Group items tagged

The author focuses on the use of blended education at two institutions: Wesleyan University and Bryn Mawr College. Both institutions are Carnegie Mellon University's Open Learning Initiative (OLI) to enhance courses previously taught solely face-to-face. Wesleyan University is using the OLI modules to tutor less-prepared students in introductory courses. The OLI course modules allow students to gain material at a faster pace than in a traditional classroom alone. Administrators at Wesleyan believe the blended model will reinforce the hands-on teaching practices their liberal arts program promotes.  Bryn Mawr as allowed faculty members to adopt OLI modules at their own initiative. Not only to the OLI modules assist the students in learning material faster, but the program also collects data on the student's learning patterns, personalizing the program through each use. Using personalized learning assistance will allow an elite institution, such as Bryn Mawr, to admit a wide range of students, with confidence less academically prepared students can be successful.  In initial research, students enrolled in blended courses using the OLI module learn as much, if not more, as students in courses only meeting face-to-face. The persistence rates of lower-income students using the OLI module were close to 100 percent in Bryn Mawr's preliminary study. While liberal arts colleges may continue to build their reputations on small classes and personalized attention from faculty members, blended courses are able to enhance the traditional instruction model. Perhaps in the future, more liberal arts colleges will be using their blende technologies as a selling point to prospective students as Wesleyan and Bryn Mawr currently are.

Marla Clark, an editor at EdTech magazine, covers the four most effective, and highest in priority, IT investments in the United States in 2012. Clark uses data from a variety of IT surveys, collecting information from more than 550 college and university IT administrators. The intended audience is anyone interested in technologies influencing higher education. The first technology described is the mobile application. More than 60% of the campuses participating in the survey embrace mobility within their IT structure. Public universities lead with more than 77% offering mobile apps in connection with the institution, with private schools at 67%. The second efficient technology is cloud adoption. While many colleges and universities have been slow to transition to cloud technologies, those that have, are utilizing the options more fully. Now institutions are moving calendars and learning management systems to the cloud, instead of just storage and archival materials. Integration of IT into classroom/course instruction is the third item on top of colleges and universities' priority list. 74% of the institutions participating in the survey indicated curriculum integration is a top priority for the next few years. Finally, almost exactly half of the colleges and universities surveyed believe massive open online courses are a viable course delivery module. Of the 50% that look favorably on massive open online classes, more than 60% are unsure of how to earn revenue using the technology.

InCommon is a nonprofit group that offers software to colleges and universities with a shared standard allowing for secure single sign-on. Vendors collaborate with InCommon, allowing for seamless transmission of information from one college to a variety of vendors. Using InCommon allows institutions to streamline their different online services, simplifying the process for all users. The software is free, however, a $700 registration fee is required, in addition to an annual fee of $1,000 to $3,000 depending on the size of the institution. The real costs are associated with switching vendors compatible with InCommon and adding enough servers to back up the entire system. If a server goes down, all of the single sign-on services shut down as well, so reliable and back up servers are required. While InCommon certainly offers a useful product, colleges and universities have been reluctant to join. The initial cost of joining, switching vendors and updating servers can be very expensive. The University of Georgia, for example, has decided to use proprietary software, instead of InCommon, to save on cost. Other institutions are waiting until important vendors, such as Blackboard, join InCommon. Without key vendors on board, the costs cannot be justified. Even though InCommon has not been adapted on every college campus, the organization doubled its membership numbers every year between 2005 and 2010.  

Coursera, one of the largest education companies offering online courses, claims to be content in building their user base without earning profits. Venture capitalists continue to invest in massive open online classes, however, without generating revenue, the investments may begin to wane. For now, elite colleges and universities, in addition to for-profit educational companies, will continue to offer online classes for free, while searching for a margin for profitability. A few sources for revenue have been considered. One of the most promising sources is the payment of licensing fees paid by other institutions to use "courses in a box" or video tutorials complementing currently offered courses. Another possible source of revenue is the sale of high-achieving student data. Corporate employers, such as Facebook and Twitter, can buy information on high-performing students studying specific subjects. A third option for profit generation is charging for credit-baring courses. The American Council on Education is reviewing a variety of courses offered through Coursera to determine if the courses are college credit worthy.  No steady revenue source has been identified in connection with massive open online classes, yet. While different organizations and institutions continue to find a way to profit from highly accessible online education, the user base will continue to increase. Hopefully, in addition to finding a mode of revenue, courses may be offered for college credit and the completion rate of MOOCs will increase. The current completion rate of MOOCs is 10%. 

