Taking the Risk, Calculating the Return: Developing Successful ELearning Partnerships Curt Bonk, Indiana University, Associate Prof http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk and President, CourseShare.com [email protected] http://CourseShare.com and Ann Hill Duin, University of Minnesota; [email protected].
Download ReportTranscript Taking the Risk, Calculating the Return: Developing Successful ELearning Partnerships Curt Bonk, Indiana University, Associate Prof http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk and President, CourseShare.com [email protected] http://CourseShare.com and Ann Hill Duin, University of Minnesota; [email protected].
Taking the Risk, Calculating the Return: Developing Successful ELearning Partnerships Curt Bonk, Indiana University, Associate Prof http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk and President, CourseShare.com [email protected] http://CourseShare.com and Ann Hill Duin, University of Minnesota; [email protected] Are you ready??? Primary Institutional Motives for Online Education Access (81 percent) Learning (53 percent) Profit (29 percent) Key Reasons for University Investment Access to external resources (67 percent). Improved efficiency in teaching and research (63 percent). Providing distance education to a potentially unlimited audience (58 percent). Less Important Reasons for University Investment Cooperation and resource sharing within the higher education community (41 percent). Building partnerships with business and government (31 percent). Percent of Respondents Figure 24. Reasons for Institutional Investment in Web-Based Teaching and Learning 80 60 40 20 0 Improved Efficiency in Teaching and Research Higher Ed Community Cooperation Low Education to Unlimited Audience Medium Access to External Resources High Build Business and Gov't Partnerships Some Respondent Quotes “to offer equal opportunity of high quality education to students in more rural areas,” “we are under a mandate to increase the number of students we serve…,” “It’s a new revenue source, that’s #1,” and “because Web-based activities are becoming ubiquitous in ALL workplaces.” “Students will demand Web-based courses or go somewhere else.” Facts and Projections • Those participating in continuing education will rise to 100 million by 2004 • Eleven mega-universities serve learners at a cost of $350 per learner per year • Postsecondary enrollment in web-based courses will represent 15% of total enrollment in 2002 – International Data Corporation, 2001 • E-learning market will be $25 billion by 2003 – Merrill Lynch, 2001 • By 2010, the number of corporate universities will exceed the number of traditional universities – U.S. Commission on Web-based Learning, 2000 Robert Jackson, E-Learning, CorpUniversity Partnerships University of Tennessee, Assistant Dean of University Outreach and Director of Distance Ed & Independent Study; [email protected] “Higher education has long had a rocky road creating successful partnerships with business and industry. The rise of e-learning represents a critical opportunity to all parties. Hear what separates these groups and find out what could bring them together in mutually beneficial elearning partnerships.” Distant Cousins (Robert Jackson, e-learning 2002) • Historical Perspective – Closed Architectures • Separate trade shows and coordinating orgs – Uneasy Truce • Philosophical Differences: “Training” vs “ED” – Course cost $35,000-$125,000 (mostly slick multimedia) vs $4,000-$10,000 (mostly text and static graphics) – SME (part-time or temps vs. fulltime tenured professor – Owned by company (work for hire) vs. owned by individual (intellectual property) Inputs and Processes – Consensus (Robert Jackson, e-learning 2002) Learning Topic Corporations’ View Universities’ View Dominant elearning instructional style Self-paced Instructor-led Interest in collaborative activities as learning tools High High Preferred learning format asynchronous synchronous Preferred live instructional metaphor “Shoulder to shoulder”, peer-to-peer “face to face”, expert to learner Use of Course Preassessments and gain scores Frequently Rarely Curriculum Designer Training Manager Individual Faculty Instructional Technology Developer Contract Programmer Faculty or grad assistants Targeted learner community Independent Study Cohort Preferred form of elearning content management software Learning Management System (LMS) Course Management System (CMS) Interest in Learning Content Management Systems (LCMS) Moderate to high Low Interest in elearning management system uniform standards High Low to moderate Goals & Outcomes – Consensus (Robert Jackson, e-learning 2002) Learning