Online or print study materials

I attended a presentation this morning from an ‘action learning’ group that was tasked with considering replacing print study guides with electronic study guides. CQUniversity is a distance education provider and often courses will develop study guides that supplements textbooks. Historically, these study guides have been printed, bound and posted to students.

The presentation took the form of a debate with the affirmative team arguing replacing print study guides with online study guides while the negative promoted the advantages of print. They both had valid arguments relating to their team’s side on the debate such as:

For online materials Against online materials
Online materials are a natural evolution from print. A majority of students still want print materials.
Cost effective distribution. Socio-economic reasons based on CQUniversity’s student demographic.
Easy to update and publish changes. Myriad of devices requiring the institution to provide a myriad of formats.
Other universities are doing it  

 

The presentation in the form of a debate was great as was the quality of information that their research has uncovered. Now that I have had time to reflect on the presentation there are dimensions to the argument that are, in my opinion, very important. These are:

  • Change management.
  • The fact that ‘other universities are doing it’ is being used as an argument for us to do it.

Change management. One of the IT management team asked the research group about change management and this got me thinking. It will not be the university or even all the universities driving the change but the market in a similar way to what we are seeing with books and eBooks. It is where the consumers are spending their money that dictates what the publishers do next. I think that we are in a transition period between print and online study materials and we have to cater for both the online and print camps at least in the short term. Its not going to be a process that we can drive which means our systems and processes around the production of study materials need to be agile and resilient rather than static and robust.

We have probably made a reasonable start at this by using changing the print materials process so that it can delivery online eStudyguides but there is a way to go if we are going to cater to mobile devices in the future. The suggestion I would like to air is that we deal with the multitude of print formats (eg iPad, iPhone, Kindle, ePub etc) in the same way as we treat online video files. We produce a ‘master’ format. This format is easily trans-coded into other formats, even on the fly. I’m not sure of the technical limitations of what I’ve suggested but it may be worthwhile investigating this further.

The other argument was that ‘we must do it because everyone else is’ is. To me, this seems a bit silly as it disregards the context.  As an example, let us say the university decides to discontinue print study materials and move everything online. The presentation this morning stated that 83% of Queenslanders (I think it was Queensland) have Internet access, and of these, 90% are on Broadband. CQUniversity has an excellent record with regard to attracting students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. This could mean that our student cohort does not necessarily align with the 83% Internet/90% broadband demographic and this could result in significant student dissatisfaction if print materials are discontinued. Having said all of this I personally would not mind at all if print materials disappeared today.

Some waffle on ePortfolios

CQUniversity is currently running a feasibility study into the use of ePortfolios. This study started with the shift from Blackboard 6.3 to Moodle 1.9 when we lost the journaling feature that Blackboard provided. We found that our ‘vanilla’ Moodle installation lacked the facility to provide a confidential area where students in clinical placements could reflect on their experiences in collaboration with their clinical supervisors. One example of this was some students who were required to maintain reflective journals based on their real world experiences in their clinical placements. Additionally the clinical supervisor needed the ability to access and comment on these private journals so as to share their experience and knowledge with the student based on real world situations. So essentially the ePortfolio study arose around the gap in functionality between the old and new learning management system (LMS), not to mention, a desire by the participants to see what all the fuss is about in higher education around the use of ePortfolios.

While I quite like Mahara and the way that it is developed and inter-operates with Moodle, I do have some concerns about ePortfolios in general and the way that higher education institutions are rushing to adopt an ePortfolio solution. Some of my concerns align with what David has said on his blog although I am not so scathing of their use in our particular case as I think they probably do have a place in the context of our university given that:

  • Mahara is a reasonable solution to the initial problem we were attempting to solve and provides for some interesting opportunities for authentically extending the existing curriculum.
  • Many of the accrediting professions are demanding that students maintain a portfolio of evidence as they progress through their careers and the electronic approach is probably the future.
  • Like it or not, LMS are here and are not likely to disappear from universities until well after they have outlived their usefulness.

The main point I make in the list above is that it is the likes of the engineering, nursing and the teaching professional bodies that are requiring their members to maintain portfolios which suggests there is a gap for an institution that does not prepare students for their use in the big bad world. That said I am not comfortable with the institution centricity, nor their one size fits all approach that ePortfolio adoption has taken and also the lack of independence from any particular institution. David makes these points in his post and they are hard to disagree with. But!

