The emergence of the chief online officer position at many institutions is strong evidence that online education is becoming more mainstream
Revenue generation and tuition
most responding institutions have online program tuition rates that are aligned with standard tuition or that are higher. Those higher tuition rates ranged from 12 percent of private institutions to 29 percent of four-year public institutions, and lower than standard tuition rates ranged from 3 percent of community colleges to 37 percent of private institutions. None of the larger online programs reported tuition rates for online students that are lower than standard tuition rates, and 20 percent reported higher tuition rates for online study.
Forty percent of chief online officers in larger programs larger programs use instructional design support, and 30 percent use a team approach to online course design. Ten percent outsource course design.
This kind of course development is in stark contrast to practices of chief online officers in mid-sized and smaller programs. Among the smallest online education programs, 18 percent of chief online officers expect faculty to develop online courses independently, and 53 percent treat instructional design support as a faculty option. This means that a combined 71 percent of smaller programs do not mandate the use of instructional design specialists.
In 13 percent of mid-sized programs, faculty are expected to develop courses independently, and in 64 percent of mid-sized programs, they are free to choose whether or not to involve instructional design specialists, yielding a combined 77 percent of programs that do not require the use of instructional design expertise.
Teaching, learning and technology
The CHLOE survey also asked chief online officers to name three technologies or tools they consider most important or innovative for their institution’s fully-online programs. Eighty-one percent first listed an LMS, while others named audio and video conferencing and lecture capture. The technologies most-cited for second- and third-most important were conferencing, video and lecture capture software. (see Plamen’s effort to start faculty discussion on lecture capture here: http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/coursecapture/)
“There was no sign of much-hyped innovations like adaptive learning, competency-based education LMS solutions, or simulation or game-based learning tools,” according to the study. “Such tools may be in use for specific courses or programs but based on responses to CHLOE, these have yet to achieve institution-wide adoption at any scale.” (see Plamen’s efforts start a discussion on game-based learning here: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=game-based+learning
more on online ed in this IMS blog:
Updating the Next Generation Digital Learning Environment for Better Student Learning Outcomes
Monday, July 3, 2017
a learning management system (LMS) is never the solution to every problem in education. Edtech is just one part of the whole learning ecosystem and student experience.
Therefore, the next generation digital learning environment (NGDLE), as envisioned by EDUCAUSE in 2015 … Looking at the NGDLE requirements from an LMS perspective, I view the NGDLE as being about five areas: interoperability; personalization; analytics, advising, and learning assessment; collaboration; accessibility and universal design.
- Content can easily be exchanged between systems.
- Users are able to leverage the tools they love, including discipline-specific apps.
- Learning data is available to trusted systems and people who need it.
- The learning environment is “future proof” so that it can adapt and extend as the ecosystem evolves.
- The learning environment reflects individual preferences.
- Departments, divisions, and institutions can be autonomous.
- Instructors teach the way they want and are not constrained by the software design.
- There are clear, individual learning paths.
- Students have choice in activity, expression, and engagement.
Analytics, Advising, and Learning Assessment
- Learning analytics helps to identify at-risk students, course progress, and adaptive learning pathways.
- The learning environment enables integrated planning and assessment of student performance.
- More data is made available, with greater context around the data.
- The learning environment supports platform and data standards.
- Individual spaces persist after courses and after graduation.
- Learners are encouraged as creators and consumers.
- Courses include public and private spaces.
Accessibility and Universal Design
- Accessibility is part of the design of the learning experience.
- The learning environment enables adaptive learning and supports different types of materials.
- Learning design includes measurement rubrics and quality control.
The core analogy used in the NGDLE paper is that each component of the learning environment is a Lego brick:
- The days of the LMS as a “walled garden” app that does everything is over.
- Today many kinds of amazing learning and collaboration tools (Lego bricks) should be accessible to educators.
- We have standards that let these tools (including an LMS) talk to each other. That is, all bricks share some properties that let them fit together.
- Students and teachers sign in once to this “ecosystem of bricks.”
- The bricks share results and data.
- These bricks fit together; they can be interchanged and swapped at will, with confidence that the learning experience will continue uninterrupted.
