E-learn Weblog of Willem van Valkenburg

We get many requests for visits from academic and staff from other universities to visit our Teaching Lab and hear about what and especially how we have organised our open, online and blended education activities. To make this a bit more efficient for us and more accessible for everyone we are organising a Erasmus+ Staff Week from 11 to 14 June 2019 in the Teaching Lab.

In a four-day programme we’ll dive into a wide range of topics. From online and open education to teacher training and the best way to support our TU Delft teaching community. During our Erasmus+ Staff Week, we aim to exchange ideas, evidence and expertise. We’ll share our vision on education and focus on the variety of available services and programmes to help teachers improve their education. We’ll give demonstrations of our spaces for experimentation, collaboration and exposure. And we are very much interested in your own institutes’ vision and practices!

If you are interested to participate, please register via this website before May 22nd.

There are still people that talk about xMOOCs and cMOOCs. My response is that the MOOC world has involved and that distinction is so 2012. In the European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning I read an interesting article that tries to define a MOOC taxonomy based on literature.

The authors identified 13 different categories, which cover information provided to learners before entering a course. These categories are then compared and combined with classifications from the literature to create a taxonomy centred round eight terms: Massive (e.g. enrolments), Open (e.g. pre-requisites), Online (e.g. Timings), Assessment, Pedagogy (e.g. instructor-led), Quality (e.g. reviews), Delivery (e.g. educators), Subject (e.g. Syllabus).

They not only looked at how the different MOOC providers are categorizing their MOOCs, but also the MOOC agregators, such as ClassCentral. They are even more focused on the learners.

The taxonomy they proposed in the article:

Conclusion

I do agree that we need a more extensive taxonomy for MOOCs, but I also still see characteristics missing in this taxonomy. A couple of comments:

• Openness is more than the listed example fields. Especially the open license is missing for me
• For pedagogy they fall back to the c and x and nowadays the pedagogy of most moocs is much more complex. Often learners can choose I active they engage in the course
• I missing the aspect of teacher presence in the course. Is it a self-paced course with no involvement of the educators or are they actively involved in the discussion, but also giving feedback on assignments.
• Many MOOCs are now part of short learning programmes, such as MicroMasters, PCP of edX and specialisations of Coursera.

Although I think it is excellent that the field works on a MOOC taxonomy, the field is also still in development. This means that any taxonomy will be also behind on the current state. The big question is: is a MOOC taxonomy still relevant, now we see that MOOCs are more and more just regular online courses? Many MOOCs are not massive or open anymore.

Reference
Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Lundqvist, K., Mitchell, R., Warburton, S. and Williams, S. A. (2019) A MOOC taxonomy based on classification schemes of MOOCs. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 22 (1). pp. 85-103. ISSN 1027-5207

Image CC-BY Mathieu Plourde

Today we celebrated the fifth year anniversary of the Delft Extension School. It is a good moment to look back at what we accomplished.

You can look at the numbers as displayed in the graph above, but the impact has been much bigger for the university. As our Vice President Education mentioned at the celebration today, the activities have had a big impact on our campus education. Especially it has been an enabler for blended learning on campus.

When we started the Extesnion School we got some specific assignments:

• be an international frontrunner in open and online education
• create a flexible and international team

Both assignments we accomplished with honour. For the first bullet, I just refer to the MIT report. For the second bullet, let me list the nationalities in our team. We have team members from Italy, Mexico, Israel, Iran, Slovenia, South Africa, Canada, US, Spain, Sweden, Portugal, Chili, and Greece. And this week we hired a new learning developer from the UK.

Looking back on these five years it is amazing what we have accomplished. We sometimes forget this, because we see all the things we can do better. I would like to thank the great team that made this possible, not just the support team, but also the amazing teachers that took the extra step to create an online course.

Banner image is CC-BY Delft University of Technology

HP/Educause have published an interesting report on extended reality (XR). XR is a wide range of technologies along a continuum, with the real world at one end and fully immersive simulations at the other. The HP/EDUCAUSE Campus of the Future project explored the efforts of 11 colleges and universities to investigate the ways that augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and 3D scanning and printing technologies can benefit teaching, learning, and research.

This report describes a wide range of pedagogical uses of 3D tech in higher education, from augmenting experiences in the physical world to creating simulations of things that are inaccessible in the physical world, and from designing virtual things that may be made into physical things to repeating experiences virtually that cannot be repeated in the physical world. The report also discusses hurdles in implementing 3D technology and the possible future of 3D technology in higher education, and it makes recommendations—in terms of technical requirements, support needs, and organizational policies—for institutions wishing to deploy 3D technology on campus.

The key findings of the report:

• 3D technologies give users virtual superpowers. In a virtual reality (VR) simulation, a user can fly like Iron Man, have superstrength like Wonder Woman, and walk through walls like Kitty Pryde. VR and augmented reality (AR) give users X-ray vision like Superman’s. VR and 3D printing give users the ability to manipulate very small objects, like Ant-Man and the Wasp; to manipulate energy, like Magneto; and to create objects from empty space, like Doctor Manhattan and Elsa of Arendelle.
  
