Challenges and opportunities for blended learning in research universities Pip Pattison

1. Challenges and opportunities for blended learning in research universities Pip Pattison Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) Sydney Teaching Colloquium: Blended Learning for Engaged Enquiry University of Sydney, October 2, 2013

2. Outline • International context (MOOCs and more) • The case for blended learning • An institutional approach • Other institutional considerations • A few final thoughts on ‘unbundling’ in higher education

3. International context (MOOCs and more)International context (MOOCs and more) 1. International context (MOOCs and more)

4. 1. Global context: some non-ignorable trends in the higher education environment • The rapid rise of open online resources, in general, and MOOCs, in particular (open access, eBooks, “eBookClubs”, …) • The slower but consistent rise in online degree enrolments, and the emergence of higher quality for-fee online programs • Increasingly pervasive and more inclusive mobile connectivity • Increasing interest in and capacity for learning analytics • The “unbundling” of higher education • International and national concerns about cost and access (government and communities) and funding (universities) • New models: • The Minerva Project • New MOOC sequences: Wharton (Coursera), MIT (edX) • Georgia Institute of Technology: Master of Computer Science online

5. The rise of open resources and courses

6. Approximately linear growth in enrolments

7. US students with at least one online enrolment as a fraction of the total students *Allen & Seaman (2013): http://edf.stanford.edu/readings/changing-course-ten-years-tracking-online-education-united-states

8. The state of the internet* *http://www.businessinsider.com/state-of-internet-slides-2012-10?op=1

9. Why have universities engaged with MOOCs? Our reasons are likely typical... An opportunity to: • gain experience in online course development and delivery at scale (with no direct exchange of funds or IP) • build data, expertise for new approaches to learning analytics • develop more effective approaches to automated and adaptive feedback • explore new pathways to higher education • support ‘global’ classrooms with international partners • build high quality resources for blended learning on campus • offer courses at scale with tangible contribution to a public engagement agenda • foster a broader discussion on innovation in L&T

10. Consensus on reason for engaging with MOOCs, from Maturing of the MOOC* • Universities • Brand extension • Recruitment • Educational innovation • Revenue (or cost reduction) opportunity • Learners • Satisfactory learning experiences • Curiosity • Learning, rather than an award *UK Department for Business Innovation and Skills, Research Paper No 130, September 2012

11. Of course we need to be mindful of who MOOC students are… Principles of Macroeconomics 20.4% USA 9.2% India 6.4% Australia 4.4% Spain 3.9% U.K 3.5% Germany 3.4% Portugal 3.3% Serbia 3.2% Russia 88 countries in total Forms of engagement – Discrete Optimization* *Van Hentenryck, P. & Coffrin, C. (2013). Teaching creative problem solving in a MOOC. University of Melbourne

12. A new industry: predicting the future of higher education

13. Positive impacts of MOOCs Heightened general interest in higher education teaching and learning Renewed interest in experimentation Renewed interest in research in higher education (learning analytics) Serving an engagement agenda, and providing something that a largely educated audience wants

14. But, divergent views on where MOOCs are leading, from Maturing of the MOOC* “Strong commitments from top university brands, stoked by large venture capital investments, have cooked up a powerful and frothy brew. A tonic for an ailing education system say some, a poison for Universities say others.” “The prevalent opinion is that, whatever their faults, MOOCs herald an unstoppable “Napster moment” which will break the old business model of Higher Education...” *UK Department for Business Innovation and Skills, Research Paper No 130, September 2012

15. International context (MOOCs and more)International context (MOOCs and more) 2. The case for blended learning

16. Graham et al, 2013*: Course delivery forms *Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W , Harrison, J. B (2013). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 4–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.003

17. Technology is supporting an expanding set of Learning and Teaching possibilities • Online v. face-to-face • Free v. fee • Awards and degrees v. certificates and badges • Open v. restricted • Self-paced v. in-session • Synchronous v. asynchronous • Group- v. individual-based • Instructor- v. peer-based • Institution- v. student-focused • Generative v. analytical • Immersive and rich v. abstract and idealised • Personalised v. standardised • Credential- v. challenge-based entry • Interactive v. passive • Problem- v. content-structured • Adaptive v. fixed • Experiential v. ‘abstracted’ • Reflective v. programmatic • Mobile v. location-dependent • Evidence-based v. tradition-based • Immediate v. delayed feedback • Mastery v. threshold Question for us all: What parts of this yeasty space to occupy (especially as MOOCs raise the temperature)?

