Thinking Outside of the Classroom: Campus Technology 2013 presentation


Published on

Invited talk to Campus Technology in Boston August 1, 2013 on Multi-Access learning. VIDEO ARCHIVE available:

Published in: Education, Technology

Thinking Outside of the Classroom: Campus Technology 2013 presentation

  1. 1. Thinking Outside of the Classroom Using Video Conferencing for Distance Learning and Collaboration Valerie Irvine Assistant Professor, Educational Technology, UVic Co-Director TIE Research Lab @_valeriei Dean Crawford Manager, IT Shared Services BCNET VIDEO ARCHIVE AVAILABLE AT
  2. 2. Session Overview What is BCNET Why was HD video conferencing required How did we arrive at a solution Measuring success in the small group meetings Using video conferencing for multi-access learning Overview of multi-access framework in relation to MOOCs Research study findings of multi-access required credit course Next steps…
  3. 3. What is BCNET • Not-for-profit • Shared IT Services consortium • 28 public and private, post- secondary institutions in BC • 18 research organization members Member-Owned. Member-Operated. Member-Shared.
  4. 4. Why HD Video • 28 Institutions • 161 Sites
  5. 5. Our process and solution Requirements 1. Cost savings 2. Ease of use 3. Low support
  6. 6. Our process and solution Requirements 1. Cost savings 2. Ease of use 3. Low support First review in October 2007 Second review in March 2011 – 17 products evaluated / 6 shortlisted
  7. 7. Our process and solution We selected Blue Jeans Network Our primary rationale included 1. Integrated with Skype 2. Aggregated ports 3. Large support for existing room systems
  8. 8. Our Model • We currently have 60 available ports • 17 institutions using the service • 141 user accounts
  9. 9. Our Success  100% increase in meetings year/over/year  1,697 meetings last year  860 meetings in first 4 months this year  $334,000 in total savings last year
  10. 10. Multi-Access Learning
  11. 11. Access Control Learner Agency
  12. 12. Four Tiers of Multi-Access 1.Face-to-Face 2.Synchronous Online 3.Asynchronous Online 4.Open
  13. 13. Grand Yellowhead School Division, Alberta
  14. 14. The Technology Integration and Evaluation (TIE) Research Lab
  15. 15. Seems Like A Lot of Effort?
  16. 16. Online Learning • 25% increase in Higher Ed e-learning market in 2012-2017 (Education Sector Factbook, 2012) • Full-time students are in the minority (Bates) • Brick-and-Mortar Universities are sleeping giants in online learning (Irvine, 2013)
  17. 17. Revenue in Canada • 90-95% controlled by government • Remainder in regulated domestic tuition
  18. 18. Decreasing 18-22 demographic nationally. USask, (2009). Managing enrollment strategically at the University of Saskatchewan 2009 Report. Available online:
  19. 19. Student Tuition Income • Demographic decline a significant issue • Domestic numbers unlikely to increase before 2030 • Intl student #s will drop quickly after 2020 • Ability to increase resources is about increasing net tuition  Student #s
  20. 20. ISSUES FACING BRICK & MORTAR UNIVERSITIES Current PSE Landscape demonstrates 1. Diminishing funds/cutbacks from the government 2. Increase in colleges with degree-granting status 3. Increase in online programs globally
  21. 21. Increase in online programs world-wide…. or Everything we provide is now offered by someone else. -- David Wiley
  22. 22. What students want: Flexibility in their learning options • Many have to work FT/PT jobs to be able to afford PSE • Reluctant to leave their positions in this economic climate
  23. 23. Meeting Future Revenue Needs • Govts & Undergrad students… not so much • Graduate & International students… yes
  24. 24. SOLUTION to Increase Revenue Top ways cited to increase revenue are to: 1. Recruit international students; and 2. Deliver course-based master’s programs.
  25. 25. A 3rd SOLUTION… Change access and registration options
  26. 26. A 3rd SOLUTION: Multi-Access Learning
  27. 27. Current Face to Face Option
  28. 28. Current Online Option
  29. 29. Destination in Place and Space
  30. 30. LEARNER ACCESS: Promoting Student Agency • Emergence of choice - expanding “anytime, anywhere” • Social media/personalized learning networks expanded this to “with anyone” • I would like to expand this to “in any way”
  31. 31. MOST IMPORTANTLY Transfer locus of control of how to access courses to the learner.
  32. 32. MASSIVE OPEN ONLINE COURSES • MOOC – Upwards of 100,000 course registrations – Original examples: #CCK08, #Change11, ED831 via @gsiemens @downes @davecormier @courosa – cMOOC (#etmooc) vs xMOOC (Coursera)
  33. 33. Multi-Access vs. COOL • COOL – collaborative open online course • A Multi-Access course but open • Multi-Access • Online, but not necessarily open • LDAP connectivity w/ open toggle • What it needs: 2-way communication
  34. 34. Multi-Access
  35. 35. Pilot of 2-Tier Multi-Access • Petition • 26 learners in the course • 17 remote learners • 9 F2F • Survey administered at the end with open-ended responses included
  36. 36. Pilot of 2-Tier Multi-Access • 16 consented to participate – 11 women, 5 men – 10 from remote group, 6 from F2F group – 8 had taken an online course before • 7 women and 1 man
  37. 37. Learner Preferences for Modality TOP CHOICE •9 out of 15 (60%) ranked multi-access as top choice •3 selected blended •2 selected F2F •1 selected online
  38. 38. Learner Preferences for Modality Multi-Access strongly supported •14 out of 15 (93.3%) chose multi-access (F2F or remote) as 1st or 2nd choice
  39. 39. Learner Preferences for Modality BOTTOM CHOICE 9 out of 15 (60%) ranked online as lowest rank •4 (25%) selected F2F as lowest •1 selected blended •1 selected multi-access remote
  40. 40. Importance of Choice • 4.67 on a 5.0 scale for importance of choice in delivery mode • 73.3% of learners reported a score of 5.0 (very important) – All of these were students who had previously taken an online course before • Consistent across both F2F and remote groups
  41. 41. Perceptions of Quality • 8 students (57%) reported quality of learning increased • 6 students (42.9%) reported it stayed the same • No pattern between group membership as F2F or remote group
  42. 42. INITIAL STUDENT FEEDBACK The REAL test of success.
  43. 43. Multi-Access Remote Student I think the quality of teaching and learning was not affected by the course being online. The instructor was effective in delivering the material and giving appropriate wait times after asking questions. It was a very interactive course which I believe would have the same impact if the course was fully F2F. We are going towards an online community, and it is great to know that there are already professors out there that are equipped with the skills and knowledge to effectively teach in any setting. Great experience. I wish more people this year had had the same opportunity.
  44. 44. I would say that it enhanced it. I felt like I was in the class with live video and audio feeds, but at the same time I had access to review the teaching materials on my own computer and expand with my own research during the class without disrupting the flow of the lesson. For a long class (3 hours +) the opportunity to access from home was a huge advantage because the comfortable setting allowed me to hold focus and breaks were more refreshing. Multi-Access Remote Student
  45. 45. I really enjoyed the multi-access experience. I had ongoing conversations on instant messenger with a classmate whilst listening and taking in a presentation for example. If you're in a face-to-face class you can't just pull out your laptop and start typing because it's rude, but when you're using multi- access, you can immediately check out any thought tangents online whilst keeping up with the presenter. This makes the learning experience fuller, because you can check things out as you think of them instead of forgetting them and not getting around to it after the class is done. I did feel part of the class as well. Multi-Access Remote Student
  46. 46. • I also experienced the class from the other side of the monitor, and I have to say, it feels better on the technology. I felt the pace of the class was much slower when I was in the classroom F2F. • hmmmmm. Personally I am an auditory learner so this was exponentially better than any previous online learning courses I have taken. Multi-Access Remote Student
  47. 47. It was fairly neutral, overall. I didn't feel like it was any better or worse in terms of learning quality, but I did feel that it was light years more convenient for me. Grow this opportunity! Offer these kinds of course mediums as often as possible! They really do make the grade, and it makes life for people in rural areas so much easier and more affordable! Multi-Access Remote Student
  48. 48. I commend the individuals who designed and implemented this course. It was extremely successful, and accommodated many students who would have otherwise faced serious challenges regarding their living situations. Multi-Access Remote Student
