Transcript 7. Stating the State of E-Learning: Today and Into the Future Curt Bonk, Ph.D., [email protected] Indiana University and CourseShare.com http://CourseShare.com http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk.

7. Stating the State of E-Learning:
Today and Into the Future
Curt Bonk, Ph.D., [email protected]
Indiana University and CourseShare.com
http://CourseShare.com
http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk
What is happening in
higher education?
http://courseshare.com/Reports.php or http://PublicationShare.com
Sample of Other Recent
Surveys
1. A Survey of Traditional and Distance Learning
Higher Education Members, 2000, The National
Education Association.
2. Quality on the Line: Benchmarks for Success in
Internet-Based Distance Education, 2000, Report
from Institute for Higher Education Policy;
sponsored by NEA and Blackboard.
3. Surveying the Digital Future, 2000, 2001, UCLA.
4. Distance Education at Postsecondary Institutions:
1997-98, published in 1999, National Center for
Educational Statistics.
A Vision of E-learning for America’s
Workforce
Report of the Commission on Technology and Adult Learning, (2001, June)
• A remarkable 84
percent of two-and four-
year colleges in the United States expect to
offer distance learning courses in 2002” (only
58% did in 1998) (US Dept of Education report, 2000)
• The percentage of post-secondary students
enrolled in distance ed is expected to triple
from just 5 percent in 1998 to 15 percent in
2002.
Survey Finds Concern on
Administrative Computing
Chronicle of Higher Ed, June 22, 2001, A33, Jeffrey R. Young
“Campus-technology leaders say
they worry more about
administrative-computing
systems than about anything else
related to their jobs.”
(survey by Educause—an academictechnology consortium)
Survey #1: 222 College Faculty
(Early Adopters of the Web)
Survey Limitations
•
•
•
•
•
Sample pool Web savvy
The Web is changing rapidly
Lengthy survey
Some were administrators
Does not address all issues
Higher Education Fantasies
•
•
•
•
•
•
Faculty just need a bit more training.
Young faculty will jump on this.
Pedagogical tools exist to TEACH online.
Faculty will flock to sophisticated tech.
Faculty are loyal.
Web instruction is an either/or decision.
F ig u re 3 . S iz e o f R e s p o n d e n t In s titu tio n s
20%
L e ss tha n 3 ,0 0 0 stud e nts
3 ,0 0 0 - 9 ,9 9 9 stud e nts
54%
26%
N = 218
M o re tha n 1 0 ,0 0 0
stud e nts
F ig u re 7 . R a n k o f R e s p o n d e n ts
10%
P ro fe sso r o r A sso c
P ro fe sso r
5%
A ssista n t P ro fe sso r
8%
A d ju n ct P ro fe sso r
17%
60%
L e ctu re r
r n(ea l.g
., in
am
dm
F ig u re 8 . EO
d uth
c aetio
A tta
e n in
t o f R e s p o n d e n ts
p lu s fa cu lty)
2%
22%
B a cca la ure a te
M a ste rs
6%
ABD
D o cto ra l
70%
How Old Are Early Web Adopters?
Respondent's Age
2%
7%
20-35
36-50
47%
44%
51-65
66+
N=218
Why post to MERLOT.org or the WLH?
Reasons
N = 211 (*Note: Categories are not m utually exclusive.)
O
th
er
Fu
n
th
G
ro
w
Ex
pe
rim
en
t
Co
ur
s
M
ar
ke
tS
e
el
Sh
f
ar
Sh
in
g
ar
Im
e
po
Th
rta
eo
nt
rie
s
or
St
ra
te
gi
es
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Re
qu
ire
d
Num ber of Respondents
Why Post to MERLOT or WLH*
Internet Access
• 78 percent had Internet access in their
current or most recent classroom.
• 93 percent had computer lab accessibility.
• 97 percent had home access.
– Note: This is more than double the 47 percent
of Americans who are users of the Internet at
home as reported in a recent UCLA study (The
UCLA Internet Report, 2000).
Are you a Web Hog???
(do you hog the modem pool?)
Study Says Net Users are Stressed, but Not Depressed,
Los
Angeles
Times. reported negative
“The
previously
outcomes associated with the
Internet had all but
New
study:
More
time
online…
disappeared…except for the
• Extroverts
= better
less lonelier,
& higher
association
withmood,
increased
stress”
self-esteem.
• Introverts = the lonlier, more unhappy, used Net
more for entertainment not social contact.
Any Online Teaching Experiences?