  
• VR is like being there. A well-constructed simulation is visceral: One’s intellectual and physiological reactions to objects and events in VR are similar—and sometimes identical—to one’s reactions in the physical world.
  
  
• VR and AR are multisensory experiences. Much VR and AR development focuses on the visual functionality of those technologies, but they are capable of more. The auditory functionality of VR and the haptic functionality of both VR and AR are critical for creating a realistic simulation.
  
  
• 3D technologies enable active and experiential learning. Virtual reality simulations enable users to interact in a space or around an object in ways beyond what is possible in the real world. Augmented reality enables users to interact with an object while possessing “superpowers,” such as the ability to see through surfaces or to see data overlying objects. With 3D printing, users can quickly create physical objects that might otherwise exist only in simulations. These functionalities enable users to gain hands-on experience with objects that might otherwise be inaccessible in teaching and learning contexts.
  
  
• Simulations enable individual practice and skill-building. In the medical professions, for example, VR enables students to repeat hands-on experiences that might not otherwise be possible (e.g., repeating a dissection multiple times) and to experience events that they might not otherwise be able to (e.g., diagnosing a rare condition, testing specific types of emergency medicine). Through repeated practice, students emerge more skilled.
  
  
• Simulations enable high-touch, high-cost learning experiences to be scaled up. While developing a simulated lab may be expensive, it is far less expensive than building and maintaining a physical lab. Furthermore, a simulated lab can be made available to individuals who are not co-located. VR and 3D printing therefore make it possible to provide lab experiences to a far greater number of users, perhaps even simultaneously.
  
  
• 3D technologies foster and sometimes require collaboration between campus units. The deployment of new technologies often fosters new collaborations across campus. Supporting users of 3D technology on campus requires a range of expertise, which encourages (if not requires) collaboration between campus IT units and instructional designers. The use of 3D technology has also fostered collaborations involving students and faculty across academic disciplines.
  
  
• Training is critical. Some early adopters on campus will teach themselves to use 3D technology, but many campus users will need support to learn to use this technology. The development of training sessions and workshops on 3D technology–related topics is critical for these technologies to gain traction on campus beyond the rarefied circles of early adopters.
  
  
• It takes time for the benefits of 3D technology to be realized on campus. While 3D technology is getting easier to use, it must still be set up and configured; software must be installed and possibly updated. Furthermore, users need time to learn to use the technology, and instructors need time to figure out how to use the technology in their teaching. Courses take months to be redesigned. The first year of deployment of 3D technology may be largely devoted to learning to use and integrate it into teaching and support practices; it may take until year two for the full benefits of using 3D technology on campus to be realized.

The report gives a good overview of current activities in the field of extended reality. On the website there is a lot of additional content.

Reference

• Pomerantz, Jeffrey. Learning in Three Dimensions: Report on the EDUCAUSE/HP Campus of the Future Project. ECAR research report. Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE, August 2018.

EADTU has conducted a follow-up study on the first Changing Pedagogical Landscape report (published 2015). Based on qualitative research in various European countries, this report identifies patterns in policies and practices of new models of teaching and learning:

European societies changed and will further change, due to the impact of new technologies and through new developments in the economy and in society at large. This has consequences for universities.
An increasing number of universities and colleges offer, next to degree programmes, continuous education and lifelong learning, and open education mainly related to OERS and MOOCs. In all three areas of provision, new pedagogies have emerged, strongly enabled by the innovation/ICT push and facilitated by different support structures at various levels. Universities start to develop visions and strategies to position themselves at the national and international level in each of these areas. Universities need sufficient autonomy to determine their position in these three areas and to act flexibly and rapidly to respond to changes in society and economy. They need a vision and support as well from their governments to enable them to innovate their institutions.
This report is a continuation of the first Changing Pedagogical Landscape study conducted from January 2014-June 2015 (Haywood, Connelly, Henderikx, Weller &Williams, 2015). During 2017, EADTU members conducted a follow-up study with seven additional countries.

The main observations in this study are:

• Key factor: leadership and institutional strategy
  An increasing number of European universities seem to have a digital education strategy of some kind.
  
  
• Gradual innovation at course and curriculum level
  Universities evolve to blended education in their mainstream provisions to enhance quality and to meet the needs of more a diverse and larger number of students.
  
  
• Many incentives for digital education
  Next to an institutional strategy plan on education and leadership for an innovative climate, the development of expertise on blended teaching and learning within the institutions and the continuous development of staff are seen as essential incentives.
  
  
• Increased (scalable) continuous education and continuous professional development offerings
  Online education is seen as a promising field for universities for increased offering for new kind of students related to lifelong learning and CPD.
  
  
• MOOCs as an enabler for innovation
  In many universities, the development of MOOCs by key staff resulted in broader innovations with regard to blended teaching and learning at the bachelor and master level. MOOCs are a lever for innovation in mainstream degree education.
  
  
• Increasing internationalisation of higher education
  Online and blended education is increasingly changing the landscape of internationalisation and student mobility.
  
  
• Important role for governments
  The role of national governments is mainly to create favourable framework conditions to capitalize on the opportunities of digital education in higher education.
  

