The Future of E-Learning and How The University of Macau Can Lead T he Way

1. The Future of E-Learning and How The University of Macau Can Lead The Way Professor John V. Dempsey, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama, USA

2. Who am I? • Brenda’s spouse • Director of Innovation in Learning Center • USA Online – University’s online campus Faculty Development • E-learning and course redesign initiatives • Professor of Instructional Design and Development • Former Fulbright Scholar in Malaysia • Happy to be here!

3. What am I going to discuss? • E-Learning formats and their effectiveness • Trends and demographics in US e-Learning • Trends and demographics in Asian e-Learning • Case: How we increased quality and reduced costs at my university • Changing face of public university education • How the University of Macau could lead the way • Other questions?

4. E-Learning formats and their effectiveness

5. E-Learning Is • E-learning comprises all forms of electronically supported learning and teaching. (Wikipedia)

6. Synchronous Continuum Asynchronous Synchronous + Self-paced formats

7. Online activities and learning

8. E-Learning Formats at Universities • Web-enhanced • Less than 5% online or out of class • Blended (hybrid) • 5-85% online or out of class • Online • 85-100% online or out of class

9. Current Best Evidence USDOE meta-analysis* “Students who took all or part of their class online performed better, on average, than those taking the same course through traditional face-to-face instruction.” “Instruction combining online and face-to-face elements had a larger advantage relative to purely face-to-face instruction than did purely online instruction.” *Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies, Washington, D.C., 2010.

10. Trends and demographics in US e-Learning

11. US Trends

12. US Trends

13. US Trends

14. US Trends

15. Bottom line:BIG format shift. Great demand for non-traditional formats

16. Trends and demographics in Asian e-Learning

17. Current State of e-learning in AsiaAverage growth rate in e-learning is 28.4% Sri Lanka Indonesia Mid use Philippines Pakistan Nepal Vietnam Low use Cambodia Laos Bhutan • Australia • South Korea • Japan High use • Singapore • India • China • Malaysia • Thailand

18. Current trends for e-Learning in Asia • Indonesia strictly controls the quality of academic distance learning content. It is difficult for foreign companies to enter into their domestic market. • Chinahas a strict system to approve e-learning programs. No foreign countries are allowed to tender for government contracts.

19. Current trends for e-Learning in Asia • South Korea intends to use e-learning solutions to train all primary and secondary school students. • Thailand has plans to provide all students with tablets by 2012. • Chinaaims to have over 200 million students online by 2020

20. China: Online learners in millions

21. E-Learning in China • Private K-12 - Edu.china.com and Yuloo.com • ChinaEdu Corporation 165,000 students in online degree programs • Corporate training China-training.com Enterprise Learning Center – Xuexugang.com Chinaonlineedu.com

22. E-Learning in China • University - Chinese Learning Net & RenminUniv • Open University of China (Central Radio and TV U) 68 online colleges 140 majors in 10 areas 2,027 off-campus learning centers Total enrollment of 1.4 million

23. Languages of e-Learning courses • 33% English • 16% Chinese • 7% Japanese • 3% Korean • 3% Arabic • 38% Other Opportunity?

24. Case: How we increased quality and reduced costs at my university

25. Institutional Backdrop Financial crisis Decreasing state support Increasing demand for flexible learning opportunities LMS decision Better technology options • Administrative Initiative: • Critical support--by Senior VP (Provost) • Strong buy-in from Deans • Involved faculty leadership

26. Course Redesign InitiativeFirst Round • 37 faculty Proposals respond to SVPAA’s call • Up to 18,000 annual course enrollments affected long term • 25 pilots started fall 2010 semester

27. WhyRedesign? modernize systems urban university economic pressures

28. Course Redesign Initiative Principles: Improve Quality Increase Cost Efficiency

29. Research Support USDOE meta-analysis* “Students who took all or part of their class online performed better, on average, than those taking the same course through traditional face-to-face instruction.” “Instruction combining online and face-to-face elements had a larger advantage relative to purely face-to-face instruction than did purely online instruction.” *Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies, Washington, D.C., 2009.