F ig u re 1 8 . O n lin e T e a c h in g E x p e rie n c e s
P artially an d
C om pletely
18%
N on e
24%
C om pletely O n lin e
19%
P artially O n lin e
39%
F ig u re 1 9 . D e g re e o f C o m fo rt w ith W e b S k ills
C o u rse w a re
O n lin e D iscu ssio n
F ile A tta ch m e n ts
Chat
HTML
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
P e rc e n t o f R e s p o n d e n ts
Low
M e d iu m
H ig h
100%
Who Owns Online Courses?
Online Courses are the Property of an
Institution, Not an Instructor (N= 215)
Strongly
Agree
Agree 4%
Strongly
12%
Disagree
34%
Unsure
21%
Disagree
29%
Is Teaching Online TimeConsuming?
F ig u re 2 0 . T e a c h in g O n lin e C o u rs e s is M o re T im e C o n s u m in g th a n T e a c h in g T ra d itio n a l C o u rs e s
S tro n g ly
D isa g re e
D is a g re e
6%
2%
U n su re
10%
S tro n g ly
A g re e
41%
A g re e
41%
D e ve lo p in g O n lin e E d u c a tio n
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
P ro fit
L e a rn in g
A gre e
S tro n g ly
A gre e
U n s u re
D is a g re e
D is a g re e
A cce ss
S tro n g ly
P e r c e n t o f R e s p o n d e n ts
F ig u re 2 3 . P rim a ry In s itu tio n a l M o tive s fo r
F ig u re 1 5 . C o m fo rta b le w ith D e g re e s E a rn e d
50
40
B a ch e lo r's
30
M a ste r's
20
D o cto ra l
10
A gree
S trongly
A gree
U n sure
D isagre e
D isagre e
0
S trongly
P e rc e n t o f R e s p o n d e n ts
E n tire ly O n lin e
Courseware Systems
• 83 percent were provided a Web-based
platform or courseware system
• 22 percent more than one.
• 27 of those making a decision had more
than one.
• 10 percent had access to three courseware
systems or conferencing tools.
Courseware Features Like with
Current Tool
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Comprehensive, consistent, customizable
Ease of use, flexible, reliable
Data and course security
Detailed statistics on bulletin board use
Good online help
Internal e-mail systems, drop boxes, chats
Posting of tasks & due dates on Web
Randomized test banks
What Percent of Time Teach Online?
F ig u re 2 1 . P e rc e n t o f In s tru c tio n a l T im e S p e n t
P e rc e n t o f R e s p o n d e n ts
T e a c h in g O n lin e D u rin g th e N e x t D e c a d e
80
60
0%
40
1 -2 5 %
20
2 5 -5 0 %
0
5 1 -7 5 %
1 Year
2 Y e a rs
5 Y e a rs 1 0 Y e a rs
T im e T e a c h in g O n lin e
7 6 -1 0 0 %
Interested in Freelance Instruction?
Freelance or Adjunct Web-Based Teaching
100%
Percent of Respondents
90%
80%
70%
60%
Yes
50%
No
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Past Experience
Interest in Next 5 Years
Ti
m
Te
O b s ta c le s
ch
e
lS
re
O
e
t
th
er
rt
st
ar
po
te
tw
up
In
of
p
en
re
m
P
ip
ng
ce
ni
eb
f fi
ai
W
O
e
S
rs
qu
of
ca
ck
ni
La
E
ar
ou
ss
rC
la
fo
C
dw
n
Tr
ar
eb
Le
W
to
ar
e
H
m
e
Ti
P e rc en t o f Re sp o n d en ts
Any Obstacles to Teaching Online?
F ig u re 3 2 . M a jo r O b s ta c le s to U s e o f th e W e b in
T e a c h in g
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Problems Faced
Administrative:
Pedagogical:
• “Lack of admin vision.”
• “Lack of incentive from
admin and the fact that
they do not understand the
time needed.”
• “Lack of system support.”
• “Little recognition that this
is valuable.”
• “Rapacious U intellectual
property policy.”
• “Unclear univ. policies
concerning int property.”
• “Difficulty in performing
lab experiments online.”
• “Lack of appropriate
models for pedagogy.”
Time-related:
• “More ideas than time to
implement.”
• “Not enough time to
correct online assign.”
• “People need sleep; Web
spins forever.”
st
P riv a te
ru
O
tu
ct
E
P u b lic
ea
se
ni
Ti
m
e
ds
n
es
t io
ng
en
og
t ip
ec
lS
el
na
R
io
R
p
es
el
rc
H
ou
ha
es
lC
R
ai
e
s
eb
eb
rs
rt
es
W
W
ne
po
cc
m
A
oo
nt
tR
de
-m
in
ha
nl
C
S
n
ig
up
se
ar
U
Le
es
lS
lD
ca
to
to
na
ni
ng
e
io
ch
ni
m
ct
ai
Ti
ru
Tr
st
In
In
Te
Pe rcen t o f R e sp o n d e n ts
F ig u re 3 5 . S u p p o rts N e e d e d fo r W e b -B a s e d
T e a c h in g B y In s titu tio n T yp e
100
80
60
40
20
0
Does technical support vary by size??
