One of the understandable, periodic, concerns of senior administrators and managers in higher education is the potential contribution of information technologies and, more specifically, e-learning, towards making teaching and learning 'more efficient'. Note the word is 'efficient' not just 'effective'. Efficiency is about being productive with minimum expenditure of effort; the effort so saved can then, theoretically, be utilized elsewhere. We can be effective without being efficient, at least for a limited period, but have to expend, sometimes, considerable effort in the process. Let's turn over the efficiency stone and see what lies underneath. Let's suspend reality for a moment and assume for some reason that there is a sudden global acceptance that e-learning is just simply better than the old ways of doing things. In our time-out from reality students are happy because all of the content which was previously delivered in lectures in now online, assessment is semi or totally automated either via multiple choice or assignment processing, communications between students and students-tutors are now via online discussion or chat. Faculty are happy because after an initial development effort there is suddenly much more time available for research and publication. The Executive are happy because some of the pressure on expensive estate is being released, e.g. no need for mass lecture halls.
Now back to reality.
One of the original drivers for the wholesale adoption of MLEs/VLEs was, arguably, efficiency. The findings of the 2003 UCISA VLE Surveys A longitudinal perspective (pdf), however, suggests that perspectives have changed:
“In 2001 efficiency was the second most commonly stated factor at 31%, but only half that number gave this as a reason in 2003 and does not register as a reason for HE Colleges at all (see Appendix-1, Q4.14 p23).”
So if efficiency is no longer the raison d'être for the VLE what is?
Back to the UCISA survey:
“The most commonly stated reasons for the consideration of using VLEs have changed since 2001. In 2003 65.9% of respondents stated enhanced learning and teaching, this compares with 43% in 2001.” (ibid p22)
Now whilst the UCISA survey makes interesting reading, the above two extracts perhaps imply that efficiency and enhanced teaching/learning are being viewed as mutually exclusive; but do they need to be? From a student's perspective enhanced teaching and learning is more efficient.
But even if you accept the argument for a broader view of efficiency, which incorporates enhanced teaching and learning, the UCISA survey contained more bad news.
“Recent surveys by Bell et al (2002) and Collis and van der Wende (2002) have indicated that whilst the use of ICT in learning and teaching is widespread it has not yet made a significant impact in terms of changing the patterns of learning and teaching. ” (ibid p14)
So what exactly is the white heat of e-learning technologies being used for? A useful clue lies within the 2003 JISC/UCISA survey Managed Learning Environment Activity in Further and Higher Education in the UK.
“… the reality appears to be that the student experience is being enhanced through improved delivery of teaching materials and course announcements, improved access to learning resources and better communication. Pedagogical issues are not (yet) a part of this, and, indeed, appear to have been of secondary concern until now … Increasing concern is in evidence about the uneven quality of learning and other materials, much of which is home-grown or sourced on the Internet and being 'dumped' on the systems with no observation of or opportunity for quality control procedures.”
The same passage can also be found in the JISC/UCISA full report (p7).
Those seeking some vestige of evidence related to efficiency gains will perhaps focus on terms in the above extract like: 'enhanced student experience'; 'improved delivery/announcements/access'; and 'better communication'. But any hope is quickly dashed by terms like 'uneven quality', 'dumped', 'no quality control'.
But let's not forget that students may indeed find the current use of VLE's efficient and that some Universities may find this a sufficient justification for their expenditure on such systems. But what's being made more efficient here is, arguably, the perpetuation, and perhaps even the magnification, of existing practices. Students are, understandably, finding some satisfaction from having IT supplement the current broadcast / knowledge transfer model via content online. Why? Well this makes for an even more efficient passive model because they can be confident that if they miss something transmitted during a face-to-face it's also online, i.e. it's efficient because it's less effort (for them) for the same outcome!
We are still at the starting gates in regard to the nature of our systems and our understanding of what e-learning can and cannot do. Putting content and information online is the easy part but technology only really becomes useful when it enhances the transactions of education. This will require more than systems which attempt to replicate a 'tell', broadcast, inform, or 'Sage on the stage' model of education. Unless carefully integrated with other pedagogical techniques most attempts at replicating the latter online may even deprive the student of the motivational benefits to learning of being at the 'live' event with a group of their peers.
