Skip navigation.

Michael Feldstein

Syndicate content
What We Are Learning About Online Learning...Online
Updated: 6 hours 31 min ago

Worth Considering: Faculty perspective on student-centered pacing

Tue, 2015-05-26 11:43

By Phil HillMore Posts (318)

Over the weekend I wrote a post based on the comment thread at Friday’s Chronicle article on e-Literate TV.

One key theme coming through from comments at the Chronicle is what I perceive as an unhealthy cynicism that prevents many people from listening to students and faculty on the front lines (the ones taking redesigned courses) on their own merits.

Sunday’s post highlighted two segments of students describing their experiences with re-designed courses, but we also need to hear directly from faculty. Too often the public discussion of technology-enabled initiatives focus on the technology itself, often assuming that the faculty involved are bystanders or technophiles. But what about the perspectives of faculty members – you know, those who are in the classrooms working with real students – on what challenges they face and what changes are needed from an educational perspective? There is no single perspective from faculty, but we could learn a great deal through their unique, hands on experiences.

Consider the the specific case of why students might need to work at their own pace.

The first example is from a faculty member at Middlebury College describing the need for a different, more personalized approach for his geographic information system (GIS) course.

Jeff Howarth: And what I would notice is that there would be some students who would like me to go a little bit faster but had to wait and kind of daydream because they were just waiting. And then there were some students that desperately wanted me slow down. Then you get into that kind of slowest-car-on-the-freeway, how-fast-can-you-really-go type of thing. So, I would slow down, which would lose part of the group.

Then there would be some folks that probably would want me to slow down but would never ask because they don’t want to call attention to themselves as being the kind of—the slow car on the freeway.

Michael Feldstein: At this point, Jeff realized that even his small class might not be as personalized as it could be with the support of a little more technology.

Jeff Howarth: What I realized is that, if I just started packaging that instruction, the worked example, I could deliver the same content but allow students to first—if I made videos and posted it on something like YouTube, I was putting out the same content, but students could now watch it at their own pace and in the privacy of being able to go as slow as they need to without the social hang-ups of being considered different.

Students could now watch it at their own pace and … and go as slow as they need to without the social hang-ups of being considered different. So, that was really the first step of—I did all of this, and then I told another colleague in languages what I was doing. And he said, “Well, that’s called ‘flipping the classroom.’” And I thought, “OK.” I mean, but that’s not really why. I did it without knowing that I was flipping the classroom, but then that’s how it happened.

Compare this description with an example from an instructor at Essex County College teaching developmental math.

Pamela Rivera: When I was teaching the traditional method, I’ll have students coming in and they didn’t know how to multiply. They didn’t know how to add and subtract. Rarely would those students be able to stay throughout the semester, because after the third—no, even after the second week, everyone else was already in division and they’re still stuck.

And the teacher can’t stop the class and say, “OK, let’s continue with multiplication,” because you have a syllabus to stick to. You have to continue teaching, and so those students will be frustrated, and so they drop the class. The Teacher can’t stop the class…because you have a syllabus to stick to.

At the same time, you had students who—the first couple of weeks they’ll be extremely bored because they already know all of that. And so, unfortunately, what would happen is eventually you would get to a point in the content that—they don’t know that, but because they have been zoning out for weeks, they don’t get that “OK, now, I actually have to start paying attention.” And so, yes, they should have been able to do that, but they still are not very successful because they were used to not paying attention.

Remarkably Similar Descriptions

Despite these two examples coming from very different cases, the actual descriptions that faculty offer on the need for course designs that allow students to control their own pacing are remarkably similar. These isolated examples are not meant to end debate on personalized learning or on what role technology should play (rather they should encourage debate), but it is very useful to listen to faculty members describe the challenges they face on an educational level.

The post Worth Considering: Faculty perspective on student-centered pacing appeared first on e-Literate.

Worth Considering: Students can have their own perspectives on edtech initiatives

Sun, 2015-05-24 15:06

By Phil HillMore Posts (318)

Triggered by Friday’s article on e-Literate TV, there have been some very interesting conversations both in the Chronicle comment thread and on the e-Literate TV site. The most, um, intense conversations have centered on the application of self-regulated learning (SRL) in combination with adaptive software (ALEKS) to redesign a remedial math course at Essex County College. Michael has been wading in very deep waters in the comment threads, trying emphasize variations of the following point.

But that debate should be in the context of what’s actually happening in real classrooms with real students, what the educational results are, and what the teachers and students involved think of their experiences.

Right now, the “sides” are having a fight–it’s not really a debate because the sides aren’t really talking to each other–in near total absence of any rational, educator-evaluated, evidence-based conversation about what these approaches are good for. One side says they will “fix” a “broken” education system, while the other side says they will “destroy” the education system. Well, what are the students saying?

One key theme coming through from comments at the Chronicle is what I perceive as an unhealthy cynicism that prevents many people from listening to students and faculty on the front lines (the ones taking redesigned courses) on their own merits. Michael called out this situation in the same comment:

What bothers me is the seemingly complete lack of interest among the commenters in this thread about actually hearing what these teachers and students have to say, and the disregard for the value of their perspectives. It is possible to raise legitimate concerns about techno-solutionism, anti-labor practices, and other serious abuses while simultaneously acknowledging that so-called “personalized learning” approaches can have real educational value when properly applied in the appropriate context by competent and concerned educators and serious students.

One of our primary goals for e-Literate TV is to give additional access to those on the front lines, thus allowing debates and conversations about the role of ed tech and personalized learning approaches. However, it is important to recognize that students can have their own perspectives and are not just robots who are told what to say and do. Consider the following panels discussion with students. To me, the students are quite well-spoken and have real insights.

Sade: A typical day is, like, you basically come in—you go and you log on and you do your ALEKS. You do it at your own pace. Every individual works at their own pace. That’s why I like it. Because some people are ahead, and if you’re in a typical, a regular class, then you have to go with the pace of everybody else. Even if you don’t understand, you have to be—you have to try to catch up. Here, you work at your own pace.

Viviane: It’s been a very good experience for basically the same reasons. Where you just sit and you work and if you can solve 10 problems in one hour, it’s better for you if you keep working at your own pace.

And there’s also—the professor that helps you, or you can even bother one of your classmates and say, “Hey, can you help me out over here with this problem?” or something like that. I mean it’s—I feel as if it’s a very interactive and open classroom.

As per other classes, I don’t think that a regular math class would be able—I mean you wouldn’t be able to sit and ask another classmate for help or anything like that. You would have to just wait for your professor.

Most students we talked to appreciated the self-paced nature of the lab portion (working on the computers emporium style with faculty roaming the room for one-on-one support), but it is very clear that the technology itself was one component of the solution. Students are reflecting back that it is the combination of self-paced design along with interactive support that is critical to success. Not only that, but note how students value the ability for peer support – students helping students. That design element of courses is often overlooked.

In another segment, students explored this concept in more depth with an additional element of ownership of the learning process.

Phil: Most of the students we talked to seem to have internalized the lessons of self-regulated learning and feel empowered to learn.

Sade: It’s really good because, for example, say I’m doing a topic, and I’m stalling. Vivian is faster than I am. I could work by my own pace and then it’s a professor there that I could raise my hand. “Excuse me. I don’t understand this. Could you help me with it?”—because everybody learns at their own pace. Everybody learns at their own pace.

Khalid: Yeah, we are typically just sitting down on the computer screen, but we’re sitting next to our classmates, so if there’s a problem on it, I could ask my classmate. Like, that’s actually the best thing about ALEKS, is that there’s an explain button right there.

We would do well to listen to students more often, judging input on their own merits.

Update: Fixed first video link.

The post Worth Considering: Students can have their own perspectives on edtech initiatives appeared first on e-Literate.

LMS Observations: You had me until you went nihilist

Wed, 2015-05-20 16:20

By Phil HillMore Posts (318)

Mark Drechsler has a fascinating post in response to my recent LMS as minivan about D2L’s retention claims, mostly playing off of this theme:

I answered another question by saying that the LMS, with multiple billions invested over 17+ years, has not “moved the needle” on improving educational results. I see the value in providing a necessary academic infrastructure that can enable real gains in select programs or with new tools (e.g. adaptive software for remedial math, competency-based education for working adults), but the best the LMS itself can do is get out of the way – do its job quietly, freeing up faculty time, giving students anytime access to course materials and feedback. In aggregate, I have not seen real academic improvements directly tied to the LMS.

In response, Mark gives “a personal view of my own journey towards LMS nihilism” in a post titled “How I lost my faith in the LMS” that has some excellent points (first go read his whole post, I’ll wait).

Mark Nihilist.001

Mark describes how the LMS market in Australia changed dramatically – mostly towards Moodle – due to Bb / D2L lawsuit, end-of-life for WebCT, and Moodle release of 1.9, noting:

There were, I believe, a variety of reasons that Moodle was so successful during this time, but one of the most common things that I would hear during this period was that, compared to incumbent LMS, Moodle simply ‘got out of the way’ and let academic staff do their thing. It helped the LMS stop being a barrier, and moved it closer to being an enabler, which is exactly what it should have been.

During this time Moodle was booming in popularity, and the transitions I was involved in by and large went as well as any other campus-wide technology platform change can, but one big question (and I must send out a thank you my friend and sounding board James Hamilton for planting this seed) was lurking in the background – how do we measure the success of the implementation? How do we know that the LMS in and of itself is making any difference whatsoever?

The answer he comes to is that no, the LMS in and of itself does not change outcomes and that:

The specific LMS that was in use paled into insignificance next to the innovation, dedication and craftiness of the person using it.

Here Mark makes one of the best points I’ve seen in the LMS discussions of late [emphasis added].

In a commodity market, the argument often turns to cost. In the case of the LMS, like any piece of campus-wide technology, the cost of the service in technology terms often pales into insignificance when compared with the cost in terms of time spent (wasted?) by academic and administrative staff being forced to use a system designed to try and satisfy a large set of complex requirements. Perhaps this was one of the most compelling things about Moodle back in its heyday – the perception that it simply ‘got out of the way’ of teachers wanting to do their job – and the significant ‘switching cost’ in terms of managing a large-scale change program that is needed to swap out an LMS was deemed worth it in terms of the longer term reduction of burden on users.

That was then, however, not now.

Where we slightly differ is in the conclusions. The lack of evidence of LMS usage directly impacting academic results does not make the LMS a commodity and is no reason to go nihilist[1].

