Professor John V. Dempsey, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama, USA

The Future of E-Learning and How The University of Macau Can Lead

The Way

2

Who am I?• Brenda’s spouse• Director of Innovation in Learning Center

• USA Online – University’s online campus Faculty Development• E-learning and course redesign initiatives

• Professor of Instructional Design and Development• Former Fulbright Scholar in Malaysia

• Happy to be here!

3

What am I going to discuss?

• E-Learning formats and their effectiveness• Trends and demographics in US e-Learning• Trends and demographics in Asian e-

Learning• Case: How we increased quality and

reduced costs at my university• Changing face of public university

education• How the University of Macau could lead

the way• Other questions?

E-Learning formats and their effectiveness

5

E-Learning Is• E-learning comprises all forms of

electronically supported learning and teaching. (Wikipedia)

6

Synchronous ContinuumAsynchronous Synchronous

+ Self-paced formats

7

Online activities and learning

8

E-Learning Formats at Universities

• Web-enhanced •Less than 5% online or out of class

• Blended (hybrid)•5-85% online or out of class

• Online • 85-100% online or out of class

Current Best Evidence

USDOE meta-analysis*

“Students who took all or part of their class online performed better, on average, than those taking the same course through traditional face-to-face instruction.”

“Instruction combining online and face-to-face elements had a larger advantage relative to purely face-to-face instruction than did purely online instruction.”*Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of

Online Learning Studies, Washington, D.C., 2010.

Trends and demographics in US e-Learning

11

US Trends

12

US Trends

13

US Trends

14

US Trends

15

Bottom line:

BIG format shift. Great demand for non-traditional formats

Trends and demographics in Asian e-Learning

17

Current State of e-learning in AsiaAverage growth rate in e-learning is 28.4%

• Australia • South Korea • Japan High use

• Singapore• India• China • Malaysia• Thailand

• Sri Lanka• Indonesia Mid use

• Philippines• Pakistan• Nepal• Vietnam Low

use• Cambodia• Laos• Bhutan

18

Current trends for e-Learning in Asia

• Indonesia strictly controls the quality of academic distance learning content. It is difficult for foreign companies to enter into their domestic market.

• China has a strict system to approve e-learning programs. No foreign countries are allowed to tender for government contracts.

19

Current trends for e-Learning in Asia

• South Korea intends to use e-learning solutions to train all primary and secondary school students.

• Thailand has plans to provide all students with tablets by 2012.

• China aims to have over 200 million students online by 2020

20

China: Online learners in millions

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

21

E-Learning in China• Private K-12 - Edu.china.com and Yuloo.com

• ChinaEdu Corporation 165,000 students in online degree programs

• Corporate training China-training.comEnterprise Learning Center – Xuexugang.comChinaonlineedu.com

22

E-Learning in China

• University - Chinese Learning Net & Renmin Univ

• Open University of China (Central Radio and TV U)

68 online colleges 140 majors in 10 areas 2,027 off-campus learning centers Total enrollment of 1.4 million

23

Languages of e-Learning courses

• 33% English

• 16% Chinese

• 7% Japanese

• 3% Korean

• 3% Arabic

• 38% Other

Opportunity?

Case: How we increased quality and reduced costs at my university

Institutional Backdrop• Financial crisis• Decreasing state support • Increasing demand for

flexible learning opportunities

• LMS decision• Better technology options

Administrative Initiative:• Critical support--by Senior VP

(Provost)• Strong buy-in from Deans• Involved faculty leadership

Course Redesign InitiativeFirst Round

• 37 faculty Proposals respond to SVPAA’s call

• Up to 18,000 annual course enrollments affected long term

• 25 pilots started fall 2010 semester

CollegeProposal

sCourse

Enrollments

A&S 20 12,220

CESP 6 1,946

CIS 2 1,887

COE 4 445

MCOB 5 1,418

37 17,916

Why

Redesign?

modernize systemsurban university

economic pressures

Course Redesign Initiative

Principles:Improve Quality

Increase Cost Efficiency

Research Support

USDOE meta-analysis*

“Students who took all or part of their class online performed better, on average, than those taking the same course through traditional face-to-face instruction.”

