The business of education ...

The introduction of MOOCS has captured the imagination and attention of education stakeholders worldwide.  Much has been made of the enormous uptake of the various offerings available on the EDx and Coursera platforms (amongst others) and the potential offered by open access on-line learning experiences.  However, the long-term sustainability of the MOOC model has also come under scrutiny, with significantly high rates of participant attrition (up to 93%), highly variable levels of quality and, most importantly, significant levels of investment (e.g. Coursera $US65M to date) without any apparent means of achieving a financial return (Ruth, 2012). 

In fact there appears to be a distinct lack of consideration around how "moving on-line" fits into University’s broader strategic agenda.  Rather, most appear to be engaging in the space early (we don't know where we're going but we're on the journey!) with some expectation of developing a degree of capability.  In the hope perhaps that when a viable business model does in fact emerge, they will have reduced the lag-time associated with responding (Magner, 2013).  

However, while MOOCS in their current incarnation have been underwhelming (bar the hype) both financially and pedagogically they have effectively signalled at least three important emerging trends in the tertiary sector:

•      They have effectively raised awareness as to the evolving nature of education, the increasing commercial and market pressures being placed on the tertiary sector and have opened up the idea that there might be (gasp!) alternate models of tertiary education (see Bokor 2012 for a snapshot of these issues);

•      The "sharks are circling”.  The significant amount of private funds invested in the MOOC space indicate the significant interest from private investors anticipating a number of opportunities in the tertiary education space.  Investing in MOOCs now helps those interested in "the business of education" to learn about our (sometime arcane) world and develop an appropriate business model that will suit their agenda;

•      There is widespread desire for short term, consumable learning experiences amongst the general population, particularly for those able to facilitate and support collaborative learning opportunities (Chafkin, 2013). 

This last point is particularly important in the context of the QUT Transform project.  Trounson (2013) in the Higher Ed. supplement (27th Nov, p20) reports that the growth of “taster courses” offered by Open Universities Australia “Open2Study” is over 30% with just short of 20000 students in their fourth cohort.

 

“We have found that online learning that focuses on collaboration and co-operation enhances student’s ability to explore ideas and knowledge more effectively” (Open2Study GM Jose Herrera)

So.... The sky isn't falling, but the climate is changing and more importantly, for those organisations that are agile enough a wealth of opportunities exist.  As Transform fellow Jason Sternberg says “good teaching is good teaching”. MOOCs have shown that it’s not enough to whack up a video of a smart cookie and a couple of quizzes for an engaging on-line experience.  By effectively adapting to digital delivery models we can remain competitive and to continue doing what we do best: educating (not just certifying).  By default however it does require investment and open thinking around the best way to respond. As such the Transform teams are building and growing a model that leverages QUT's existing strengths and capabilities and takes advantage of the learning gained from observing other institutions’ experiences in this space over the last 2 to 3 years.  A strong common theme throughout the process has been the need to develop a learning architecture that is flexible and responsive to the needs of student expectations, employer needs, and aligns strongly with the value proposition and unique capabilities offered by QUT in an increasingly fragmented and diverse education sector.

Dr Glen Murphy  -- Senior Lecturer, School of Management - QUT Business School /Transformational Teaching Fellow

Reference List

Bokor, J. (2012) University of the future: a 1000 year industry on the cusp of change.  Ernst & Young.  http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/University_of_the_future/$FILE/University_of_the_future_2012.pdf (Accessed 17/10/2013)

Chafkin, M. (2013)  Udacity’s Sebastian Thrun, Godfather of free online education, changes course.  Fast Company, http://www.fastcompany.com/3021473/udacity-sebastian-thrun-uphill-climb. (Accessed 14/11/2013).

Magner, L. (2013)  A wider web: Technological developments have spurred rapid industry growth.  On-line education in Australia.  IBIS World Industry Report X0008, September

Ruth, S. (2012) Can MOOCs and existing e-learning efficiency paradigms help reduce college costs? International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 21-32.

Trounson (2013) Appetite growing for ‘taster courses’.  The Australian (Higher Education supplement, 27th November, p20.

Harnessing the strength of online communities within higher education

“The most promising use of the Internet is where the buoyant partnership of people and technology creates powerful new online learning communities” 

(Brown, 1999, p. 19).