Two measures of value in a traditional LMS can be thought of as how well it ‘gets out of the way’ and how well it enables apps that can directly affect student learning. From my experience, the various LMS options differ greatly in these two attributes. I have seen examples at campuses where an LMS adoption led to one that was much more intuitive, reliable, and easy to adopt to the point that training resources were diverted away from ‘here’s how to migrate a course and which button to push’ to ‘here are some pedagogical improvements to consider using online tools’. I have seen schools benefit simply from having reliable systems that don’t go down during exams. In other words, and LMS solution can significantly reduce the “cost in terms of time spent by academic and administrative staff”. And by the way, that choice might not always be the same LMS – it depends greatly on course design and pedagogical models.

While I detest most RFP processes, there are examples (typically involving creative compliance with purchasing rules or active support from an enlightened purchasing guru) where the planning process itself leads to increased collaboration among academic and administrative staff. If done well, a vendor selection process can enable greater focus on teaching and learning effectiveness and cross-pollination of ideas.

Update (hit publish too soon): I have also seen situations where an LMS is so painful to use that faculty don’t take advantage of tools that are appropriate or useful. While there is risk in broadly looking at depth of LMS adoption as a net positive, the wrong LMS choice or implementation can prevent faculty or instructional designers from doing what they’d like.

While I might be misreading Mark’s nihilism reference, he makes some great observations based on his personal journey. In the end, however, I do not see the LMS as a commodity.

  1. Mark’s conclusion is “So then, in my mind, while the LMS may not quite yet be considered a commodity in terms of features and functions, it might as well be a commodity in terms of the overall impact it has on student learning outcomes.

The post LMS Observations: You had me until you went nihilist appeared first on e-Literate.

Miami, Harvard and MIT: Disability discrimination lawsuits focused on schools as content providers

Wed, 2015-05-20 11:52

By Phil HillMore Posts (318)

In the discussions at Google+ based on last week’s post about the Miami University of Ohio disability discrimination lawsuit[1], George Station made two important points that deserve more visibility.

It’s been a-coming for several years now. Cal State has some pretty strong rules in place for compliance with ADA and state-level disability laws. Still, [Universal Design for Learning] UDL is a little-known acronym on any campus you care to visit, and staff support is probably one person in an office, except for Miami of Ohio as of this week, I guess…

Add the recent edX settlement with the US Department of Justice, and the whole direction of edtech changes…

Put another way, it should come as no surprise that the US Department of Justice is ramping up its enforcement of disability discrimination regulations in the education world. Captioning service provider CaptionSync has an excellent summary of the field, written before the DOJ intervention at Miami.

Accessibility laws applicable to higher education have been in place in the United States for decades, but many schools are still not fully compliant with the laws. Part of the lag in compliance can be attributed to lenient enforcement in the early years of these laws; the Rehabilitation Act was enacted in 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted in 1990, but initially there were very few government investigations or enforcement actions. Over time both government agencies (such as the Office for Civil Rights) and advocacy groups (such as the National Federation for the Blind and the National Association for the Deaf) have increasingly been making efforts to enforce the provisions of these laws. Recent civil suits filed by the National Association for the Deaf (NAD) and other advocacy organizations against both Harvard and MIT suggest that now is a good time to take a hard look at your accessibility compliance efforts if you work with video in a college or university setting.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) sent a letter to all college and university presidents on the topic of accessibility for emerging technologies in 2010; it contained a useful summary of various accessibility regulations and how they apply to the education community.

In February, the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) filed suit against Harvard and MIT based on their MOOCs using edX. It is worth noting that the lawsuit is against the schools, not the MOOC provider. In the announcement:

Many videos simply aren’t captioned at all.  For example, a Harvard program on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, a 2013 Harvard Q&A with Bill Gates and a 2013 MIT discussion with MIT professor Noam Chomsky about the leaks attributable to Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning all lack closed captions.

“Worse still,” said attorney Timothy Fox, “a sampling of the videos available illustrates the problem with inaccurate captioning, making them confusing and sometimes completely unintelligible.”

The issue is not that there is no capability for captioning, but that those producing the content (Harvard and MIT) do not provide captions or do some with many errors. Subsequently, the DOJ and edX settled out of court based on the following:

5. Following the compliance review, the United States determined that and the Platform were not fully accessible to some individuals with disabilities in violation of Title III of the ADA.

6. EdX disputes the findings set forth above and denies that, its mobile applications, and the Platform are covered by or are in violation of Title III of the ADA.

In the settlement, both parties go out of their way to clarify that edX is a software provider and that the schools are content providers. The DOJ settlement calls on edX within 18 months to conform with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) 2.0 AA, published by the Web Accessibility Initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium (“W3C”). More importantly, however, the agreement stipulates that edX within 90 days provide guidance to content providers (schools).

27. Develop a guide for Content Providers entitled Accessibility Best Practices Guidance for Content Providers (“Accessibility Best Practices Guidance”) and distribute a copy to each Content Provider with instructions for redistribution among individuals involved in producing Course Content. The Accessibility Best Practices Guidance shall describe steps and resources on how Course Content may be made to conform with WCAG 2.0 AA for Participants with disabilities using the CMS and inform Content Providers that the following resources may assist them in producing accessible Course Content: UAAG 1.0, ATAG 2.0, WAI-ARIA, WCAG2ICT, EPUB3, DAISY, and MathML.

The DOJ insists not only that software include capabilities for accommodation of students with disabilities but also that schools actually include the content and related metadata that is required for compliance. It is no longer enough for schools to buy software that is “ADA compliant”. Faculty or instructional designers need to include captions, alt-texts and alternate pathways for students to have equal access.

The origin of the Miami U lawsuit and the DOJ intervention is based on blind students, but the issues are the same. Repeatedly the DOJ referred to edtech “as implemented by Miami University”. As noted by reader Brian Richwine, the original lawsuit does reference Sakai (the LMS at the time of lawsuit), but the focus is still on how the content was provided.

Going back to the CaptionSync blog post:

Some schools have pointed out that in the summer of 2015 the DOJ is expected to release new guidance on how accessibility for websites is to be handled and they are awaiting that guidance before they step up their accessibility efforts.

The big lesson is that higher education institutions themselves had better get ready to understand their role as content providers that must conform to disability standards. Just letting individual faculty members figure out what to do is a recipe for future lawsuits. Faculty need support, guidance and (gasp) appropriate oversight to get this right.

Beyond the regulations and frameworks listed in the DOJ documents, schools should also increase their understanding and use of the UDL framework and guidelines that George referenced in his comments.

The goal of education in the 21st century is not simply the mastery of content knowledge or use of new technologies. It is the mastery of the learning process. Education should help turn novice learners into expert learners—individuals who want to learn, who know how to learn strategically, and who, in their own highly individual and flexible ways, are well prepared for a lifetime of learning. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) helps educators meet this goal by providing a framework for understanding how to create curricula that meets the needs of all learners from the start.

The UDL Guidelines, an articulation of the UDL framework, can assist anyone who plans lessons/units of study or develops curricula (goals, methods, materials, and assessments) to reduce barriers, as well as optimize levels of challenge and support, to meet the needs of all learners from the start. They can also help educators identify the barriers found in existing curricula.

  1. Insert joke here about G+ and its hundreds of active users.

The post Miami, Harvard and MIT: Disability discrimination lawsuits focused on schools as content providers appeared first on e-Literate.

About Those D2L Claims of LMS Usage Increasing Retention Rates

Thu, 2015-05-14 09:43

By Phil HillMore Posts (318)

In my post last week on the IMS Global Consortium conference #LILI15, I suggested that LMS usage in aggregate has not improved academic performance and noted that John Baker from D2L disagreed.

John Baker from D2L disagreed on this subject, and he listed off internal data of 25% or more (I can’t remember detail) improved retention when clients “pick the right LMS”. John clarified after the panel the whole correlation / causation issue, but I’d love to see that data backing up this and other claims.

After the conference I did some checking based on prompts from some helpful readers, and I’m fairly certain that John’s comments referred to Lone Star College – University Park (LSC-UP) and its 24% increase in retention. D2L has been pushing this story recently, first in a blog post and then in a paid webinar hosted by Inside Higher Ed. From the blog post titled “Can an LMS improve retention?” [footnotes and emphasis in original]:

Can an LMS help schools go beyond simply managing learning to actually improving it?

Pioneering institutions like Lone Star College-University Park and Oral Roberts University are using the Brightspace platform to leverage learner performance data in ways that help guide instruction. Now, they’re able to provide students with more personalized opportunities to master content and build self-confidence. The results of their student-centered approach have been nothing short of amazing: For students coming in with zero credits, Lone Star estimates that persistence rates increased 19% between spring 2014 and fall 2014[3] and Oral Roberts University estimates a persistence rate of 75.5% for online programs, which is an all-time high.[4]

Then in the subsequent IHE webinar page [emphasis added]:

The results have been nothing short of amazing. Lone Star has experienced a 19% increase in persistence and Oral Roberts University has achieved a 75.5% persistence rate for online programs—an all-time high. Foundational to these impressive results is Brightspace by D2L—the world’s first Integrated Learning Platform (ILP)— which has moved far beyond the traditional LMS that, for years, has been focused on simply managing learning instead of improving it.

Then from page 68 of the webinar slides, as presented by LSC-UP president Shah Ardalan:

LSC Results 1

By partnering with D2L, using the nationally acclaimed ECPS, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and students who want to innovate, LSC-UP increased retention by 24% after the pilot of 2,000 students was complete.

ECPS and the Pilot

For now let’s ignore the difference between 19%, 24% and my mistake on 25%. I’d take any of those results as institutional evidence of (the right) LMS usage “moving the needle” and improving results[1]. This description of ECPS got my attention, so I did some more research on ECPS:

The Education and Career Positioning System is a suite of leading web and mobile applications that allow individuals to own, design, and create their education-to-career choices and pathways. The ability to own, design, and create a personal experience is accomplished by accessing, combining and aggregating lifelong personal info, educational records, career knowledge, and labor statistics …

I also called up the LSC-UP Invitation to Innovate program office to understand the pilot. ECPS is an advising and support system created by LCS-UP, and the pilot was partially funded by the Gates Foundation’s Integrated Planning and Advising Services (IPAS) program. The idea is that students do better by understanding their career choices and academic pathways up front rather than being faced with a broad set of options. LCS-UP integrated ECPS into a required course that all entering freshmen (not for transfers) take. Students used ECPS to identify their skills, explore careers, see what these careers would require, etc. LCS-UP made this ECPS usage a part of the entry course. While there is no published report, between Spring 2014 and Fall 2014 LCS-UP reports that increase in term-to-term persistence of 19+%. Quite interesting and encouraging, and kudos to everyone involved. You can find more background on ECPS here.