Any “next-gen” attempt to completely rework the pedagogical model and introduce a “mash-up of whatever” to fulfil this model would fall victim to the same criticisms levied at the LMS today: there is too little time and training to expect faculty to figure out the nuances of implementation on their own.
The Lego metaphor works only if we’re talking about “old school” Lego design — bricks of two, three, and four-post pieces that neatly fit together. Modern edtech is a lot more like the modern Lego. There are wheels and rocket launchers and belts and all kinds of amazing pieces that work well with each other, but only when they are configured properly. A user cannot simply stick together different pieces and assume they will work harmoniously in creating an environment through which each student can be successful.
As the NGDLE paper states: “Despite the high percentages of LMS adoption, relatively few instructors use its more advanced features — just 41% of faculty surveyed report using the LMS ‘to promote interaction outside the classroom.'”
But this is what the next generation LMS is good at: being a central nervous system — or learning hub — through which a variety of learning activities and tools are used. This is also where the LMS needs to go: bringing together and making sense of all the amazing innovations happening around it. This is much harder to do, perhaps even impossible, if all the pieces involved are just bricks without anything to orchestrate them or to weave them together into a meaningful, personal experience for achieving well-defined learning outcomes.
- Making a commitment to build easy, flexible, and smart technology
- Working with colleges and universities to remove barriers to adopting new tools in the ecosystem
- Standardizing the vetting of accessibility compliance (the Strategic Nonvisual Access Partner Program from the National Federation of the Blind is a great start)
- Advancing standards for data exchange while protecting individual privacy
- Building integrated components that work with the institutions using them — learning quickly about what is and is not working well and applying those lessons to the next generation of interoperability standards
- Letting people use the tools they love [SIC] and providing more ways for nontechnical individuals (including students) to easily integrate new features into learning activities
My note: something just refused to be accepted at SCSU
Technologists are often very focused on the technology, but the reality is that the more deeply and closely we understand the pedagogy and the people in the institutions — students, faculty, instructional support staff, administrators — the better suited we are to actually making the tech work for them.
Under the Hood of a Next Generation Digital Learning Environment in Progress
Monday, July 31, 2017
The challenge is that although 85 percent of faculty use a campus learning management system (LMS),1 a recent Blackboard report found that, out of 70,000 courses across 927 North American institutions, 53 percent of LMS usage was classified as supplemental(content-heavy, low interaction) and 24 percent as complementary (one-way communication via content/announcements/gradebook).2 Only 11 percent were characterized as social, 10 percent as evaluative (heavy use of assessment), and 2 percent as holistic (balanced use of all previous). Our FYE course required innovating beyond the supplemental course-level LMS to create a more holistic cohort-wide NGDLE in order to fully support the teaching, learning, and student success missions of the program.The key design goals for our NGDLE were to:
- Create a common platform that could deliver a standard curriculum and achieve parity in all course sections using existing systems and tools and readily available content
- Capture, store, and analyze any generated learner data to support learning assessment, continuous program improvement, and research
- Develop reports and actionable analytics for administrators, advisors, instructors, and students
more on LMS in this blog
more on learning outcomes in this IMS blog
Stunning market data predicts the future of online learning
Cloud services, compatible LMS will be critical to online learning classes and courses.
By Meris Stansbury June 26th, 2017
e “6 million students? Must-know facts about online enrollment.”]
- The numbers reveal a year-to-year online enrollment increase of 226,375 distance education students–a 3.9 percent increase, up over rates recorded the previous two years. More than 6 million students are now online learners, according to the report.
- More than one in four students (29.7 percent) now take at least one distance education course (a total of 6,022,105 students).
- Graduate students are twice as likely to take all of their courses online (26 percent) as undergraduate students (12 percent).
- The number of students studying on a campus has dropped by almost 1 million (931,317) between 2012 and 2015.
- The majority of “exclusively distance” students live in the same state as their institution (55 percent), while 42 percent are studying online at an out-of-state institution.
- Public institutions educate the largest proportion of online students (67.8 percent), though more online learners in private institutions attend nonprofit schools than for-profits, according to the data.
