Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Transforming Learning through Infrastructure: Digital Credentials & the eT

295 views

Published on

Learning transformation is limited by the current higher education infrastructure. Transforming higher education will require a different approach to learning technology, one that is fundamentally learner (rather than institution or faculty) centric.

Learning Objects, a Cengage business unit, provides a holistic, learner-centric approach to curriculum design, delivery, and reporting. While Learning Objects can support traditional courses and semesters, it is not hard-wired to do so. Rather, it is built to support learners and their goals, regardless of the amount of time they study or the activities (e.g., courses) they engage in.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Transforming Learning through Infrastructure: Digital Credentials & the eT

  1. 1. © 2017 Learning Objects. Digital Credentials & the Extended Transcript Jonathan Mott 15 June 2017
  2. 2. © 2017 Learning Objects. How about an Adaptive, Competency (or Outcomes) based, Analytics-Driven, Personalized, Next-Generation, Micro- credentialling Digital Learning Environment?
  3. 3. © 2017 Learning Objects. How about an Adaptive, Competency (or Outcomes) based, Analytics-Driven, Personalized, Next-Generation, Micro- credentialling Digital Learning Environment?
  4. 4. © 2016 Learning Objects. Course Takers?
  5. 5. © 2016 Learning Objects. Knowledge Acquirers?
  6. 6. © 2016 Learning Objects. “If you can Google it, don’t teach it.” David Wiley
  7. 7. © 2016 Learning Objects. Degree Seekers?
  8. 8. © 2016 Learning Objects. Career Builders?
  9. 9. © 2016 Learning Objects.
  10. 10. © 2016 Learning Objects. Life-Goal Pursuers
  11. 11. © 2017 Learning Objects. 11 LMS #1 non-integrated LMS #2 (or proprietary courseware) Status Quo: Broken, non-integrated layers SIS SECTION ROSTER GRADES GRADES (manual) COURSE SECTION DATA COURSE SECTION DATA COURSE SECTION DATA COURSE SECTION DATA COURSE SECTION DATA COURSE SECTION DATA COURSE SECTION DATA COURSE SECTION DATA COURSE SECTION DATA COURSE SECTION DATA COURSE SECTION DATA COURSE SECTION DATA COURSE SECTION DATA COURSE SECTION DATA COURSE SECTION DATA COURSE SECTION DATA COURSE SECTION DATA COURSE SECTION DATA COURSE SECTION DATA COURSE SECTION DATA COURSE SECTION DATA COURSE SECTION DATA COURSE SECTION DATA COURSE SECTION DATA COURSE SECTION DATA INCONSISTENTLY FORMATTED, OFTEN INCOMPLETE, DISAGGREGATE DATA
  12. 12. © 2016 Learning Objects. 12 Programmatic innovation “has been stymied by a lack of software support.” Mark Leuba VP, Product Management IMS Global Learning Consortium
  13. 13. © 2017 Learning Objects. A new architecture
  14. 14. © 2017 Learning Objects. Backward design 14 Activities Measurement Policies & Assessments Capabilities Or Attributes Learning Design Alignment Emphasis on PERFORMAN CE not TIME or PROCESSES
  15. 15. © 2017 Learning Objects. Holistic, Programmatic Alignment 15 PROGRAMS COURSES MODULES
  16. 16. © 2016 Learning Objects. CONFIDENTIAL 16
  17. 17. © 2017 Learning Objects. Layered Design Andy Gibbons, PhD Learning experience design layers Curriculum layers?
  18. 18. © 2017 Learning Objects. Standards-Based Implementation Example Texas OnCourse
  19. 19. CALIPER CALIPER CALIPER CALIPER eT LTI LTIOBI
  20. 20. © 2017 Learning Objects. Q&A
  21. 21. © 2017 Learning Objects. ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
  22. 22. © 2016 Learning Objects. IMS Global • Learning Impact Leadership Institute • Denver 2017 IMS Global Initiatives: TIP & the eT
  23. 23. © 2016 Learning Objects. CONFIDENTIAL 23 Technical Interoperability Pilot (TIP)
  24. 24. © 2016 Learning Objects. CONFIDENTIAL 24 Technical Interoperability Pilot (TIP)
  25. 25. © 2016 Learning Objects. CONFIDENTIAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS WORKING GROUPS Joellen Shendy 25 COMPREHENSIVE STUDENT RECORD PROJECT Jeff Grann http://bit.ly/CSR-Projecthttp://bit.ly/IMS-CBE
  26. 26. © 2016 Learning Objects. CONFIDENTIAL 26 Extended Transcript Prototype and Code http://bit.ly/TranscriptCode
  27. 27. © 2016 Learning Objects. CONFIDENTIAL 27 eT Specification Candidate & Open Reader
  28. 28. © 2016 Learning Objects. IMS Global • Learning Impact Leadership Institute • Denver 2017 UMUC eT Pilot
  29. 29. © 2016 Learning Objects. IMS Global • Learning Impact Leadership Institute • Denver 2017 Our Team and Sponsors
  30. 30. © 2016 Learning Objects. CONFIDENTIAL 30 Brandman University Dillard University Elon University Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis LaGuardia Community College Stanford University University of Central Oklahoma University of Houston - Downtown University of Maryland University College University of South Carolina University of Wisconsin Colleges and University of Wisconsin - Extension Borough of Manhattan Community College Comprehensive Student Record Grantees
  31. 31. © 2016 Learning Objects. IMS Global • Learning Impact Leadership Institute • Denver 2017 eT Pilot Framework Supports UMUC’s New Learning Model that focuses on what the learner can do, and how they can take this learning and apply it in the workplace.