In the meantime, Lone Star College (the entire system of 92,000+ students) selected D2L and is now using Brightspace as its LMS; however, the ECPS pilot had little to do with LMS usage. The primary intervention was an advising system and course redesign to focus students on understanding career options and related academic pathways.

The Problem Is Marketing, Not Product

To be fair, what if D2L enabled LSC-UP to do the pilot in the first place by some unique platform or integration capabilities? There are two problems with this possible explanation:

  • ECPS follows IMS standards (LTI), meaning that any major LMS could have integrated with it; and
  • ECPS was not even integrated with D2L during the pilot.

That’s right – D2L is taking a program where there is no evidence that LMS usage was a primary intervention and using the results to market and strongly suggest that using their LMS can “help schools go beyond simply managing learning to actually improving it”. There is no evidence presented[2] of D2L’s LMS being “foundational” – it happened to be the LMS during the pilot that centered on ECPS usage.

I should be clear that D2L should rightly be proud of their selection as the Lone Star LMS, and from all appearances the usage of D2L is working for the school. At the very least, D2L is not getting in the way of successful pilots. It’s great to see D2L highlight the excellent work by LSC-UP and their ECPS application as they recently did in another D2L blog post extensively quoting Shah Ardalan:

Lone Star College-University Park’s incoming students are now leveraging ECPS to understand their future career path. This broadens the students’ view, allows them to share and discuss with family and friends, and takes their conversation with the academic and career advisors to a whole new level. “Data analytics and this form of ‘intentional advising’ has become part of our culture,” says Ardalan. “Because the students who really need our help aren’t necessarily the ones who call, this empowers them to make better decisions” he adds.

LSC-UP is also planning to starting using D2L’s analytics package Insights, and they may eventually get to the point where they can take credit for improving performance.

The problem is in misleading marketing. I say misleading because D2L and LSC-UP never come out and say “D2L usage increased retention”. They achieve their goal by clever marketing where the topic is whether D2L and their LMS can increase performance then they share the LSC success story. The reader or listener has to read the fine print or do additional research to understand the details, and most people will not do so.

The higher ed market deserves better.

I Maintain My Position From Conference Panel

After doing this research, I still back up my statement at the IMS panel and from my blog post.

I answered another question by saying that the LMS, with multiple billions invested over 17+ years, has not “moved the needle” on improving educational results. I see the value in providing a necessary academic infrastructure that can enable real gains in select programs or with new tools (e.g. adaptive software for remedial math, competency-based education for working adults), but the best the LMS itself can do is get out of the way – do its job quietly, freeing up faculty time, giving students anytime access to course materials and feedback. In aggregate, I have not seen real academic improvements directly tied to the LMS.

I’m still open to looking at programs that contradict my view, but the D2L claim from Lone Star doesn’t work.

  1. Although my comments refer to improvements in aggregate, going beyond pilots at individual schools, this claim would nonetheless be impressive.
  2. Evidence is based on blog posts, webinar, and articles as well as interview of LSC-UP staff; if D2L can produce evidence supporting their claim I will share it here.

The post About Those D2L Claims of LMS Usage Increasing Retention Rates appeared first on e-Literate.

Ed Tech World on Notice: Miami U disability discrimination lawsuit could have major effect

Wed, 2015-05-13 11:53

By Phil HillMore Posts (318)

This week the US Department of Justice, citing Title II of ADA, decided to intervene in a private lawsuit filed against Miami University of Ohio regarding disability discrimination based on ed tech usage. Call this a major escalation and just ask the for-profit industry how big an effect DOJ intervention can be. From the complaint:

Miami University uses technologies in its curricular and co-curricular programs, services, and activities that are inaccessible to qualified individuals with disabilities, including current and former students who have vision, hearing, or learning disabilities. Miami University has failed to make these technologies accessible to such individuals and has otherwise failed to ensure that individuals with disabilities can interact with Miami University’s websites and access course assignments, textbooks, and other curricular and co-curricular materials on an equal basis with non-disabled students. These failures have deprived current and former students and others with disabilities a full and equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from all of Miami University’s educational opportunities.

The complaint then calls out the nature of assistive technologies that should be available, including screen readers, Braille display, audio descriptions, captioning, and keyboard navigation. The complaint specifies that Miami U uses many technologies and content that is incompatible with these assistive technologies.

The complaint is very specific about which platforms and tools are incompatible:

  • The main website
  • Vimeo and YouTube
  • Google Docs
  • TurnItIn
  • LearnSmart
  • WebAssign
  • MyStatLab
  • Vista Higher Learning
  • Sapling

Update: It is worth noting the usage of phrase “as implemented by Miami University” in most of these examples.

Despite the complaint listing the last 6 examples as LMS, it is notable that the complaint does not call out the school’s previous LMS (Sakai) nor its current LMS (Canvas). Canvas was selected last year to replace Sakai, and I believe both are in usage. Does this mean that Sakai and Canvas pass ADA muster? That’s my guess, but I’m not 100% sure.

The complaint is also quite specific about the Miami U services that are at fault. For example:

When Miami University has converted physical books and documents into digital formats for students who require such conversion because of their disabilities, it has repeatedly failed to do so in a timely manner. And Miami University has repeatedly provided these students with digitally-converted materials that are inaccessible when used with assistive technologies. This has made the books and documents either completely unusable, or very difficult to use, for the students with these disabilities.

Miami University has a policy or practice by which it converts physical texts and documents into electronic formats only if students can prove they purchased (rather than borrowed) the physical texts or documents. Miami University will not convert into digital formats any physical texts or documents from its library collections and it will not seek to obtain from other libraries existing copies of digitally-converted materials. This has rendered many of the materials that Miami University provides throughout its library system and which it makes available to its students unavailable to students who require that materials be converted into digital formats because of a disability.

The complaint also specifies the required use of clickers and content within PowerPoint.

This one seems to be a very big deal by nature of the DOJ intervention and the specifics of multiple technologies and services.

Thanks to Jim Julius for alerting me on this one.

.@PhilOnEdTech have you seen the Miami of Ohio accessibility complaint? This is going to generate shock waves.

— Jim Julius (@jjulius) May 13, 2015

The post Ed Tech World on Notice: Miami U disability discrimination lawsuit could have major effect appeared first on e-Literate.

Worth Reading: Use of adjuncts and one challenge of online education

Mon, 2015-05-11 12:36

By Phil HillMore Posts (318)

There is a fascinating essay today at Inside Higher Ed giving an inside, first-person view of being an adjunct professor.

2015 is my 25th year of adjunct teaching. In the fall I will teach my 500th three-credit college course. I have put in many 14- to 16-hour days, with many 70- to 80-hour weeks. My record is 27 courses in one year, although I could not do that now.

I want to share my thoughts on adjunct teaching. I write anonymously to not jeopardize my precarious positions. How typical is my situation?

The whole essay is worth reading, as it gives a great view into what the modern university and the implications of using adjuncts. But I want to highlight one paragraph in particular that captures the challenge of understanding online education.

I have taught many online courses. We have tapped about 10 percent of the potential of online courses for teaching. But rather than exploring the untapped 90 percent, the college where I taught online wanted to standardize every course with a template designed by tech people with no input from instructors.

I want to design amazing online courses: courses so intriguing and intuitive and so easy to follow no one would ever need a tutorial. I want to design courses that got students eager to explore new things. Let me be clear, I am not talking about gimmicks and entertainment; I am talking about real learning. Is anyone interested in this?

It is naive to frame the debate over online education as solely, or primarily, an issue of faculty resistance. Yes, there are faculty members who are against online education, but one reason for this resistance is a legitimate concern for the quality of courses. What the essay reminds us is that part of the quality issue arises from structural issues from the university and not from the actual potential of well-design and well-taught online courses.

David Dickens at Google+ had an interesting comment based on the “tech people” reference that points to the other side of the same coin.

As a tech guy I can tell you, we’d love to have the time and tools to work with motivated adjuncts (or anyone else), but often times we have to put out something that will work for everyone, will scale, and will be complete and tested before the end of the week.

It is endlessly frustrating to know that there is so much more that could be done. After all, we tech folks are completely submerged in our personal lives with much more awesome tech than we can include in these sorts of “products” as we are constrained to publish them.

There is an immense difference between A) the quality of online education and B) the quality of well-designed and well-taught online education, and that is even different than C) the potential of online education. It is a mistake to conflate A), B), and C).

Update: David is on a roll while in discussion with George Station. This clarification builds on the theme of this post.

My point is that IT isn’t the barrier, but rather we are the mask behind which all the real barriers like to hide. We’d love to do more but can’t, and we get put in the position of taking the blows that should be directed towards the underlying issues.

The post Worth Reading: Use of adjuncts and one challenge of online education appeared first on e-Literate.

LMS Is The Minivan of Education (and other thoughts from #LILI15)

Thu, 2015-05-07 07:38

By Phil HillMore Posts (318)

During yesterday’s K-20 learning platform panel at IMS Global’s Learning Impact Leadership Institute (the panel that replaced the LMS Smackdown of year’s past), Scott Jaschik started the discussion off by asking “what is the LMS?”. As I have recently complained about our Saturn Vue that replaced a Chrysler Town & Country, the answer I provided was that the LMS is the minivan of education. Everyone has them and needs them, but there’s a certain shame having one in the driveway.

The Car Committee

It’s popular to gripe about minivans, but in reality they reflect what we (the family set with kids still at home) actually are and what we do. Sure, the minivan encourages us to throw everything in the car and continue soccer mom lives, but they do offer great seating, storage, smooth rides (on boring roads at least). Likewise, the typical LMS is in actuality still a Course Management System (CMS), which reflects how courses are organized and managed in large part.

We’re done with the boring minivan and have moved on to SUVs, but the SUV has morphed into a minivan with bad gas mileage and poor seating. It feels so nice to call it a different name, but it’s still a CMS minivan at its core.