Joshua Kim, the Director of Learning and Technology for the Master of Health Care Delivery Science program at Dartmouth College, often writes for Inside Higher Ed. In this article, Kim shares ten questions posed to him by Rachel Hanel, a student and employee at Kaplan University. Hanel presented ten questions to Kim based on his experience with learning management systems (LMS).  Kim believes higher education institutions should based their LMS selection off of the quality of the product, the quality of the company, and the size of the user community, not just price. Kim also points out the direct and indirect costs associated with each LMS must be evaluated before making a decision. Students are looking for an LMS utilized by faculty members, while faculty members have a wide range of requests from an LMS, making the selection of a LMS for a college or university difficult. A few products and services to watch break into the LMS market over the next few years are Instructure Canvas, OpenClass, and Coursekit, in addition to Moodle and Blackboard, whom already hold most of the market share. According to Kim, institutions should put education first when reviewing LMSs. College and university personnel, specifically those looking to switch or add a LMS, are the intended audience. 

PRWeb assists companies and organizations release news on their products and services, with extended reach through online searches. LoudCloud Systems, the creator of LoudCloud Learning Ecosystem, for Higher Education, promoted an enhanced version of their current product through PRWeb in July of 2012. The new LoudCloud Learning Ecosystem, for higher education, includes greater flexibility for teachers and administrators; a task centered design, a redesigned behavioral reader, and enhanced analytics on students, administration, and teachers. LoudCloud Systems establish themselves as an emerging leader in learning management systems in 2010, and has continued to impress the education industry with new products and upgrades. The learning solutions offered by LoudCloud are intuitive, collaborative, adaptive and intelligent. The system collects data on users and personalizes their learning experience based on each individual's learning styles. LoudCloud Learning Ecosystems, for Higher Education now offers more than 100 discreet rights, but also allows for segmented branding within one system for larger institutions.  LoudCloud Systems offers services for higher education and K-12 institutions. Administrators and information technology personnel are the intended audience for this article. The reader should remember LoudCloud wrote the article, with supervision by PRWeb. 

According to Patton, human resource departments tend to be one of the last areas within higher education to adopt new technologies. Over the past few years vendors have begun developing new products based on college and university needs, especially in the human resource area.  Most human resource departments have an enterprise resource planning system (ERP) or a Human Resource Information System (HRIS), which is used in conjunction with compatible, or sometimes not-compatible, vendor services. SunGard continues to offer more and more human resource services, including an effort certification system, which monitors and collects data on how many hours certain employees are spending on research, if their salary is paid through a grant. In the mid 2010s, SunGard and PeopleSoft partnered to create an applicant tracking system that offered three programs in one: a position description model, a performance management module, and an applicant-tracking model. While some improvements have been made, human resource departments need to embrace the new technologies, and utilize the offered services in the front of the office, as well as the back. Most of the examples within the article are large, state universities, such as Florida Atlantic University, Oklahoma City Community College, and the University of Utah. Duke University is mentioned, however, Duke is a large, elite university with more financial resources than most other private institutions. The question remaining is if the cost of human resource modules are justified at smaller institutions? Hopefully the future will bring options to colleges and universities with a few hundred employees, rather than a thousand. 

Jon Mott writes this article to advocate the adoption of an Open Learning Network (OLN) as a way to merge the best features of the Learning Management Systems (LMS) and the Personal Learning Environments (PLE). Even though the use of LMS is prevalent in higher education institutions, LMSs have been come under increasing criticism for being too teacher-centric, inflexible, and not fostering a communicative and sharing learning environment. Consequently many students turn to other social media and communicative tools. Educators have touted the PLE as a platform to operate alongside the LMS, in order to provide the student-centered component that is missing from the LMS. Some institutions, teachers and students have created their own PLNs to incorporate the portability, flexibility, adaptability and openness, which the LMNs do not provide. Mott however points out that the PLEs have security shortcomings, and the most provident solution is to combine the best of both platforms to create an Open Learning Network (OLN) that is flexible, can incorporate new technologies that were not in existence when LMSs became operational, and strikes a balance between the institutional goals and the essential components of the cloud by keeping private data as secure as possible, and storing the rest in the cloud. Mott provides an illustrated framework, showing how an OLN can be created successfully, and adds that Brigham Young University in Hawaii is in the process of creating one. Mott concludes that institutions and educators need not be conflicted over the dilemma of having to choose either an LMS or a PLE. The best course is to help students become digitally fluent and the OLN provides an ideal tool that rejects the "tyranny of OR" and prefers the "genius of AND". This article is most probably directed at educational communities experiencing challenges with their LMNs and seeking alternative programs.

Jeffery Young, a writer for The Chronicle of Higher Education, explains a new business venture for Internet2, a company providing superfast networks to colleges and universities. Internet2 recently announced partnerships with a variety of new companies in an effort to offer colleges and universities cloud services at reduced prices. The premise behind the new services, called Internet2 Net + Services, is to allow the 235 participating colleges and universities to access cloud services for a lower cost than they would normally receive as an individual institution. Companies involved in the new venture include Hewlett-Packard, SHI International, and Box. While Hewlett-Packard and SHI International are providing special offers on licensing terms and time bought on high-speed computers used through the internet, Box offers storage within the cloud.  The long-term cost savings for colleges and universities using Internet2 Net + Services could be rather substantial. Instead of having to invest in the services permanently, institutions can purchase additional capacity during peak times. Short-term rental of cloud services, at discounted rates, may have real financial impact on higher education, perhaps even enticing some to transition to using the cloud.

