Pass the SoLT

The title of this blog entry is borrowed from the sustainability literature and more specifically the opening remarks made by Joel Mackower during Compostmodern '08. Mackower's comparison between sex and sustainability initiatives was presented at the outset of a seminar today on inter-disciplinary initiatives in this area at Michigan State University.

The comparison got me thinking about whether the original quote could be adapted to apply equally to the concept of blended learning. What do you think? Here is the adapted quote:

"Blended learning is like teenage sex. Everybody says they're doing it but no one really is. And those who are doing it aren't doing it very well."

There are some interesting similarities. Some people argue that blended learning is nothing new and people have been doing it for a long time. On the other hand, I would argue that blended learning is still a poorly defined concept and the literature is immature. How do you know that you're doing it when there are different meanings and understandings of what it actually involves. And of course even if lots of people are doing it there is a reasonable chance of disappointment. Arguably, perfecting the art of blended learning requires a lot of experience, a skilled teacher and it does help if you have the right equipment.

I'll stop on this note before totally risking my reputation for serious academic critique. Nevertheless, feel free to extend the comparison in your own thinking as I'm sure other people can be far more creative than me. At very least the teenage sex analogy is likely to grab attention and generate interesting debate. Enough said!

To raise the quality of the conversation, I would also like to alert readers to Graham's (2011) recent critique of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Framework in the journal Computers & Education. This Framework has become popular around the world in the context of technology-enhanced learning and the paper makes a valuable contribution to the literature by critically reviewing TPACK against criteria for theory building. Graham concludes that 'considerable theoretical work still needs to be done if TPACK research is to cohere and constructively strengthen the field of educational technology' (p.1953).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thearches/5181406425/sizes/m/in/photostream/

I encourage you to read the full paper as it reminds us of the dangers of embracing popular educational concepts, theories and perspectives (including blended learning) without adequate critique and debate. Hopefully these comments in a small way will contribute to deeper conversations of whether blended learning is really a disruptive influence to traditional forms of pedagogy. Time to stop as I sense another comparison with teenage sex coming...

Reference

Graham, C. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education 57 (3), 1953–1960

A few weeks ago I wrote about the importance of leadership. On a similar theme this week I watched a video presented by Professor Geoff Scott prepared for the Massey University senior leadership team in which he talked about his research on leadership in higher education.

A key finding from the study of senior leaders in the Australian university sector is the importance of 'listening, linking and leading' - in this order. Although I read the full research report, Learning Leaders in Times of Change, a year or so ago, Geoff's presentation got me thinking about the leadership challenge in the context of professional development in the area of online, blended and distance education.

In my own work, three key words standout and inform my thinking about leadership in this area: (i) service, (ii) communication and (iii) impact. Put simply, I often remind myself of the importance of serving or leading with impact in a manner that keeps everyone aware and informed of the end goals that we are trying to achieve. The latter point underscores the importance of communication that builds a sense of purpose (vision) and collective ownership which in my experience is crucial to any successful and sustainable initiative.

You could say these three key words form my mantra for leadership, with a strong emphasis on impact. After all, there is no sensible reason to dedicate hours to an initiative or innovation which is unlikely to have significant impact... what's the point!

It also follows that people are central to effective leadership as it is almost impossible to make an impact in a large project or organization by working on your own. Thus, teamwork is vital along with leadership through influence and networking rather than through direct management.

But putting all the leadership ingredients together to achieve tangible outcomes is no easy matter, as evidenced by the challenges in the area of academic development. The history of academic and professional development in higher education has been problematic for many years. On a regular basis senior managers question the value of academic development, and academic developers--people employed to support academics to enhance the quality of teaching and learning--usually struggle to report clear outcomes as a result of their time and effort.

However, in the current higher education environment it is essential that central service units such as centres for academic development are able to demonstrate their return on investment, including both tangible and non-tangible benefits. The days of assuming benefits automatically follow from the work of a team of academic developers are long gone. And rightly so! The old excuse or argument that evidence of impact is near impossible to demonstrate simply does not hold up in the age of performance management.

Having said that, identifying the most appropriate performance measures of impact is crucial as I am mindful of Einstein's warning that "Not everything that can be counted counts, not everything that counts can be counted".

