Pass the SoLT

In the face of today's digital and networked world, arguably, the default response of most traditional universities and tertiary providers has been to 'tame' rather than 'exploit' the potential of new technology and related social media. I added the word 'arguably' because in the United States the provision of fully online delivered courses continues to grow at an unprecedented rate, with an estimated 21% increase in online enrolments from 2009 to 2010 (Allen & Seaman, 2010).

Despite this growth there remains a question over quality; and one of the great challenges facing traditional tertiary providers is to understand how to successfully use new digital technology and social media to enhance formal learning in ways that are both effective and efficient. A focus on efficiency in addition to effectiveness is important as Martin Weller (2011) illustrates how the pedagogy of abundance is challenging traditional production and distribution models. Indeed, basic assumptions about the economics of education, especially distance learning, are being turned on their head as content is no longer a scarce resource. In my experience, most institutions have yet to understand the significance of this change and/or are still grappling to figure out what it all means for their future.

In the meantime, the Internet, social media and new virtual networks continue to fundamentally change the way in which people learn informally. Whether the gap between formal and informal ways of learning and open and closed content will narrow over the next few years is one of the big unanswered questions facing tertiary education. What the following video shows is that regardless of different and competing future scenarios, no institution can ignore the pace and scale of the changes taking place in today's digital and networked world.

This posting is a bit of a free flowing rant as I react to yet another attempt to place 'pedagogy in a box' in the context of technology-enhanced learning. I guess it's human nature or a reflection of the Western condition to impose order on the 'natural' messiness of learning and I don't deny there's room for a little structure in academic thinking. And I need to self-disclose from the outset that I'm probably one of the most guilty on this front.

However, we need to be extremely wary of the dangers of reifying our abstract, conceptual and theoretical models as they're rarely a good match with the messy reality of teaching and learning. Indeed, well meaning efforts to put 'pedagogy in a box' typically convey reductionist and instrumentalist views of teaching which oversimplify the educative process. These models and frameworks can potentially do great damage. For one thing many of them are constructed on flawed assumptions and lack of solid research evidence.

The Technology Integration Matrix which I stumbled across this week falls into this category. It's framed around an earlier version of the matrix which for me is a variation of the original model of the levels of technology integration proposed during the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) Project. I recall writing a critique of this developmental model almost a decade ago because of the linear assumptions that teachers' practice with technology can be plotted across a continuum from entry to adoption, adaptation, infusion and eventually to transformation.

In one of the many variations of this model, Somekh (1998) introduced the idea of beginning at an 'orientation stage' and progressing through to 'creative integration'. And one of the better known models proposed by Knezek and Christensen (1999) culminated with 'creative application of technology to new contexts'. Although there was a degree of consistency in the different models, the concepts of integration and transformation are problematic.

I won't reiterate all of the arguments against these models but suffice to say (i) the focus is inherently technocentric, (ii) teacher development is not always sequential, (iii) few models are derived from what is known about the idiosyncratic nature of teachers' work and (iv) the sum of the whole is always greater than the individual parts.

Another important flaw is the uncritical adoption of more accepted educational frameworks that are often mapped alongside of the technology adoption continuum. In the case of the Technology Integration Matrix popular concepts based on Jonassen, Howland, Moore and Marra's (2003) work on meaning learning appear down the first column--namely, active, collaborative, constructive, authentic and goal directed. This framework draws heavily on constructivism (a proxy for learning by doing) which we know has a number of important failings and largely treats 'teaching by telling' as a dirty word.

In the context of tertiary education, there may be an argument to replace this single metaphor view of learning with something like Diana Laurillard's Conversational Framework. At least Laurillard's framework integrates a range of perspectives and acknowledges the complex feedback loops that are required for effective teaching and learning, but overlaying this seminal theory still does not overcome the inherent problems of trying to put pedagogy in a box. Of course it needs to be stated for the record that the Conversational Framework is not a 'box' theory.

Another example of simplistic educational thinking is the way in which Bloom's Taxonomy (including the revised version) has been embedded as almost folk psychology in efforts to conceptualize the way technology can be used for teaching and learning purposes. The taxonomy has been widely criticized and many scholars (see Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1998) have challenged its foundation for understanding higher-order thinking and more specifically designs for teaching, learning and assessment. Indeed, there is even a school of thought that Bloom's Taxonomy needs to be inverted to more accurately reflect the iterative and concentric nature of the learning process.

Yet the taxonomy continues to appear in the popular literature. A recent example is the widely circulated Moodle Tool Guide for Teachers which attempts to help educators make choices about the way they design online courses. No doubt there is demand from teachers for simple learning and technology matrixes but serious questions need to be asked about their validity, instrumentalist assumptions and deeper value in challenging and fundamentally changing teachers' deeply-rooted pedagogical beliefs.