And according to LMS provider Docebo, the 2016 world-wide revenue for self-paced online learning products and services (in US$ millions) exceeded $23 million in North America, beating out Europe and even Asia by a large margin.
Going corporate: According to the latest market study by Technavio, the size of the global corporate online learning market is predicted to reach an approximate amount of USD 31 billion in revenue by the end of 2020.
An important component: Within online learning, the LMS market is expected to grow at an incredible rate—a CAGR of 24 percent by 2020.
The biggest growth: Within online learning, the cloud is also growing at a tremendous rate. IT spending is steadily shifting from traditional IT offerings to cloud services, and the aggregate amount of cloud is expected to go from $111 billion in 2016 to $216 billion in 2020.
more on online learning in this IMS blog
Asynch Delivery and the LMS Still Dominate for Online Programs
By Dian Schaffhauser 05/22/17
a recent research project by Quality Matters and Eduventures, the “Changing Landscape of Online Education (CHLOE)” offers a “baseline” examination of program development, quality measures and other structural issues.
95 percent of larger programs (those with 2,500 or more online program students) are “wholly asynchronous” while 1.5 percent are mainly or completely synchronous. About three-quarters (73 percent) of mid-sized programs (schools with between 500 and 2,499 online program students) and 62 percent of smaller programs are fully asynchronous.
The asynchronous nature of this kind of education may explain why threaded discussions turned up as the most commonly named teaching and learning technique, mentioned by 27.4 percent of respondents, closely followed by practice-based learning, listed by 27.3 percent of survey participants.
Blackboard and Instructure Canvas dominated. Audio- and videoconferencing come in a “distant second,” according to the researchers. The primary brands that surfaced for those functions were Adobe Connect, Cisco WebEx, Zoom, Kaltura, Panopto, TechSmith Camtasia and Echo360.
While the LMS plays a significant role in online programming, the report pointed to a distinct lack of references to “much-hyped innovations,” such as adaptive learning, competency-based education systems, simulation or game-based learning tools. (my note: my mouth run dry of repeating every time people start becoming orgasmic about LMS, D2L in particular)
four in 10 require the use of instructional design support, three in 10 use a team approach for online course design and one in 10 outsources the work. Overall, some 80 percent of larger programs use instructional design expertise.
In the smallest programs, instructional design support is treated as a “faculty option” for 53 percent of institutions. Another 18 percent expect faculty to develop their online courses independently. For 13 percent of mid-sized programs, the faculty do their development work independently; another 64 percent may choose whether or not to bring in instructional design help. (my note: this is the SCSU ‘case’)
Among the many possible quality metrics suggested by the researchers, the five adopted most frequently for internal monitoring were:
- Student achievement of program objectives (83 percent);
- Student retention and graduation rates (77 percent);
- Program reputation (48 percent);
- Faculty training (47 percent); and
- Student engagement measures (41 percent).
Creating Collaborative, Interactive & Engaging Online Learning Environments with Shindig
Shindig Interactive Video Chat for Canvas LMS, February 6, 2:00 – 3:00pm (EST)
Shindig recently announced its integration with Canvas by Instructure, bringing the former’s video chat platform to the learning management system.
Attend this webinar to learn how instructors can instantly schedule, customize and launch Shindig sessions directly from within the Canvas LMS, as well as automatically add the video chat sessions to students’ schedules.
Learn about the positive impact of collaborative and interactive learning environments on student success first-hand from educators and instructional technologists from leading universities. This session will highlight different use cases Shindig can be utilized for, including course delivery, office hours, guest speakers, workshops and more.
Early adopters of the Shindig platform will also be sharing highlight videos of their use of the platform and answering questions attendees may have.
Shindig Early Adopter Guest Speakers:
- Michael Angilletta, Professor & Senior Sustainability Scholar, Associate Director of Undergraduate Programs, Arizona State University
Note: Watch the brief tutorial video, Canvas for Shindig
The Shindig Canvas plugin is available for free on a public GitHub Repo. Once the plugin is installed in the university’s LMS, IT administrators can contact Shindig for an API key to enable the creation of on-demand Shindig sessions in Canvas. The company is offering each Canvas client institution 10 free Shindig sessions of up to 1,000 attendees.