There are new innovations in the car market, like the Tesla. The risk we face in education is falling back on our RFP-driven habits. Great car demo, but the committee is using a family-driven process.  Item #142 includes having more than 5 seats, with a place for little Kenny’s sippy cup in each. You know what, let’s just make it taller and add a hatch in the back. Item #275 requires ethanol percentages (and we read an article that batteries are risky), so  could you add in an standard engine? Two years later . . . “dammit, the LMS”.

Put it together, and the LMS is important and ubiquitous, but we all know we need better options. Despite this, take away the LMS and see if students like a different method to submit assignments or check grades for every class.

Pork Belly Futures?

The metaphor has limitations, of course, as the LMS market has matured over the past few years with new options, better usability and reliability, and the beginnings of true interoperability (largely thanks to LTI).

I also do not think that the LMS is a commodity.

Is the LMS a commodity? Do you have NO opinion which you use and is price your ONLY decision criteria? That’s defines a commodity. #LILI15

— Jeremy Auger (@JeremyAuger) May 6, 2015

My reaction to the observation of the 80/20 rule (LMS has too many features, with most getting little usage) is that we need a system that does fewer things but does them very well. Then take advantage of LTI and Caliper (more on that later) to allow multiple learning tools to be used but with a way to still offer consistent user experience in system access, navigation, and provision of course administration.

I answered another question by saying that the LMS, with multiple billions invested over 17+ years, has not “moved the needle” on improving educational results. I see the value in providing a necessary academic infrastructure that can enable real gains in select programs or with new tools (e.g. adaptive software for remedial math, competency-based education for working adults), but the best the LMS itself can do is get out of the way – do its job quietly, freeing up faculty time, giving students anytime access to course materials and feedback. In aggregate, I have not seen real academic improvements directly tied to the LMS.

Two caveats:

  • The LMS has enabled blended and fully online courses, where you can see real improvements in access, etc.
  • John Baker from D2L disagreed on this subject, and he listed off internal data of 25% or more (I can’t remember detail) improved retention when clients “pick the right LMS”. John clarified after the panel the whole correlation / causation issue, but I’d love to see that data backing up this and other claims.
Caliper Update

The biggest news out of the conference is the surprisingly fast movement on Caliper. From the press release:

Caliper has progressed through successful alpha and beta specification and software releases, providing code to enable data collection, known as Sensors (or the Sensor API) and data models (known as metric profiles). A developer community web site has been set up for IMS Members while the Caliper v1 work is offered as a candidate final release.

Michael has written about the importance of Caliper here.

We live in an appy world now. The LMS is not going away, but neither is it going to be the whole of the online learning experience anymore. It is one learning space among many now. What we need is a way to tie those spaces together into a coherent learning experience. Just because you have your Tuesday class session in the lecture hall and your Friday class session in the lab doesn’t mean that what happens in one is disjointed from what happens in the other. However diverse our learning spaces may be, we need a more unified learning experience. Caliper has the potential to provide that.

The agile approach that the Caliper team, led by Intellify Learning, is using involves the creation code first, multiple iterations, and documentation in parallel. There were several proofs of concept shown at the conference of companies implementing Caliper sensors and applications.

For now, Caliper appeals to the engineer in me, where I see the novel architecture and possibilities. But that will need to change, as the community needs to see real-world applications and descriptions in educational terms. But this should not diminish the real progress being made, including proofs of concept by vendors and institutions.

And Finally

Can someone tell me why Freeman Hrabowski is not running for state or national office? Great work as president of UMBC, but he would make a great politician with national impact.

The post LMS Is The Minivan of Education (and other thoughts from #LILI15) appeared first on e-Literate.

The ETV Personalized Learning Series: What We Hope It Contributes

Tue, 2015-05-05 15:54

By Michael FeldsteinMore Posts (1026)

It seems like there has been an avalanche of high-profile books about the future of education lately—Kevin Carey’s The End of College, Jeff Selingo’s College Unbound, Anya Kamenetz’s The Test, Michael Crow’s Designing the New American University, and Fareed Zacharia’s In Defense of a Liberal Education, to name a few. The fact that so many of these books are being written now by high-profile authors and are getting so much attention indicates that there is a sense in the public consciousness that we may be at some sort of inflection point. But it’s possible to read a bunch of these books—whatever their virtues may be—and still have only a cloudy notion of what is actually happening on the ground in classrooms right now, for several reasons. First, many of these books are written by non-educators. Second, it’s hard to paint a complete picture while also marshalling examples to support a thesis about tectonic cultural change. But maybe most importantly, it’s just hard to convey a visceral sense of what’s going on in the day-to-day educational lives of teachers and students with the written word.

Which is one reason why we’re pretty excited about the release of the first two case studies in our new e-Literate TV series on the trend of so-called “personalized learning.” We see the series as primarily an exercise in journalism. We tried not to hold onto any hypothesis too tightly going in, and we committed to reporting on whatever we found, good or bad. We did look for schools that were being thoughtful about what they were trying to do and worked with them cooperatively, so it was not the kind of journalism that was likely to result in an exposé. We went in search of the current state of the art as practiced in real classrooms, whatever that turned out to be and however well it is working.

These first case studies set the tone for the series. One is on Middlebury College in Middlebury, Vermont, and the other is on Essex County College in Newark, New Jersey. The wide differences between these two schools is indicative of the kind of breadth that we have aspired to achieve for the whole series. Each case study is 30 minutes of video, broken into 10- to 15-minute segments, very little of which is us talking. (We will be releasing some analysis episodes that bookend the series, but those were filmed last and will come out after all the case studies.) And as we had hoped, each case study yielded some lessons and surprises for us.

Middlebury College, the first school we went to when we started filming, was not taking part in any cross-institutional (or even institutional) effort to pilot personalized learning technologies and not the kind of school that is typically associated the “personalized learning” software craze. Which is exactly why we wanted to start there. When most Americans think of the best example of a personalized college education, they probably think of an elite New England liberal arts college with a student/teacher ratio of under nine to one. We wanted to go to Middlebury because we wanted a baseline for comparison. We were also curious about just what such schools are thinking about and doing with educational technologies. Like it or not, the elites have an enormous influence on public consciousness and therefore on creating possibilities for improvement. For example, MIT’s announcement of OpenCourseWare was by far the reputation and credibility boost that Open Education Resources has gotten, at least in the United States. So we wanted to see what Middlebury is thinking and what they were up to. We actually knew very little about it going in. It turned out that one of our friends and partners at IN THE TELLING was a Middlebury College alumnus, and that the company was already in the process of working on a course with them. So it was convenient for us to go there. We did a little bit of vetting up front, but for the most part, we really didn’t know what we were going to find when we arrived on campus. We certainly didn’t expect to find a Middlebury professor who, on his own initiative, had rediscovered the flipped classroom approach without even knowing the term and is on a path to creating something like personalized learning courseware:

Click here to view the embedded video.

“Personalized learning” is a marketing term. A more accurate term of art would be “technology-assisted differentiated instruction.” It turns out that, in cases where students in a class come in with wildly different starting knowledge and skill levels, just teaching to the group doesn’t work, even if the group is pretty small. In Jeff’s course, he is really teaching spatial reasoning. Most people never actually get taught that skill in a meaningful way (or even taught that this is something that they could learn), which means that students enter Jeff’s class with whatever they were able to learn on their own based on their natural abilities. And as he points out in the full episode, the difference among these students is more than just how much knowledge they picked up. Domain experts think differently than novices. Experts—including untrained experts whose natural talent accelerates their understanding—tend to start from general principles and apply them to particular problems. Novices have to start by solving problems case-by-case until they can build their own mental models of the general principles. These two types of learners learn in fundamentally different ways. If you have both types in your classroom, then you need a differentiated instruction strategy to deal with that problem. And yes, this challenge can come up even in top-ranked schools.You can see the full episode with Jeff here.

Of course, the place where you really expect to see a wide range of incoming skills and quality of previous education is in public colleges and universities, and at community colleges in particular. At Essex County College, 85% of incoming students start in the lowest level developmental math course. But that statistic glosses over a critical factor, which is there is a huge range of skills and abilities within that 85%. Some students enter almost ready for the next level, just needing to brush up on a few skills, while others come in with math skills at the fourth grade level. On top of that, students come in with a wide range of metacognitive skills. Some of them have not yet learned how to learn, at least this subject in this context. When we talked to students and teachers about their “personalized learning” math classes, this was the problem that they talked about solving. Providing students with differentiated instruction, teaching them from where they are, and empowering them to take control over their educational success. Not software. Not adaptive learning algorithms. Not products. The school identified a set of educational challenges their students face and some pedagogical strategies to help the students meet those challenges. The fact that technology is an enabler is really incidental:

Click here to view the embedded video.

There’s a lot more to this story, even just in this one clip. For example, both the students and the teachers are taking on different roles in Essex County College classrooms. But nobody is being replaced or marginalized by a robot. If anything, the role of the teacher becomes more crucial as faculty get to focus on high-value one-on-one coaching and mentoring.

Even with their richness, we want to be careful not to claim that these two case studies tell anything like the whole story on personalized learning. To the contrary, we believe that one thing all the “big picture” narratives about change in education tend to lose is how heterogeneous education really is. There is no silver bullet, in part because students’ needs and goals vary so much. That’s one reason why, in the case studies we’ll be releasing over the next month, we’ll also be visiting Empire State College, Arizona State University, and University of California, Davis. Each of these school communities as substantially different student needs and substantially different approaches for meeting those needs.

Is “personalized learning” the “future of education”? We think that’s the wrong question, and it’s not one we try to answer. In fact, anyone who asks that question either doesn’t understand education or is just trying to sell you something. We’re more interested in what thoughtful teachers and students are trying and learning about within the family of approaches that has been lumped under the marketing term “personalized learning” as they try to help the students in their local contexts improve their lives.

You can see the full first two case studies here, which is also where we will be releasing the future case studies and our bookend analysis episodes over the coming weeks. We welcome your feedback, either in comments or on Twitter using the hashtag #eLiterateTV.


The post The ETV Personalized Learning Series: What We Hope It Contributes appeared first on e-Literate.

Release of e-Literate TV Series on Personalized Learning

Tue, 2015-05-05 15:52

By Phil HillMore Posts (318)

Today we are thrilled to release the initial episodes in our new e-Literate TV series on “personalized learning”. In this series, we examine how that term, which is heavily marketed but poorly defined, is implemented on the ground at a variety of colleges and universities. What does it really mean in practice? What problem is intended to solve? And how well is it working?