Topic Corporations’ View Universities’ View Learning purpose “just in time”, job enhancement focused “just in case”, knowledge awareness focused Target duration of learning “Just enough” Feast of learning Concern for dropouts Low to moderate Moderate to high Descriptive word for learning used in conversation “skills” or “training” “education” Assessment strategies Competency, prescriptive assessment, skill gap analysis, quantitative Mastery, performance relative to cohort, qualitative assessments by faculty Time efficiency goals Reduce time and expense Restricted by accreditation standards Length of typical learning object is measured in increments of… Minutes, within learning objects Hours/Days, within courses Institutional desire for learning content modularity High Moderate to low Common Ground Strategic Directions (Robert Jackson, e-learning 2002) • Academic – Value quantified outcomes – Embrace shorter courses (modularity), and by extension, elearning standards – Be flexible, rethinking old campus-centric conventions – Embrace standards and preassessment • Corporate & Government – Appreciate knowledge as a route to strategic thinking – Appreciate and help change higher ed standards of seattime. – Value synchronous delivery Making Connections Partnering in a Digital Age Ideas from Ann Hill Duin © Ann Hill Duin, [email protected] 2002 “An Internet gateway through which learners, employers, and learning providers are drawn together into a dynamic partnership that creates value for learners, enhances economic development, and engages institutions in meeting the lifelong learning needs of twenty-first century learners” (2001, xvii). Priorities: What outcomes should you expect? Possible Priorities 1. Address a clear learner need 2. Leverage resources; share infrastructure 3. Respond to new markets; improve competitiveness 4. Enhance access and pedagogy of learning US Army Choose Pricewaterhouse • $453 million e-learning program • 10 companies and 29 colleges • 12,000 students in year 1; 10,000 more in 2002 • Goals: Tech savvy soliders; succeed in on the digitized battlefield, enhance retention and help soldiers achieve academic degrees. • Soldiers stationed in Australia, Honduras, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Belgium, Japan, Egypt, the UK, Kuwait, Singapore, Germany, Korea, Macedonia, Italy and Jordan. Distance learner - message I currently live in Maryland and will be moving to Mason City, Iowa to be with family. I have an AA from a community college in Maryland. I wanted to know if you had a distance education program at [local community college] that I would be able to get involved in. If you do, could you email me info at … or mail it to me at … Certificate: Using the Internet in Corp Training Jones International University • Corp trainers retool existing content for online delivery; build an online module • 4 weeks, $550; also optional customized corp training certificate • Use Web to enhance course content, & create a powerful, interactive learning environment for trainees. Online Graduation Ceremonies with Famous Commencement Speakers In Search of a Need? • Fathom, the for-profit, online-learning provider run by Columbia University, has added corporate-training courses to its academic and cultural offerings in a bid to market itself to corporate achievers and job hunters. The move is the latest change in direction the company has made in its search for customers and investors in the competitive distance-education market. – Michael Arnone, Chronicle of HE, Feb 8, 2002 In Search of a Need? • Columbia announced Wednesday that four for-profit education companies -SmartForce, Zoologic, the Kaplan Colleges, and PrimeLearning -- are now offering mostly noncredit courses on businessrelated subjects through Fathom's Professional Development Learning Center …The partnerships will benefit Fathom in the short run because Fathom needs the money that the courses will generate, Possible Priorities 1. Address a clear learner need 2. Leverage resources; share infrastructure 3. Respond to new markets; improve competitiveness 4. Enhance access and pedagogy of learning University Resource Partnership • 3/3/02 DSpace Archive: MIT and HP to create a LT sustainable digital repository – “Instead of submitting the paper to a print commercial journal and waiting months for the results to be published, the researcher can simply pull up MIT’s Center of Teleportation Research Web page and instandly submit the paper and data online, for all his cohorts to review.” Kendra Mayfield Wired News, College Archives ‘Dig’ Deeper. • http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,54229,00.html University Resource Partnership