Let's summarize where we've got to so far in our quest for this nebulous concept of e-learning enabled efficiency.
First, not many people now claim their institutions have a VLE for efficiency reasons but instead now it's all about enhancing quality. But I've suggested enhancing quality cannot be separated from efficiency. Second, although not many people now claim their institutions have a VLE for efficiency reasons, students appear to appreciate the efficiency of having content and announcements online; some may claim this as evidence of the efficiencies wrought by technology, whereas others would see this as a sad perpetuation of a passive transmission model of higher education.
So we can begin to see the limitations of the dictionary definition of 'efficiency' as a reduction of 'x' effort to achieve 'y' work because we first have to agree what the 'work' is and how it's best done. In a corporate or manufacturing context which has a defined physical product range and sets of defined processes which always produces a standardized product of a known quantity and quality then describing efficiency is relatively easy. Attempt to transfer such a simplistic model to higher education and life would tend to get 'interesting' and potentially very uncomfortable very quickly.
In higher education what are the products? Is it graduates? Is it journal articles? Is it spin-out companies? Is it business linkages? Is it patents? Is it perceived value to the local community? Is it all of these, and if so, how are we to judge and optimize the efficiency of the processes which produce these 'products'? Also, is it reasonable to assume that any individual will necessarily be 'efficient' in more than one of these areas, e.g. the efficient author of refereed journal articles can't be assumed to be equally 'efficient' or even 'effective' as a teacher; particularly if they have received no preparation for the latter role and if their career progression is perceived to be dependent more on the former.
And what if the 'product' was more nebulous? For example, what if the product was considered to be 'rounded', educated, analytical, and evaluative individuals who as a result of their experiences (the inputs) at university go on to contribute to the health and wealth of humankind?
All of these putative 'products' are a mile away from the products of a manufacturing model, i.e. they are invariably unique, vary in quality, and will defy the best attempts at standardization.
But if we're going to accept that efficiency is about reducing the effort necessary to achieve a specific output then we require some consensus about what these outputs (products) are and how much relative value we place upon them (yes … yes … I know all institutions value these equally:) If we become more efficient does this not suggest this is going to leaving some effort in the bank to be spent elsewhere? A key question then becomes how and where is it going to be spent?
Here's one purely hypothetical efficiency scenario. Let's say we decide to reduce the effort on the graduate production side of a university's activity by reducing mass lectures; a beloved but 'inefficient' pedagogy in its traditional form (Bligh DA, 2000 What's the Use of Lectures? Jossey Bass Wiley). A point also highlighted by Robin Mason :
“… one of the enduring most enduring myths about interactivity [is] that face-to-face education is a hotbed of intellectual discussion both in and out of class. With increasing pressure of student numbers at most tertiary institutions, the amount of teacher/student interactivity is now actually very small.” (Mason R, 1994, Using Communications Media in Open and Flexible Learning, pp 30-31, Kogan Page)
In our scenario the lectures now take the form of learning resources in digital and paper form which require a fair amount of initial development effort and front-end costs, but thereafter can be maintained relatively easily and economically. Now there's no need for so many mass lecture halls. Great, thinks the institution's executive, that's more room we can use for other purposes. Great, think faculty, that's more time to research and publish. That's awful, thinks the institution's Director of IT or and Librarian, I now need to site and support x000s more workstations and provide associated infrastructure. That's awful, thinks the student I see even less of the academic staff and have to work more on my own, I didn't come to university for this!
The problems in the above scenario arises because of a) a belief that one passive/broadcast traditional practice can simply be replaced by an equally passive IT but resource intensive model; b) a failure to recognize that efficiency does not necessarily require that technology be used to replicate or mirror existing practices and processes. In essence, shutting down the lecture halls has merely created inefficiencies in another part of the institution.
A variation on the above scenario is to supplement or bolt-on technology to existing practices; a costly and, therefore, inefficient model according to Twigg:
“By bolting technology onto existing instructional formats, institutions have not only raised costs but also created courses that are merely 'as good as' regular classroom instruction rather than surpassing it … The more an online approach replicates the traditional campus mode of teaching, the more likely its operating costs are to equal or exceed traditional costs …”
Twigg C (2002), Improving Quality & Reducing Costs: Designs for Effective Learning Using Information Technology p3, The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education (subscription service but see www.center.rpi.edu/PewGrant.html.