We have initially released case studies of approximately 30 minutes each from two very different schools – Middlebury College and Essex County College. You can see all the episodes (either 2 or 3 per case study) at the series link, and you can access individual episodes below.

e-Literate TV, owned and run by MindWires Consulting, is funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. When we first talked about the series with the Gates Foundation, they agreed to give us the editorial independence to report what we find, whether it is good, bad, or indifferent.

As with the previous series, we are working in collaboration with In the Telling, our partners providing the platform and video production. Their Telling Story platform allows people to choose their level of engagement, from just watching the video to accessing synchronized transcripts and accessing transmedia. We have added content directly to the timeline of each video, bringing up further references, like e-Literate blog posts or relevant scholarly articles, in context. With In The Telling’s help, we are crafting episodes that we hope will be appealing and informative to those faculty, presidents, provosts, and other important college and university stakeholders who are not ed tech junkies.

We will release three more case studies over the next month or two, and we also have two episodes discussing the common themes we observed on the campuses. We welcome your feedback, either in comments or on Twitter using the hashtag #eLiterateTV.


The post Release of e-Literate TV Series on Personalized Learning appeared first on e-Literate.

Pitchbook Lists Most Valuable Ed Tech Companies

Tue, 2015-04-28 18:16

By Phil HillMore Posts (317)

Update: Jeez – sorry about the multiple typos (mistakenly showed in thousands instead of millions). Fixed now.

Pitchbook – a database service for M&A, private equity and venture capital – listed in Hot Topics what they saw as the top ten most valuable ed tech companies based on public valuations[1]. The definition of startup is a little loose, as one company (D2L) was founded in 1999 and public companies are excluded.

Below are the market valuation estimates, to which I have added the year each company was founded along with the total funding by each company in parentheses, according to Crunchbase data.

Company (year founded, funding total)  Market Valuation

  1. Pluralsight (2004, $169m)            $1.0 billion
  2. Instructure (2008, $79m)               $554 million
  3. (1995, $289m)             $456 million
  4. Coursera (2012, $85m)                   $367 million
  5. Open English (2006, $120m)        $350 million
  6. Craftsy (2010, $106m)                   $339 million
  7. D2L (1999, $165m)                        $330 million
  8. Lumos Labs (2005, $68m)           $265 million
  9. Clever (2012, $44m)                      $247 million
  10. Edmodo (2008, $88m)                 $236 million

Some notes to consider:

  • 2U, not listed as they are public (I assume), is worth approximately $1.1 billion.
  • Chegg, also not listed as they are public, is worth approximately $674 million.
  • was purchased by LinkedIn this month for $1.5 billion – obviously a premium – but take the data with a grain of salt due to market variations.
  • Pitchbook listed Sympoz, but I listed them as Craftsy, the company name.
  • Pitchbook noted how US-centric their own list is, but this is partially due to their own data collection methods.
  1. Note that estimates are as of the end of 2014.

The post Pitchbook Lists Most Valuable Ed Tech Companies appeared first on e-Literate.

ASU, edX and The Black Knight: MOOCs are not dead yet

Wed, 2015-04-22 18:24

By Phil HillMore Posts (316)

In 2012 I wrote a post during the emergence of MOOC mania, pointing out some barriers that must be overcome for the new model to survive.

So what are the barriers that must be overcome for the MOOC concept (in future generations) to become self-sustaining? To me the most obvious barriers are:

  • Developing revenue models to make the concept self-sustaining;
  • Delivering valuable signifiers of completion such as credentials, badges or acceptance into accredited programs;
  • Providing an experience and perceived value that enables higher course completion rates (most today have less than 10% of registered students actually completing the course); and
  • Authenticating students in a manner to satisfy accrediting institutions or hiring companies that the student identify is actually known.

Fig 3 EvolutionCombine20120927

Since that time, of course, the MOOC hype has faded away, partially based on the above barriers not being overcome.

Today, Arizona State University (ASU) and edX announced a new program, Global Freshman Academy, that takes direct aim at all four barriers and could be the most significant MOOC program yet. From the New York Times story:

Arizona State University, one of the nation’s largest universities, is joining with edX, a nonprofit online venture founded by M.I.T. and Harvard, to offer an online freshman year that will be available worldwide with no admissions process and full university credit.

In the new Global Freshman Academy, each credit will cost $200, but students will not have to pay until they pass the courses, which will be offered on the edX platform as MOOCs, or Massive Open Online Courses.

Later in the article we find out more details on pricing and number of courses.

The new program will offer 12 courses — eight make up a freshman year — created by Arizona State professors. It will take an unlimited number of students. Neither Mr. Agarwal nor Mr. Crow would predict how many might enroll this year.

The only upfront cost will be $45 a course for an identity-verified certificate. Altogether, eight courses and a year of credit will cost less than $6,000.

ASU will pay for the course development and edX will pay for the platform. They eventually hope to get foundation funding, but ASU president Michael Crow promised that “we’re going ahead no matter what”.

This is a big commitment, and it will be interesting to see the results of program that addresses revenue models, identity verification, completion rates and awarding actual credit. As Crow described:

“We were not big believers in MOOCs without credit, courses without a connection to degrees, so we focused our attention on building degree programs,” Mr. Crow said.

Pay attention to this one, whether you’re a MOOC fan or not.


The post ASU, edX and The Black Knight: MOOCs are not dead yet appeared first on e-Literate.

Cisco’s Collaborative Knowledge: Further blurring of higher ed & professional dev lines

Tue, 2015-04-21 17:31

By Phil HillMore Posts (315)

Cisco, which at one time was the most valuable in the world, made an announcement that apparently got no one’s attention (outside of the venerable e-Literate). Cisco[1] released a new product, Collaborative Knowledge (CK), that is designed to allow companies to access real-time expertise and enable collaborative work based on employees’ expertise, or in another word, competencies. From the press release (because I cannot find an independent news article to reference):

To be positioned for growth, performance and productivity, organizations must transform into digital workplaces where knowledge sharing, learning and talent innovation are able to occur in real-time, anytime, anywhere.

Cisco Collaborative Knowledge integrates best-in-class consumer and business technologies to enable capabilities such as highly secure knowledge sharing, expert identification, continuous learning, social networking and analytics into one complete and end-to-end enterprise knowledge exchange. With Cisco Collaborative Knowledge, workers are able to benefit from these continuous learning features, helping organizations innovate and solve real-world business challenges.

Beyond the Buzzwords, What Is It?

The key description here is “knowledge sharing, expert identification, continuous learning, social networking and analytics”. The best way to conceptualize this product is by *not* viewing it as an LMS, which in corporate circles tends to be designed around formal learning programs and learning administrators needs. Like Instructure’s Bridge product, the new new Cisco offering is designed around end user needs, and it seems to be a very different approach – not knowledge management, but employee access to knowledge, learning and networking based on expertise.


Unlike an LMS, Cisco CK attempts to leverage informal, or tacit, knowledge by building up profiles of employees that include endorsed knowledge maps.


In aggregate, a company builds up a knowledge map that allows employees to browse and search.


One of the core use cases is for an employee to do a context-sensitive universal search across employees, communities, libraries and training catalogs. Once there are users identified with the endorsed skills matching a search, there is built-in capability to contact that employee by phone, email, or WebEx virtual discussion.


In another tab of results, you can find communities – which include discussions, blogs & wikis.



This product seems to hit the right notes in terms of helping end users – employees – get their jobs done; contrary to historical learning or knowledge systems that feel like forcing employees to make some learning department’s job easier. What is probably the most interesting aspect to me, in terms of corporate knowledge & collaboration, is how a full implementation of Cisco CK would reorganize a company more along personal knowledge, networking and experience and away from hierarchies and linear control.

Use in Higher Ed

During the demo, the group mostly described usage of Cisco CK within companies, or perhaps as a nod to me being in the call, “also in higher ed”. To be honest, I don’t see that the straight-forward implementation of the product suite makes sense within a college or university. While the concept makes sense on paper, universities (especially faculty) are organized into semi-autonomous departments, divisions or colleges where cross-campus collaboration is not encouraged unless for a defined academic program. I could see faculty seeing this as a time sink, not wanting to be “catalogued” and not wanting people to be able to access them with one click. I could be wrong here, but it seems like a cultural mismatch.

I could see Cisco CK applied across a discipline-specific group, but in many cases it would be difficult to know who is the purchasing entity and who is administering the system. Cisco’s example video released along with the product announcement was based on the New York Academy of Sciences, a scientific society, which somewhat backs up this supposition. There might be other direct uses in education, but likely not in higher education institutions. Let me know if I’m missing something in the comments.

What is relevant to higher ed in my mind, however, is not the idea of institutional implementations but rather the set of uses that could be enabled by connecting to external data sources. During the demo the team described that the system does allow access to multiple sites, but some integrations are not there, yet. If a user searches for a particular skill or competency, one of the search results will include relevant sections of the training catalog. I believe the system is designed for the primary source to be the corporate LMS here. But what if the “catalog” includes continuing education courses offered by partner institutions? What about MOOCs targeted at professional development – particularly following the concept of the Open Education Alliance or Coursera’s Specializations?

This track seems to be a real opening for educational providers – whether institutions in a continuing education role or alternative providers – to more directly connect to employers and their money. The service might not just be for courses but also for external experts as shown in the video above. This move could further blur the line between higher education and professional development.


Furthermore, let’s look at the knowledge map of each employee’s profile. Right now it seems set up to be an internal database, with Cisco providing an internal LinkedIn service for their customers. I asked if Cisco had plans to allow external definitions of the knowledge map, such as directly integrating to LinkedIn. They indicated ‘it is on the roadmap’. If that does happen, now you can see a direct mapping of actual competencies from someone’s education into company-endorsed expertise. You could be known within a company not just as ‘Sarah with an accounting degree working in corporate finance’, but as ‘Sarah with expertise on amortization and competitive analysis’.

I do not know enough about the corporate knowledge / training market to judge whether Cisco CK will be a success, but the product is intriguing. If they go down the path of integrating external data sources of training or education opportunities, and if they go down the path of acknowledging a LinkedIn definition of skills (or perhaps competencies coming from a CBE degree), then this announcement can be quite significant. This announcement would accelerate the move towards companies defining more from the demand-side on what educational opportunities they want for their employees and what skills or competencies they want from college graduates.