University-World Resource Partnership Administrators and faculty members at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are debating what could become a $100-million effort to create extensive World Wide Web pages for nearly every course the university offers. Jeffrey R. Young, March 1, 2001, The Chronicle of Higher Ed Also See: MIT Cheered from a Distance, Wired News, http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,42841,00.html Cross-University Partnerships • 1/23/01 “The Alliance of Four” • 4 Universities Create an Alliance Against Onslight of Technology Vendors – “UC-Berkeley, Penn State Univ World Campus, Univ of Washington, and Univ of Wisconsin Learning Innovations formed an (informal) alliance to make joint technology purchases. – Trying to deal with vendors who besiege universities and pick them off one at a time State Resource Partnership National Resource Partnership National/Int’l Resource Partnership “Publishers” Software Developers Book Publishers Hollywood Producers Newspapers On-Line Services Technology ISDN MPEG/DVI Photo CD HDTV QuickTime OS/2 Windows Distribution USERS Cable Companies Broadcasters Telephone Cos. Computer Nets Retail Stores Learning Object Standards International Resource Partnership Other Resource Partnerships 22 virtual universities to collaborate 9 universities on 4 continents collab to offer online graduate and professional development courses in Asia University of the Arctic is a consortium of 31 “high latitude” colleges, universities, and governments across 8 countries. First course is Introduction to Circumpolar Studies. (Feb. 15, 2002, Chronicle of HE). Possible Priorities 1. Address a clear learner need 2. Leverage resources; share infrastructure 3. Respond to new markets; improve competitiveness 4. Enhance access and pedagogy of learning Level 3 University Partnerships (Dan Carnevale, Chronicle of Higher Ed, Jan 28, 2002) • Babson College MBA for Intel • Oregon Health and Science Univ MA in Tech Management for Microsoft • UT-Austin Online MS in Science, Tech, and Commercialization for IBM • Univ of Georgia MBA for PricewaterhouseCoopers • Cenquest, President, LaVonne Reimer claims courses are more relevant to occupations (colleges target corp training and exec ed) Not All Partnerships Work • 6/9/01 Faculty wary of e-Cornell • 6/1/01 Company that sells Duke’s online MBA program (Pensare) files for bankruptcy • 8/7/01 UNext asks to restructure its relationshsips with CMU,Stanford, Columbia… • 9/13/01 UNext lays off 135 employees • 12/14/01 Debating the demise of NYUonline • 5/2/02 US Open University will close • 2/20/02 SUNY-Buffalo drops online MBA Reasons for Failure • UNext--Difficult economic period; cited challenges of raising venture capital • US Open U—Insufficient revenues; inadequate enrollments; lacking accreditation & name rec • E-Cornell—diff from mission; out of thin air • Pensare/Duke—lower interest than expected and then market tightened • NUYonline—inadequate business plan (similar problems to UMUConline, Virtual Temple, etc.) • SUNY-Buffalo—not worth expense & hassle – Labor intensive courses, time consuming, etc. Some Partners are Not Strong Katherine Mangan, Chronicle of HE, Feb 20, 2002 • “Like several other business schools whose efforts to expand online have been derailed, Buffalo was burned by an outside partner that failed to live up to its promises…The Albany-based Institute for Entrepreneurship, which ran into financial and management problems, gave the school only about $65,000 of the $200,000 it had promised.” IU Online MBA Homepage Some Facts • The Indiana University Kelley School of Business, for more than eighty years, has been one of the country’s premier business schools. • The undergraduate program is ranked among the top 10 in the country. • The MBA program is ranked by BusinessWeek as among the top 20. • The MBA faculty have the top three teaching faculty in the country. IU Oncourse Partnership (now ANGEL?) Kelley Direct Partnership with GM • Joint program with Purdue School of Engineering and Continuing Education • Obtain MBA online after complete engineering MS • 48 credits normal (cut to 42 in here) • March 2002 35 in program • 100 waiting to get in • Take 1 courses/quarter (3 yr program) Partnership with GM • • • • • MS in Finance (20 students) MS in Strategic Management (15-20 st’s) 30 credits 1 course/quarter 3 year program Partnership with United Technologies • • • • • • MBA, began spring 2002 MS in Global Supply Chain Management 2 year program 30 students, 2 courses/quarter 1 week summer residency 1 week at site Partnership with John Deere • • • • MS in finance for financial managers Just began 52 credits 25 students in program Summary to Date • • • • • 2 year program with residency Started with 14 students Now have 240 total in MBA programs Graduated 60 MBA students to date Gain students though networking, customer contacts, etc. Conclusion The Online MBA program is designed to be beneficial to the employer of a student as well: 1. Key component in many recruiting strategies. 