First-time users: upon entering the room, click “Allow” to the Flash prompt requesting access to your webcam. (Chrome users may need to click Allow a second time).
Note: The Shindig app currently only supports interacting with the featured speakers through text. To fully enjoy the Shindig experience and be enabled to ask video chat questions of the speaker or video chat privately with other participants, please log in from a computer with webcam and microphone capabilities.
An LMS to Support ‘Gameful’ Learning
Seeking to bring the qualities of well-designed games to pedagogical assessment, the University of Michigan created a learning management system that uses gaming elements such as competition, badges and unlocks to provide students with a personalized pathway through their courses.
By David Raths 08/24/16
UM School of Information and School of Education
a new type of learning management system called GradeCraft. GradeCraft borrows game elements such as badges and unlocks to govern students’ progress through a course. With unlocks, for example, you have to complete a task before moving to the next level.
Written in Ruby on Rails and hosted on Amazon Web Services, GradeCraft was created by a small team of students and faculty with additional software support from Ann Arbor-based developer Alfa Jango. Their work received support from UM’s Office of Digital Education and Innovation and the Office of the Provost. GradeCraft can work as a stand-alone platform or in conjunction with a traditional LMS via the LTI (Learning Tools Interoperability) protocol.
Here is how it works: Instructors create a course shell within GradeCraft (similar to the process with any LMS). Students use a tool called the “Grade Predictor” to plan a personalized pathway through the course, making predictions about both what they will do and how they will perform. When assignments are graded, predictions turn into progress; students are then nudged to revisit their semester plan, reassessing what work is available and how well they need to do to succeed overall. Students are able to independently choose an assessment pathway that matches their interests within the framework of learning objectives for the course.
more on LMS in this blog
more on gaming in this blog
more on badges in this blog
Free Webinar: Create and Deploy Training in 10 Minutes…Without an LMS!
Join us on Wednesday, March 9, 2016 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM EST for another great E-Learning 2.0 webinar.
Register here: http://bit.ly/1Scfhdi
In this webinar, you’ll learn about how some businesses are turning to a new breed of training product called LearnBolt to meet their in the moment training needs. LearnBolt is a Learning Development and Delivery System(LDDS) that makes it quick and easy to collect and curate content, organize it, and then immediately push it to the learners all through mobile devices. There will be a live demonstration of the application and discussion on how to make your training development and delivery a more dynamic and fluid process to meet the needs of todays evolving learners.
Key Topics discussed:
• Rapid training development and delivery
• SME Knowledge Mining
• Cloud-based Content Management Systems
• Bite-sized training chunks
• Mobile push learning
Presenter: Steve Albanese
Steve is Founder and CEO of LearnBolt. With over 20 years of building EdTech products and service based businesses, Steve brings valuable experience in training/learning methodologies, production processes, and a deep knowledge of the latest technology and transition trends.
Register Here: http://bit.ly/1Scfhdi
per SCSU faculty request, please have compiled literature (books and peer-reviewed articles) on:
Here some names who are well regarded in the community of online learning as specialists in online discussions:
- Susan Ko
- Palloff and Pratt:
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/159169.Keith_Pratt (not sure if you are a goodreads user, I am)
the most recent peer-reviewed literature on keywords: “engag*” + “student*” + “online” = 13K+ titles for the period 2010-2016:
and about 20 articles from the link above with the general search:
A Digital Badging Dataset Focused on Performance, Engagement and Behavior-Related Variables from Observations in Web-Based University Courses By: McDaniel, Rudy; Fanfarelli, Joseph R.. British Journal of Educational Technology, v46 n5 p937-941 Sep 2015. (EJ1071635)
A Student-Centered Guest Lecturing: A Constructivism Approach to Promote Student Engagement By: Li, Lei; Guo, Rong. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, v15 Oct 2015. (EJ1060070)
Full Text from ERIC
Creating Effective Student Engagement in Online Courses: What Do Students Find Engaging? By: Dixson, Marcia D.. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, v10 n2 p1-13 Jun 2010. (EJ890707)
Full Text from ERIC
Effects From Student Engagement Online. ASHE Higher Education Report. Nov2014, Vol. 40 Issue 6, p67-73. 7p. DOI: 10.1002/aehe.20018.