To address this leadership challenge the Council of Australian Directors of Academic Development (CADAD) recently supported a project to develop a set of benchmarks for academic development centres. CADAD report that they undertook this project for two interconnected reasons.

First, academic development (or the expectations of what it should involve) is changing as universities respond to more competitive higher education environments. Second, institutional performance in learning and teaching is now more important to university reputations and is subject to performance funding. Thus, the performance of academic development units has become increasingly under the spotlight.

The project identified eight key domains of practice for academic development units that could be used to benchmark performance. Each domain is divided into several sub-domains.

Domain 1: Strategy Policy and Governance

1.1 Strategic advice
1.2 Strategic planning
1.3 Governance
1.4 Policy Development and implementation
1.5 Strategic initiatives

Domain 2: Quality of Learning and Teaching

2.1 Standards
2.2 Evaluation and improvement
2.2.1 Student feedback
2.2.2 Peer review
2.2.3 Curriculum review

Domain 3: Scholarship of Learning and Teaching

3.1 Grants and Awards
3.2 Significant projects and research into learning and teaching
3.3 Research into Academic Development

Domain 4: Professional Development

4.1 Planning
4.2 Management
4.3 Delivery

Domain 5: Credit-bearing Programs in Higher Education

5.1 Program and Course Design
5.2 Management
5.3 Delivery

Domain 6: Curriculum Development

6.1 Curriculum planning and Design
6.2 Education resource Development

Domain 7: Engagement

7.1 internal engagement
7.2 external engagement

Domain 8: Effectiveness

8.1 Mission and strategy Alignment
8.2 Leadership and management
8.3 Impact
8.4 Quality Assurance and improvement

Each of these domains and sub-domains is assessed on a five point scale as described below:

1. Beginning / Developing
3. Functional / Proficient
5. Accomplished / Exemplary

The benchmarks have been developed to support both self-assessment and benchmarking with partners. They come with a set of templates to support the benchmarking exercise.

Although the benchmarks are light in terms of identifying the explicit theories which inform practice, professional development, decision-making and performance reporting, they provide a useful framework for developing a whole of institution approach to listening, linking and leading in this area. With a stronger theoretical or philosophical statement supporting the nature of academic development, they should help leaders and micro leaders within these centres to understand the strategic potential of professional development, and to evaluate and enhance academic development unit performance regardless of the design and delivery model.

That said, the relationship between the benchmarks and previous benchmarks developed for professional development in online, blended and distance education (e.g., ACODE Benchmarks) is unclear and there is potential to merge or weave some of these elements into the proposed overarching set of benchmarks for academic development centres. But this is a job for another day.

I get a little tired of hearing people complain about the current state of technology-enhanced learning in their institution without offering solutions to the problems they raise. Typically they assign or direct blame for the lack of vision, support, infrastructure, and so on, towards senior staff in formal leadership roles. Without denying the importance of these leadership roles, including my own, the so-called leader is an easy scapegoat and much of this attention reflects a very narrow and traditional view of leadership.

In recent years the leadership literature has increasingly acknowledged the importance of micro leaders and distributed leadership models in the effectiveness and sustainability of any educational innovation. In light of this literature a key distinction needs to be made between (a) the leader, (b) leadership and (c) leading as all three layers of leadership--macro, mesa and micro--are essential in a modern organization.

In a similar vein, Tony Bates and Albert Sangra (2011) in their recent book on Managing Technology in Higher Education argue that leadership can be understood in terms of two different senses. Citing the work of Mintzberg (2009, pp. 65-66) the first is with regard to position and the led: the leader is in charge, motivates and inspires, elicits shock and awe….In the second sense, leadership is seen more broadly, often beyond formal authority: a leader is anyone who breaks new ground, sets direction that shows others the way.’

The concept of vision and lifting other peoples' aspirations of what is possible is common to many definitions of leadership. Notably, Michael Fullan argues that vision building rests heavily on the shoulders of micro leaders as top down visions can be blinding. These are the people who will ultimately determine whether specific innovations are successful and go on to become institutionalized features of the organization. In contrast to John Kotter, Fullan claims that vision is something you should build over time and end with rather than necessarily establishing at the outset.

The key point is that leadership is possible no matter where you are in an organization's hierarchy. And everyone can play a role in leading through influence. Sometimes the most influential people are opinion leaders who have the respect of their colleagues. I have found through my own experience that these are the people you need to establish strong working relationships with as they can be far more influential on the outcomes you wish to achieve than early adopters and centrally driven efforts.