2. Assists firms in retaining their most valued employees. 3. Since the program has a very small “inresidence” component, there is little disruption to an employee’s work schedule. Possible Priorities 1. Address a clear learner need 2. Leverage resources; share infrastructure 3. Respond to new markets; improve competitiveness 4. Enhance access and pedagogy of learning Videoconferencing at IU IUPUI & UCLA e-Portfolios http://eportconsortium.org 1. Members pay $10,000 per year to join 2. Full access to software and its source code 3. Documents and evaluates student achievements and learning improvements 4. Students reflect on work and instructors reflect on their quality 5. Help students transfer 6. Learning benchmarks can be established Learning to Teach with Technology Studio (Partnership of IU and PBS) A New Type of Professional Development The Learning to Teach with Technology Studio is a Web-based professional development system offering quality instruction in quality K - 12 technology integration designed for educators. LTTS Features Short courses (25 growing to 55+) On the web Start anytime and move at own pace Focus on technology integration in inquiry lessons and projects Problem-centered modules Practical and educational Facilitated Standards-based (ISTE NETS and national academic standards) TICKIT: Rural Teacher Technology Integration Overview of TICKIT •In-service teacher education program •Rural schools in southern Indiana •Yearlong, 25 teachers from 5 schools •Primarily school-based •Supported by participating school systems, Arthur Vining Davis Foundations and Indiana University Quality on the Line: Benchmarks for Success in Internet-Based Distance Ed (Blackboard & NEA, 2000) Teaching/Learning Process • Student interaction with faculty is facilitated through a variety of ways. • Feedback to student assignments and questions is provided in a timely manner. • Each module requires students to engage themselves in analysis, synthesis, and evaluation as part of their course assignments. • Course materials promote collaboration among students. – http://www.ihep.com/Pubs/PDF/Quality.pdf Quality on the Line: Benchmarks for Success in Internet-Based Distance Ed (Blackboard & NEA, 2000) Other Benchmark Categories: • Institutional Support: incentive, rewards, plans • Course Development: processes, guidelines, teams, structures, standards, learning styles • Course Structure: expectations, resources • Student Support: training, assistance, info • Faculty Support: mentoring, tech support • Evaluation and Assessment: review process, multiple methods, specific standards E-Learning: Harnessing the hype. Cohen & Payiatakis (2002, Feb). Performance Improvement, 41(7), 7-15. …both instructional and graphic (design)…must be compelling and engaging enough to keep the learner involved, interested, and stimulated…The ideal future is a learning experience designed to be memorable, motivational, and magical if it is to make a lasting impact on the capabilities of the learner. Online Courseware Development Partnerships Rather than every large higher education institution attempting to spend money to develop its own courseware platform or shell, colleges and universities should seek partnerships with courseware and other e-learning companies wherein they serve as beta test sites for new tool development efforts. They might also seek to form tool development consortia with other institutions. (Bonk, 2001) “Online Teaching in an Online World.” Online Learning Pedagogy Partnerships In conjunction with the last recommendation, higher education institutions need to demand and perhaps help develop and research different types of pedagogical tools for e-learning that foster student higher-order thinking and collaboration. Once developed, online tools that target critical and creative thinking as well as teamwork online should be showcased for faculty, students, and administrators. (Bonk, 2001) “Online Teaching in an Online World.” Ideas • Develop a joint program • Locate the best resources and bring them to learners via a learning marketspace • Promote collective virtual learning resources to the world • Make credits transferable between programs • Partner with private companies to assist learners with additional experiences Readiness: What factors most determine success? Readiness