INNOVATIONS IN ONLINE LEARNING Moving Beyond No Significant Difference

Copyright Statement Copyright Carol A. Twigg, This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non- commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author.

“The biggest obstacle to innovation is thinking it can be done the old way.”

Buy faster horses! Get better riders! Faced with the invention of the telegraph...

... the first motion picture that stopped filming stage plays

Technique Lags Behind Technology

TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION Seminars Lectures

“BOLT-ON” INSTRUCTION

CONTINUUM OF ONLINE PROGRAMS Teacher-led Traditional schedules Residencies, fixed sites Developed by individual faculty One-size-fits-all Learner-centered Modularized, self- paced Anyplace, anytime Developed by teams Individualized mentoring Individualization: The Key to Innovation

HOW CAN WE ADDRESS HIGHER EDUCATION’S CHALLENGES? Quality Access Cost The promise of information technology

MOVING THE ATMS OUTSIDE THE BANK The Traditionalists The Groundbreakers The New Pacesetters

INCREASING ACCESS: ELIMINATING CONSTRAINTS The Groundbreakers – Rio Salado, U of Phoenix, Cardean U – Revolutionary college calendars – Consumer focus and convenience The New Pacesetters – Rio Salado, Excelsior College, Ohio State, Drexel U – Academic resources – Full degree programs – Modularization

IMPROVING QUALITY: CREATING A RESOURCE MODEL The Groundbreakers – Rio Salado, U of Phoenix, BOU, Cardean U – Systems approach to course development – High level of instructional design The New Pacesetters – Virginia Tech, Ohio State, Drexel U – Mass customization – Buffet of learning opportunities – Measurable increases in learning

QUALITY IMPROVEMENT TECHNIQUES Initial assessment of knowledge/skill level and preferred learning style An array of interactive materials and activities Individualized study plans Built-in continuous assessment Appropriate varied human interaction

IMPROVED LEARNING OUTCOMES Penn State - 68% on a content-knowledge test vs. 60% UB - 56% earned A- or higher vs. 37% CMU - scores on skill/concept tests increased by 22.8% U of Idaho – 30% earned A’s vs. 20% FGCU - 78% on exams vs. 70%; 54% A’s and B’s vs. 31% OSU - greater success on exams (mean of 78.3 vs. 70) UNM – 63% received a C or higher vs. 60% USM - scored a full point higher on writing assessments IUPUI, U of S Maine, U of Tenn and U of Ala - significant improvements in course content understanding 5 of 10 (Round I), 6 of 10 (Round II), 8 of 10 (Round III) have shown improvement.

IMPROVED DFW RATES FGCU - 45% to 21% UNM - 42% to 25%. Drexel - 49% to 38% IUPUI % to 24% U of S Maine - 28% to 19% Penn State - 12% to 9.8% 5 of 10 (Round I), 4 of 10 (Round II), 4 of 10 (Round III) have shown improvement.

TRADITIONAL ONLINE COURSES Emerging paradigm 20:1 ratio Increases cost Relies on a monolithic faculty role How can IT alter this paradigm and enable us to serve more students cost- effectively?

REDUCING COSTS: TAKING ADVANTAGE OF IT The Groundbreakers – U of Phoenix, Dallas CCD, BOU, Cardean U – Upfront investment in course development – Differentiated personnel strategies – Problem: costly delivery methods The New Pacesetters – Rio Salado, UIUC, Virginia Tech, Ohio State, Drexel U – Increased student/faculty ratios – Capital-for-labor substitutions – Measurable reductions in cost

COST REDUCTION TECHNIQUES Initial assessment of knowledge/skill level and preferred learning style An array of interactive materials and activities Individualized study plans managed by CMSs. Automated continuous assessment Appropriate varied human interaction

COST SAVINGS RESULTS Redesigned courses reduce costs by 40% on average, with a range of 20% to 86%. Collectively, the 30 courses project a savings of about $3.6 million annually. Final Round I results show a savings of $1,006,506 compared with projected $1,160,706.

THE NEW PACESETTERS What does this picture have to do with improving quality and reducing costs?

A BUFFET OF LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES Focuses on individualization (student- centeredness): the key to innovation Exploits the capabilities of the Internet Moves further along the continuum from teacher-led to learner-centered Embodies principles of mass customization Employs a “pull” strategy rather than a “push” strategy Radically improves quality while reducing costs The Emergence of a New Instructional Form!

FOR MORE INFORMATION Innovations in Online Learning: Moving Beyond No Significant Difference Pew Grant Program in Course Redesign

“IT’S NOT HOW FAST YOU RUN; IT’S HOW YOU RUN FAST.” Are you taking full advantage of information technology?