  32. 32. © 2016 Learning Objects. IMS Global • Learning Impact Leadership Institute • Denver 2017 Pilot Overview PURPOSE Gather student feedback on the extended Transcript (eT), content and usage PARAMETERS ● Approximately 2,000 Graduate Students enrolled in the New Learning Model Format ● Students have access to the eT from December 13, 2016 to March 31, 2017 (Fall 2016, and Winter 2017 ● Students access their eT through their classroom
  33. 33. © 2016 Learning Objects. IMS Global • Learning Impact Leadership Institute • Denver 2017 Implementation: Classroom View in D2L
  34. 34. © 2016 Learning Objects. IMS Global • Learning Impact Leadership Institute • Denver 2017 More information and survey Printer-friendly format of document Name of program and class in D2L Name of competency What the learner can do after mastering the competency Multiple pieces of evidence required for mastery Pilot limited to Fall courses so all are “in-progress” Graded assignments
  35. 35. © 2016 Learning Objects. IMS Global • Learning Impact Leadership Institute • Denver 2017 Pilot Overview RESULTS ● 57% of unique students accessed their eT ● 1,487 accesses during 16 week pilot ● 84% recommended broader implementation of the eT → “Why wouldn’t you?” ● ~50% would share the eT with a potential employer
  36. 36. © 2016 Learning Objects. IMS Global • Learning Impact Leadership Institute • Denver 2017 Pilot Overview COMMENTS “I like it and think it's an amazing idea coming from someone making a career change without experience” “Great tool, frequently difficult to properly explain skills and education to potential employers” “It's so great that there's finally a way to be able to tell employers "This is what I did!" because from all the projects and assignments we do, it's hard to remember . I've also never seen something like this at my undergrad or first grad school.”
  37. 37. © 2017 Learning Objects. Learning Objects Infrastructure Overview
  38. 38. © 2017 Learning Objects. Manage curriculum design, competencies, and content Define competency sets and hierarchies Design tool for programs and courses
  39. 39. © 2017 Learning Objects. Show What You Know → Learning Plan
  40. 40. © 2017 Learning Objects. Evidence: enhanced credentials enable Olivia to share her work Evidence of Olivia’s learning is collected by the platform and included in her extended transcript. Olivia curates portfolios for different purposes as further evidence of her learning. Badges defined by the institution and aligned to competencies that employers value deepen her set of credentials. Extended Transcript that provides rich insight into learning Portfolios and badges that empower the learner to curate evidence of learning
  41. 41. © 2016 Learning Objects. CONFIDENTIAL Accessibility & universal design Universal design means we strive to deliver a consistently good experience regardless LO of which tool or device you use to experience it. We follow the WCAG 2.0 AA accessibility guidelines and periodically reevaluate our compliance. We treat any accessibility issue uncovered during use as a high priority defect. Our design approach is inclusive of assistive technology, such as screen readers, and mobile devices. 41
  42. 42. © 2016 Learning Objects. CONFIDENTIAL 42
  43. 43. © 2016 Learning Objects. CONFIDENTIAL 43
  44. 44. © 2017 Learning Objects. Systems Model
  45. 45. © 2017 Learning Objects. Systems Thinking PROCESS PEOPLE DATA TOOLSERIC DENNA Chief Information Officer University of Maryland (College Park)
  46. 46. © 2017 Learning Objects. Conclusion? • Think goals, strategy, tactics • History matters • Change happens in context • Systems are key
  47. 47. © 2017 Learning Objects. PERSONALIZATION Differentiated Instruction & Learning
  48. 48. © 2017 Learning Objects. Bloom’s 2-sigma Problem
  49. 49. © 2017 Learning Objects. Unspoken Assumption TIME ACHIEVEMENT 1 2 3 LEARNING GOALS
  50. 50. © 2017 Learning Objects. Unspoken Assumption TIME ACHIEVEMENT 1 2 3 LEARNING GOALS
  51. 51. © 2017 Learning Objects. Reality TIME ACHIEVEMENT LEARNING GOALS DFW orDiscontinue 1 2 3
  52. 52. © 2017 Learning Objects. Ideal TIME ACHIEVEMENT LEARNING GOALS1 2 3
  53. 53. © 2017 Learning Objects. Right tool, right context Intensity / frequency of teacher-student interaction Cognitive complexity of task Content/activityvolumerequirements Machinescorable/guidable Adaptive Learning Personalized Learning Program- Based Learning & Mastery Knowledge • Comprehension • Application • Analysis • Synthesis • Evaluation Adaptive Practice, Homework, & Test Preparation Personalized courseware & learning sequences Personalized program pathways & analytics
  54. 54. © 2017 Learning Objects. The Science of Muddling Through
  55. 55. © 2017 Learning Objects. By root or by branch? Rational comprehensive method Successive limited comparison method
  56. 56. © 2017 Learning Objects. Muddling Through The trouble lies with the fact that most of us approach policy problems within a framework given by our view of a chain of successive policy choices made up to present. One’s thinking about appropriate policies with respect, say, to urban traffic control is greatly influenced by one’s knowledge of the incremental steps taken up to the present. … The relevance of a policy chain of succession is even more clear when an American tries to discuss, say, antitrust policy with a Swiss, for the chains of policy in the two countries are strikingly different and the two individuals consequently have organized their knowledge in quite different ways.

×