There is a growing movement among companies, especially technology companies, to value skills and competencies. What Cisco CK gives a view of is that this valuation is not just a matter of hiring college graduates. This valuation is moving into how a company operates and how employees are valued over time based on their acquired knowledge. Cisco CK also has the potential to offer a valuable marketplace for post-degree or alternative-to-degree education providers.

From a long-term perspective, count Cisco CK as a view towards a redefinition of what institutions and alternative educational providers produce as outputs – not just degrees and grades, but also skills and competencies and lifelong learning opportunities.

  1. Disclosure: Cisco, through a different division, is a client of MindWires Consulting.

The post Cisco’s Collaborative Knowledge: Further blurring of higher ed & professional dev lines appeared first on e-Literate.

2U Learning Platform Update: Removal of Moodle, addition of accessibility options

Mon, 2015-04-20 06:25

By Phil HillMore Posts (314)

2U has now been a public company for over a year, and that had what is easily the most successful education IPO in recent history. Shares have almost doubled from $13.00 at IPO to $25.50 last week. At the same time, there is a swirl of news around their new partner Yale and the Physician Assistant’s program – first the announcement of program from one of the elite of elite schools, second the news that accreditation approval for the new program is not going to be as easy as hoped.

While both aspects are newsworthy, I’d like to dive deeper into their infrastructure and learning platforms. The company is far from complacent, as they continue to make significant changes.

One emerging trend that both Michael and I have been covering is the growing idea that there are real benefits to be gained when pedagogy and platform are developed in parallel. From Michael’s intro to the Post-LMS series:

Reading Phil’s multiple reviews of Competency-Based Education (CBE) “LMSs”, one of the implications that jumps out at me is that we see a much more rapid and coherent progression of learning platform designs if you start with a particular pedagogical approach in mind. CBE is loosely tied to family of pedagogical methods, perhaps the most important of which at the moment is mastery learning. In contrast, questions about why general LMSs aren’t “better” beg the question, “Better for what?” Since conversations of LMS design are usually divorced from conversations of learning design, we end up pretending that the foundational design assumptions in an LMS are pedagogically neutral when they are actually assumptions based on traditional lecture/test pedagogy. I don’t know what a “better” LMS looks like, but I am starting to get a sense of what an LMS that is better for CBE looks like. In some ways, the relationship between platform and pedagogy is similar to the relationship former Apple luminary Alan Kay claimed between software and hardware: “People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.” It’s hard to separate serious digital learning design from digital learning platform design (or, for that matter, from physical classroom design). The advances in CBE platforms are a case in point.

2U is following the same concept. Their pedagogy is based on small discussion sections (they boast an average class size of ~11 students) within masters level programs, combining synchronous discussions using a Brady Bunch approach.

Live Courses

They also use a Bi-directional Learning Tool (BLT). The following video references the ill-fated Semester Online program, but the tool applies to all their customers.

2U’s approach also adds in custom-developed video segments that act as case studies.

Learning Platform Keeps Connect, Removes Moodle

Initially 2U patched together Moodle as an LMS and Adobe Connect as web conferencing for the video sessions, developing custom tools and applications to tie it all together. In additional to the learning platforms used within the courses, 2U also developed custom enrollment projections, marketing, support and application services, but in this post I’m going to focus on the learning components.

In an interview with James Kenigsberg, CTO, and Rob Cohen, President & COO, they described the rationale for the recent changes as architectural in nature – moving to a more modular approach and improving reliability. James and Rob said that their learning platforms are absolutely a pairing of technology and pedagogy. In their term, agnostic platforms don’t accomplish much.

James described their origins of using Moodle with belief that it’s “OK to start with a bowl of spaghetti code if you understand what you want”, and that this is their second refactoring of code in the past six years. They had already heavily customized the Moodle code, but now 2U will have all Moodle components out of the platform by the end of CY 2015. In their description Moodle was great to start with as the base, but now they need a different approach.

2U relies heavily on Adobe Connect, with access to video tools and rooms available throughout the overall learning platform. The rationale for Adobe Connect (vs. Blackboard Collaborate, for example) in that Connect provides a persistent “room” for each faculty member, allowing them to customize, add their own content & quizzes, setup of polls, and general configuration[1]. This room is then available to them through their courses. Other tools tend to have separate meeting instances, such that the content and configuration and setup but no longer available after the meeting. For general configuration of the room, faculty members using 2U’s platform can make choices such as only allowing students to speak in virtual room as they raise their hand vs. initiating everyone to talk on unmute.

For the technology stack, 2U is based on Amazon Web Services (AWS) with files saved to Amazon’s S3 file system. The BLT is built on Angular JS.


2U has also taken advantage of the combined platform + pedagogy approach to make some improvements in accessibility as well. For this area, the benefit is more from combining platform and content than pure pedagogy, however.

For sight-impaired students, there is already compatibility with screen readers such as JAWS, but there is a new audio-overlay feature that is interesting. For the case study videos, 2U enables an option for students to hear a narrated audio track in parallel to the recorded video’s playback. For example, in this video from the social work program at USC, the Abby character is talking to a social worker. The audio track option adds descriptions to give the video context for sight-impaired, such as:

Later, Abby rushes into Carol’s office. [dialogue] Abby sits down. [dialogue]

Abby pre flashback

During one transition, Abby describes her memories from childhood, and the audio overlay describes.

In a flashback, ten year old Abby lies across her bed doing homework. Fran looks in. [dialogue] Abby sits up and gathers her books. [dialogue]

Abby flashback

This tight integration works because the same people working on the platform are also working on the course material.

For hearing-impaired students, 2U has added two different transcript capabilities. One choice is having full transcript below video[2].


Another choice is to overlay the transcript as in closed-caption style.


As there are more efforts to create online courses and programs, the topic of accessibility is becoming more important. Just this month, edX settled with the Department of Justice while there are lawsuits against Harvard and MIT for their usage of the platform.

EdX, an online learning platform that Harvard co-founded with MIT in 2012, entered into a settlement agreement with the Department of Justice on Thursday and will address alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. That settlement could come to bear on a separate but similar lawsuit against Harvard that revolves around issues of accessibility online.

Namely, the edX settlement will require the platform to become accessible for people with disabilities—including those who are deaf or visually impaired. [snip]

The settlement comes as the National Association of the Deaf sues Harvard and MIT for allegedly discriminating against the deaf and hard of hearing by not providing online captioning both for the courses they offer through edX and the rest of their online content. The private lawsuit, filed in February, accuses the University of violating both the American with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, which requires that educational institutions that receive federal funding provide equal access to disabled individuals. Legal experts have said that the suits against Harvard and MIT has merit.

This challenge of supporting students with disabilities within online courses has been a difficult one to solve, particularly as real solutions require both the platform to have generic capabilities, the content (often created by individual faculty on their own prerogative) to follow appropriate guidelines, and for the addition of transcripts / captions and audio.

2U has the benefit of being directly involved in all three areas and by having their learning platforms designed and customized for their specific pedagogical approach.

Standing Apart in Crowded Market

2U’s approach is unique in the crowded market of Online Service Providers, or “enablers”. 2U is vertically integrated and focused on niche programs – high-tuition masters programs at elite institutions. Most of the competition – Pearson EmbaNet, Wiley Deltak, LearningHouse, Academic Partnerships, etc – are going in different directions that include broad offerings (masters, bachelors, broad range of pedagogy).

I was a little late in covering 2U, largely because of my discomfort with two interdependent aspects of their business:

Furthermore, this vertically-integrated company goes against much of the movement towards interoperability and breaking down walled gardens. But the company is growing and seems to be quite successful, and I do like the strong focus on academic quality and student support. It is worth understanding how this tight combination of platform and pedagogy within the company plays out.

  1. Note: I believe that Bb Collaborate has an option for persistent faculty sessions, but the core design is based on events.
  2. In both cases I’m showing the mouse hover to also show the platform selection tool.

The post 2U Learning Platform Update: Removal of Moodle, addition of accessibility options appeared first on e-Literate.

Interesting Comment on Pearson’s LMS Plans From Customer

Thu, 2015-04-16 06:20

By Phil HillMore Posts (313)

On April 1, long-time eCollege (aka Pearson’s LearningStudio) customer Texas Christian University (TCU) gave an update on their LMS selection process to the student newspaper TCU360. In this article there was an interesting statement[1] worth exploring [emphasis added].

“eCollege” will soon be a thing of the past.

TCU has narrowed its search for a Learning Management System to two platforms, Blackboard and Desire2Learn (D2L).

“We’ve had feedback, from faculty specifically, that it’s time for change,” Assistant Provost of Educational Technology and Faculty Development Romy Hughes said.

TCU has used Pearson’s Learning Studio system since 1999.

“Pearson is out of the learning management system game,” Hughes said. “We need something to evolve with the Academy of Tomorrow and where we’re moving to at TCU.”

That last comment got my attention. The eCollege / LearningStudio platform has been around for a long time, and there have been questions about where Pearson was going in the LMS market based on 2011’s introduction of OpenClass. Would OpenClass replace LearningStudio over time, and would it strongly change the LMS market? Would both OpenClass and LearningStudio continue as standalone LMS products? It is quite clear by now that OpenClass itself has not changed the market, but LearningStudio has a long-time customer base of fully online programs – many in the for-profit sector.

Furthermore, with Pearson’s reorganization around efficacy, their core document states (p. 14):

The overarching idea was that our investments should be driven towards those products which deliver the highest impact for learners while sustaining us financially so we can continue to invest in new models and improvements.

There is a question of whether Pearson’s internal reviews around LearningStudio and OpenClass are leading to strategic changes around their position in the LMS market.

I asked for Pearson to provide official comment, and David Daniels, president of Pearson Education, responded with the following clarification.

Pearson has not left the LMS space and will continue to invest in our current generation MyLabs and support our many customers on LearningStudio into the future. Pearson’s Learning Studio still powers over 3 Million enrollments annually in the fully remote, online learning space. Our commitment to servicing these students and their institutions is unwavering. Our focus has been and will be on how we support these students within the learning environment. Our range of support services includes learning design and assessment support, integration, data and analytics , student retention, tutoring, and technical support.

