1. Jim Farmer As presented at the Online Teaching Conference 11 June 2007 | Fremont, California USA E-Learning: On the Right Track to a Successful Future?

2. Context: the public view of higher education

3. Georgetown University The public perception

4. Georgetown University The new reality

5. Georgetown University Where the money goes now

6. Georgetown University The press Federal Study Finds No Edge for Students Using Technology-Based Reading and Math Products

7. Georgetown University The U.S. Congress … the breach of trust between schools and students. There is an important relationship there that some schools, though certainly not all, have been far too cavalier with. Senator Robert P. Casey, 6 June 2007

8. Georgetown University The Spellings Commission And some [students] never complete their degrees at all, at least in part because most colleges and universities don’t accept responsibility for making sure that those they admit actually succeed. Many students who do earn degrees have not actually mastered the reading, writing, and thinking skills we expect of college graduates. U.S. Department of Education, 18 September 2006

9. Georgetown University But the Commission wrote “We recommend that America’s colleges and universities embrace a culture of continuous innovation and quality improvement. We urge these institutions to develop new pedagogies, curricula and technologies to improve learning, particularly in the areas of science and mathematics.”

10. And eLearning

11. Georgetown University Types of e-Learning Seizing the Opportunity: The Quality and Extent of Online Education in the United States, 2002 and 2003, Sloan Consortium, Sep 2003

12. Georgetown University Presidents on e-Learning “Based on his work with the University of South Australia and his conversations with presidents and financial officers, [Bill Becker] said there is a general belief that eLearning increases the cost of education. He said the cost of the distance learning courses at the University of South Australia exceed those offered in the classroom because of the amount of time that faculty spend responding to students.” “Access and Persistence Symposium,” September 8, 2005, Washington, DC

13. Georgetown University eLearning in California? “We did not hear that colleges looked to distance learning as a common strategy to help accommodate students and minimize loss of access. We do want to point out that one college that serves a large portion of its students through distance learning did find it economical to increase this portion. … with the infrastructures already in place, they could accommodate additional students in these programs more easily than in classrooms.” Ensuring Access with Quality to California’s Community Colleges, May 2004

14. Georgetown University Two perspectives of eLearning Graduate programs and undergraduate tutorials and independent study tend to: Focus on collaboration among students and faculty Use resources typical of a cross-institutional research effort Undergraduate programs, especially first and second year tend to: Focus on online tutorials, “drill and practice,” and assessments for learning Use faculty-recommended resources and Internet services

15. Georgetown University U.S. Department of Education study of educational software “Congress posed questions about the effectiveness of educational technology and how effectiveness is related to conditions and practices.... On average, after one year, products did not increase or decrease test scores by amounts that were statistically different from zero.” As reported in the press: education technology doesn’t work.

16. Georgetown University Evaluation of Education Technology: High School Algebra “Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products: Findings from the First Student Cohort Report to Congress,” Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, March 2007.

17. Georgetown University Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products U.S. Congressionally mandated report by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Issued March 2007 First and fourth grade reading, sixth grade mathematics and high school algebra. Context: The administration again did not seek funding for educational technology.

18. Georgetown University Study findings “Nearly all teachers received training and believed the training prepared them to use the products.” “Technical difficulties using products mostly were minor.” “When products were being used, students were more likely to engage in individual practice and teachers were more likely to facilitate student learning rather than lecture.”

19. Georgetown University Warning These data are based on teaching high school algebra and would not be representative of other subjects, levels of instruction, or students with different characteristics.

20. Georgetown University Training Algebra teachers received about 12 hours of training, including practice using the software. At the end 81% were “confident they were prepared to use the product” By the time of the first classroom observation, only 66% considered themselves prepared to use the software.

21. Georgetown University Use of the software

22. Georgetown University Test Results

23. Georgetown University Cost of software Software provides tutorial, practice, and assessment opportunities. Average licensing fees about $15 per student for the school year; a range of $7 to $30. [Teachers reported] students used the software and average of 118 minutes per week for 23 weeks or 46 hours (of 180 hours).

