The 2012 Sloan report was interesting to read. I found the report interesting, and in particular one statistic that was referenced in the report really stood out. When polled, 69.1% of the chief academic officers agreed with the statement “Online education is critical to the long- term strategy of my institution." Clearly leaders at the university level see online education as an important part of their organization's plans. Yet, there are significant barriers to online education (which was described in the report as courses that are "fully online," that is, typically have no face to face interactivity, and where 80% or more of the content is delivered online).
One of the barriers to more widespread adoption of online learning was the need for "more discipline on the part of online students and lower retention rates." Nearly 90% of academic leaders see more discipline as a barrier to wider adoption. In other words, online learning is not for everyone. I know from personal experience that it has taken some significant adjustments on my part to successfully complete the BSU online courses. I have struggled at times in terms of motivation to complete the work required, and at times questioning the assignments I've been given (to a higher degree than in face to face courses I've taken). While I have adapted and learned much, it has not always been smooth sailing. The lower retention rates - more students than anticipated dropping out - was also a concern. It would be interesting to understand why those students dropped. Given the financial commitment to the courses, I would like to understand the reasoning behind dropping a course.
Other barriers that were noted include a concern about the quality of learning outcomes, the amount of time it takes to run a successful online course, and the faculty acceptance of online learning. I think these are intertwined. I have also seen a wide variety of learning outcomes, and in some of my coursework I wondered why particular emphasis was place on certain outcomes. It seemed as though some of the courses needed a bit of an update, and in tern an adjustment of some or many of the outcomes. This is not a trivial task, and is certainly related to how much time it takes to successfully run an online course. This is particularly true in ed tech, where paradigms rapidly shift and the likelihood of more frequent course updating is high. That will impact the amount of time taken by the instructor, most certainly. So, if the word gets out - and it would seem like to do so - that online courses are NOT simple and easy to manage within the context of a semester or quarter, AND the courses do require frequent refreshes to stay relevant and engaging, I could certainly see that some faculty may not fully accept online courses. They may also view "online" as a cheaper, less meaningful way to teach a course, which could mean lower status for the faculty teaching online.
The Sloan report indicated that only about 30% of their faculty accept the legitimacy of online education, which was the LOWEST number recorded since 2004. In other words, faculty's perception of online education is going down, not up. I found that a little curious, and while I personally don't believe that to be true, I do suspect some faculty would feel that way. It does surprise me that perception of validity of online courses is going down. Not surprisingly, at those institutions with a significant online presence already, the faculty acceptance was higher, but again, not even a majority felt their faculty accepted online education (38.4 percent).
The bottom line seems to be that, while academic leaders see a huge need to increase their online education presence and capability, there are significant barriers for both the institution and the student that must be addressed before significant adoption can occur.
Where are you on the Grow's Staged Self-Directed Learning Model described in Stavredes (2011)? What is the implication of this model for you as an online teacher?
After reviewing Grow's Learning Module, I would position myself somewhere between "Interested" and "Involved" Learner. I feel that I do have a reasonable level of understanding regarding the tools and and at least some of the techniques required of an online teacher. This would tend to put me at the Involved Learner level. However, I am not particularly confident - not having taught any online courses directly before - nor am I particularly motivated to try to actually teach online (a lack of opportunity contributes to this). These two aspects put me at the Interested Learner level. Upon looking at the text description of Involved Learner level three, it looks as though I more closely fit there, as I would be someone who would respond to an instructor as he or she facilitated my learning in this area.
I think the Grow's Learning Model is an interesting way to gauge learners. I can envision using this model as an important tool to use when understanding a particular group of students - collectively and individually - when teaching an online (or face to face!) course, and how to most successfully support them in their learning.
No comments:
Post a Comment