18. Blended learning and the broader role of technology in Learning & Teaching eLearning • Digital technologies to enhance interaction, engagement, learning • New learning tools that capitalise on the distinctive possibilities of digital technologies Online subjects and courses • Adding diversity and flexibility for on-campus programs • Online and blended pathways to and through higher education • Open offerings for broad online engagement

19. The on campus component of blended learning (blended) on campus = online + more • Balancing the distinctive advantages of online and face-to-face Understanding and enhancing the “more”? • A scholarly community within a richly resourced (human, physical, virtual) learning environment, and the opportunities for learning, interaction and creativity which it supports • A wealth of opportunities to support broader personal development (especially for 18-22 year olds)

20. Blended learning: the ‘in class’ component • Online v. face-to-face • Free v. fee • Awards and degrees v. certificates and badges • Open v. restricted • Self-paced v. in-session • Synchronous v. asynchronous • Group- v. individual-based • Instructor- v. peer-based • Institution- v. student-focused • Generative v. analytical • Immersive and rich v. abstract and idealised • Personalised v. standardised • Credential- v. challenge-based entry • Interactive v. passive • Problem- v. content-structured • Adaptive v. fixed • Experiential v. ‘abstracted’ • Reflective v. programmatic • Mobile v. location-dependent • Evidence-based v. tradition-based • Immediate v. delayed feedback • Mastery v. threshold A further question for us all: How to build effective ‘in class’ activities that realise engaged enquiry in a blended learning environment?

21. Challenge #1 Challenge # 1 • What will blended learning look like in 2030? (And who will be offering it in what types of institutions?)

22. Blended learning: better student learning outcomes through Engaged Enquiry Broad empirical support for the effectiveness of: • “active” learning • activities that bridge learning and practice • activities requiring student-student interactions Learning experiences need to be: • well designed • effective • and often also creative and innovative Feedback on effectiveness for learning is vital: • for teachers: rapid improvement and adaptation • for students: guiding learning • for stakeholders: broad assurance of outcomes

23. Challenge #1 Challenge # 2 • What type of information would you like (but don’t currently have) to help improve learning outcomes for your students?

24. The student voice Responses from a representative sample of 10,000 US students in 226 colleges & universities (Feb-April, 2013)* Type of course in which college students say they tend to learn most: Courses with no online components 22.1% Courses with some online components 57.7% Courses that are completely online 7.8% No preference 12.4% *The Chronicle, 2013-2014 Almanac, 23 August 2013

25. International context (MOOCs and more)International context (MOOCs and more) 3. An institutional approach

26. Making blended learning work Our approach • Strategic framework developed by Director, eLearning • Implementation: • Design in the hands of staff members • $$ to create affordances (time, help, resources) • Engagement at all points of the technology adoption curve • Mechanisms to foster and disseminate innovation (an eLearning Incubator) • Context: broader teaching and learning objectives, including increased experiential learning opportunities • Measures of success: outcomes for students

27. Learning and Teaching Initiatives ($5K-$50K ) • Focus on Collaboration, Interaction and Engagement • Promoting Interaction in large and small group lectures • Increasing interaction between staff and students and among students through peer-based learning and social networking • Improving feedback to students and assessment • Innovative learning design in technology based learning environments • Mobile learning on and off campus • Connecting distributed learners with rich media & virtual classrooms • Some fully online/blended subjects for increased flexibility

28. The eLearning Incubator Centre for the Study of Higher Education Information Technology Services Students Learning Environments Academics in faculties Library PBC Bid eLI

29. Some current projects

30. Our initial seven Coursera subjects Course Instructor Level Weeks Exercise Prof Mark Hargreaves 3rd year UG 6 Physiology Generating the Prof Jeff Borland 1st year (breadth) 10 wealth of nations Discrete Prof Pascal van Hentenryck Graduate 8 Optimization (NICTA) Epigenetic control Dr Marnie Blewitt (WEHI) Graduate 6 of gene expression Principles of Prof Nilss Olekalns 1st year 8 Macroeconomics Animal Profs Raoul Mulder & 3rd year 6 Behaviour Mark Elgar Climate changeProf Rachel Webster & 1st year (breadth) 9 colleagues

31. Dedicated studio

32. The Learning Analytics Research Group The focus is large data sets of staff and students' interactions in electronic learning environments Six themes: • Student motivation and autonomous learning in MOOCs • Gamification and game based learning environments • Modelling student interactions in open curriculum structures • Data mining, machine learning and predictive analytics • Social network analysis and network modelling • Feedback and adaptive learning environments