24. Georgetown University Impact on classroom activities

25. Georgetown University Training: A comment The most important training [for eLearning faculty] is how to use the technology to achieve lesson objectives, not how to use the software. Training requires continuous assistance during the early use of the software. Debra Sprague, Graduate School of Education, George Mason University, responding to questions about the study at the Blackboard Forum, National Press Club, Washington, DC USA 11 May 2007

26. Publishers have taken the lead on reporting effectiveness of eLearning

27. Georgetown University Success in math courses

28. Georgetown University Use of supplementary material

29. Georgetown University Faculty believe

30. Georgetown University Unprepared defined

31. Georgetown University Preparation of entering community college students 4-year college qualification composite 63.7% Not qualified or minimally qualified 36.3% Somewhat to highly qualified “Community College Students: Goals, Academic Preparation, and Outcomes,” National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, June 2003.

32. Georgetown University Unprepared (reading) 43.9% did not have the “ability to make relatively simple inferences beyond the author ’s main thought and/or understand and evaluate relatively abstract concepts.” And additional 39.5% did not have “the ability to make complex inferences or evaluative judgments that require piecing together multiple sources of information from the passage (Rock, Pollack and Quinn 1995).

33. Georgetown University Unprepared (mathematics) 29.7% could not solve simple operations with decimals, fractions, powers, roots or solve simple problems requiring the understanding of low-level mathematical concepts. Many could not do decimal arithmetic. An additional 40% could not understand intermediate-level mathematical concepts and could not formulate multistep solutions to word problems.

34. The way students learn

35. Georgetown University Accommodating student needs Early work by Pat Suppes has demonstrated that students have different learning styles, which he represented as “trajectories” of learning based on when different students mastered course content. The flexibility of eLearning suggest opportunities to transform classical “term-based” learning.

36. Georgetown University Suppes at Stanford University First Year Russian 1972

37. Georgetown University Learning trajectories, 1972 Course Completion Rates, Pre-calculus, Suppes 1996

38. Georgetown University Suppes at Stanford University Learning Trajectories

39. Georgetown University Learning trajectories Based on the work of Pat Suppes at Stanford University Content Mastery Course Grade Time End of Scheduled Term ABCDFABCDF

40. Georgetown University Traditional assumed learning Based on the work of Pat Suppes at Stanford University Content Mastery Course Grade Time End of Scheduled Term ABCDFABCDF

41. Georgetown University Quick learner Content Mastery Course Grade Time End of Scheduled Term ABCDFABCDF Boredom vs. supplementary course content?

42. Georgetown University Early intervention Content Mastery Course Grade Time End of Scheduled Term ABCDFABCDF Monitoring tools can quickly identify students that are at risk

43. Georgetown University Unexpected externality Content Mastery Course Grade Time End of Scheduled Term ABCDFABCDF Unforeseen events resulting in inactivity

44. Georgetown University Success or failure? Content Mastery Course Grade Time End of Scheduled Term ABCDFABCDF Immutable time constraints limit a capable student

45. Georgetown University Observation Based on observations by Bryan Williams, remote-learning.net, in supporting Moodle services. Students will continue learning beyond the term if the eLearning resources are available. Quick learners will go beyond the scope of a course if materials are available. Those slow to learn or interruptions to their learning will succeed if given additional time.

46. An idea from Open University Netherlands

47. Georgetown University Proposed open /closed courseware Proposed, Open University of the Netherlands, Feb 2006

48. Georgetown University Expected results “Learning on demand” in chunks (at no cost to the student) Incentive to either Subscribe to tutorial support Participate as a student Seek “certification” by examination paying current tuition Increase value of “brand” and gain course enrollments

49. Georgetown University The barrier: Capital investment in courseware

50. Georgetown University Investing in courseware

51. Georgetown University The investment Open University UK spent US$1 billion in developing tested materials for the undergraduate curriculum Confirmed NCHELP Conference 1999 Materials included: Textbook Audio (cassettes) and video (VHF tapes) lectures Experiment kits (for the sciences) Study guides Tutor guidelines and protocols Assessments

52. Georgetown University “Engineered courses” Lübeck University of Applied Sciences Learning objectives (using EU transfer course objectives) Contract author only for draft text and media suggestions Development Manager Instructional design Media development Assessment authoring In separate units

53. Georgetown University Alternatives for investment Publishers Can pass cost recovery to the student Organized existing marketing and technical support structure Open Education Resources Hewlett and Mellon Foundation “seed” capital + institutional contributions Contribution of The Open University UK National Marketplace [Congressional] Advisory Committee for Student Financial Assistance recommendation

54. Georgetown University Barriers to sustainability Requires broad adoption by colleges and universities Requires adaptation for diverse student body Lack of education technologists Use of eLearning is not a priority for Schools of Education

55. The end Jim Farmer jxf [at] immagic.com jxf [at] Georgetown.edu