Over the last decade the Internet has evolved from being a tool used by a few dedicated educators to one used by the majority of educators.  How do we develop this great resource in teaching and learning to allow students to build knowledge?  The ability for students to construct knowledge and demonstrate higher order thinking skills is at the heart of educational practices, and online communities have the potential to support these.  However, to understand how we can harness the strength of online communities to transform higher education, it is important to understand what they are and how we can use them.

The terminology associated with communities and learning is vast and well-developed. Researchers and educators use the terminology synonymously even though learning communities can be described and defined in different ways.  Some common terminology includes:

1. Communities of learners (see Brown & Campione, 1990)
2. Knowledge building communities (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1992)
3. Communities of practice (CoP)(Lave & Wenger, 1991)
4. Online learning communities (Brown, 1999)
5. Internet based learning communities (IBLC) (Wolf, 2001)

Despite differences in terminology, there are some basic similarities in how these communities operate.  Savery and Duffy (1995) suggest these commonalities include:

1. Complex, challenging learning environments with authentic tasks;
2. Social negotiation and shared responsibility as a part of learning;
3. Multiple representations of content;
4. Understanding that knowledge is constructed;
5. Student-centred instruction.

These learning communities can exist in a physical face-to-face (f2f) mode, an online or virtual mode, or a hybrid mode (more commonly referred to as blended) and students tend to seamlessly move between physical and online communities.  The challenge for university educators is knowing how to build and scaffold appropriate learning experiences for students in these communities given the range and availability of online tools, mobile devices and social media technologies (SMT).  Familiarity with online tools and user-friendliness also needs to be considered – some purpose built online education tools can be quite daunting.

Some common tools, activities and social media technologies that could support online communities if used correctly include blogs, google communities, facebook groups, discussion forums, wikis, twitter, pinterest, digital storytelling, storify, instagram and tumblr. This is not an exhaustive list but gives some idea of where to start the transformation process in higher education when developing an online community.

Building an online community involves more than merely placing digital artefacts such as documents, presentations or even video and audio online for students to consume.  Furthermore, placing this within a learning management system (LMS) with a common interface also does not equate to building an active online community where knowledge building occurs.  Too often LMS’s are used for the transmission of content in higher education and do not allow students to build knowledge or engage in higher order thinking. Many LMS’s also measure how often students access resources but this does not mean they actively engage in learning.  Some MOOCs place content online for students to consume and add a few quizzes and peer review assessment items. This does not engage students in an active online community as co-constructors of knowledge.

In transforming higher education and embracing the strength of online communities it is essential to choose the most appropriate online community tools for what you are trying to achieve.  There is no one size fits all for every possible topic of study or experience you wish students to participate in.  It is possible a combination of tools is best suited to a particular learning experience (but be careful not too use too many and confuse students).  There is a need to identify what the intended purpose of the community is and how it will work as well as understanding the background of your students.

For example, if we decide a discussion forum is needed as part of our online community, then it needs to involve more than posting a link for discussion or asking a series of questions (which would essentially result in similar responses).  It should encourage argumentation by allowing students to propose solutions or explanations to events or problems, provide evidence to substantiate these, and allow them to evaluate any feedback. Other learning approaches may involve problem-based learning or even the notion of students as authors.

True online communities don’t just happen and don’t always work in their intended way.  However, they do allow educators to rethink their approaches to teaching and learning and to create environments that are both collaborative and social in nature. Students must have a reason for joining an online community and this needs to be more than a linked assessment item.  Likewise, academics need time to effectively manage their online community and provide scaffolding where necessary.

Shaun Nykvist -- Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Education / Transformational Teaching Fellow

References

Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1990). Communities of learning and thinking, or a context by any other name. In D. Kuhn (Ed.), Developmental perspectives on teaching and learning thinking skills (Contributions to Human Development Series) (pp. 108-126)). Basle, Karger.

Brown, M. E. (1999). Beyond the first wave: A framework for online learning. Journal of Online Learning, 11(1), 15-21

Hillery, G. (1955). Definitions of community: Areas of agreement. Rural Sociology, 20(2), 111-123

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991).  Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1992). Text-based and knowledge-based questioning by children. Cognition and Instruction, 9(3), 177-199

Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35, 31-38.

Wolf, K. D., (2001). Internet Based Learning Communities: moving from patchwork environments to ubiquitous learning infrastructures.  In S. Dijkstra, D. Jonassen and D. Sembil (Eds.)  Multimedia Learning: Results and Perspectives. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.

