Las Vegas – “Getting technology tools into the hands of every student and family should be standard practice. It isn’t now,” said the U.S. under secretary of education, Martha J. Kanter, addressing a mix of technologists and educators at the HigherEd Tech Summit here, part of the giant salute to gadgetry known as the Consumer Electronics Show. Nor are best practices for professors to use technology to improve learning standard, Ms. Kanter said: “We are losing ground. We have a lot of work to do to make faculty comfortable with technology and ways to use it.”
But the under secretary was less specific about how the Obama Administration was going to help this happen. Ms. Kanter, who pushed technology programs when she held leadership positions at California community colleges, did mention the Education Department had $350-million for a grants program in best-practices innovation, but did not offer details about how and when such grants would be offered. Some technology executives in the audience noted that private industry was doing a better job of identifying and distributing best-practice modules than the government.
Ms. Kanter, however, was adamant that the administration was focused on quality in online courses and new ways to assess them. “We’ve burdened people with onerous reporting requirements that have little to do with quality,” she said. “Let’s put out a call to our professors. They can tell us what is working and what is not.” George R. Boggs, president of the American Association of Community Colleges, said that his group was helping to prepare a report on quality endpoints.
Telling people what is working is precisely the problem, said Matt Leavy, chief executive officer of Pearson eCollege, the online learning system companyafter Ms. Kanter’s talk. “You can have brilliant professors working in isolation on a great online course system, but they stay in isolation,” he said after Ms. Kanter’s talk. “You can’t get best practices out there by yourself.”
Reports and white papers go only so far, he noted; commercialization moves further and faster. The online course “Mastering Physics,” he said, was developed by an MIT professor and became popular through that university’s Open Courseware program. The tutorial features and the ability to watch and evaluate students as they work through problems improved outcomes. Now, Mr. Leavy said, it is published by Pearson and available as an online module through many colleges. Not only do students learn physics, he said, but they get college credit for it. Pearson, of course, gets money.
14 Responses to Colleges Lag in Technology and Teaching Quality, a Top Education Official Says
deb_adair - January 11, 2010 at 10:05 am
The Department of Education has done a better job promoting quality in online education than Ms. Kanter may realize. In 2003, the Fund for Improvement of Secondary Education awarded a 3-year grant to MarylandOnline – a consortium of community colleges and universities – to develop a program called Quality Matters. The grant period itself was very successful as it encouraged the collaboration and/or participation of more than 160 institutions in 28 states, trained more than a 1000 faculty in applying quality standards, and reviewed and certified over 100 online courses. An even greater impact, however, is that this one-time grant succeeded in created a replicable pathway for quality assurance. Since 2006, Quality Matters has become a self-sustaining, highly collaborative program providing quality assurance tools (research-supported quality standards) and resources to approximately 400 subscribing colleges and universities across 42 states, Canada, and Bermuda. Over 6000 faculty have been trained to apply these quality standards and to peer-review online courses and many hundreds of online courses have been certified to meet these standards. As most QM institutions have integrated these quality standards into their course development process and many train their own faculty and staff on these standards, the impact of this orginal investment by the Department of Education is significant. The initial FIPSE grant spurred a wide-spread, grass-roots adoption and promotion of this set of national standards for quality assurance in online education. This is not the complete answer to the quality issues referenced by Ms. Kanter, but it is evidence that this, and other, quality assurance measures are being adopted by higher education institutions at an increasing rate and with significant levels of commitment to setting and achieveing standards which will improve student learning outcomes.
historymike - January 11, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Agreed with Deb Adair about the effectiveness of Quality Matters. I recently obtained my QM Peer Reviewer certification, and I have implemented most of the QM rubric into my current courses. By summer I plan to submit my courses for QM course certification.While some instructors may indeed labor in isolation, most DL-oriented instructors are engaged professionals who make use of networking, institutional development programs, and conferences to refine and improve their online pedagogical methods. However, it has been my expeience that this happens most frequently when institutional leaders push departments to demonstrate that their online instructors are moving toward continuous improvement. Some institutions are quite proactive, while others are at least five years behind in their DL development. I worked at one major Midwestern university (which shall remain nameless) in which as an adjunct I was the F2F instructor who made use of a supplemental online course shell, and in which there were ZERO DL courses offered.