The fact is that most universities are consolidating eLearning functions into a minimal number of systems for their own convenience. We all hear the terms “single LMS”, “single ePortfolio system” not to mention the old chestnut when folk are talking about open source systems, “we must keep it vanilla for reliability and performance purposes”. To me, this is the reality of the situation and due to the endemic nature of these systems in universities and the risk averse mentalities of the decision makers, changes will most likely be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. So while I agree that there are many reasons to criticize the way that ePortfolios are being adopted by universities, perhaps this is an initial baby step away from institution centricity and a baby step in the right direction. Jeremy Hiebert has an excellent diagram of how ePortfolios sit in relation to the personal learning environment (PLE) model that somewhat aligns with my (limited) view of the eLearning world. I also like the way that this diagram represents ePortfolios and the LMS as only bit players in the whole act.

webinar notes part 2

This is a continuation from part of the recent webinar I was involved in.

Building a community of participants is a first step, but how can student engagement be measured?

First a disclaimer! Measuring student engagement is very difficult if not impossible. I liken it to long-range weather forecasting where you look at a stack of historical data and try to model what is going to happen in the future, except student engagement introduces much more randomness into the system than occurs with the weather. All we can do with regards to measuring engagement is look for indicators that correlate with student success. Our approach with the indicators project is to look for correlations between LMS data and student results knowing that results are not necessarily indicative of learning. Luckily, we have at CQUniversity, a cohort of students who are typically reliant on the LMS for the interactions around their learning so by focusing on this cohort we can ‘filter’ out the influences of face-to-face and blended teaching. As we are only best-guessing with regards to student engagement, our approach is to present the data to the instructors who are in the best position to interpret an act on the data we produce. Additionally, while measuring student engagement is potentially useful for online students where we can’t see the glint in their eyes, better course and program design that promotes engagement is a vastly more important pursuit.

Most students engage to be successful?

I would suggest yes and from what we have seen so far in our foray into academic analytics would confirm this. We have found that there is a distinct correlation between the quantity of clicks within the Moodle site and the student’s grade. This, however, needs to be tempered by the fact that our project is looking at aggregates and averages and not individuals; and student grade is by no means a perfect representation of learning. We also notice that engagement (as indicated by Moodle activity) greatly increased after course redesigns that centred around an authentic objective.

How effectively are those engagements being measured now?

When looking at online courses, LMS activity counts seems to be a reasonable indicator of engagement from what we are seeing here. Most LMS provide a basic interface into the data they collect, however they often don’t interface into student administration systems where the student behaviours can be compared with student grades. There are however pockets of folk such as Purdue University and in particular Shane Dawson from UBC. Shane is looking at visualizing the social interactions and content analysis of LMS discussion forums. While there are also limitations to this, it appears to be one of the better approaches that I know about.

Once we have the tools to measure student engagement, how can the collected data be effectively analysed?

A lot of the analytical technologies have a sense of  “replace the human” about them. This is an evolutionary dead end that could be better utilized by combining the technology with the human mind. Also in Australia, the course coordinators design and deliver the course, which means their conception of L&T influences the way that students engage with the course. Additionally, there is a great deal of diversity in course designs and delivery strategies. Consequently this makes it difficult to develop a consistent metric for student engagement, as there is so much variation to be considered. So we are aiming to use the analytics information to inform teachers and students so that they can evaluate the information in terms of their context.

What are we looking for in the data?

At the stage we are at with the Indicators project, we are simply looking for correlations between student behaviours and their resulting grades. For example we recently developed an ‘at risk’ student identification tool for Moodle that looks at patterns of behaviour for students for each grade group from previous course offerings and provide forecasts to teaching staff on students who are falling below the pass level at this point in the term based on student behaviours in previous terms. It then provides email and mail-merge links for students where the teacher can intervene earlier than was previously possible. We are currently working on building this tool into a Moodle block and using the same code-based, producing an indicators for the students along the lines of what Purdue have done with their signals project.

Are there effective tools available now for analyzing that sort of academic data?

This is where universities are behind the business world. Businesses have been using data warehouses and delving into the predictive value of the data that they accumulate for some time now. Universities have an array of systems that gather all sorts of data relating to their students, staff and how they engage with these systems and its only quite recently that there are moves to mine this data for informing and improving teaching and learning. I think in terms of tools available right now, SNAPP is the best of a developing bunch.