Speaking more generally, in my view, we do a great disservice to teachers (and learners) by focussing on these technology planning tools without purposefully aligning and integrating them with thinking about your students' needs, the learning intentions you have for your course and the type of graduate profile or attributes you want your learners to have when they graduate. In this regard, selecting the 'right tool' for the job requires a far deeper conversation and has relatively little to do with the specific features of a learning management system.

But in the drive for standards and measurable performativity there are several rubrics that currently try to reduce the qualities of learning design and effective teaching down to a handful of categories--for example, baseline, good and excellent. I'll leave it for you to find some of these rubrics through your own Google search; but my concern here is that a far deeper level of critique is required in unraveling the thinking and hidden assumptions behind what on the surface appears to be a helpful rubric.

In some cases the term exemplary is adopted which should send a real warning message to educators as what constitutes quality or excellence is always contestable and an evolving concept. Moreover, the term has strong positivist connotations about the nature of performance. The question is always whose definition of exemplary or excellence is reflected and what types of teaching and learning practises are being recognized and potentially rewarded? Put another way whose voice is excluded in these conceptions of excellence as no definition is ever neutral?

On that note it's probably time to climb down from my soapbox but I have just one final point: I always remember as a student that some of my best, most challenging and personally rewarding learning experiences were during the worst taught and designed courses. The lack of explicit learning design actually forecd me to think and search for meaning as a learner. The point is not to support poor course design but rather reiterate there is no recipe or simple matrix that can capture the complexity, messiness and idiosyncratic nature of teaching and learning, and arguably many of the current course design aids and models are continuing to look for love in the wrong place.

The latest issue of EDUCAUSE Quarterly, devoted to the topic of learner engagement, contains a useful article on the use of lecture capture technology. Martyn (2009) describes in a paper entitled "Engaging Lecture Capture: Lights, Camera... Interaction!" the major technology players in the lecture capture landscape and provides a brief review of the literature. When well designed and used appropriately lecture capture is claimed to help students to:

• Make up for a missed class
• Watch lectures on demand
• Improve retention of class materials
• Improve test scores
• Review material as a complement to in-class interactions

The major contribution the article makes is highlighting the importance of relevant professional development which addresses what staff (and students) need to know before, during and after class. In addition, the paper offers a robust set of 'Interaction Principles' based on the seminal work of Chickering and Gamson (1987) for the sound use of lecture capture technology. The seven principles include:

• Encourages contact between students and faculty
• Develops reciprocity and cooperation among student
• Encourages active learning
• Gives prompt feedback
• Emphasizes time on task
• Communicates high expectations
• Respects diverse talents and ways of learning

Although the paper elaborates on each of the above principles, the article would benefit from more in-depth discussion of the relative merits of audio capture as opposed to the use of full video, as the latter has far greater technical demands and requires all students to have high-end internet access, which remains problematic in countries like New Zealand. That said, importantly Martyn (2009) concludes with the following statement:

"The greatest increase in the effectiveness of lecture capture systems will come from the application of pedagogical techniques that integrate interactivity."

In my previous posting I talked about the value of specific pedagogical interactions in promoting student engagement. On the whole I concluded that the value of interactions for distance learners is not rocket science. I continue with this theme as I share my reflections on another article from my weekly reading pile.

Kirkwood (2009), in a recent paper published in 'Technology, Pedagogy and Education', reinforces the importance of why we need to drill down to specific types of interactions. The paper makes a sweeping claim there is limited evidence that technology-led innovations within Higher Education have achieved the anticipated improvements in learning. While there is an element of truth in this conclusion it contains an important conceptual flaw as technology-enhanced learning is not a single entity.

From a conceptual and methodological point of view, the answer to the question of whether technology has transformed learning requires a much finer grain analysis. It's problematic to make sweeping generalizations about the effects of technology when interventions range from the use of automated multi-choice tests (student-content interaction) to engaging learners in online role-play (student-student interaction).

Again it's not rocket science that some pedagogic uses of technology are likely to lead to better quality interactions and learning outcomes than others. In this respect technology is not neutral as different uses and applications have different pedagogical affordances - although these are strongly mediated by the teacher.

Read more »

I'm finding it hard to maintain my professional reading whilst juggling a number of initiatives along with taking on increasing administrative responsibilities. Over the last couple of weeks, however, two journal articles have contributed to my thinking about current and future directions in blended and distance education. This is the first of a two part entry.

