The implications of pedagogical innovation for academic practice in a large-scale online MBA Stuart Allan Director of Online Learning Edinburgh Business School, Heriot-Watt University

Structure Context Research Key challenges and our responses Implications for academic practice Student feedback Discussion

Context 9,000 students 166 countries 57% online (<5% on campus) Average age 35 Open access Self-paced

Improvements suggested by students (%, n = 1,132)

Key challenges Our responses Unequal internet access Offline options Sense of isolation Intimidating, complex material Tutor presence at scale Motivation and completion Real-world relevance Offline options Activities, groups, social newsfeed Rich, well-designed content Moderation (not Q&A), digital media Progress tracking, digital badges Digital media, more creative exams

Capturing and sharing good practice

Educators’ evolving roles Looking beyond student satisfaction ratings ‘Just show me what it should look like’ uncertainty / lack of constraints ‘Safe spaces for making mistakes and learning from them’ Support from multidisciplinary team clear roles and responsibilities Tutor presence in online discussions: moderation at scale, not Q&A

Time commitment The effort is front-loaded: every 1 study hour requires around 6 hours of development time 482 hours / 13 weeks FTE of an academic’s time to develop one module

Students’ feedback “I am so in love … the addition of the progress tracker and the videos is such a welcome change” “I would like to congratulate the EBS team for creating such an interactive and lively course … truly innovative” “Very interactive and makes me feel less alone with my studies ” “The content is rich and presented in a well thought-out / structured way” “The new course is well designed and interactive” “How do I download and print?” (Tension with interactivity) Lack of offline mode excludes some (For now)

Main findings Online, at scale poses unique challenges Critical analysis of ‘giving students what they ask for’ (Arbaugh 2014, Rienties & Toetenel 2016) Holistic approach: integration of pedagogy, technology and practice (Bayne 2015) Technology can constrain – but uncertainty can paralyse (Brown et al. 2015) ‘Failing well’: reflecting and adapting quickly Giving academics appropriate time and support Engaging with research and sharing good practice (e.g. Gašević et al. 2015)

References Arbaugh J.B. (2014) System, scholar or students? Which most influences online MBA course effectiveness? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30, 349–362. Bayne S. (2015) What’s the matter with ‘technology-enhanced learning’? Learning, Media and Technology, 40 (1), 5–20. Brown M., Dehoney J. and Millichap N. (2015) The Next Generation Digital Learning Environment: A Report on Research. Available from: https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2015/4/eli3035-pdf.pdf Gašević D., Adescope O., Joksimović S. and Kovanović V. (2015) Externally facilitated regulation scaffolding and role assignment to develop cognitive presence in asynchronous online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 53–65. Orlikowski W. (2010) The sociomateriality of organisational life: considering technology in management research. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34, 125–141. Rienties B. and Toetenel L. (2016) The impact of learning design on student behaviour, satisfaction and performance: a cross- institutional comparison across 151 modules. Computers in Human Behaviour, 60, 333–341.

Thank you – questions? stuart.allan@ebs.hw.ac.uk OpenPlanStuart