Their general conclusion is that the uptake of new modes of teaching and education is accelerating although many challenges still exists.

Recommendations

in the report they also have many recommendations on university strategies for digital education, implementation of new modes of teaching, recommendations for teaching staff, continuous education and CPD, OERs and MOOCs, new modes in international education and for governmental policies.

Conclusion

It is a comprehensive report that includes many, if not all, of the trends in European higher education. There is a lot of interesting information in the 88 pages from the different European countries.

Reference

• Haywood, J., Connelly, L., Henderikx, P., Weller, M. &Williams, K., The changing pedagogical landscape – New ways of teaching and learning and their implications for higher education policy, European Commission, Education and Culture, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.changingpedagogicallandscapes.eu/publications/
• Henderikx, P., & Jansen, D. (2018). The Changing Pedagogical Landscape: In search of patterns in policies and practices of new modes of teaching and learning. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/CPLreport2018

This week I was invited to speak the 9^th international e-learning conference of the Thailand Cyber University project. The theme of the conference was MOOCs and beyond. Normally I don’t hear or read a lot about the developments around MOOCs and online education in Asia, so this was good opportunity to learn.

Keynotes

They had a great line-up of keynotes with Paul Marca of Stanford Center for Professional development, Zoraini Wati Abas of Wawasan Open University Malaysia, Madya Alyani Ismail of Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia, Dhawal Shah of Class Central, Masato Kajimoto of University of Hong Kong, Anuchai Theeraroungchaisri of Thailand Cyber University (TCU) Project and me.

General Impression

Every Asian country has initiated a national MOOC project in the last couple of years. Most of these projects are directly funded by the government. For example, the ThaiMOOC project is funded by three ministries (education, science & technology and ICT). In Thailand this project is included in the national education strategy 2017-2036(!).

Most of them use open.edx as platform to offer MOOCs. Most important reason is setup their own platform is the language. English is still a barrier for most Asian people. They all configured the platform in their native language(s). It is positive that they are using open.edx platform and not developing their own.

The goal of most projects is not specifically about MOOCs, but more about modernising the educational sector. What I understood is that the education sector was still very traditional and suffered from declining enrolments. A lot of students wanted to study abroad and now also online. The government needed to do something to kick-start this transformation and MOOCs were the perfect project to do this.

Full story »

Today I was invited to give a keynote presentation at the 9th international e-learning conference of the Thailand Cyber University in Bangkok. The theme of the this years conference is “MOOCs and beyond”.

The long-run impact of MOOCs

In my keynote I used Amara’s Law to build my presentation:

we tend to overestimate the impact of a new technology in the short run, but we underestimate it in the long run

I think this is the case for MOOCs as well. In a lot of articles lately there is disappointment of the impact of MOOCs, but when I look at the long-run impact MOOCs have had, it is much more than we anticipated.

I identified five long-run impacts that were caused or accelerated by MOOCs:

• From Courses to Programmes to Credits
• From National to a Global World of Education
• From Initial Education to Continuous Education
• From Traditional lecture rooms to Blended Learning
• Towards Open Education

Below are my slides and soon the recording will be online soon:

 Video recording of my keynote:

Part of our participation in the EMBED project (European Maturity Model for Blended Education) is the organisation of a couple of training events to share our knowledge and to give you the opportunity to learning about state of the art research and innovation in blended and online teaching and learning.

The first training event will be 26-28 September 2018 in Tampere, Finland. The training will be done by experts from KU Leuven and TU Delft. The training event is free to attend, but you have to register and pay for your own travel, hotel and food.

More information about the event and registration is available on the EMBED website.

Arizona State University Foundation and the Boston Consulting Group published an interesting report about digital learning. The focus of report is on how the use of digital technologies in postsecondary education impact students’ access to education, student outcomes, and the return on investment for students and institutions. The resulting Making Digital Learning Work study provides interesting data, case studies and best practice recommendations for institutions looking to scale digital learning. 

Full story »

Last week the DCU's National Institute for Digital Learning (NIDL) and the Centre for Assessment Research, Policy and Practice (CARPE) published an interesting report on portfolio use in higher education. The report synthesizes and reviews the literature on the use of the 'learning portfolio' in universities and higher education institutions.

Traditionally the (paer-based) portfolio was associated with the fine arts/design as a means for individuals to showcase samples of their work. Nowadays the portfolio is used as a pedagogical and assessment tool in all different kind of disciplines and in all levels of education. The definition the authors mention is a good reflection of this:

‘a portfolio is an organized compilation that demonstrates knowledge, skills, values and/or achievements and that includes reflections or exegesis which articulate the relevance, credibility and meaning of the artefacts presented.’

In the report they distinguise three types of portfolios:

• showcase portfolio: this most closely resemble the original paper-based portfolio
• summative/evalution portfolio: students receive a grade based on the work submitted in their portfolio.
• Learning Portfolio: Unlike showcase and assessment portfolios, learning portfolios may include drafts and ‘unpolished’ work, with the focus broadened to include the process of compiling the portfolio, as well as the finished product. 

The report focuses on the learning portfolio.

Full story »