Jim Farmer As presented at the JISC/CETIS Conference November 15, 2006 | Manchester UK

1. Blended Learning: Pragmatic Innovation Jim Farmer As presented at theJISC/CETIS Conference November 15, 2006 | Manchester UK

2. Is the recorder turned on?Jon

3. Types of eLearning Sloan Consortium, September 2003

4. The JISC Conferencesand the Enterprise Special Interest Group

5. Value of communication "Because of the JISC Conferences, the CETIS SIGs, and the collaborative projects encouraged by JISC, university IT managers became aware of the practices and developments of others, had the opportunity to learn of perspectives beyond their own university, and developed confidence and trust in the work of others. This has led to sharing that otherwise may not have occurred, and thus made their own work much more effective.“ Jim Farmer, “JISC/CETIS conference feedback,” email, 30 November 2005

6. Cited work Gustav Delius, Chris Sangwin, Neil Strickland, John Prashoud, Scott Wilson, Sean Mehan, Niall Sclater, Jason Cole, Stuart Lee, Ian Boston, Paul Miller, Mhari McAlpine, Oleg Liber, Harriet Truscott, Bill Olivier, Patrick McAndrew, Tish Roberts, Paul Walk, Vashti Jarach, Robert Sherratt, Chris Awre, Brian Kelly, Wilbert Kraan, Jon Mason, Randy Metcalfe, Colin Smythe, Mark Stubbs, Steve Jeyes

7. XCRI and the PESC course catalog “In developing the XCRI specification for exchange of programme, curriculum, and course data, the Integration Working Group (and the CETIS Enterprise SIG) have developed a process that is very effective in authoring specifications that can be rapidly adopted and will have a long useful life. This could be a model for other projects creating specifications for a JISC service.” Jim Farmer, “Notes, JISC/CETIS Conference,” 15 November 2005

8. Drill and practice: algebra Gustav Delius, “Serving Mathematics in a distributed e-learning environment, Final Report,” University of York, 24 May 2005

9. It is the process! Listen to Rachel Edwards Educause 2006 interview podcast “The Learning Grid: 21st Century Learning,” Planning and Designing Technology-rich Learning Spaces, 17 July 2006

10. Increasing participationsome unintended consequences

11. UK commitment The UK government is committed to increasing the participation rate in college and university education.

12. Some US/UK differences Thomas Weko, Higher Education Policy Institute, Oxford, March 2004

13. College and university graduates “International Comparisons,” U.S. Department of Education, May 2003

14. The working participant

15. Barriers to success • Inadequate high school preparation • Limited financial resources • Constrained Time (schedule) • Constrained Location • Diverse learning styles

16. Participation and unit costs

17. Cost of additional participants

18. An American Perspective:The Challenges of Student Access and Student Success

19. The public perception

20. The student’s perspective “The explosion of knowledge”

21. The government’s view

22. The new reality

23. 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% per US$1,000 (1990)

24. 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

25. 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

26. The Role of Education Technology

27. 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

28. Differences in learning rates Sillinger and Suppes, 1999

29. 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 specific student.

30. Marin Dougiamas on technology Martin Dougiamas at the February 2006 MoodleMoot Savannah

31. 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

32. Some alternatives

33. The “model” is broken Government Schools of Education “management” Education Technologists Developers Faculty Students Should CETIS create the broken links?

34. 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.

35. Related opportunities • In conjunction with open courseware, develop implement a “cartridge” specification to achieve critical mass. Save publishers from themselves. • “Engineer” learning based on feedback from the use of eLearning systems. Assess prescribe deliver

36. Suggestions • Focus on the relationship between pedagogy and eLearning. (Role for Schools of Education) • For funding foundations and agencies: • Only fund development of services or functions unique to higher education. • Shift from funding development to funding pilot integration and implementation • Document, promote the successful

37. 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.

38. Oleg Liber, CETIS • … we should focus on the “immediate future.” JISC/CETIS Conference, 14 November 2006

39. The endjxf@immagic.comjxf@Georgetown.eduBased on a presentation by Justin E. Tilton, eLearning 2006, 12 February 2006

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

41. Supplementary material

42. Student Perspectives

43. The higher education web world Research Library Administration Instruction Actual screen shots of production applications, Justin E. Tilton, 2003

44. 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

45. 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

46. 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]

47. Serving students Gartner/Avaya, CFO Jan 2005

48. eLearning: some results

49. Rio 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

50. 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