The probability of success is dependent on many factors…the basic premise is that a university’s preparation or readiness prior to a partnership initiation is the single most important contributor to success. Robinson & Daigle, 1999, p. 4. State Readiness Criteria • Rosevear’s study of 8 virtual universities • What is the state’s technological infrastructure? • How prepared are the traditional colleges and universities to support virtual learning environments? • Do they all have equal technological capabilities? • What is a reasonable prediction for how long it will take before the virtual university is operational? • What are the resources gaps, and how will they be filled? Inter-Institutional Readiness Criteria • Leadership committed to the effort • Commitment to learner centered education • Climate to support partnership and change • Alignment of key decision makers • Buy-in by faculty, departments, and colleges Readiness criteria for shared course environments • Similar problems • Trust and respect • Low level permissions • No $$ or credit • Clear communication • Clear outcomes • • • • • Delineation of tasks Matrix development Phase one prototype Course offered again Equivalent tech infrastructures • In-house mentoring What is your institution’s partnership rationale? Partnership Rationales • Dave King (IHETS): – Our rationale is that we choose partners based on learner needs and risk. The learner’s risk must be low. Technology is never complete until the user is satisfied. • Susan Kannel (NACTEL): – Our rationale is that we choose a college or university partner based on quality online curricula needed by industry. • Bruce Chaloux (SREB): – Our rationale is to use partnerships to level the playing field (policy development) on behalf of student access. Partnership Rationale -Blueprint • • • • • • Vision Description Beliefs Assumptions Operations Commitment • • • • • Collaboration Risk Control Adaptation Return on Investment John Chambers’ Partnership Rationale (criteria) • Do the partners enjoy a shared vision with complementary roles? • Can the partners create short-term wins? • Does the partnership create a “win” for all key stakeholders? • Are the organizational cultures similar? • Is there geographic proximity? What is your institution’s risk tolerance related to partnerships? ----- legal financial experimental academic Types and Levels of Risk Associated with Partnerships Commerce Alliance Minority equity investment Joint Venture Spin off Merger or acquisition Legal Low Low Low Medium High Financial Low Low Low High High Experimentation Low Low Medium High High Academic Medium Medium High High Medium Consider your current partnerships. What is your potential return on investment? – Learner/Citizen – Faculty – Campus – State Adding Value The magnitude, form, source, and distribution of that value is at the heart of relational dynamics. The perceived worth of an alliance is the ultimate determinant of, first, whether it will be created and, second, whether it will be sustained. --James Austin, 2000, The Collaboration Challenge, 87 ROI for Iowa State University Commerce Minority Alliance – investment Fathom – PBS and IU Joint Venture – IUPUI & UCLA Joint Venture – Purdue-IU & GM Spin off – Wisdom Tools & IIPI High Medium Learners High / citizens High High Faculty Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Campus Low Low Medium High Medium State Medium Medium Medium High High ROI: What is the return on e-learning??? Business ROI Objectives • Better Efficiencies (reduced travel, instructor fees, distribution and facilities costs) • Greater Profitability • Increased Sales • Fewer Injuries on the Job • Less Time off Work • Faster Time to Competency ROI in Higher Education • Students: opportunities, integration with work, learning on demand, inc promotion, new wealth • Faculty: templates for dev curric, integration with real world, time, $ • Campus: educating more, reaching local community, expanding resource base, dispersing costs • State: economic devel, increased business competitiveness, better resource allocation Talking about ROI • As a percentage – ROI=[(PaybackInvestment)/Investment]* 100 • As a ratio – ROI=Return/Investment • As time to break even – Break even time=(Investment/Return) *Time Period More Calculations • Total Admin Costs of Former Program - Total Admin Costs of OL Program =Projected Net Savings • Total Cost of Training/# of Students =Cost Per Student (CPS) • Total Benefits * 100/Total Program Cost =ROI% Percent of Respondents Kirkpatrick’s • Reaction • Learning • Behavior • Results 4 Levels Figure 26. How Respondent Organizations Measure Success of Web-Based Learning According to the