Is there a place for storytelling in the Transformed environment?

 “Huddled near the warmth of his dwindling fire, Magma realises his days in this foetid cave are finished. Incessant drips from the lime soaked walls are the only indication of the minutes remaining. He straightens from his twisted stoop and rises to an imposing figure as fear begins to wrack his frame. The noises grow stronger as the cave begins to reverberate in a deafening cacophony. He will not go like a savage…”

A good story creates an immediate connection between reader and content. The reader becomes consumed with detail and anticipates the next sentence, paragraph and chapter. A great author elicits an incredible range of emotions from the reader by ensuring a personal connection between characters and reader.  We’ve all been there, unable to put the book down because we’re so engrossed in the story. A great story leaves the reader with questions. ‘What will happen to Magma?’ ‘Is he going to die or will he save himself?’ We want to know because we seek completion. Closure.

Great lecturers know this. The TED stage is full of amazing orators holding audiences captive to their incredible stories of survival, discovery or creation. Through the use of careful scripting, engaging photos and clever music, we feel part of the journey. We hang on each word as if we’re right there, sharing the experience firsthand; the sights, sounds, and smells are all a careful construct of our own creative imagination. This is what great storytelling does. It challenges us to suspend reality. We see this from great lecturers within our own faculties and schools – speakers who bring content to life through imagination and storytelling. They move content from the screen to the mind by sharing lifelong experiences of why this ‘stuff’ matters. They contextualise information around the audience’s knowledge. And the audience responds. We see this in our teaching award winners.

What can we draw from this when we move into the ‘Transformed’ environment of online learning? How can we bring content to life? This is our challenge.

There’s no single formula to ensure our success in the online world, but we know many formulas for failure. If we provide content only, we will fail. Our audience is not an amorphous group of content hungry, self-directed learners. Our online audience seeks the same engagement as our physical learners. They want to be shocked, impressed, engaged and most of all, connected. Connected with content and connected with each other. We need to rethink how we apply the culture of storytelling to the transformed environment. If we do this well, we will indeed have some stories to share.

So…what ever happened to Magma?

Jonathon James -- Transformational Learning and Teaching Fellow / Supervising Technician (Engineering Precinct)

Transformative Assessment

Assessment is one of the most challenging aspects of designing curriculum. The debate about teaching and learning in MOOCs has exposed several issues related to online pedagogy, including formative and summative assessment. Designing Transform curricula has given us opportunities to re-think online assessment practices and learn from the world-wide MOOC experience.

The design principles underpinning Transform curriculum are to:

• be inquiry-based around real world challenges
• offer flexibility for learners
• allow for collaborative learning between peers (with varying degrees of synchronicity)
• allow for contact between learners and experts (with varying degrees of synchronicity)
• allow us to curate learning resources and experiences in meaningful and coherent ways
• enable learners to provide evidence of their learning
• provide appropriate guidance and support for learners

So, what does this mean for assessment? And how might the experience of assessment be transformative for learners and teachers?

First principles of assessment

Regardless of the mode of learning, best-practice assessment principles still apply. First principles of assessment are summarised in this graphic:

References:

Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable Assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151-167. 

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.

Herrington, J., Reeves, T., & Oliver, R. (2010). A guide to authentic e-learning. New York: Routledge. 

Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535-550.

For learning to address real world challenges, assessment should also provide real world opportunities for learners to enhance the quality of the products of their learning. In assessment theory, we talk about the close relationship between assessment and learning using terms like assessment FOR or AS learning. This means assessment is a learning experience in its own right, rather than being tacked on afterwards (i.e. assessment OF learning).  

Assessment FOR and AS learning involves both students and teachers making judgments in order to inform future learning (formative assessment). David Boud has captured this idea in his concept of  ‘sustainable assessment’. Sustainable assessment is where learners learn to make judgements about the quality of their own and other’s work, and to engage in reflective practice. This involves peer feedback and self-assessment, activities that require a good deal of scaffolding and support for learners.

Real world learning involves engaging with messy problems in order to develop higher order thinking, problem solving and decision-making skills. It’s easy to design assessment that measures things that are easy to measure. But perhaps we should be suspicious if something is easy to measure, as maybe it’s not designed to measure the type of real world learning that involves messiness!  This is where VALIDITY comes in. Are we measuring what we had intended to measure? Careful design is needed to match real world inquiry learning with valid and authentic assessment opportunities.

