Learning Environment 2015 Justin E. Tilton and Jim Farmer As presented at thee-Learning 2006 Conference February 12, 2006 | Savannah, Georgia USA
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.
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
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.
The student’s perspective “The explosion of knowledge”
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
Expenditures per FTE student For 2001, Digest of Education Statistics 2003, Dec 2004
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
Presidents 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
But 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.
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.
Accommodating student needs Early 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.
ABCDF Content Mastery Course Grade End of Scheduled Term Time Learning trajectories Based on the work of Pat Suppes at Stanford University
Quick learner Boredom vs. supplementary course content? ABCDF Content Mastery Course Grade End of Scheduled Term Time
Early intervention Monitoring tools can quickly identify students that are at risk ABCDF Content Mastery Course Grade End of Scheduled Term Time
Unexpected externality Unforeseen events resulting in inactivity ABCDF Content Mastery Course Grade End of Scheduled Term Time
Success or failure? Immutable time constraints limit a capable student ABCDF Content Mastery Course Grade End of Scheduled Term Time
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.
Types of e-Learning Seizing the Opportunity: The Quality and Extent of Online Education in the United States, 2002 and 2003, Sloan Consortium, Sep 2003
Student effort 12 9 Hours per week to achieve content mastery 6 3 0 Lecture/Discussion 3h 2h 1h Blended Collaboration Tutorial Method of instruction
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.”
Proposed open /closed courseware Proposed, Open University of the Netherlands, Feb 2006
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
“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
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)
Information 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
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
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.
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
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.
“Learning Activities” Matter Ernie Ghiglione LAMS Project Manager Macquarie University 1993 2001
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.
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.
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.
The higher education web world Research Library Administration Instruction Actual screen shots of production applications, Justin E. Tilton, 2003
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
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