Kirkpatrick Model 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Learner satisfaction Change in knowledge, skill, atttitude Job performance Kirkpatrick's Evaluation Level ROI Level 1 Comments. Reactions “We assess our courses based on participation levels and online surveys after course completion. All of our courses are asynchronous.” “Typically involves “Smile sheets” or endof-training evaluation forms. “Easy to collect, but not always very useful.” “We use the Halo Survey process of asking them when the course is concluding.” Kirkpatrick Level 3: Behavior • Can learner apply what learned? Might include: – Direct observation by supervisors or coaches (Wisher, Curnow, & Drenth, 2001). – Questionnaires completed by peers, supervisors, and subordinates related to work performance. – On the job behaviors, automatically logged performances, or self-report data. Shepard, C. (1999b, July). Evaluating online learning. TACTIX from Fastrak Consulting. Retrieved February 10, 2002, from: http://fastrak-consulting.co.uk/tactix/Features/evaluate/eval01.htm. Kirkpatrick Level 4: Results • Often compared to return on investment (ROI) • In e-learning, it is believed that the increased cost of course development ultimately is offset by the lesser cost of training implementation • A new way of training may require a new way of measuring impact Kirkpatrick Level 4: Results • Might Include: – Labor savings (e.g., reduced duplication of effort or faster access to needed information). – Production increases (faster turnover of inventory, forms processed, accounts opened, etc.). – Direct cost savings (e.g., reduced cost per project, lowered overhead costs, reduction of bad debts, etc.). – Quality improvements (e.g., fewer accidents, less defects, etc.). Horton, W. (2001). Evaluating e-learning. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training & Development. Of course, this assumes you have all the documents! My Evaluation Plan… Considerations in Evaluation Plan 8. University or Organization 7. Program 6. Course 5. Tech Tool 1. Student 2. Instructor 3. Training 4. Task What about specific courseware or LMS and other considerations??? Online Program or Course Budget • Indirect Costs: learner disk space, coordination, phone, admin training, creating student criteria, accreditation, integration with existing technology and procedures, library resources, on site orientation & tech training, faculty training, office space, supplies • Direct Costs: courseware, instructor, business manager, help desk, books, seat time, bandwidth and data communications, server, server back-up, course developers, postage Online Program or Course Budget http://webpages.marshall.edu/~morgan16/onlinecosts/ [email protected] Questions to ask • How large a course? • Technology fees charged? • Projected growth rate? • Number of courses? • How pay for system and use? • Tuition rate? Vendor Selection • True commitment to learning…can define what learning is. • 24 x 7 support • Partnerships • Any research, reports, or funded centers? • Longevity • Honest talk and less hype What steps in getting it work? • Institutional support/White Paper – Identify goals, policies, assess plans, resources (hardware, software, support, people) • • • • Faculty qualifications & compensation Audience Needs: student or corporate Finding Funding & Partnering Test software – usability testing – system compatibility – fits tech plans How to get buy-In? • • • • • Let’s form a committee…at least one… Needs analysis, interviews, focus groups Mini-grants, stipends, (i.,e., MONEY!!!) Success stories, sharing, PR Involve all stakeholders in the DM process Marketing • Listed in Major Search Engines (Free in Yahoo! • • • • • • or pay for top listing; premium listing in GradSchools.com) Bulletin Boards—Usenet Newsgroups (alt.education.distance) Specific Web Sites for Domain Mailing Lists—email to subscribors Internal PR Conference Presentations and Pubs Make Academic Advisors Aware How to Fail at e-Learning (Brooke Broadbent, e-learning, January 2001, p. 36-37) • Thinking training, not business • Promise the moon (e.g., 50% cut in costs) • Outsource everything (hire consultants) • Simply make e-learning available (instead select target groups and help change) • Force e-learning on resisters • Don’t evaluate Final Quote Not all partnerships necessarily will be long-term ones, but the commitment to partnering must be long term to counteract the competing forces working to maintain the status quo… To the extent these portfolios develop will depend on the “vision of the possible” provided by all those involved. --Ann Hill Duin and Linda L. Baer, 2002, NLII Some Final Advice… Or Maybe Some Questions???