What role does the LMS play in implementing academic based analytical technologies? What data should be collected? Analysed?

For better or worse most universities are using an LMS of one sort or another to meet their eLearning requirements. For L&T related data mining this provides a single point by which student activity can be monitored, measured and analysed. The LMS is also where course interactions are facilitated and is the point of need for any predictive data if it is to assist the teachers or students. At least for the moment it is the place where both the data is being accumulated and the place where staff and students are interacting. LMS tend to gather basic data on individual staff and student clicks in the system in much the same way as web servers do.  I would like to see LMS activity recording pay more attention to click stream recording so as to ascertain how students are navigating around the sites and when they are using particular features in relation to their assessment schedules. There are some issues relating to the recording of user behaviour within the LMS that needs to be considered. There are privacy and ethical considerations for universities tracking staff and student behaviour within the LMS although the online world seems to ‘get away’ with more privacy infringements that the offline world I suspect. Another couple of things from my perspective that are important when talking about student engagement relates to university contexts. For example it could be said that some of the academic workload models could be said to be ‘discouraging’ of engagement and reflective practice. Of course, the other issue that arises with relation to the use of social media and new things in general, is the resistance of staff to change.

What are your thoughts on the place of social media in today’s learning environment?

I love the connective nature of social media but there appears to be a disconnect between the closed nature of the typical LMS and the open nature of social media. Open standards like RSS can help with products like BIM that integrate social media with the LMS.

How effectively is social media software being used today? How can that be changes?

It’s currently limited due to the closed nature of the LMS although this is changing, albeit very slowly.

Webinar notes Part 1

This morning I had the privilege of participating in a panel discussion/Webinar titled “Facilitating Social Interactions: Measuring Engagement and Promoting Academic Success within the LMS”. The other panel members were Stephen Downes and Lou Pugliese and I must admit I felt like a midget amongst giants. The webinar was hosted by Moodlerooms in the United States which meant a 2:30AM start for me followed by a lot of coffee. Prior to the Webinar the organizers sent a list of questions out to the presenters to assist us in our preparations. Following are some of these questions and my rough notes about them.

What is the single most dramatic advancement each of you is seeing in the LMS (learning management system) today?

My belief is that it is the move away from proprietary LMS to open source LMS although this trend is somewhat ‘faddish’ in nature. I like the idea that systems such as the LMS can evolve over time based on the needs of its community of users.

What is the one change you would most like to see?

I would like to see better integration and interoperability with other systems. One example may that rather than Moodle develop its own blog engine, I’d rather see it interconnect with existing blog engines such as WordPress.com and blogger.com. I cannot recall where I heard but the term ‘loosely coupled’ systems is one approach. David has also suggested that the LMS be given the ability to embody some of the knowledge teachers, and perhaps students, need to improve learning and teaching. An example of this is the Desire2Learn instructional design wizard. Stephen Downes has suggested we evolve away from the LMS and his reasoning makes a lot of sense to me but the trouble is that the LMS is almost ubiquitous in higher education and this is going to take time.

What is the best practice each of you can offer for cultivating a positive learning environment online?

The term ‘best practice’ implies that there is a single or ultimate solution to a given problem and this belies the underlying complexity in learning and teaching. That said the single ‘thing’ that keeps appearing in relation to student satisfaction and engagement is instructor presence.  We are noticing some interesting correlations between the amount of instructor participation on the LMS and the corresponding participation counts by the students. This is also apparent in the LMS based discussion forums where the quantity (and quality I’m guessing) of posts and replies made by the instructor correlates with increased student activity on the forums. I do not suppose that this is any great surprise but it is nice to see empirical data on what we all suspect.

What about through the use of social media?

I think that it is less about the technology and more about the effective facilitation of social interactions between the participants and their teacher. For example the seven principles by Chickering and Gamson are pretty much recognized as a reasonable approach to under graduate education and describe the process or principles rather than the technology. Although having said that I believe social media is a ‘good thing’ as it can be owned by the student for their lifelong learning and enables a connectivist approach.

How effectively are such tools being used today?

I’m not sure that this is the right question. I think that it is less about the tool more about the purpose for using the tool. But to answer the question more directly is that I don’t think that these tools are being utilized very at all due to the institution centric and ring-fenced learning environment that is the LMS. The LMS, often, does not provide the necessary openness to allow interoperability with social media tools, not to mention, the access limitations based on enrolments.

More to come as time permits.