE studentExpected Cost per FTE

Based on U.S. Department of Eduction reports and projections; costs in 2005 constant dollars..

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

Cost of additional participants

Cost per FTE Student

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

1990 2005 2005 Base 2005 Added

Cos

t pe

r F

TE

Stu

dent

53.8% 11.3%65.1%53.8%

In 2005 constant U.S. dollars

An American Perspective:The Challenges of Student

Access and Student Success

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

Since 1972 (1)

Then

Education is a “public good” and should be financed by the government.

Now

A student benefits from education and therefore should pay for it

Student loan industry was created

Student price response: 3.3 to 8.8% fewer students per US$1,000 (1990)

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

Purpose of higher education

• “[In the U.S.] A college education is principally, if not solely, an investment in personal advancement.”

• “… universities [in the U.S.] are shaped almost exclusively by the wants of students seeking educational credentials and business and governmental agencies seeking research outcomes.”

Zemsky, Wegner, and Massy, 2005

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

Since 1972 (2)

Then

Universities should only admit students who are capable of succeeding

Now

Universities are responsible for the success of any student who has completed high school or its equivalent

Although the proportion of high school graduates who go on to college has risen

substantially in recent decades, the college completion rate has failed to improve at

anywhere near the same pace. Spellings Report September 2006

The Role of Education Technology

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

eLearning, what we know

• From current experience, improved learning especially for the less prepared

• Student preferences (in order)• Blended/Hybrid• Totally online• Traditional classroom

• “Common course redesign can lead to 40 percent savings in direct instructional costs of those courses—16% of total instructional costs or 8% increase in productivity.”

Graves “Order the Change, and Change the Order,” November 2004

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

Differences in learning rates

Sillinger and Suppes, 1999

Time to Course CompletionAlgebra 2 and Pre-calculus

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Num

ber

of C

alen

dar

days

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Hou

rs o

f T

erm

inal

Tim

e

Calendar DaysConnect TimePoly. (Calendar Days)

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

The future of higher education

An assertion:

Because of the diverse student population, higher education must develop “mass customization” of teaching and learning appropriate for each individual student.

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

Marin Dougiamas on technology

Martin Dougiamas at the February 2006 MoodleMoot Savannah

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

Research “Future implementation”

“The Personal Learning and Research Environment (PLRE) Working Group recommended further development of such an environment. The conference participants were aware this is a research project and further development and deployment of learning systems should be continued.”

Jim Farmer “Notes from the JISC/CETIS Conference, 15-16 November 2005, Harriot-Watts University, Edinburgh, Scotland,” 21

November 2005

Some JISC/CETIS alternatives

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

The “model” is broken

FacultyDevelopers

Students

Education Technologists

Schools of Education

“management”

Government

Should JISC or CETIS create the broken links?

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

JISC Priorities

Should JISC change its priorities? Yes, but it will be difficult. James [Dalziel] said the past policy had been to “let a thousand flowers bloom.” But with successful projects and an experienced research base, JISC could now be more selective and more focused. … to achieve the immediate goals of functionality and interoperability selecting key projects and insisting on the use of the e-Learning Framework will be important.Justin E. Tilton “Notes from the ‘E-Learning Tools, Standards, and Systems

Conference,’ Oxford, UK, 4-5 November 2004.

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

Related opportunities

• In conjunction with open courseware, develop implement a “cartridge” specification to achieve critical mass.

• “Engineer” learning based on feedback from the use of eLearning systems.

Assess prescribe deliver

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

Suggestions

• Focus on the relationship between pedagogy and eLearning. (Role for Schools of Education)

• For funding foundations and agencies:

• Fund development of services or functions unique to higher education.

• Shift some funding from development to funding pilot integration and implementation

• Document, promote the successful

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

Suggestions for JISC/CETIS

• Involve Schools of Higher Education in the development of priorities.

• Require proposals, where possible, to estimate the availability of the proposed technology for broad implementation and the value to the community.

• Review prior work for technology that could be extended or integrated for implementation.

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

Oleg Liber, CETIS

• … we should focus on the “immediate future.”

JISC/CETIS Conference, 14 November 2006

The end

jxf@immagic.comjxf@Georgetown.edu

Based on a presentation by Justin E. Tilton, eLearning 2006, 12 February 2006

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

Permissions

The presentation itself can be reproduced and redistributed provided there are no changes made to the content.

Supplementary material

Data from the Zogby Report

Rebecca Wittman and Christian Peck, “Survey of College Instructors Regarding the Use of Supplemental Materials in the Classroom,” Zogby International, 5 September 2006 for the Association of American Publishers

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

The trend on use

“College-level instructors are increasingly turning to supplemental materials, including both print and online materials, as concerns about the preparedness and engagement of their students grows. Our survey of 502 college professors finds a seven-point jump in the percentage of college-level instructors that require supplemental materials in their classrooms in just two years’ time.”

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

Incoming students unprepared

• “This comes at the same time that a 55% majority of professors worry that the latest incoming freshmen are unprepared for the rigors of college education, with a large plurality holding the belief that freshmen today are less-prepared than those just four years ago.”

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

Use of supplementary materials*

Any of the supplementary materials 83%

Study guide 43%

Online homework systems 30%

[Publisher provided] Reading lists 28%

Online quizzes 19%

Online assignments 13%

Journal articles 11%

Blackboard cartridge 2%

*Materials provided by a publisher with a textbook

Student Perspectives

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

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

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

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

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

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

Characteristics of eLearning success

The three factors of quality assurance are content and instructor based on student performance and, separately, student course satisfaction. See also the U.K. student survey ranking instruction using 19 questions.

InstitutionContent

AuthoringCall

Center TransferQuality

AssuranceRelative

cost

Open University (UK) Central 24/7 Limited 3-factorRio Salado College Central 18/7 Arizona 3-factor LowerUniversity of Phoenix Central Local 3-factorCoastline College Central 18/7 California 3-factor LowerUniversity of Lubeck Central 14/7 EU 3-factor Lower

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

The emerging learning environment

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

Some alternatives

Georg

eto

wn

U

niv

ers

ity

What does it cost?

Instructional Cost per Full-Time EquivalentU.S. 4-year Colleges and Universities

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

1976-77 1981-82 1986-87 1991-92 1996-97 2001-02

HEPI Adjusted Cost

Cost per FTE

Undergraduate Tuition and Fees

Graduate Tuition

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

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.