sunday_moring - January 11, 2010 at 5:08 pm
It seems a lot of focus or technologies have been placed on knowledge delivery such as blackboard but hardly on Helping Students Learn Most Effectively. And it seems to me the delivery (from educators) and acceptance (to students) are the two sides of an equation.
laoshi - January 12, 2010 at 3:51 am
All three prior posters are spot on. Martha J. Kanter is only half right.Blackboard, WebCT, and other virtual classroom interfaces are simply tools. As tools, they are not responsible for the foci of the instructors that use them.For traditional teachers using the transmissive model, delivery of knowledge can be a common file transfer point with announcements for the whole class. Constructivist teachers can facilitate forum discussions that are meaningful.I have had both types of instructors, and find the latter more engaging. However, the more traditional teachers tend to post grades using the tools, whilst constructivist teachers require more personal contact. You cannot find the same quality experience from one course to the other.Ironically, the best online course I ever took was a graduate class about designing distance learning classes. This professor knew how to utilize the technology, paid attention to quality, and in many ways led by example. So I agree with all of the posters. But the author is only half right. We are over-loaded with educational technology, but most of us don’t know to use ed tech in meaningful ways. We don’t lag in technology, but in teaching quality. Don’t throw our tax dollars away on gear, but on teacher education.
paievoli - January 12, 2010 at 7:14 am
This is exactly what we are trying to do. Please check out my site. It fulfills all of these necessities. It is totally free for the schools to use. It has social media, an LMS structure, and self-sustaining revenue streams via content appropriate materials.http://www.thecampuscenter.comWe cannot keep looking for stimulus money in the long haul. And we cannot keep paying out for a LMS solution. We need to become self-sustaining and revenue generating.
brocansky - January 12, 2010 at 12:09 pm
It feels great to hear voices from other instructors about this topic. Yes, professors need help understanding how technology can transform and enhance pedagogy. It seems to me that part of our problem in higher ed is the traditional incorporation of “faculty support” into IT in which we see individuals (with all the right intentions) working with faculty to facilitate instruction with technology which is a good start. However, when I observe instructors engaging in meaningful dialogue about what has worked and what hasn’t, then things really blossom. Here’s an example from my teaching that demonstrates the difference between integrating technology into instruction and integrating technology to transform pedagogy. A few years ago, I learned to podcast and I podcast all my lectures for my online students. It was great and a significant improvement for my online students, as they now were provided with a choice: to read OR listen to my lectures. But for at least two years I sat with that podcast (and written) lecture content trying to “reimagine” my face-to-face pedagogy. How can I integrate that content into my classroom? I offered the content to students who couldn’t come to class and to students who needed extra help (ESL, ADD, etc.). Finally, one semester, I redesigned my whole art history course around “no lectures in the classroom.” Instead of spending class time passively lecturing, we spent class time actively discussing the lectures that they read or listened to outside the classroom. Wow, what a difference. A completely different experience — active participation, enhanced critical thinking, more time for “non-traditional” activities like field trips and watching movies. It was quite exciting. That’s an example of integrating “technology” into instruction versus using “technology” to transform pedagogy. We need the latter and it’s difficult to reach that of instructional development. I agree with Martha Kanter that it’s important to pull faculty into this dialogue and I’d like to hear more of her thoughts on this topic rather than be too critical.
jsener - January 13, 2010 at 9:25 am
I agree with “brocansky” that being too critical is not productive and that it’d be good to hear more of Martha Kanter’s thoughts on this. However, I hope that the thought-sharing remains a two-way street. It’s also important to be critical, and so I agree with Matt Leavy’s criticism. Contrast Kanter’s stated formula for effecting change (‘call our professors; have them tell us what is working and what is not’) with the ones described by some of the commenters. Both deb_adair and brocansky describe processes which are structured but iterative, exploratory, and subject to continuous improvement. Both not only “pull faculty into this dialogue” but also actively involve faculty. “What is working and what is not” is a moving target, not a question to be researched to find a definitive answer.Perhaps I’m overreacting, but what worries me most are the possible implications of Kanter’s remarks in the context of other indicators that the current administration is continuing the movement toward defining “new ways to assess” quality education via standardized tests, standardized curriculum, randomized controlled trials and other experimental-based research methods. All of these are a recipe for disaster IMO. If this is what Kanter means, then be prepared for a torrent of criticism. On the other hand, if “new ways to assess” means supporting efforts like brocansky’s and Quality Matters, then count me in…
optimysticynic - January 17, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Keep in mind that there are many students at less selective institutions who struggle with the reading, motivation, tech-savvy and self-discipline required for most DE classes. Students from poorer areas may not have fast connectivity or even any computers at home at all. My own institution also charges extra tuition for online courses and they are always the last to fill; most students simply refuse to register for them unless as a last resort or if they have scholarship funds that will pick up the extra 30%. In fact, our DE classes, by taking away some of our f2f offerings, make it more difficult for students to get their degrees, unless they are able and willing to take some of their courses this way.
