Emerging Technologies for Learning: Building an Academic Technology System To Transform a Complex Educational Enterprise

1. Emerging Technologies for Learning:Building an Academic Technology System To Transform a Complex Educational Enterprise Janet Shanedling, PhD Billie Wahlstrom, PhD

2. Selecting the Right Models No single model or strategy exists, but many successful models available to emulate Best choices are built on: Learner characteristics Preferred delivery modes Technologies, support, and services available Faculty characteristics Institutional goals

3. What learning technologies will work best for this family? G.I. (born 1901-1924) Silent (born 1925-1942) Boomer (born 1943-1960) Gen X (1961-1981) Millennial (born 1982- )

4. Building the Future on a Firm Foundation The Future Digital Commons Digital Campus Learning Platform Infrastructure: Integrating, Aligning, Leveraging Integrating Academic Technologies and Distance Education

5. Learner Needs

6. Maximize World-Class Technology to Serve and Delight Bring technologies together to meet student and teacher needs Respect learning and teaching differences and provide suites of tools—not one size fits no one Instantiate best practices in technology choices and uses Be easy, playful, useful, and flexible

7. Portal I: Our First Step Manage information abundance Customize information Allow users to personalize information Be transportable Support teaching and learning Create secure spaces

8. Does the myU Portal work?

9. Choosing Between a Maze and a Doorway

10. Portal “Views” 175,000+ users 20 distinct “views”—Coordinate campuses, first-year students, transfers, graduate & professional, Academic Health Center, Extension… 100+ content providers Tabs

14. Provide What’s Useful to “Me:” Using Affinity Strings degree campus unit tc.grad.gs.anth.phd program role

15. Why Create a Learning Platform (LP)? Many high-quality internet-based tools to support instruction, but most are not integrated Number of choices is confusing Most technologies are not personalized or customizable to the learner The result: lower quality academic experiences

16. Serving Academic Disciplines The Learning Platform is the University of Minnesota’s strategyto integrate many different independent applications into a unified system to support learning.

17. Supporting the Academic Side of the House The UMN Learning Platform is a scaffold supporting all the tools students use to learn, faculty use to teach, and UMN uses to administer all academic programs.

18. What Is the Learning Platform?

19. The Learning Platform U of M Enterprise Systems  e-portfolio  WebCT/Vista  Moodle  Adobe/Connect  Pachyderm  Blogs & Wikis  Podcasting  Email, Chat, & IM  Calendar  myLibrary  NetFiles  Central Storage  PDA Tools  Search Engines  Personal  Student Response WebSpace Systems--clickers AHC Enterprise Systems Clinical Rotations Assignment Software System  Educational Electronic Medical Record Software  CoursEval Software  Learning Objects Repository  myU portal  Online admissions software  Learning management system  Other . . .

20. Templated, Reusable Tools: Interactive Scenario Builder Generates online simulations of interpersonal interactions Easy to use (no Web programming experience necessary) www.csh.umn.edu/isb

21. Assessment Templates

23. Can the LP Keep Up with Change? As the University acquires new software and technology, the platform evolves, and all who use it have a scaffolding that is continuously enhanced.

24. Using the Learning Platform The Decision makers: Faculty Intellectual property policies Accreditation bodies Curriculum committees

25. Supporting and Nurturing Faculty Faculty Member/ Content Expert Course Coordinator Instructional Designer Librarians The Learner Graphic Artist Videographer Web Developer

26. Finding Faculty Champions

27. The Learning 2.0 Transformation Prepare for passion-based learning and teaching Learners expect socially constructed learning Learners must learn to be not learn about 4. Move from supply-push models to demand-pull models 5. Be mobile and agile 6. Understand the long tail model of multitudes of uncommon offerings rather than a few common offerings 7. Partnerwith vendors, industry, other higher education institutions

28. Movingthe Mental Model to Teaching 2.0 Our 2007 faculty research shows: Faculty see educational technology primarily as a means to deliver information The amount of time required to learn new technology is biggest barrier Support and training is a prominent theme Concern about lack of standardization in technology resources Face-to-face training is preferred way to learn about technology

29. Faculty also tell us. . . “If I had known then what I know now from having learned to teach with technology, I would have totally changed the way I used class time in my face-to-face classes.” “I feel that I have closer one-to-one relationships with my students in the online curriculum that I did in my face-to-face courses.” “Students’ learning outcomes in my face-to-face course were the same as those in the online version. The online course was just as effective.” “Students in my online section did not interact (although discussions were set up), and the only online activities they completed were the videos and AdobeConnect slide shows. Students in the face-to-face section were much happier and did a lot better on the test.”

30. Learners tell us they like. . . The flexibility of ‘doing it anywhere’ as it ‘fits into my own schedule The convenience of submitting assignments electronically A combination of media: online activities, video, discussions, graphics Virtual office hours at a set time each week That ‘the professors care about our learning and are attuned to our needs… I have never felt alone or neglected in these courses.’

31. Learners also tell us. . . When we go to class, let’s ‘have the professors actually teach us something valuable’ We need an on site training orientation before class starts Limit videos to < 10 minutes Don’t overdo online discussions – limit to 1 per class per week We’d like to meet all students from all sites face-to-face before we start the program

32. Building the Future on a Firm Foundation The Future Digital Commons Digital Campus Learning Platform Infrastructure: Integrating, Aligning, Leveraging Integrating Academic Technologies and Distance Education

33. Digital Campus Minnesota from Everywhere Common searchable catalogs Credit and non-credit solutions Seamless transfer and common templates Sound business plans and marketing and centralized sales

34. Meeting the Land-Grant Mission: Online, On-Campus, and On-site Academic Health Center and the Future “Endless” Catalog Deep Community Roots Digital Pipelines

35. Digital Pipelines iTunes U YouTube Research Channel Internet 2 Tech Talk Big 10 Network RSS feeds

36. Developing Strategic Marketing Protecting intellectual property Developing new syndication models Branding and marketing Expanding UMart

37. Learning Markets: Understanding the “Long Tail” E-Commerce isn’t physical commerce The disappearance of “best sellers” and the emergence “fulfillment centers” The unlimited “catalog” of $.99 sounds I want to hear

38. Minnesota’s Digital Commons Common point of entry—soft launch 9/08 Common tools—SPEEDE, CAS, DARS Partnerships with public education K-20 Co-hosted computing, technology help, and career pathways

39. Works Cited 2006-2016 Map of Future Forces Affecting Education, prepared for KnowledgeWorks Foundation by the Institute for the Future. “Active Learning and Technology: Designing for Faculty, Students, and Institutions.” Anne Moore, Shelli Fowler, and C. Edward Watson, Educause Review, September/October 2007. pp. 43-76. ECAR studies for 2004 and 2005. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research <http://www.educause.edu/AboutECAR/94> “Faculty 2.0.” Joel Hartman, Charles Dzubian, and James Brophy-Ellison.” Educause Review, September/October 2007. pp. 62-76. “Technology in Support of Learning on the Twin Cities Campus,” Robert B. Kvavik. Prepared for the Academic Health Center. “21st Century Instructors at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities: Twin Cities Faculty Educational Technology Survey 2007.” Digital Media Center, Office of Information Technology, University of Minnesota “Minds on Fire: open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0.” John Seely Brown and Richard P Adler, Educause Review, January/February 2008, pp. 17-32.