30. Redesign RFPs • Description of specific innovation • Instructional efficiency goals as measured by instructional salary/credit hour production • Rationale for choosing the innovation • Costs associated with implementation • Time frame for piloting redesign Faculty Proposal

31. Evaluation plan to demonstrate improved quality and cost efficiencies • Sources of baseline information • Baseline instructional costs • How active learning results • How student learning is measured Cont’d Redesign RFPs Proposal Review

32. Six Models of Course Redesign(based on NCAT) • The Supplemental Model • The Replacement Model • The Emporium Model • The Fully Online Model • The Buffet Model • Linked Workshop Model Math Emporium Lab at Univ. of South Alabama

33. Course Redesign Initiative • Focus • High enrollment courses • eLearning • usually blended format

34. Scope U. South Alabama • 37 redesign proposals (first round) • affecting estimated 4,400 undergrads

35. Type of Redesign

36. Quality and Cost Efficiencies • Creative eLearning technologies • lecture capture • interactive instructional materials from publishers • online tutoring • guided examples • team case studies • expert guests

37. Quality and Cost Efficiencies • Active on-campus learning sessions • Structured team-based problems • Cases and inquiry learning scenarios • Oral and project presentations • Large group content review • Strategic quizzing; practice tests • Critiques and discussion

38. How have we supported? Professional Development • NCAT and Sloan-C Conferences and workshops - 3 groups of faculty • Innovation in Learning Center workshops • ILC Redesign website • Evaluation assistance • Redesign Academy (3 days w/ honorarium) • Redesign Faculty Get-Togethers

39. How have we supported? Direct Support • New Institutional tools (iTunesU, Camtasia Relay, Kaltura, Big blue Button) • Personal Tools (laptops, software) • E-Learning Assistant Program ILC staff shooting video of blended course activities

40. How have we supported? Peer Modeling • Some eLeader program topics: • Creating screencasts for Political Science • Using online debates in Community Health courses • Assessment--matching Engineering outcomes • iTunes U in Real Estate courses • Using Wikis in Library Science • Presentation skills for video in Nursing courses • Preparing student review podcasts om Business • Virtual Engineering chalkboard

41. How did we measure? Cost Indicators • Comparison of Methods Institutional • Personnel cost per Student • % Change in personnel cost per student • Course enrollment • Reduction in part-time instructors and GAs • Course Specific • Reassign faculty assignments • Time for research and grant-seeking

42. How did we measure? Quality Metrics • Comparison of Methods Institutional • Student Success rates • D/Fs, • WDs • Course Specific • Common Final Exams • Common Content Items Selected from Exams • Pre- and Post-tests • Student Work Using Common Rubrics

43. Personnel Costs fall 2010

44. Personnel Costs Spring 2011

45. Fall 2010 Grade Comparisons

46. Spring 2011 Grade Comparisons

47. Continue Formative Focus • Working with administrators and faculty to improve or restructure course redesign • Alert chairs and deans to problems • Discuss course redesign changes with Depts. • Ongoing reports to VP

48. Formative Focus USA Redesign Academy • Identify most effective and efficient courses • Determine commonalities that resulted in success • Structure • Activities • Course formats • Targeted faculty training • Student support from faculty members

49. Some Improvements • Initial student orientation help create structure • Changing from online to more structured blended format for 100-level courses • Evaluate savings in classroom use Student Orientation Video prepared by the USA Innovation in Learning Center.

50. Student Success Ratesfirst year (2010-11 academic year) On average (all courses) : • Success rates were highest for blended and online courses versus the traditional or web-enhanced course format. • Withdrawal rates were lowest for blended courses and highest for online courses. • Class sizes were largest for the blended format; smallest in the traditional format.