Simple adjustments to the way we do the education business, however, can have dramatic effects. For example online content becomes part of a more active model in which students attend physical or virtual tutorials where it is assumed they will have already read, reflected and formed opinions.
But note that here we don't necessarily have all faculty heading for the research and publication hills. They're still involved, only differently; which may unsettle those looking to teaching and learning to provide the efficiencies which can be capitalized on elsewhere.
Those wanting to explore the key role of activity in learning may find a visit to Gilly Salmon and David Shepherd's All Things in Moderation site helpful.
We can assume that, for some readers, efficiency also means reducing costs. The problem here is that unlike say a bank or retailer where transactions are fairly clear cut and take relatively small amounts of time, the transactions within higher education are invariably complex, personalized and occur over a long period of time; this increases costs. Traditionally, it's assumed that lower costs results in poorer quality; but again Twigg suggests that:
“… redesign using technology-based approaches and learner-centred principles can offer a way out of higher education's historical trade-off between cost and quality … transfer the focus of activity from academic staff to students – from presentation of material by academic staff to problem-solving and interactive learning by students.”
Twigg C (2002), Improving Quality & Reducing Costs: Designs for Effective Learning Using Information Technology p3, The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education (subscription service but see www.center.rpi.edu/PewGrant.html.)
The keyword here is 're-engineering' and rethinking the 'how', 'who', and 'why' of teaching and learning in higher education.
But be warned, the transition requires a process, not an event.
“Many students are set in their ways after a lifetime (albeit brief) of passive instruction. They need preparation in making the transition to more active learning environments.”
Twigg C (2002), Improving Quality & Reducing Costs: Designs for Effective Learning Using Information Technology p3, The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education (subscription service but see www.center.rpi.edu/PewGrant.html.)
Just in case you think these concepts are limited to our North American cousins then you'd also better revisit my Auricle article Scots want re-engineering and transformation not more content. OK!.
There's also an interesting case study of the processes and results of module re-engineering by the Business School at Manchester Metropolitan who again emphasize the importance of re-engineering, not 'bolting on' e-learning to an existing design.
“Our emphasis on redesigning the whole unit, not just replacing tutor time with some e-learning materials, ensured that it succeeded …” Stubbs M, Martin I (2004), Blended Learning: One Small Step.
We also have another good example in Mark Russell, principal lecturer in the department of Aerospace, Automotive and Design Engineering at the University of Hertfordshire, winner of the UK's higher education eTutor of the Year 2004 award. Mark's work is an example of efficiency which will warm the heart of any university executive. Mark improved the pass rate of a first-year fluid mechanics and thermodynamics module by 27% by using technology to help him personalize assessment and student feedback … but note that human element and the keywords 'personalize' and 'feedback'.
So technology appears to have something to offer after all but apparently only where its use is integral to the way a course is disseminated and supported.
The message about the importance of activity in learning has been promulgated for a long time. Going back to 1994, Robin Mason also took an optimistic view of the future of what we now call e-learning but, again, notice passivity in learning is 'out' and activity and interactivity is very much 'in':
“Ironically, in fact, telecommunications courses may come to be the leader in interactivity in education and training.” Mason R (1994) Using Communications Media in Open and Flexible Learning, pp 30-31, Kogan Page.
What I find interesting about the above is the apparent evidence that the way technology is used appears to make a difference to learning. Earlier work has suggested:
“… media are no more an influence on student achievement than the trucks which deliver our groceries are an influence on our nutrition.” Clark R E (1983) Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media, Review of Educational Research, Vol 53, number 4 p445.
But to be fair Clarke also concluded that media and technology could make learning more efficient, economical, and equitable.
On a more upbeat note Thomas Reeves offers us:
“Overall, fifty years of educational research indicates that media and technology are effective in schools as phenomena to learn both from and with … At the same time, there is a paucity of empirical evidence that media and technology are any more effective than other instructional approaches.” Reeves TC (1998) The Impact of Media and Technology in Schools p28.
And from, the ever inspirational, Diana Laurillard, a reminder that technologies are only part of a complex mix.