With these general points is mind, I'm currently involved with colleagues from Charles Sturt University (CSU) in an interesting research project looking at different approaches to leadership in the context of blended, flexible and distance learning. The specific aim of the research is to build knowledge and understanding of the impact of distributive leadership approaches to transforming teaching and learning in relation to the new normal of distance education. The research involves eight stories or case studies of adaptation at CSU and Massey at the macro, meso and macro levels of the institution. More information about the project is available from the following link:

• Fostering institutional change through distributive leadership approaches: Stories of adaptation in blended and flexible learning and distance education.

On a related topic, I'm also centrally involved as an expert reviewer in the development of a suite of online professional development courses on university leadership and management through the Epigeum team at Imperial College. I was the person who originally proposed the development of this course and it has been an interesting project so far working with some leading scholars in the educational leadership literature. We hope to complete the beta version of these courses in the next few months.

The 2010 International Blended Learning Conference is currently being hosted by the University of Hertfordshire in the United Kingdom. Last year I was fortunate to attend this conference. Although the 2009 conference appeared to be more of an in-house professional development event, the online collaborative delivery with the University of Calgary and University of Queensland added a valuable international flavour.

This year's conference attracted some high profile keynote speakers, including Professor Martin Oliver, Professor Norm Vaughan and Mark Nichols from New Zealand. Leading up to the conference a dedicated Cloudscape was available to support pre-conference discussion. I have followed Martin Oliver's work for some years and read with interest the responses in the Cloudscape forum before his keynote address, entitled Myths and Promises of Blended Learning. So it was a surprise to see Martin include a contribution from me in the body of his keynote presentation, which is available for viewing on Slideshare. Spot the quote!

I'm not sure how Martin interpreted the quote from me but at the heart of his presentation is a reminder of the complexity of learning and the danger of narrow binary conceptions of blending digital and conventional technologies. As he points out this binary conception is a myth.

Finally, I particularly liked Martin's conclusion that blending is about designing learning, teaching and assessment in ways that think about 'learners first, purposes second and forms third'. This simple statement has particular relevance as we redesign our courses to take advantage of new design and delivery options.

IMS recently announced their 2010 Global Learning Impact Awards. I always keep a watchful eye on the award winners as they offer an international taste of some of the latest innovations likely to have an impact on learning and higher education in the future. You need a lazy afternoon to Google and explore some of the following technology-enhanced learning initiatives from around the globe:

Platinum Awards (established initiatives):

• The elementary e-curriculum library for educators - i-Scream and SigongMedia - Korea
• PebblePad: from project, to pilot, to personalised learning for all - PebblePad and University of Wolverhampton - UK

Platinum Awards (new and R & D initiatives):

• Accessibility Preferences system at the BBC - UK
• Xerte Online Toolkits and The University of Nottingham – UK

Gold Awards (established initiatives):

• Adopting the IMS Content Packaging specification for the collaborative development of an online research skills training programme -Epigeum and Durham University – UK
• Amazon:The challenges of e-learning - Colégio Militar de Manaus - Brazil

Gold Awards (new and R & D initiatives):

• Game-Based Learning for Core Academics - Florida Virtual School - USA
• I(4) Excellence - Content Authoring System - DeVry University, The Learning Edge North America (TLENA) and Pearson (eCollege) - USA

Silver Awards (established initiatives):

• Distance Education Center at the Central Officials Training Institute - Korea
• Nisai Virtual Academy - UK

Silver Awards (new and R & D initiatives):

• eLML, the eLearning Content Creation Tool of the University of Zurich – Switzerland
• Mobilae - mobile learning, assessment and evidence gathering - Centre for Learning Innovation and Western Sydney Institute of TAFE - Australia

Bronze Awards (established initiatives):

• Fairfax County Public Schools electronic Curriculum, Assessment, Resource Tool (eCART) - Fairfax County Public Schools and Northrop Grumman - USA
• Mobile Assessment and Online Recognition using QTI solutions - Tasmanian Polytechnic and Skills Institute - Australia

Bronze Awards (new and R & D initiatives):

• Personal / Professional learning network - Education.au limited - Australia
• GetsmART in Ngee Ann Secondary School - Ngee Ann Secondary School - Singapore