F ig u re 3 3 . P e rc e ive d L a c k o f S u p p o rt fo r T e c h n ic a l
P ro b le m s a n d C o u rse w a re D e ve lo p m e n t b y In stitu tio n a l
Pe r c e n t o f R e s p o n d e n ts
S ize
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
u n d e r 3 ,0 0 0
3 ,0 0 0 -9 ,9 9 9
In stitu tio n a l S ize
1 0 ,0 0 0 o r m o re
F ig u re 2 6 . O rg a n iza tio n a l L e ve l o f In stru c tio n a l
T e a c h in g b y S ize o f In stitu tio n
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
under 3,000
3,000-9,999
lt y
cu
Fa
TO
C
rt
S
ch
Te
ni
ar
Le
up
en
ng
C
tL
ep
D
po
te
r
el
ev
dm
in
10,000 or m ore
A
P e r c e nt of R e s ponde n ts
T e c h n o lo g y D e c isio n s R e la te d to W e b -B a se d
F ig u re 1 7 . S u g g e s te d In s tru c to r C o m p e n s a tio n fo r
C o m p e n s a tio n
C om pensa tion
N o A dd'l
O the r
R ele ase T im e
R ecogn ition
S alary
R oyalties
C ourse
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
S tipends
P ercen t o f R esp o n d en ts
T e a c h in g O n lin e
Online Technology Pushes
Pedagogy to the Forefront
Frank Newman & Jamie Scurry, Chronicle of
Higher Education, July 13, 2001, B7.
“Many faculty members are still
concerned whether the technology is
simple and reliable enough to use for
more-sophisticated learning tasks.
Increasingly, however, better software
is emerging that engages students in
more effective learning.”
P e rc e n t o f R e s p o n d e n t s
F ig u re 3 0 . O n lin e In s tru c tio n a l A c tivitie s
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
S cien tif ic
D ata A n alysis
L ab
P erf orm an ce
S im u lation s
C ritical an d
C reative Th in kin g
A ctu a l U se
H ig h U se fu ln e ss
What Instructional Activities are Needed?
P e d a g o g ica l
Id e a s
A n sw e rs to
T e a ch in g
P ro b le m s
E xp e rt
A d vice
C la ss
M anagem ent
T ip s
R e co g n itio n
N e w sle tte rs
S to ryte llin g
P e r c e n t o f R e s p o n d e n ts
F ig u re 3 6 . Im p o rta n t F e a tu re s o f F re e C o u rs e S h a rin g C o m m u n ity
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
General Recommendations
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Develop Instructor Training Programs
Foster Instructor Recognition and Support
Create Instructor & Resource Sharing Tools
Develop Online Learning Policies
Conduct Online Learning Research
Form Online Learning Dev Partnerships
Create/Test Online Learning Pedagogy
Survey #2: 201 Trainers, Instructors,
Managers, Instructional Designers,
CEOs, CLOs, etc.
More Survey Limitations
•
•
•
•
•
Low Response Rate
Web Interested Sample
Broad Backgrounds
Lengthy Survey
Tech Limitations
F ig u re 3 8 . In s tru c tio n a l S tra te g ie s P e rc e ive d a s F a irly E q u a lly
S u p p o rte d b y O n lin e a n d T ra d itio n a l C la s s ro o m E n viro n m e n ts
80
P e rc e n t o f R e s p o n d e n ts
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
E xplo r a tio n
Stude nt
G e ne r a te d
C o nte nt
C a se -B a se d
G uilde d
L e a r ning
PBL
M o de ling
O nline
T raditional
E qual
F ig u re 3 9 . In s tru c tio n a l S tra te g ie s P e rc e ive d a s B e tte r
S u p p o rte d b y O n lin e th a n T ra d itio n a l C la s s ro o m
E n viro n m e n ts
P e rc e nt of R e s ponde n ts
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
G r o up P r o b
So c r atic
R o le P lay &
So lv ing &
Q ue stio ning
Sim ulatio ns
C o llab
D isc ussio n
C o ac hing o r
L e c tur ing
M e nto r ing
O nline
T raditional
E qual
F ig u re 4 0 . Im p o rta n t C h a ra c te ris tic s o f W e b B a s e d L e a rn in g
C u rio sity/F u n
V a rie ty/N o ve lty
In te ra ctive /C o lla b .