This statement is quite clear that there is no imminent end-of-life for LearningStudio, and it is also quite clear about their focus on the “fully remote, online learning space”. This system is primarily used by fully online programs, but there have been a handful of campus-wide clients such as TCU still using the system from the early days. That Pearson LearningStudio would not be appropriate for TCU’s future is partially explained by this focus on full online.

The statement does make an interesting distinction, however, between investing in MyLabs and supporting LearningStudio. My read is that Pearson is not investing in LearningStudio in terms of major product advances and next generation plans but is continuing to fully support current customers. My read is also that Pearson would add new customers to LearningStudio if part of a broader deal tied to content or online “enabling” services (such as Embanet), but that there is no plan for the company to compete in pure LMS competitions.

To help back up this reading, I discovered that the TCU360 article was updated as follows:

“Pearson is out of the learning management system game,” Hughes said. “We need something to evolve with the Academy of Tomorrow and where we’re moving to at TCU.”Hughes said Pearson withdrew from the LMS search process for TCU but remains an LMS provider.

At TCU, at least, the competition is down to Blackboard and D2L, with D2L in the driver’s seat. This competition is also notable by Canvas not being one of the finalists (haven’t seen this situation lately).

One final note on TCU’s selection process described in the article.

These percentages were based on a 214-item questionnaire called the Review Request for Information (RFI) document. These questions were used to assess whether or not a system had the features that TCU was looking for.

“Most LMS vendors told us it took them exactly three months to complete [the questionnaire] because there were so many specific details we were looking for,” Hughes said.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – making a strategic platform selection by a laundry list of hundreds of detailed feature requirements is not a healthy process. I would not brag that it took vendors three full months to complete a questionnaire. But we have one more example to clarify Michael’s classic “Dammit, the LMS” post.

Do you want to know why the LMS has barely evolved at all over the last twenty years and will probably barely evolve at all over the next twenty years? It’s not because the terrible, horrible, no-good LMS vendors are trying to suck the blood out of the poor universities. It’s not because the terrible, horrible, no-good university administrators are trying to build a panopticon in which they can oppress the faculty. The reason that we get more of the same year after year is that, year after year, when faculty are given an opportunity to ask for what they want, they ask for more of the same.

I’d be willing to bet that the vast majority of those 214 items in the RFI are detailed features or direct derivatives of what TCU already has. Even if I’m wrong, it makes little sense for a school to specify the future with detailed requirements; they’re selecting a vendor, not specifying a new design. I wish TCU the best in their LMS selection process, but I would recommend that they put more emphasis on strategic analysis and less on counting check-boxes.

  1. Statement from the original article before it was updated.

The post Interesting Comment on Pearson’s LMS Plans From Customer appeared first on e-Literate.

Ellucian Buys Helix LMS, But Will It Matter?

Wed, 2015-04-15 09:14

By Phil HillMore Posts (312)

At this year’s Ellucian users’ conference #elive15, one of the two big stories has been that Ellucian acquired the Helix LMS, including taking on the development team. I have previously described the Helix LMS in “Helix: View of an LMS designed for competency-based education” as well as the subsequent offer for sale in “Helix Education puts their competency-based LMS up for sale”. The emerging market for CBE-based learning platforms is quickly growing, at least in terms of pilot programs and long-term potential, and Helix is one of the most full-featured, well-designed systems out there.

The Announcement

From the announcement:

Ellucian has acquired Helix Education’s competency-based education LMS and introduced a 2015 development partner program to collaborate with customers on the next-generation, cloud-only solution.

As the non-traditional student stands to make up a significant majority of learners by 2019, Ellucian is investing in technologies that align with priorities of colleges and universities it serves. CBE programs offer a promising new way for institutions to reduce the cost and time of obtaining a high-quality degree that aligns with the skills required by today’s employers.

I had been surprised at the announcement of intent-to-sell in December, noting:

The other side of the market effect will be determined by which company buys the Helix LMS. Will a financial buyer (e.g. private equity) choose to create a standalone CBE platform company? Will a traditional LMS company buy the Helix LMS to broaden their reach in the quickly-growing CBE space (350 programs in development in the US)? Or will an online service provider and partial competitor of Helix Education buy the LMS? It will be interesting to see which companies bid on this product line and who wins.

And I am surprised at the answer – a private equity owned ERP vendor. Throughout the mid 2000s there was talk about the ERP vendors like SunGard Higher Education (SGHE) (which combined with Datatel in 2011 and renamed as Ellucian in 2012) and Oracle entering the LMS market by acquisition, yet this did not materialize beyond the dreaded strategic partnership . . . until perhaps this week. But the Helix LMS was designed specifically for CBE programs, not general usage, so is this really a move into the broader LMS market?

When I interviewed Helix Education about the LMS last summer, they stated several times that the system could be used for non-CBE programs, but there is no evidence that this has actually occurred. I’ll admit that it is more likely to expand a CBE system into general usage than it is to convert a course-based traditional LMS into a CBE system, but it is not clear that the end result of such an expansion would remain a compelling product with user experience appreciated by faculty and students. The path is not risk-free.

Based on briefings yesterday at #elive15, there is evidence that:

  • Ellucian plans to expand the Helix LMS (which will be renamed) beyond CBE; and
  • Ellucian understands that there is development still remaining for this broader usage[1].

Ellucian LMS

Courtesy Ryan Schwiebert:

Support for broad set of delivery models: CBE, Online, Hybrid, Blended, Traditional, CE/WFD

One Challenge: Strategy

But there are already signs that Ellucian is not committed to deliver an LMS with “support for broad set of delivery models”. As described at Inside Higher Ed:

At its user conference in New Orleans, Ellucian announced the acquisition of Helix Education’s learning management system. The company will “blend” the software, which supports nontraditional methods of tracking student progress, into its student information system, said Mark Jones, chief product officer at Ellucian. While he stressed that the company is not planning to become a major learning management system provider, Ellucian will make the system available to departments interested in offering competency-based education.

“The initial goal and focus is on enabling competency-based education programs to flourish,” Jones said. “In terms of being a broader L.M.S. solution, if our customers find value… we will certainly have that conversation.”

I asked Jim Ritchey, president of Delta Initiative and who is attending the conference, for his reaction to Ellucian’s strategy. Jim noted the reaction at the conference to the news “seemed to be more of a curiosity than interest”, and then added:

To me, one of the key questions is how Ellucian will “blend” the software. Do they mean that schools will be able to post the results of the competency based courses to the SIS, or are they talking about leveraging other products within the LMS? For example, some of the capabilities of Pilot could be leveraged to deliver additional capabilities to the LMS. The concern I would have is that tying the LMS to other products will cause the LMS development to be dependent on the roadmaps of the other products. Ellucian will need to find the right level of independence for the LMS so it can grow as a solution while using other products to enhance capabilities. Will the LMS get lost?

In addition there the differing nature of the products to consider. The Helix LMS is centered on the learner and the learner’s schedule, while Banner, Colleague, and PowerCampus are centered on academic terms and courses. These differing design concepts could cause the blending process to remove some of the unique value of the LMS.

Another Challenge: Execution

On paper, this deal seems significant. The company with arguably the greatest number of US higher ed clients now owns an LMS that not only has a modern design but also is targeted at the new wave of CBE programs. The real question, however, is whether Ellucian can pull this off based on their own track record.

Since the 2011 acquisition of SGHE by the private equity firm Hellman & Friedman, Ellucian has endured wave after wave of layoffs and cost cutting measures. I described in 2011 how the SGHE acquisition could pay for itself.

If Hellman & Friedman can achieve reasonable efficiencies by combing SGHE with Datatel, this investment could potentially justify itself in 5 – 7 years by focusing on cash flow operating income, even without SGHE finding a way to reverse its decline in revenue.

Add to this Ellucian’s poor track record of delivering on major product upgrades. The transition from Banner 8 to Banner 9, or later to Banner XE, was described in 2008, promised in 2010, re-promised in 2011, and updated in 2012 / 2013. Banner XE is actually a strategy and not a product. To a degree, this is more a statement of the administrative systems / ERP market in general than just on Ellucian, but the point is that this is a company in a slow-moving market. Workday’s entry into the higher education ERP market has shaken up the current vendors – primarily Ellucian and Oracle / Peoplesoft – and I suspect that many of Ellucian’s changes are in direct response to Workday’s new market power.

Ellucian has bought itself a very good LMS and a solid development team. But will Ellucian have the management discipline to finish the product development and integration that hits the sweet spot for at least some customers? Furthermore, will the Ellucian sales staff sell effectively into the academic systems market?

A related question is why Ellucian is trying to expand into this adjacent market. It seems that Ellucian is suffering from having too many products, and the LMS addition that from the outset requires a new set of development could be a distraction. As Ritchey described after the 2012 conference (paraphrasing what he heard from other attendees):

The approach makes sense, but the hard decisions have not been made. Supporting every product is easy to say and not easy to deliver. At some point in time, they will finalize the strategy and that is when we will begin to learn the future.

In The End . . .

The best argument I have read for this acquisition was provided by Education Dive.

Ellucian is already one of the largest providers of cloud-based software and this latest shift with Banner and Colleague will allow its higher education clients to do even more remotely. Enterprise resource planning systems help colleges and universities increase efficiency with technology. Ellucian touts its ERPs as solutions for automating admissions, creating a student portal for services as well as a faculty portal for grades and institutional information, simplifying records management, managing records, and tracking institutional metrics. The LMS acquisition is expected to take the data analytics piece even further, giving clients more information about students to aid in retention and other initiatives.

But these benefits will matter if and only if Ellucian can overcome its history and deliver focused product improvements. The signals I’m getting so far are that Ellucian has not figured out its strategy and has not demonstrated its ability to execute in this area. Color me watchful but skeptical.

  1. See the “development partner program” part of the announcement.

The post Ellucian Buys Helix LMS, But Will It Matter? appeared first on e-Literate.

GSV 2015 Review

Sun, 2015-04-12 11:06

By Michael FeldsteinMore Posts (1026)

The basic underlying theme of the 2015 GSV Ed Innovation conference is “more is more.” There were more people, more presentations, more deal-making, more celebrities…more of everything, really. If you previously thought that the conference and the deal-making behind it was awesome, you would probably find this year to be awesomer. If you thought it was gross, you would probably think this year was grosser. Overall, it has gotten so big that there is just too much to wrap your head around. I really don’t know how to summarize the conference.

But I can give some observations and impressions.