In the first article, published in the Review of Education Research, Bernard and colleagues (2009) provide a meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Put simply, the paper finally puts to bed the value of crude comparison studies between conventional instruction and distance learning as there is little to be gained from this line of investigation. Instead, we need to better understand the different impacts of different distance education designs or intervention strategies.

The second largely univocal major finding of the meta-analysis is the importance of interaction. This is not a new finding and the value of interaction is not rocket science. The paper identifies three types of interactions in distance education: student–student (SS), student–teacher (ST) and student–content (SC) interactions. Importantly, it also acknowledges the need to differentiate within each of these interaction types between synchronous and asynchronous interaction, and hybrid or blended variations of the two approaches. Although meta-analyses often suffer from over generalising and losing a sense of the fine grain, the paper states:

Read more »

This week, once again, a group of staff asked the question: where is the evidence that blended learning works? This is probably the most common question I come across in my work. Unfortunately, it's the wrong question to ask and reflects a naive understanding of the concept of blended learning and the complex nature of technology-enhanced learning environments. I still recall a seminal work from Gavriel Salomon (1990) who claimed by analogy:

"The music we enjoy is not produced by a single flute but rather from the sound of a whole symphonic orchestra" (cited in Brown, 1992).

One of the major flaws in the above question is the assumption that blended learning is a single entity. The use of technology-enhanced learning, or whatever you want to call it, can include courses that use 100% online multi-choice tests, automatically marked, for assessment or heavy participation courses requiring daily or weekly postings to discussion fora.

There is no single form of pedagogy associated with blended learning, which is why asking the question does it work is like asking does face-to-face teaching work? Do we ever ask this question? There are too many covariants and methods of instruction under the umbrella of face-to-face instruction to make this a meaningful question. Yet, people still want to challenge the new ways of teaching with new tools using a gold standard not applied to existing and conventional ways of teaching.

I should quickly add that to my knowledge university staff rarely, if ever, are told they must teach in a certain way. Even if they are required for timetabling reasons to use a lecture theatre, there is no such thing as a standard lecture. In a similar vein, if we think of an online environment as a virtual classroom, we rarely ask whether the physical design of one teaching space (e.g., lecture theatre) is better than another (e.g., tutorial room) because the same space can be used to support different pedagogical approaches.

This is why crude comparative research that tries to compare one way of teaching with another (e.g., f2f with online) has limited validity. Education is always context and teacher-dependent. As Guri-Rosenblit (2009) points out in a recent article in the Journal of Distance Education, 'a classroom lecture might be boring or thought provoking, just as online encounters might be' (p. 119).

This line of discussion does not mean that we can't determine the effectiveness of specific instructional approaches with specific learners in specific contexts. Indeed, this remains an important question. A recent study by Giguere (2009) on the British Columbia Open University demonstrates how we can measure the impact of a specific blended learning or 'course twinning' initiative, over time, using relevant benchmarks. In particular, the study provides strong evidence of the impact on completion rates of a major strategy to virtualise teaching through technology-enhanced learning.

The study found that successful completion rates in online courses follow a clear pattern: they are consistently higher than off-line courses than online ones. More to the point, 'they increase with course level and subject matter classifications, and are particularly large at the upper-level and in more quantitative disciplines (up to 21.2% increase)' (Giguere, 2009). The variations across subject disciplines make interesting reading; after discounting demographic variables, the study concludes that student success online results primarily from the benefits of blended course delivery.

Of course, in social research one should never generalise findings to another educational setting without qualifying or understanding the institutional context. There is an important qualifier in the above study as the author underscores the importance of an integrated online learning environment. Merely supplementing print-based study materials with online delivery and support (an additive model) is unlikely to have the same benefits.

This point returns us to the importance of the pedagogy and the nature of the instructional mix which is wrapped around teaching in a blended learning environment. Put another way, we would be better to ask the question: what is the most appropriate blend of pedagogy and technology to promote high levels of student engagement for specific learners in specific disciplines? The concept of engagement strikes at the core of the learning experience and is centrally linked to retention, completion and the holy grail of improvement gains in student achievement.

In terms of engagement, Diana Laurillard's (1993) seminal book on university teaching and specifically her Conversational Framework provides a useful way of thinking about whether your mix of instructional strategies, learning activities and use of new technologies is designed for learning. While this is a deeper discussion for another day both the talking heads lecture and traditional correspondence model of distance education do not compare well when mapped against this Framework.

We were fortunate to have Diana visit Massey University last year as a keynote speaker where she used the Conversational Framework to discuss the implications of technology-enhanced learning for higher education. The conversations she helped seed are continuing to grow in Massey's thinking about the type of student experiences we want to promote through new technology. I hope to share some of the fruits of our conversations in future contributions this blog.