Haywood keeps an eye on the data emerging from online
activity in HE and points towards a steady rise in its use and acceptance by
students and faculty (one third have taught an online class, 71% used OER). He
points towards an increasing portion of younger people taking MOOCs with a rise
towards 1 in 5 students taking online courses. There is a growing recognition
that online may even be as good, if not, at times, better that the traditional
campus course
.
Students not staff
In his
recent ALT talk, Haywood gave a masterful talk on how
to think strategically about online learning in HE. I have written about their
bold move with six Coursera MOOCs, along with their excellent publication of
the resulting data. This is only one strand of a strategy that looks towards
2025. It is a strategy that takes the business case, the economics, seriously.
Where he is way ahead of most commentators in he is that 90%
of the tech is used by students not staff. The focus on staff is, to his mind a
bit myopic and a bit of an EU obsession. This movement is “student oriented rather than institution oriented”.
MOOCs
“
Love or hate them
MOOCs have forced open a debate at policy level on digital education”.
Spot on. David Willetts, with Martin Bean,
took the bull by the horns and kick started Futurelearn. There is no doubt that
this action has stimulated both debate and action in HE. Unfortunately, he has
been sacked, and there is no sign that the Shadow Minister for Education
Tristram Hunt, is anywhere near as interested.
Unlike many in academe, Haywood speaks with authority based
on real and substantial experience, with substantial data, when he makes the
important statement that MOOCs “touch
learners much more than you might think”. As an aside he also mentions that
it has forced Universities to up their game on marketing. We have learnt he
says, that “courses can be run at
surprisingly large scale” and that “charismatic
teachers can reach learners”. Accelerated innovation has also been seen
with “a range of technological innovations
doing things at scale – peer assessment, comparative judgement online etc.”.
Scale
One word matters above all in this analysis “scale”. Haywood
is right to place it at the centre of his analysis. Sure we know that faculty
have low digital skills and that there are low rewards for teaching but we must
get to scale and move beyond the “bijou and niche”
Where Edinburgh and Haywood have the intellectual upper hand
is in their honest appraisal of the economic implications of online learning.
In my view the majority of academics are stuck in an analysis that focuses only
on quality, ignoring the real issue of cost. Seb Schmoller and others have been
arguing for some time, with estimated figures for cost per student, that
online, while it may not match the quality, is so much cheaper, that even a weak
result makes it worthwhile. I’d argue that the quality issue is fast
disappearing, with degree delivery by the
likes of IDI. His vision looks
to on demand, self-paced, location flexible, relevant to your future, global
& local, personalised, affordable, value-added learning; “W
ithout technology this is undoable”.
Walks the walk
At national and international level, policy level discussion
is needed with a road map that has clear steps over the next ten years to 2025.
This is also true within your institution. If not planned it will not happen. Without
investment it will not happen. Without agility it will not happen. This is why “MOOCs and the children of MOOCs are so
important”. But that’s just a fraction of the story. Edinburgh’s MOOCs have racked up huge numbers,
with 800k learners on 15 MOOCs and another 15 in the pipeline. Edinburgh has
30k students on campus but also with 50 odd fully online Masters Degrees. (2500
students). It’s a mixed strategy.
Vision by 2020
By 2020 they want 40k students with “all students taking one
full online course” and all faculty and teaching staff will have some
experience of teaching online. They have the ambition to try to reach 10s of
millions of learners through increased online Masters degrees, OER and MOOCs.
The means to the end is a series of real funded experiments and pilots, which
are all potentially scalable.
Haywood is optimistic and thinks that he is swimming with
the tide. The technology has matured, interest risen among learners and policy
discussions are far more outcome oriented. One wit in the audience thought that
CAVE dwellers (Colleagues Against Virtually Everything), were his biggest problem. Haywood thought that MOOCs
had been useful in that those Universities that had taken this leap have found
that MOOCs encourage faculty to come forward, as they know they will get
support. He added that employers are clearly interested in MOOCs. In Scotland
SMEs are interested. For Haywood this is about “opening up the boundaries of
space and time – as campus education is limited on both”. He sees nothing wrong
with pro bono working education with the secondary aim of recruiting students
and charged services coming through.
Diana Laurrilard made a point she often makes and it is
pertinent, that Universities have never really understood the cost of teaching.
This is true, they don’t even know what is being delivered and to whom.
Unfortunately, she has been on the warpath against MOOCs, but only on a straw
man basis. She doesn’t believe that MOOCs will entirely replace current HE
model. That’s fine, neither do most MOOC providers, including Haywood. Haywood’s
response to her question on quality was entirely right. Sure, the tough part is
supporting and nurturing students through their personal intellectual
development but the answer may be in the middle way. We know that lectures can
easily scale so what about the varying degrees of personalised support (something
grossly exaggerated in HE). He thinks that technology is already providing
solutions, allowing portions of courses to be run on their own, without tutor
intervention. Haywood is keen to use intelligent technology at the kind of
numbers we run on our MOOCs. He, unlike Laurrilardian sceptics, know a good
deal more about the technology, such as adaptive learning, and rightly look for
economies of scale, before making rash announcements.
Leaps
The sort of leaps he sees in technology, that allow you to step
back and let parts of course run on scale are being looked at, especially in their
expanding masters programme. First, there’s online assessment, the Achilles’s
heel in HE. The lecture model completely negates sensible formative assessment
and the long-form essay, with slow, and often amateurish feedback, seems
incredibly dated.
Adaptive learning
He is spot on in looking at learning analytics, especially
adaptive learning, for scaling right across the institutions. This is the one
technology that already offers hope in tackling the hard to deliver ‘tutor’
functions, pushing courses towards competence-based learning, where learners
get personalised learning delivered at their own pace. This is already
happening in the US, with considerable investment by the Gates Foundation and a
rack of other institutions. Haywood and Edinburgh are the first UK institution
to pick up on this and take it seriously. He is being true to his word in retaining
some small group pedagogy where you need it but always looking for economies of
scale.
Conclusion
Information technology
has been extremely consequential in HE over the last 25 years but principally
in ‘output enhancing’ ways that do not show up in the usual measures of either
productivity or cost per student. Stanford 2012 Tanner Lecture
This is a great quote and recognises that technology has
enhanced what we do but the economic are rarely understood. Haywood wants to
find ways to use technologies to increase the throughput of students, move through
curriculum at their own speed, and automate some parts of the curriculum where
you can scale. We need to address the question of increasing productivity
without decline in quality. If not we’re just polishing the current system
without addressing access on scale.
At last we have a University and academic who is
sophisticated enough to think big, be thoroughly strategic, agile, consider the
economies of scale with an impressive focus on productivity and costs. One of
the great failures in HE planning is a serious attempt to consider actual
costs, to be specific, as Lewin and Blefield recommend on
detailed cost effectiveness analysis. He also has a
vision of the future University, not just being more “open on the boundaries“
but more productive and efficient.