“Instruction combining online and face-to-face elements had a larger advantage relative to purely face-to-face instruction than did purely online instruction.”*Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online

Learning Studies, Washington, D.C., 2009.

Redesign RFPs• Description of specific

innovation• Instructional efficiency

goals as measured by instructional salary/credit hour production

• Rationale for choosing the innovation

• Costs associated with implementation

• Time frame for piloting redesign

Faculty Proposal

Redesign RFPs

• Evaluation plan to demonstrate improved quality and cost efficiencies

• Sources of baseline information

• Baseline instructional costs• How active learning results• How student learning is

measuredProposal Review

Cont’d

Six Models of Course Redesign(based on NCAT)

• The Supplemental Model • The Replacement Model • The Emporium Model • The Fully Online Model • The Buffet Model

• Linked Workshop ModelMath Emporium Lab at Univ. of South Alabama

Course Redesign Initiative

• Focus•High enrollment courses

•eLearning• usually blended format

Scope

U. South Alabama• 37 redesign proposals

(first round)

• affecting estimated 4,400 undergrads

Type of Redesign

76%

14%

11%

Whole CourseCertain SectionsNew or Combine Course

Quality and Cost Efficiencies

• Creative eLearning technologies • lecture capture• interactive instructional materials from publishers

• online tutoring• guided examples• team case studies• expert guests

Quality and Cost Efficiencies

• Active on-campus learning sessions• Structured team-based problems• Cases and inquiry learning scenarios• Oral and project presentations• Large group content review• Strategic quizzing; practice tests• Critiques and discussion

How have we supported?Professional Development

• NCAT and Sloan-C Conferences and workshops - 3 groups of faculty

• Innovation in Learning Center workshops

• ILC Redesign website• Evaluation assistance• Redesign Academy (3

days w/ honorarium)• Redesign Faculty Get-

Togethers

How have we supported?Direct Support• New Institutional

tools (iTunesU, Camtasia Relay, Kaltura, Big blue Button)

• Personal Tools (laptops, software)

• E-Learning Assistant Program

ILC staff shooting video of blended course activities

How have we supported?

Peer Modeling• Some eLeader program

topics:• Creating screencasts for Political

Science• Using online debates in

Community Health courses• Assessment--matching

Engineering outcomes • iTunes U in Real Estate courses• Using Wikis in Library Science• Presentation skills for video in

Nursing courses• Preparing student review

podcasts om Business• Virtual Engineering chalkboard

How did we measure?

Cost Indicators

• Comparison of Methods

Institutional • Personnel cost per

Student• % Change in personnel

cost per student• Course enrollment• Reduction in part-time

instructors and GAs

Course Specific• Reassign faculty

assignments • Time for research

and grant-seeking

How did we measure?

Quality Metrics

• Comparison of Methods

Institutional • Student Success rates• D/Fs,• WDs

Course Specific• Common Final

Exams• Common Content

Items Selected from Exams

• Pre- and Post-tests• Student Work

Using Common Rubrics

Personnel Costs fall 2010

Redesign Comparison % Change

Course enrollment 3300 3916

Full-time instructors

29 54

Part-time instructors

20 38

GA’s (teaching only)

0 1

Avg FT instructor cost per student

$87.17 $123.85 -28.8%

Avg PT instructor cost per student

$15.53 $25.05 -38.0%

Total Personnel cost per student incl. GAs support personnel

$125 $152 -22.3%

Personnel Costs Spring 2011

Redesign Comparison % Change

Course enrollment 3,150 3,296

Full-time instructors

25 38

Part-time instructors

24 31

GA’s (teaching only)

0 1

Avg FT instructor cost per student

$78.21 $108.83 -28.2%

Avg PT instructor cost per student

$16.73 $22.43 -25.4%

Total Personnel cost per student incl. GAs support personnel

$110.28 $133.35 -17.3%

Fall 2010 Grade Comparisons

 

Redesign Comparison 

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Success Rate 2,078 63.0 2,640 67.4