terrypruettsaid - January 19, 2010 at 11:35 am
It appears from this article that some only correlate use of technology as teaching on-line courses. However, there are many creative uses of technology that can happen in on-ground classes that need support too. I’d love to use more technology in my classroom, but if the classroom I’m assigned doesn’t have mediation, it makes it very hard to do. Many college classrooms don’t have such access. Colleges say they don’t have the money to mediate rooms, especially in this economic downturn. So one reason teachers don’t use technology is because it’s not available.
jifeldman - January 19, 2010 at 3:11 pm
What is refreshing is the simple fact that in recent years there has been emerging in higher education conversations about what makes for good instruction. Just a few years back,When I was researching and writing a pair of companion texts on learning and teaching for postsecondary educators (The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching), there was little serious and ongoing concern among many faculty, administrators and policy makers regarding the quality of student learning and outcomes. For generations, faculty have been and to unfortunate degree still largely hired as SMEs (subject-matter experts) without sufficient regard for their ability to teach, especially in ways that facilitate deep student learning. But the conversation here and even programs such as Quality Matters are clearly only the beginning. We need to seriously examine our very definition of learning if we are going to be able to determine how technology and other instructional strategies and media serve learning. For example, (as suggested in an early comment) are we looking only at the delivery of content or are we looing at the level of student engagement with that content so students can transfer what they learn outside the context of instruction? Where we place ourselves in terms of our perspective and very philosophy of education clearly will determine whether technology serves to improve learning in meaningful ways or whether it may just be just be “old wine in new wineskins”.
justbe - January 19, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Technological use offers opportunity to re-examine our goals and consequently our teaching processes. Whether distance or in f2f settings teachers, students, administration and other stakeholders need to clarify what we are doing. In my distance courses I lament immediacy with the opportunity to read the faces of students and to have students read my excitement visually (videos are poor second-bests.) On the other hand the “student tracking” feature our system employs gives me a handle on participation at any time. In my third round of teaching distance courses I emailed minimal participants and asked them if they needed help and did receive responses which led to improvement in the students’ participation. I still prefer f2f (some of us are “hams.”) But what I crave the most for all my teaching is funding to encourage peer-learning beyond simply sharing our challenges and ideas. We need grants that encourage teams of faculty to attend conferences focused on learning/teaching beyond subject-specific conferences. This is even more true as technology’s use increases.It would be helpful for this sort of forum to highlight such funding sources. This is especially true for adjunct faculty.
justbe - January 19, 2010 at 4:30 pm
PS. I miss the opportunity the comment tool had some time ago to preview and edit our comments before they are published. I would have, for instance, caught the fact that I wrote “Whether distance or in f2f settings” and not “Whether in distance or in f2f settings” Bring back the previews, please.
nska9922 - January 19, 2010 at 10:50 pm
Ms Kanter is now in a perfect position to influence college district chancellors and presidents – who have the final say in key hiring positions, be they managers or faculty. Given this, if strong online pedagogy and staff development support for teachers who teach online is desired, then hiring the kind of people who have these qualifications – at all levels – will help to better grow and support online learning. If she were to call a summit or conference on this topic, I’m sure that management would attend.Ms Kanter could also help all community colleges that are blighted by Datatel. As student management systems cost far more than course management systems and are far less helpful, having a useful one like Oracle Peoplesoft Passport system, would open up a huge bottleneck and allow college employees to better support faculty and students. If the federal Govt. wanted to support online learning, a useful student management system would go farther with lasting effects.
californiabruce - January 23, 2010 at 3:23 am
In my opinion, anything less than f2f settings is not education. Correspondence courses and on-line learning are, and always will be, inferior “delivery systems” for the liberal education of adults.