More dumb money: Let’s start with a basic fact: There is more money coming into the market.

If there is more total money coming in, then it stands to reason that there is also more dumb money coming in. I definitely saw plenty of stupid products that were funded, acquired, and/or breathlessly covered. While it wasn’t directly conference-related, I found it apropos that Boundless was acquired right around the time of the conference. I have made my opinions about Boundless clear before. I have no opinion about Valore’s decision to acquire them, in large part because I don’t know the important details. It might make sense for a company like Valore to acquire Boundless for their platform—if the price is right. But this doesn’t appear to be a triumph for Boundless or their investors. To the contrary, it smells like a bailout of Boundless’ investors to me, although I admit that have no evidence to prove that. If the company were doing so awesomely, then I don’t think the investors would have sold at this point. (Boundless, in typical Boundless fashion, characterizes the transaction as a “merger” rather than an “acquisition.” #Winning.) Of course, you wouldn’t know that this is anything less than the total takeover of education from the breathless press coverage. Xconomy asks whether the combined company will be the “Netflix of educational publishing.”


So yeah, there’s plenty of dumb money funding dumb companies, aided and abetted by dumb press coverage. But is there proportionally more dumb money, or is there just more dumb money in absolute terms as part of the overall increase in investment? This is an important question, because it is a strong indicator of whether the idiocy is just part of what comes when an immature industry grows or whether we are in a bubble. This particular kind of market analysis is somewhat outside my wheelhouse, but my sense, based on my fragmented experience of the conference added to other recent experiences and observations, is that it’s a bit of both. Parts of the market have clearly gotten ahead of themselves, but there also are some real businesses emerging. Unsurprisingly, some of the biggest successes are not the ones that are out to “disrupt” education. Apparently the ed tech company that got the most money last year was which, in addition to being a good bet, doesn’t really compete head-on with colleges (and, in fact, sells to schools). Phil has written a fair bit about 2U; that company only exists because they have been able to get high-end schools to trust them with their prestige brands. This brings me to my next observation:

More smart money: 2U is a good example of a company that, if you had described it to me in advance, I probably would have told you that it never could work. The companies that do well are likely to be the ones that either figure out an angle that few people see coming or execute extremely well (or, in 2U’s case, both).[1] 2U is also one of very few ed tech that have made it to a successful IPO (although there are more that have been successfully sold to a textbook publisher, LMS vendor, or other large company). I am seeing more genuinely interesting companies getting funding and recognition. Three recent examples: Lumen Learning getting angel funding, Acrobatiq winning the ASU-GSV Return on Education Award, and Civitas closing Series C funding a couple of months ago. I also had more interesting and fewer eye-rolling conversations at the conference this year than in past years. Part of that is because my filters are getting better, but I also think that the median educational IQ of the conference attendees has risen a bit as at least some of the players learn from experience.

Textbooks are dead, dead, dead: McGraw Hill Education CEO David Levin was compelled to start his talk by saying, essentially, “Yeah yeah yeah, everybody hates textbooks and they are dying as a viable business. We get it. We’re going to have all digital products for much less money than the paper textbooks very soon, and students will be able to order the paper books for a nominal fee.” He then went on to announce a new platform where educators can develop their own content.

Pay heed, OER advocates.

I saw Mark Cuban: He has noticeably impressive pecs. Also,

Arizona is nicer than Massachusetts in early April.

  1. Corollary: Companies trying to be the “Netflix of education” or the “Uber of education” or the “Facebook of education” will usually turn out to be as ridiculous—meaning “worthy of ridicule”—as they sound.

The post GSV 2015 Review appeared first on e-Literate.

Why LinkedIn Matters

Sat, 2015-04-11 12:54

By Michael FeldsteinMore Posts (1026)

A few folks have asked me to elaborate on why I think LinkedIn is the most interesting—and possibly the most consequential—company in ed tech.

Imagine that you wanted to do a longitudinal study of how students from a particular college do in their careers. In other words, you want to study long-term outcomes. How did going to that college affect their careers? Do some majors do better than others? And how do alumni fare when compared to their peers who went to other schools? Think about how you would get the data. The college could ask alumni, but it would be very hard to get a good response rate, and even then, the data would go stale pretty quickly. There are governmental data sources you could look at, but there are all kinds of thorny privacy and regulatory issues.

There is only one place in the world I know of where bazillions of people voluntarily enter their longitudinal college and career information, keep it up-to-date, and actually want it to be public.


LinkedIn is the only organization I know of, public or private, that has the data to study long-term career outcomes of education in a broad and meaningful way. Nobody else comes close. Not even the government. Their data set is enormous, fairly comprehensive, and probably reasonably accurate. Which also means that they are increasingly in a position to recommend colleges, majors, and individual courses and competencies. An acquisition like gives them an ability to sell an add-on service—“People who are in your career track advanced faster when they took a course like this one, which is available to you for only X dollars”—but it also feeds their data set. Right now, schools are not reporting individual courses to the company, and it’s really too much to expect individuals to fill out comprehensive lists of courses that they took. The more that LinkedIn can capture that information automatically, the more the company can start searching for evidence that enables them to reliably make more fine-grained recommendations to job seekers (like which skills or competencies they should acquire) as well as to employers (like what kinds of credentials to look for in a job candidate). Will the data actually provide credible evidence to make such recommendations? I don’t know. But if it does, LinkedIn is really the only organization that’s in a position to find that evidence right now. This is the enormous implication of the acquisition that the press has mostly missed, and it’s also one reason of many why Pando Daily’s angle on the acquisition—“Did LinkedIn’s acquisition of Lynda just kill the ed tech space?“—is a laughable piece of link bait garbage. The primary value of the acquisition wasn’t content. It was data. It was providing additional, fine-grained nodes on the career graphs of their users. Which means that LinkedIn is likely to do more acquisitions and more partnerships that help accomplish the same end, including providing access of that data for companies and schools to do their own longitudinal outcomes research. Far from “killing ed tech,” this is the first step toward building an ecosystem.

Credit: Social Media Delivered


The post Why LinkedIn Matters appeared first on e-Literate.

LinkedIn: I Told You So (Sorta)

Sat, 2015-04-11 05:54

By Michael FeldsteinMore Posts (1024)

In December 2012, I tweeted:

Let it be known that I was the first to predict that Coursera will be acquired by LinkedIn.

— Michael Feldstein (@mfeldstein67) December 5, 2012

At the time, Coursera was the darling of online ed startups. Since then, it has lost its way somewhat, while has taken off like a rocket. Which is probably one big reason why LinkedIn chose to acquire (rather than Coursera) for $1.5 billion. I still think it’s possible that they could acquire a MOOC provider as well, but Udacity seems like a better fit than Coursera at this point.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: LinkedIn is the most interesting company in ed tech.

The post LinkedIn: I Told You So (Sorta) appeared first on e-Literate.

About the Diverging Textbook Prices and Student Expenditures

Mon, 2015-03-30 16:56

By Phil HillMore Posts (308)

This is part 3 in this series. Part 1 described the most reliable data on A) how much US college textbook prices are rising and B) how much students actually pay for textbooks, showing that the College Board data is not reliable for either measure. Part 2 provided additional detail on the data source (College Board, NCES, NACS, Student Monitor) and their methodologies. Note that the textbook market is moving into a required course materials market, and in the immediate series I use both terms somewhat interchangeably based on which source I’m quoting. They are largely equivalent, but not identical.

Based on the most reliable data we have, the average college textbook prices are rising at three times the rate of inflation while average student expenditures on textbooks is remaining flat or even falling, in either case below the rate of inflation. Average student expenditures of approximately $600 per year is about half of what gets commonly reported in the national media. The combined chart comes from this GAO Report (using CPI data) and this NPR report (using Student Monitor data).

Combined Chart

Does this indicate a functioning market, and does this indicate that we don’t have a textbook pricing problem? No, and no.

Why Are Student Expenditures Not Rising Along With Prices?

The answer to this question can be partly found in the financials of your major publishing company. If students were buying new textbooks at the same rate as they used to, publishing companies would be thriving instead of cutting thousands of employees or even resorting to bankruptcy to stay afloat. Students are increasingly choosing to not buy new textbooks.

Let’s look at the NACS data (this one from Fall 2013 data, new data coming out later this week):

NACS 2013 Did Not Acquire


A few notes to highlight:

  • 30% of surveyed students chose not to acquire at least one required course material. On average, these students skipped acquiring three textbooks in just one term.
  • The top reason in this report is not based on price: 38.5% chose not to acquire required course materials because they felt the materials were not needed or wanted, and 30.2% chose not to acquire based on price.
  • By combining answers, 38.5% chose to borrow the course materials or “it was available elsewhere without purchase”.
  • From the following page (not shown), when asked what students used to substitute for non-acquired course materials:
    • 57.1% just used notes from class;
    • 46.5% borrowed material from friends or libraries; and
    • 19.1% got the chapter or material illegally.

Average expenditures don’t capture the full story, and later in the report it is noted that:

  • Students at two-year colleges spent 31% more than the average on required course materials;
  • Overall first year students spent 23% more than the average on required course materials; and
  • Overall second year students spent 10% more than the average on required course materials.

In other words, the high enrollment courses in the first two years lead to the highest student expenditures on textbooks. Note that we’re still not talking about $1,200 per year spending as often reported based on College Board data, even for these first two years.

Student Monitor also captures some information of note.

  • They report identical data – 30% choosing not to acquire at least one textbook.
  • 29% of students report they bought ‘required course materials’ that ended up not being used. Of these students, 52% will be more likely to “wait longer before purchasing course materials”.
  • They categorize the reasons for not acquiring textbooks differently; professor not using the “required” material was listed by 22% of students, lower than affordability at 31%.
  • 73% of students who downloaded textbooks illegally did so to “save money”.
Negative Impact on Students

It is important to look at both types of data – textbook list prices and student expenditures – to see some of the important market dynamics at play. All in all, students are exercising their market power to keep their expenditures down – buying used, renting, borrowing, obtaining illegally, delaying purchase, or just not using at all. And textbook publishers are suffering, despite (or largely because of) their rising prices.

But there are downsides for students. There are increasing number of students just not using their required course materials, and students often delay purchase until well into the academic term. Whether from perceived need or from rising prices, this is not a good situation for student retention and learning.

The post About the Diverging Textbook Prices and Student Expenditures appeared first on e-Literate.