Engaging Students in Online Courses By: Jacobs, Pearl. Research in Higher Education Journal, v26 Oct 2014. (EJ1055325)
Full Text from ERIC
Engaging Students via Social Media: Is It Worth the Effort? By: Mostafa, Rania B.. Journal of Marketing Education, v37 n3 p144-159 Dec 2015. (EJ1080980)
Engaging Students with Social Media By: Bal, Anjali S.; Grewal, Dhruv; Mills, Adam. Journal of Marketing Education, v37 n3 p190-203 Dec 2015. (EJ1081047)
HOW TO BETTER ENGAGE ONLINE STUDENTS WITH ONLINE STRATEGIES. By: BRITT, DR. MARGARET. College Student Journal. Fall2015, Vol. 49 Issue 3, p399-404. 6p.
Instructor scaffolding for interaction and students’ academic engagement in online learning: Mediating role of perceived online class goal structures. By: Cho, Moon-Heum; Cho, YoonJung. Internet & Higher Education. Apr2014, Vol. 21, p25-30. 6p. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.008.
Measuring Student Engagement in an Online Program By: Bigatel, Paula; Williams, Vicki. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, v18 n2 Sum 2015. (EJ1065381)
Measuring Student Engagement in the Online Course: The Online Student Engagement Scale (OSE) By: Dixson, Marcia D.. Online Learning, v19 n4 Sep 2015. (EJ1079585)
Full Text from ERIC
On-Line Course Development: Engaging and Retaining Students By: Bruster, Benita G.. SRATE Journal, v24 n2 p1-7 Sum 2015. (EJ1083122)
Full Text from ERIC
Promoting Online Students’ Engagement and Learning in Science and Sustainability Preservice Teacher Education By: Tomas, Louisa; Lasen, Michelle; Field, Ellen. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, v40 n11 Article 5 Nov 2015. (EJ1083370)
Full Text from ERIC
Strengthening student engagement: what do students want in online courses? By: Chakraborty, Misha; Nafukho, Fredrick Muyia. European Journal of Training & Development. 2014, Vol. 38 Issue 9, p782-802. 21p. DOI: 10.1108/EJTD-11-2013-0123.
Student Engagement in Online Learning: What Works and Why. ASHE Higher Education Report. Nov2014, Vol. 40 Issue 6, p1-14. 14p. DOI: 10.1002/aehe.20018.
Student Perceptions of Twitters’ Effectiveness for Assessment in a Large Enrollment Online Course By: Rohr, Linda; Costello, Jane. Online Learning, v19 n4 Sep 2015. (EJ1079590)
Full Text from ERIC
Techniques for Student Engagement Online. ASHE Higher Education Report. Nov2014, Vol. 40 Issue 6, p37-66. 30p. DOI: 10.1002/aehe.20018.
The civic-social media disconnect: exploring perceptions of social media for engagement in the daily life of college students. By: Mihailidis, Paul. Information, Communication & Society. Oct2014, Vol. 17 Issue 9, p1059-1071. 13p. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2013.877054.
The Online University Classroom: One Perspective for Effective Student Engagement and Teaching in an Online Environment By: Carr, Marsha. Journal of Effective Teaching, v14 n1 p99-110 2014. (EJ1060450)
Full Text from ERIC
The Perils of a Lack of Student Engagement: Reflections of a “Lonely, Brave, and Rather Exposed” Online Instructor By: Stott, Philip. British Journal of Educational Technology, v47 n1 p51-64 Jan 2016. (EJ1086712)
The VIRI (Virtual, Interactive, Real-Time, Instructor-Led) Classroom: The Impact of Blended Synchronous Online Courses on Student Performance, Engagement, and Satisfaction By: Francescucci, Anthony; Foster, Mary. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, v43 n3 p78-91 2013. (EJ1018277)
Full Text from ERIC
More on “Classroom Discussion and Students Participation” in this IMS blog entry: