Reviews
Thwarted Innovation: What Happened to eLearning and Why
Download
PDF version: |
|
|
Thwarted Innovation: What Happened to eLearning and Why by Robert Zemsky and William F. Massy, was published online in June 2004 as a report for the Weatherstation Project of the Learning Alliance for Higher Education at the University of Pennsylvania. The website advertises the report as a major new study from the University of Pennsylvania that answers the question: "Why did the boom in e-learning go bust?"
The report, hereinafter referred to as “TI,” was discussed at some length on the Sloan-C listserv, currently consisting of about 600 participants from the world of online higher education. Some comments from the membership are reproduced below along with some editorial comments that we hope will set this report in the context of the goals of Sloan-C.
In our view, the report is billed as concerning eLearning (and widely cited by the news media in this way), but in actuality is concerned much more with the use of technology in teaching and learning in higher education. We also see various flaws in the study (pointed out by our membership below). Zemsky and Massy rightly indicate many problems with acceptance and adoption of technology in higher education, but (we feel) have confused the goals of online education (bringing education to everyone everywhere) with flaws and acceptance of the delivery vehicle (i.e., the technology infrastructure). By analogy, we feel that they have damned the truck that is taking sustenance to the hungry because the truck doesn’t work well enough!
Here are a few comments from the Sloan-C listserv that point out some of the problems that have been discussed by the Sloan-C membership.
Undefined Premise:
Claiming that e-learning has failed, the report fails to define what e-learning is. The example provided-- “The most successful elearning experiment was Studio Physics developed by Jack Wilson, then at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI). Studio Physics is taught wholly on the computer in specially designed “studios” where students work in two person teams on upwards of 25 computers. Faculty circulate throughout the studio, providing help and instruction as needed, as each student pair works through a complex set of problems and computer simulations designed to teach the basics of introductory physics” [[1]]—is actually computer assisted instruction (CAI) in a time- and place-based setting, not an eLearning methodology. The inclusion of this example in TI, makes our case convincingly that Zemsky and Massy have confused the use of technology in higher education with online education since Studio Physics was never(!) used in online education.
In contrast, as elearning is defined by Sloan-C, hundreds of schools are succeeding with the asynchronous learning networks (ALN) model. The Sloan Foundation’s ALN program has a clear goal. It is to “make it possible for anyone to learn who wishes to learn, at a time and place of their choosing.” Explicit within this goal is that learning be offered at reasonable cost, and provide learning equivalent in quality to that found through any other means. Our program is not intended to motivate the unmotivated, and so is aimed at those who wish to learn. We do not think the goal is being thwarted. We expect 2 million learners will take at least one online course this year (the annual survey will validate this with greater precision), and continue to see in excess of 20% growth rates for online enrollments” [2].
Small, Non-Representative Sample:
The six schools selected for the study are not a representative sample by anyone’s measure. The six schools--Foothill College (CA), Hamilton College (NY), Michigan State University, Northwest Missouri State University, University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Texas at Austin—appear to be randomly selected and should not be imagined to provide a broad or knowledgeable view.
Yet TI criticizes the 2003 Sloan Survey of Online Learning as not being representative. The Sloan Survey, Sizing the Opportunity, surveyed all of higher education and reports results from more than a thousand schools. Institutions with equally long histories of academic success would rival the six selected by TI, schools such as Indiana University, Notre Dame University, University of Delaware, University of Florida, University of Georgia, University of Pittsburgh, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Virginia Tech, and Wake Forest University.
In the interest of being even-handed, one Sloan-C member points out: “Note that the article indicates that the researchers approached the study as if they were anthropologists studying various cultures. So the size of the sample is not as important as the KIND of sampling they did in a qualitative study. Ideally, they would pick universities that considered the online programs and courses successful, as well as those that didn't. They only happened to pick cases where the programs were not successful, and it is understandable. I happen to be in a university where what we have been doing in online distance learning has been highly successful, yet the "campus culture" prefers to use information that would ignore the successes. The article, appearing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, is already confirming the dominant view.
It also seems to me that most persons are reacting to the hype that … referred to: "transformative" "paradigm change" "revolutionary" as if suddenly a Princeton or a small residential liberal arts college would become obsolete -- and don't see the change as one that will not REPLACE on-site on campus synchronous learning, which can be of very high quality, but one that is only DISPLACING its dominance (and the displacement is already occurring). Unfortunately, people tend to think in either/or terms.
Unclear Purpose and Insufficient Research:
The report asserts that early adopters made these false assumptions:
Assumption 1: “If we build it, they will come.”
Assumption 2: “The kids will take to e-learning like ducks to water.”
Assumption 3: “E-learning will force a change in how we teach.”
On the contrary, although Zemky and Massy begin the report by imagining that early adopters claimed that they would deliver all kinds of educational innovations, the building of e-learning as practiced by the Sloan Consortium has been incremental from first principles, based on research and metrics, moving slowly and deliberately to find ways to bring learning to anyone, anywhere and at anytime. Sloan-C’s straightforward criterion—that the quality of learning online is at least equivalent to learning in other modes—is its basis for moving forward. Substantial research demonstrates that the criterion can be met and exceeded; that faculty and learners benefit from support for adjusting their roles for success in online teaching and learning; that the online learning of skills, attitudes and competencies calls for pedagogical design that uses the potential of online media for rapid distribution, feedback, aggregation and publication. And that the demand for online learning continues to grow—and not just for convenience but because it works and because working adults find it necessary.
Consequently, far from being thwarted, institutions report robust growth [[2]] in online enrollments, with increases as high as 40% a year. According to Frank Mayadas, Sloan-C President, “I will be very pleased and still not thwarted when we get to 20M online learners instead of just today’s 2 million.”
Is reforming higher education’s resistance to online education the intended purpose of Thwarted Innovation: What Happened to eLearning and Why?
If so, “A Little Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing,” notes Carol Twigg’s review of the report for the Learning Marketplace of the National Center for Academic Transformation, pointing out that the reports ignores “30 Pew-funded course redesign projects created in the past several years and the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of faculty who have changed they way they teach when they move from the classroom to an online environment”; the massive efforts of Casey Greene’s annual report on 600 colleges in the Campus Computing Project; the work of the Instructional Management System (IMS) Global Learning Consortium; and the work of the Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) Initiative (SCORM).
Unfortunately, the report has been used by various news sources including the Chronicle of Higher Education [[3]] to make the case that elearning has failed, misinforming thousands of readers across the world, and perhaps thwarting the interest of some educators in the actual innovations that more and more learners demand.
Pushing Back the Frontiers
The TI article, while flawed in our view, it is nevertheless useful for pointing out hurdles that online education will need to overcome before it is fully embraced by all of higher education. The technology hurdle[1] may be the most important one that holds back typical faculty from embracing the concept. That is, until technology becomes used without being noticed and, more importantly, without interfering with the mission of online education – i.e., delivering knowledge to anyone anywhere, articles such as TI may continue to be produced, claiming that eLearning has failed. Sloan-C is proud to be a part of the world-wide movement to insure that eLearning does not fail! The good that comes from broadly increasing the educational levels of our population is certain to move civilization forward.
…. J.Bourne, F. Mayadas and J. Moore
[1]. Zemsky, R. and Massy, W. Thwarted Innovation: What Happened to elearning and Why. A Final Report for The Weatherstation Project of The Learning Alliance at the University of Pennsylvania in cooperation with the Thomson Corporation, June 2004. p. 51. Available: http://www.irhe.upenn.edu/Docs/Jun2004/ThwartedInnovation.pdf
[2]. Recent reports on unprecedented enrollment growth from:
a. Illinois Colleges and Universities: http://www.ivc.illinois.edu/pubs/enrollment/Spring04.html
b. The State University of New York Learning Network: http://www.suny.edu/sunyNews/News.cfm?filname=2003-07-14SLNEnrollment.htm
c. University of Maryland University College: http://www.worldwidelearn.com/umuc/online-degrees.htm
[3]. Carnevale, D. “Report Says Educational Technology Has Failed to Deliver on Its Promises.” Chronicle of Higher Education. July 2, 2004.
| 