33. A framework for professional development in eLearning

34. International context (MOOCs and more)International context (MOOCs and more) 4. Other institutional considerations

35. Institution-wide adoption of blended learning: what works? • Special issue (March 2013) on blended learning policy and implementation • Strategic framework includes: • Technology and infrastructure • Intellectual Property • “Seat time” (contact hours) and credit points • Incentives and staffing (tenure, promotion, value, salary) • Funding for change • Evaluation of outcomes, including peer review • Professional development and support for staff • Whole of institution case studies, including: • Maastricht University • University of Central Florida

36. Technology and infrastructure • Pervasive wireless? • Collaborative learning spaces • Informal learning spaces

37. Staffing • Figlio, Schapiro & Soter: Are tenure track professors better teachers? National Bureau of Economic Research, September 2013 • Data: 8 successive cohorts of students at Northwestern (2001-2008; 15,662 students) • Outcome: “consistent evidence that students learn more from non-tenure track professors in their introductory courses”, across a range of subject areas, and most pronounced for average and less-qualified students

38. On outcome measures It is important to focus on meaningful measures of student outcomes, not just on what we have available... Extract from the MyUniversity Disclaimer “The Department monitors the quality of the information available on this website and updates the information regularly. However, the Department does not make any representation or warranty about the accuracy, reliability, currency or completeness of any material contained on this website or on any linked site.”

39. Group of Eight (Go8) Quality Verification System (QVS) An expert/peer judgment system designed to provide light-touch review of learning outcomes, assessment tasks, assessment standards • demonstrate the appropriateness of the standards of learning outcomes and grades awarded in Go8 universities, without compromising curriculum and pedagogical innovation • maintain and improve the academic standards of Go8 universities • enable comparisons of learning outcomes in similar subjects across Go8 universities • promote discussion on good practice in teaching and learning in the Go8 universities

40. Distinctive features • designed to be as ‘light touch’ as possible and hence both systematic and sustained • timing is flexible • focuses on assessment in a sample of final year subjects in undergraduate fields of education(must cover a minimum of 25 percent of final year assessment requirements); • conducted by senior discipline-relevant academics (Level D and above) who will have an understanding of academic standards in leading universities around the world

41. Challenge #1 Challenge # 3 • If you had to nominate a single measure of success for a blended learning initiative, what would your preferred choice be?

42. International context (MOOCs and more)International context (MOOCs and more) 5. A few final thoughts on “unbundling” in higher education

43. Why and how does peer review of standards work (best)? • Universities co-locate researchers and research infrastructure, affording creative interaction • Research networks connect researchers worldwide • These networks support a shared culture of open and critical enquiry and knowledge discovery and exchange, and peer review processes underpin shared views of academic standing and academic standards • Research networks are more extensive, more open and more far-reaching than teaching networks

44. Co-publication among co-authors of Erdös and their co-authors (http://www.math.ucsd.edu/~fan/graphs/gallery/)

45. The value proposition of (blended) teaching and learning in research-intensive universities The co-location of research and teachingallows: • higher education to draw distinctively on and pass on its culture of open and critical enquiry and discovery • student learning and interaction within a rich environment for learning and discovery • convenient and often efficient synergies (or cross-subsidies) in funding of research and higher education • benefits for teaching and learning from depth of expertise • benefits for research of expertise in learning and teaching and student flows The co-location of research, teaching and practice allows: • open and critical engagement of higher education and research with public life, professional practice and industry

46. What must our blended learning environments be careful not to “unbundle”? • The research networks and culture • The (human, physical, virtual) learning environment and the opportunities for learning and creativity which it supports • Interaction-rich opportunities for learning and assessment • The partial overlap among research, teaching and engagement activities • Specific forms of interaction-rich experience: • Programs with broad, skills-rich learning outcomes and/or broader developmental aims • Research-teaching-practice partnerships for entry-to-profession programs • Research training programs

48. Challenge #1 Challenge # 1 • What will blended learning look like in 2030? (And who will be offering it in what types of institutions?)

49. Challenge #1 Challenge # 2 • What type of information would you like (but don’t currently have) to help improve learning outcomes for your students?

50. Challenge #1 Challenge # 3 • If you had to nominate a single measure of success for a blended learning initiative, what would your preferred choice be?