Online Continuing Professional Development: why universities are missing out

1. Online Continuing Professional Development: why universities are missing out Jonathan Darby Keith Williams The Open University

2. Universities are rubbish at online CPD. Why is this? • HE has 5 to 9% of the market for CPD according to The Training Gateway • For online CPD we estimate the market share is less than 5% • Should HEIs steer well clear and stick to their knitting? • Is the big mistake that HE treats CPD as essentially the same as standard HE?

3. What we mean by CPD Educational offerings with little or no academic credit (max 5 CATS points) not designed as part of a degree programme Online CPD – CPD delivered wholly or largely via the Internet

4. The pilot project “ Enabling Higher Education to compete in the online market for Continuing Professional Development” • The Open University • University of Cambridge • University of Derby • University of London (External System) • Professional Associations Research Network (PARN) Funded by HEFCE’s Strategic Development Fund

5. Six strands • Market and competitor analysis Researching what attracts employers and employees to HE as a provider of online CPD • Institutional readiness Examining some of the barriers to cost-effective CPD from higher education institutions • Course models and exemplar modules Developing and testing learning design models for short online CPD • Outcomes-based credit vehicle Building a framework to assess CPD activities and award credit. • Prototype CPD portal Bringing together multiple CPD providers at one site • Evaluation and dissemination

6. Market and competitor analysis Conducted surveys of corporate training managers (purchasers) and members of professional associations (consumers) Training managers Professionals • Cost is most important factor • They like a one stop shop • HEIs are unresponsive and oh so slow • Academic credit unimportant – may even be a negative factor • Prefer CPD delivered by HEIs • Value academic credit • Cost, though a factor, less important than nature of what’s on offer • Most decide for themselves what CPD to undertake and from whom

7. Institutional readiness • Regulation of CPD disproportionately heavy – impedes adaptation for corporate customers • Problem of securing academic time – priority a distant third after research and degree teaching • HEI marketing operation not suited to CPD • Course production models not scalable

8. Course models and exemplar modules Each partner tried something new to them • OU • Explored synchronous using Elluminate • Adopted a content-light model • London • Animated video • Derby • Interactive models • Cambridge • Social networking

9. Outcomes-based credit vehicle • Can you have it both ways? • Curriculum in the hands of the learner • Aggregation to certificate/diploma/degree • Challenge of HE linkage with professional, employer and Sector Skills Councils’ accreditation and qualification frameworks

10. Mapping of HE linkage with professional, employerand SSC accreditation and qualification frameworks • Qualification framework typically subject based plus generic skills • The ability to develop, monitor and update a plan, to reflect a changing operating environment; • The ability to monitor and adjust a personal programme of work on an on-going basis, and to learn independently; • An understanding of different roles within a team, and the ability to exercise leadership; • The ability to learn new theories, concepts, methods etc in unfamiliar situations.

11. MeasuringProfessional Development ValueProfessional Body perspective PLANNING PDV level OUTPUT INPUT REFLECTION ACTION knowledge effects behaviour PDV model courtesy PARN RESULTS

12. Proposals for an HE wide methodology for accreditation of professional development OU Open Box Course U810 Plus Reflective Analysis 30 M Pts CPD/WBL 150 hours 150 hours

13. Prototype CPD portal • Aggregate offerings to overcome problem of scale • Draw course information from HEI systems • Build professional learning communities separate from specific HEIs • Record achievement • Integrate with profession-specific portals • Support employers as well as professionals • Record and process relevant management information

14. Employers & Learners Employers & Learners Universities CMS E- portfolio Context Manager Professional Bodies Moodle Portal (VLE) MIS Business Functions CMS Repository Social Networking Partner VLE’s

16. Conclusions: the market • For HE CPD is a ‘multi-niche’ marketplace that HEIs are well-placed to serve, but not as individual institutions • CPD is a marketing challenge for higher education • For off the shelf courses it makes sense to focus on individual professionals rather than employers (professional associations are a good route to them) • No one HEI can realistically expect to be able to satisfy all of an individual’s CPD needs so work at sector level makes a lot of sense

17. Conclusions: universities QA processes need to facilitate not impede rapid modification of courses in response to demand Academic input needs to be assured – revised contracts, rewards, dedicated appointments Academic credit is valuable but assigning tiny CATS points values to courses is not the way

18. Conclusions: courses All new degree courses should, where relevant, be designed with CPD in mind (construct from learning objects?) There is little point in going down the fully automated CBT route Multiple course models are needed to meet the diversity of CPD needs Courses need to be adaptable “on the fly” to reflect needs of employers and individuals

19. Further information Contacts: j.darby@open.ac.uk k.williams@open.ac.uk Project assets (from mid-October): www.sharedsolutions.ac.uk