C h o ice /F le x ib ility
P e rso n a l G ro w th
G o a l-D rive n
R e sp o n sive
F e e d b a ck
R e le va n t M a te ria ls
0
20
40
60
P e rc e n t o f R e s p o n d e n ts
80
100
F ig u r e 4 1 . Ac tiv itie s L e a r n e r s W o u ld D e e m
Hig h ly E n g a g in g a n d Us e fu l
E-m a il P a ls /P e e r Re vie w
V oting/P olling
S ym pos ia /P a ne ls
S tude nts Le a ding Dis c us s ion
Ele c tr onic Gue s ts /M e ntor ing
Gr oup P r oje c ts /Te a m s
Br a ins tor m ing
Ca s e s or J ob Re fle c tions
0
10
20
30
40
50
P e rc e n t o f R e s p o n d e n ts
60
70
F ig u re 3 5 . In s tru c to r T o o ls w ith H ig h G ro w th P o te n tia l
T ra in e r P ro file s
D e m o n s tra tio n s
Feedback and
A n n o ta tio n s
C ritic a l/C re a tiv e
T h in k in g
T ra in e r T a s k
C o lla b o ra tio n
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
P e rc e n t o f R e s p o n d e n ts In d ic a tin g H ig h U s e fu ln e s s fo r a P a rtic u la r
T o o l o r R e s o u rc e B u t N o t C u rre n tly U s in g It
So what happens
to the
University???
Note: any predictions are
bound to be too conservative!!!
Universities Replaced? No...
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Most distance lrng is mixed--Web & Live
Brick and mortar needs to be used
Online learning only approximates live lrng
Expanding birth rate = need for more educ.
Web learning is for select reasons
Most colleges will find their niche
Socialization argument
– (the 18-20 year old need to party hardy)
Universities Replaced--Yes!
• Web has more potential for active lrng.
• Tchg/lrng expectations are changing fast!
• Expanding birth rate
– Payoffs from experiments in 3rd world countries.
•
•
•
•
Web courses can be repurposed/reused.
Web learning will increase in stability
Real chance to overthrow the system!!!
Who needs more football and drinking?
Forces Acting Against
Replacement
•
•
•
•
•
Yes, radical change, but room for both
High actual costs of online learning
Difficult to be animated on the Web
Hard to measure benefits
Tenure & hard to change practices,
procedures, expectations
• Institutional Politics
• Eye damage reports due to overexposure
How are costs calculated in
online programs???
Forces In Favor of Replacement
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
States not funding as highly as before
Wireless technology; add’l emerging tech
Global economy and marketplace
Commercialization of best lrng products
Innovative faculty; stalling universities
Demand for learning/just in time info
Lots of wasted space in university offices
Faculty Member in 2020
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Track 1: Technical Specialist
Track 2: Personal Guide
Track 3: Online Facilitator
Track 4: Course Developer
Track 5: Course or Program Manager
Track 6: Work for Hire Online Lecturer
Track 7: High School Teacher
Track 8: Unemployed
Student Differences in 2020
• Live Longer
• More Educated
– Multiple Degrees
– Accustomed to Multiple Learning Formats
– Design own programs and courses
• Specialists AND Generalists
• Courses/Degrees for unknown
occupations
• Expect to Take Courses Where Live
• Cyber-students (various digital aids attached to appendages)
Typical Technology in 2020
• Global Chat, Interplanetary Chat
– Guest Lectures from Mars, Space Shuttle, Moon
•
•
•
•
Global Instructors (with online skill ratings)
Intelligent Tutors, Butlers, and Agents
E-Course Generators and Object Sharing
Lifetime Cyberlearning Stats & Educ
Genealogies
• Language Translation Tools
• Online Essay Plagiarism Check & Scoring
Possible Roles of University in 2020
•
•
•
•
Meeting place (degrees conferred, picnics, etc.)
Certificate grantor
Online tech support desk
Matchmaking: pair students with instructors &
other students for counseling/mentoring
• Research online learning communities
• Outward bound-like experiences (tours and
experiences of what universities used to be like)
Possible Scenarios by Year 2020
•
•
•
•
•
•
Virtual U’s and Traditional U’s Coexist
Traditional Univ’s buy stake in Virtual U’s
Traditional Univ’s form Consortia
Some Trad U’s Move Ahead, Some Don’t
Other Technology arise well beyond Web
Large Virtual U’s Buy Competing
Traditional U’s and shut them down
What Uses for Old Institutions
of Higher Learning???
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Museums
Historical Monuments
Bomb Shelters
Resorts and Apartment Complexes
Nostalgic Retirement Homes
Green Space
Prisons
Final Advice
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Use blended or flexible approaches.
Distribute success stories.
Read published reports.
Negotiate partnerships.
Find ways to share resources.
Help build better e-learning tools.
Try things out & let me know what works.
So, any questions about
the state of things?