D/F Rate 830 25.2 886 22.6

WD Rate 389 11.8 390 10.0

Incompletes 3 0.1 0 0.0

Total Students 3,300 100.0 3,916 100.0

Spring 2011 Grade Comparisons

 

Redesign Comparison 

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Success Rate 2,008 63.7 2228 67.6

D/F Rate 739 23.5 716 21.7

WD Rate 402 12.8 352 10.7

Incompletes 1 0.1 0 0.0

Total Students 3,150 100.0 3,296 100.0

Continue Formative Focus• Working with

administrators and faculty to improve or restructure course redesign

• Alert chairs and deans to problems

• Discuss course redesign changes with Depts.

• Ongoing reports to VP

Formative Focus

• Identify most effective and efficient courses

• Determine commonalities that resulted in success

• Structure• Activities• Course formats

• Targeted faculty training• Student support from faculty

members

USA Redesign Academy

Some Improvements

• Initial student orientation help create structure

• Changing from online to more structured blended format for 100-level courses

• Evaluate savings in classroom use

Student Orientation Video prepared by the USA Innovation in Learning Center.

50

Student Success Rates first year (2010-11 academic year)

On average (all courses) :• Success rates were highest for blended

and online courses versus the traditional or web-enhanced course format.

• Withdrawal rates were lowest for blended courses and highest for online courses.

• Class sizes were largest for the blended format; smallest in the traditional format.

The changing face of public universities

52

Exploding Global Mrket• Students in tertiary education

worldwide increased from 28 in 1970 to 165 million in 2010—almost 600% more students.

• Academic degree standards and quality assurance standards becoming more compatible (e.g., Bologna Accord)

• Alliances among universities to spread out costs (e.g., software services) and inter-institutional exchanges.

53

Limited transmission learning• What usually occurs in university

classrooms will move from presenting to managing interactions:

• Between students and instructor• Between students and students• Between students and learning technologies

54

Open Educational Resources (OER)• Complete Lectures and Materials

• Edx (Harvard & MIT)• Peer-to-Peer University• Stanford Project

• Repositories• Merlot• EdReNe• Multimedia University (Malaysia—local to University and partners)

• Khan Academy

55

More Collaborative Learning

Particularly structured approaches like Team-Based Learning (TBL)

56

E-Publishing• E-textbooks• Established publishers• University faculty• Consortium faculty

How the University of Macau could lead the way

58

What it takes to get it going• Institutional administrative support -

KEY• Planning – maintaining standards• Intense redesign initiative

• Instructional design• Faculty development• Student development

• Monitoring & Evaluation

59

Some logistics1. Make sure you have a clear business case

Using resources (time, human talent, space, money) strategically IS critical to any institution

2. Use Data to guide decisions Published external research, institutional research and evaluation systems, analysis of market, timely opportunities,

3. Engage early with all relevant stakeholdersInstitutional change is political and personal

4. Focus on integration, open standards and build upon existing communities of practice

For content (collaborative institutional partnerships, learning repositories, open educational resources, open-source software communities)

60

Concentrate on opportunity & innovation

Opportunity• Bilingual faculty

• Limited summer courses

• Working professionals need educational upgrades

Innovation Possibility

• Bilingual courses

• Online and blended

• Flexible formats for busy professionals

Mobile Learning PossibilitiesJust a few…• Electronic textbooks• Podcasts• Virtual field guides• Mobile data collection• New content creation• Mobile computing labs

62

Use Technology for Transmission

• Why is the classroom lecture the best format to transmit information?

Introduce topic Illustrate procedure

Provide guidance

Scenes from an instructional podcast

Use evangelists and early adopters to inform the process

• Just wanted to let you know--we’ll be in your living room soon..

We’ve been asked to transport among you for 2 reasons

64

What UM can do• Value change and innovation• Don't reinvent wheel• Look for best practices• Visit other places• Bring in a few consultants• Pick and choose and get the best fit

for UM• UM can lead the way in developing e-

Learning for the region

65

Thank you

66

Questions?