The chief privacy and security office at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Michael Corn, discusses the need for higher education to be less risk adverse. While the article is somewhat vague, anyone interested in general technology infrastructure for colleges and universities, has something to gain from reading it. Using his own experience to develop his theories, Corn explains faculty members and administrators need to re-evaluate their view on risk and how risk is accessed.  On most campuses, faculty members use third-party services without the knowledge or support of the institution. Using third-party vendors forces the faculty member to take on major personal and institutional risk, especially the security of data. Unfortunately, if the institution lacks updated technology, faculty members are put in a difficult situation. Colleges and universities are rather risk adverse. Corn argues colleges and universities need to re-access how risky some technologies truly are. The information technology department cannot transform the institution's culture on their own. All campus administrators, faculty, registrars must work together to be more transparent, accessible for students with special needs, thorough guidance for students, and increasingly accountable. When all members of the college community come together and work towards improved and "risky" technologies, the institution will benefit.

Steve Kolowich, a technology reporter for Inside Higher Education, discusses the learning management systems (LMS) of the future. The article, geared towards an audience of higher education professionals, as well as those interested in higher education technology, highlights three up and coming LMS providers: Coursekit, Instructure Canvas, and Chegg. Instructure Canvas is an open-source LMS, offering its services to more than 100 institutions, including Brown University and Auburn University. The program is marketed to administrators, as well as individual instructors. Coursekit, another LMS, is free and currently only markets to individual professors. In addition to course management, Coursekit plans to offer students assistance in locating books and homework help, in the future. A significant difference between Coursekit and other LMS is their creation of a social network oriented around education.  Chegg, formerly a solely text rental organization, has rebranded the company into a social education platform. Although Chegg is not a LMS, some of the services offered are similar. Students can search texts associated with courses at their institution, utilize a homework help center and speak with a tutor in India, and buy and sell notes through Notehall. Based on Kolowich's description of three promising LMS-like services, Blackboard (the current majority LMS market shareholder) should be prepared for a new wave of competition.

The author of this opinion article is a professor of educational technology and distance learning at the University of Alaska. This article describes the significant implications of the new version of the internet, also known as the "semantic web" for education. Three areas the author believes will be most affected are: knowledge construction, personal learning network maintenance, and personal educational administration. This information would be most helpful to senior-level administrators in higher education who make large-scale decisions regarding their college or university's technology. Under Web 3.0, the author predicts that personal learning networks (PLNs) will be built primarily around subjects, instead of services. The author goes on to describe how personal learning agents will identify relevant information from any source that is accessible and provide information on exactly what students and faculty desire to learn. The semantic web makes it possible for the internet to become an effective and focused information resource that can be tailored for specific content area objectives.The semantic web has the potential to challenge traditional ideas about the institution providing all of the knowledge to students by itself and instead connects information between institutions. The author anticipates that at some point, institutions will describe courses and degrees semantically, to help their own internal functioning, but with the effect of making many parts of education somewhat comparable across institutions. This article encourages faculty, staff, and students to join the discussion about semantic web in order to help Web 3.0 developers shape a tool useful and connected to the higher education environment.

Since the year 2000, the higher education information technology (IT) organization EDUCAUSE has published a top ten list of issues identified by a selected panel of higher education IT professionals. The 2014 report is different because, for the first time, members of the organization were invited to rank the issues in a survey conducted after panelists had assembled lists themselves. Because of this change, the resulting data sets can be evaluated across institutional types, as defined by Carnegie Classifications, and compared to determine what differences exist for IT issues across the institution types. This data set is important when investigating emerging technology trends and assessing research from various entities such as the New Media Consortium's annual Horizon Report.

Edited by then president of EDUCAUSE, this book is a collection of case studies and reflections on practice from the field of higher education information technology management. Oblinger's objective was to provide evidence of impact in regards to adoption and successful implementation of campus technologies. The format allows campus leadership and IT professionals to examine the challenges and issues associated with higher ed IT through the lens of their peers at other institutions. The variety of cases shows similarities and differences among institutional types. Valuable as a snapshot of what was happening at the time of its publication for perspective and context as well as to question whether strategies are effective, or not, over time.

Both an examination of the history of higher education and a review of popular instructional methods from the days of Aristotle through to day, this paper introduces a meek "call to action" by the authors. They charge that change is needed and they outline the reasons why in a thoughtful and gentle way, an approach that is very different from Clay Christensen, and encourage exploration of emerging technologies to manage that change. Their approach is less threatening than others (like Christensen) and rather than claim that technology is the driver of change, they simply detail the history of education and conclude that it is simply time to change because of who we are in our modern global society. The authors include models on new governance in higher ed that embrace technology to improve teaching and learning and they outline issues about which they feel institutions should be most concerned. Although gentle throughout, compared to Christensen, they drive home the same point: if institutions don't begin changing to meet the needs of today's learners, today's workplace and today's uber-connectedness they will fail to meet their missions.