The following nominations received non-medal Learning Impact Leadership Awards:

Established initiatives:

• Building Europe's largest Life Long Learning for Employment Initiative on Moodle LMS and HarvestRoad Hive DR - Giunti Labs and The Region of Tuscany - Italy
• myitlab at Bunker Hill Community College - Pearson Education and Bunker Hill Community College - USA
• CAMS Enterprise Course Management / Higher Education Learning Management System (LMS) - Three Rivers Systems, Inc. and Covenant Theological Seminary - USA
• MySpanishLab at Metro State - Pearson Education World Languages and Metropolitan State College of Denver - USA
• Transfer Credit and Degree Audit System (TCDAS) - University of Maryland University College - USA
• Co-Tutor at Loughborough University – UK

New and R & D initiatives:

• Digital Text book - KERIS (Korea Education & Research Information Service) and SK C&C - Korea
• Virtual Faculty and Student Support Centers - Lone Star College System and Lone Star College-Online - USA
• Riverside Authoring Tool - Rich content editing for medical teachers - IVIMEDS and University of Dundee - UK
• Website STUDIECOACH By Open University Netherlands - Netherlands
• Common Cartridge Builder by Pearson eCollege – USA

A recent article in the British Journal of Educational Technology responds to the increasingly popularity and adoption of elearning in higher education. After reviewing some of the popular claims about elearning, the paper goes on to identify and discuss some of the myths.

Drawing on an information systems background, Njenga and Fourie (2010) adopt a critical perspective of the technopositivist drivers for elearning in educational institutions. In this context, technopositivism is defined as a ‘compulsive enthusiasm’ for e-learning in higher education without regard for the dangers to teaching and learning. Quoting Guri-Rosenblit (2005, p. 14), the authors note two ironic and relevant questions:

‘If it ain’t broken, why fix it?’ and ‘Technology is the answer—but what are the questions?’

The questions are not new in the literature and unfortunately the article fails to provide a well referenced scholarly response to these concerns. In many respects the paper and format adopted is far from original and the work would be enhanced by engaging more deeply with counter arguments. For example, there is ample evidence to show how certain uses of elearning can enhance retention and student engagement along with the perceived digital gap between Google learners and traditional educational institutions.

On the whole, however, the article makes useful reading. Arguably, the most significant oversight is a failure to acknowledge that elearning is not a single entity. As a term elearning can encompass the use of multi-choice tests from a traditional Instructionist perspective or student generated digital videos following a Constructivist or Connectionist view of learning and teaching. In these two examples there are fundamentally different pedagogical drivers and the paper suffers from an overly simplistic account of the literature.

Even from a critical perspective the paper fails to make links between technology and the globalization movement. There is a body of additional literature that could have informed a stronger critical argument against the current elearning drivers. For example, Dr Neil Selwyn's work is essential reading for the opponents of elearning - although the argument is never binary and the appropriate application of technology always depends on the learning context.

Another inherent failure is the assumption that 'Technology is just a medium' (p. 211). This view reflects a socially deterministic view of technology and wrongly assumes that elearning is neutral, which strangely contradicts some of the authors' earlier points about marketing drivers.

That said, despite important conceptual flaws, the following myths provide a useful checklist for teachers and institutional policy-maker. Taken as a whole they help to ensure the adoption and implementation of technology-enhanced learning is appropriately motivated and grounded in evidence. Of course, whether these myths are a true reflection of the academic literature is a very different matter.

Myths of eLearning

• e-Learning is a saviour; its redemptive power is overreaching and every educational institution should adopt it;

• e-Learning can replace human interaction;

• e-Learning cuts the costs of education, for instance, e-learning courses are cheaper to deliver than the traditional face-to-face or distance learning;

• Providing numerous courses and an abundance of information is beneficial, and can enhance learning;

• ICTs should become the primary medium of learning in higher education;

• Leisure (including playing and entertainment) and learning are separate activities;

• e-Learning will make HEIs more competitive and they must seize it or be declared institutionally redundant;

• Establishing the infrastructure (hardware and software) in e-learning is the most difficult part;

• e-Learning will see the demise of traditional campuses;

• e-Learning can decrease absenteeism and lower dropout rates among students.

Reference

Njenga, J., & Fourie, C. (2010). The myths about elearning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41 (2), 199-212.