Real world learning also involves engaging with the student’s own context, interests, strengths and weaknesses. Inquiry-based learning involves students choosing a question/problem/project related to their own life/workplace. It involves deciding on a process or methodology to use to address their question, and the mode or format that they use to present the outcomes of their investigation. Like sustainable assessment, inquiry-based learning requires strong support and guidance for learners as they undertake the inquiry process.

The assessment design process

Design of authentic assessment starts with identifying the learning outcomes. The next step involves designing assessment that provides evidence of these learning outcomes – i.e. what does success look like and what opportunities are needed to create this evidence? Only then do we design the learning activities that develop the skills and knowledge needed for the assessment.

However, as academics, we tend to be very passionate about our field, and this means we often start with the content, then develop the learning activities, and then create the assessment. And then we realise that we need to design the learning outcomes!

An even greater trap is being seduced by technologies.

The challenge of assessment and modularisation

The Transform curriculum approach involves packaging learning into chunks undertaken as online modules that can be bundled together as part of a post-grad qualification. This creates challenges for assessment, as it’s easy to fall into the trap of designing atomistic, easy-to-measure assessment at the module level. It’s not easy to scaffold students’ learning to make complex judgements on the quality of their own and other’s work in a real world, inquiry-based approach. Herein lies our challenge. Some helpful questions to start with are:

• What will success look like?
• What opportunities do learners need to demonstrate success?
• How will learners know they have been successful?

The risks and opportunities for Transform can be seen in the MOOC assessment experience. The worst MOOCs provide simplistic, poorly written multiple-choice quizzes, while the best provide rich, authentic, collaborative assessment experiences. For us, the choice is easy!

Mandy Lupton -- Transformational Teaching Fellow / Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Education

Jill Willis -- Lecturer, Faculty of Education

Kirsty Kitto - Transformational Teaching Fellow / Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Kelli McGraw - Lecturer, Faculty of Education

The Curated University

Curating information and turning it into knowledge is the fundamental task of universities. Why then, is there so little discussion about it? When I began investigating how to best curate material for teaching and lifelong learning, I thought there would be systems in place and a community of practice. I expected extensive discussion in scholarly journals. Apart from some rare examples, I was wrong.

I see three layers of curation in tertiary education.

First, libraries play an important role as collectors and collators of information. Here, curation involves finding and keeping material, but not converting it into knowledge. Libraries are a repository (glad I got that one right) of knowledge. Some library services develop sites that bring knowledge together on a specific topic (e.g. QUT’s Library Subject Guides). However, this only reduces one step in the data gathering process rather than curating that data into knowledge. That is the task of lecturers.

Second, lecturers review knowledge on a topic and curate it in a way that allows their students to engage with it and learn from it. Lecturers also distribute knowledge to the general public. Queensland is currently in the middle of a state government crackdown on motorcycle gangs. As an expert on organised crime, I have been interviewed more than a dozen times in the last two weeks on bikies.  I gather information on bikies, convert it into accessible knowledge and pass that knowledge on to the public. This, in turn, helps the public form reasoned and rational opinions about government policy.

Third, as lifelong learners, graduates also curate material, continuously updating and expanding their knowledge. Online curation sites play an important role here, gathering publications and snippets of information. However, their filtering programs are not sophisticated and often provide little more than a data dump. Academics can carry out this filtering role, locating new developments, assessing them and providing informed appraisal. In the process, we become facilitators of lifelong learning and remain connected to our graduates.

Keeping up with knowledge produced in our disciplines is extremely difficult. We can't read all the journal articles or attend every conference. So, we have two alternatives. First, we can narrow our fields of interest so the information flow becomes manageable. Life is far too interesting for that.  Second, we can build curation networks that enable us to control the information flow. 

We all use filtering tools such as Google Scholar to direct our attention to professionally relevant issues. However, perhaps groups of content curators supporting each other would be more beneficial. We have writing groups, why not curation groups? Students are natural content curators – when studying, they share the workload and combine notes. Good research teams curate content when they plan projects. Why can't we build networks that share the curation load on a topic and allow members to pass on knowledge rather than simply data?

Dr Mark Lauchs – Transformational Teaching Fellow / Senior Lecturer, School of Justice Studies