  49. 49. If I lived very close to campus year round, I think I would have preferred to be in a F2F class or a multi-access class in which I was in the room. However, I lived in [a town on the outskirts] and avoiding the 45 minute drive saved me a lot of money and valuable time that I could spend being more productive. On top of that, the flexibility that the multi-access course provided allowed me to move to another city to prepare for my practicum much further ahead of schedule than a F2F course would have permitted. I went to my practicum city 3 weeks before my start day; while a F2F class would have given me a long weekend to pack up and move, meet with teachers, supervisor, and admin, and plan my lessons with no time to observe. Multi-Access Remote Student
  50. 50. I think it contributes to the quality of learning because it's differentiated instruction. By having a multi-access course, students can choose how to participate. I felt like my needs were met and the video enhanced the quality of the teaching and learning. Without video, I wouldn't be able to concentrate for 3 hours. Multi-Access Remote Student
  51. 51. I would have also appreciated the opportunity to choose whether I would be an online or F2F student, even though I reside in [university’s city]. Multi-Access F2F Student
  52. 52. • I know that the remote group benefitted from the online aspect of the class for monetary reasons, which I fully support. University is expensive, saving money any way that individuals can, should.” • “I think [multi-access] would be ESPECIALLY important for professional development courses that full-time teachers would want to take. Multi-Access F2F Student
  53. 53. • Multi-access allowed me to talk and discuss with students and hear their actual voices and their thoughts rather than just written comments. From other online classes I've taken there was very little student-student participation, with this class I felt like these peers were right there with us. It enhanced the experience. Multi-Access F2F Student
  54. 54. • This course was amazing. It allowed for freedom of life - the ability to participate online and face-to-face was essential in life as a parent, caregiver for an ailing parent and a full time student. Multi-Access F2F Student
  55. 55. Pilot Expansion • 1 pilot out of 8 sections of core course • Expanding to 6 out of 8 sections in 2013/14 • Major research-corp partnership being negotiated to expand our work across campus • Grant shortlist for MOOC research initiative by Gates Foundation
  56. 56. Multi-Access is Expanding • Multi-access emerged in 2009 • In 2013, new pockets of variations are popping up: – Blendsync in Australia – Synchromodal in USA – “Blended” misuse in examples
  57. 57. Multi-Access is Expanding • Common terminology will be important • Multi-Access is the new framework or lens – Merges on-campus and online – Can merge open – Envelopes MOOC
  58. 58. Next Steps • More Infrastructure • ROI research on the infrastructure • More “n” and rigourous research • Registration system tweaking • Policies & governance
  59. 59. Reassembling the Building Blocks has RISK… but we otherwise risk irrelevance Reassembling the Building Blocks has RISK… but we otherwise risk irrelevance
  60. 60. References • Irvine, V., Code, J., & Richards, L. (in press). Realigning higher education through multi-access learning. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2). Temporary link till published: Richards-2013.pdf • Irvine, V. (2013, July). Multi-access learning. Invited talk to Retrieved from • Irvine, V. (2013, May). The 21st century university. Keynote to TLT13. Retrieved from (multi-access part at 49:36)
  61. 61. References • Irvine, V., & Richards, L. (2013, January). Multi-access learning: Overview and preliminary project data. Presentation to the Canadian Institute of Distance Education Research. Retrieved from ndetails • Irvine, V., & Code, J. (2012, May). The 21st-century university: Implications and benefits of choice of learner access and openness. Paper presented at the BCNET-HPCS Annual Conference, Vancouver, Canada.
  62. 62. References • Irvine, V. & Code, J. (2011, January). The 21st Century University. Presentation to the Change11 MOOC. Retrieved from • Irvine, V. (2009). The emergence of choice in “multi-access” learning environments: Transferring locus of control of course access to the learner. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2009 (pp. 746–752). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  63. 63. Dr. Valerie Irvine, PhD | @_valeriei | @TIELab Dean Crawford Manager, IT Shared Services BCNet