“Any educational method depends for its effectiveness on the students, teachers, classroom style, institutional mileu … as much as on the material or method itself.” Laurillard D (1994) How Can Learning Technologies Improve Learning?, Law Technology Journal Vol 3 No2.
Most universities in the UK have to square the circle of increasing student numbers but finite physical estate and faculty. Consequently there is an increase in the number of mass lectures and a steep rise in early start-late finish lecture theatre bookings. What chance interactivity or active learning here?
At my own institution we took one such mass lecture situation, where there was no opportunity for feedback, and re-engineered it as a group collaborative series of activities supported by a custom learning tool to which we gave the working title 'GroupLog'. The basic principle here was the 'lecturer' would author an activity specification which would then be time-released to different groups of students in a cohort. Each group would work on their individual response to the activity (face-to-face or virtual) and post a response into GroupLog by an appointed date. The 'lecturer' would then post her feedback and at an appointed date all the responses and the feedback would become available to all the groups. As a replacement for a mass lecture it has something to offer. The cohort is broken down into smaller numbers which makes interaction possible, students are expected to work collaboratively on a common problem, meet a deadline, share their responses with others, and receive some common feedback. The latter is perhaps not ideal, but it is a lot better than no feedback at all, which would be the situation in a mass lecture situation. Above all the message is sent to students that they are expected to 'do' something not just listen (but perhaps not hear).
GroupLog is, arguably, more efficient from a student's perspective, but has it necessarily saved the 'lecturer' lots of time to devote to the multiplicity of other roles a busy academic now has to attend to? No … but … the academic made this trade off because the technology made possible something she wanted to do but couldn't do because the number of students she was responsible for made interaction and activity in learning impossible. Also the group responses become an archivable and therefore shareable/reusable asset. It becomes possible, therefore, to argue that from an institutional and student perspective this has the ingredients of a more efficient long-term model.
What's important in all the above examples is that adopting and implementing an active learning model is perceived by students and faculty to be an integral part of the way we do the higher education business; not just an abrogation of responsibility on the part of faculty. If efficiency translates into drives for short term gains flying under a student-centred or independent learning 'flag of convenience' then negative long-term consequences are likely.
A student body which perceives no benefit or even detrimental effects of efficiency changes is unlikely to remain silent for long. In a previous article Student Centred Learning : But not as we know it? I suggested that the student body is capable of seeking their own efficiencies through technology, and not just for administrative purposes.
Still on the theme of students and their potential conscious or unconscious participation in efficiency changes, although now slightly dated, the outputs of the JISC funded Costs of Networked Learning (Bacsich P et al, 1998-2001) project are still worth reading. The project set out to identify the unrecorded or “hidden” costs involved in Networked Learning (e-learning) and to produce a Planning Document and Financial Schema using which a complete picture of the actual costs of Networked Learning can be reached. Apart from an advocacy of Activity Based Costing, which will undoubtedly please accountants, for me, a few of the report's conclusions stood out:
“… student concerns and behaviour are neither well understood nor seen as being strategic.”
“The student survey showed that there is a disjunct between student beliefs - in essence, students believe that Networked Learning increases costs to them - and student behaviour - time has an opportunity cost to them.”
“Student-borne costs should not be reimbursed by the institution or central funding body, but it is now widely accepted that that they should be taken into account when planning a course.”
Hopefully our little journey through some of the twists and turns of considering the efficiency contribution e-learning can make will lead readers to conclude that it's not just a matter of reducing lectures, less student contact, more research, more estate released, more computer assisted assessment etc. We may need to do some of that, but in a planned, informed, and holistic way; and only after the process has been sold to all stakeholders, including the students. It appears to me that one of the key issues in higher education will need to be solved to do so, i.e. the relative value placed upon research versus teaching/learning activity. I know, I know … we value them equally … but which one progresses your career most efficiently?
The appendices to HEFCE Circular 10/2004 (18 May 2004) provides us with some insights on the economic costs of higher education's activities both within England and the UK. Although certainly not light bedtime reading, the circular considers the outcomes from the 2002-2003 Transparency Review, i.e. the Government increased funding for higher education on condition that higher education institutions (HEIs) provided transparent information on the costs of their activities. Activities are categorized as Teaching, Research and Other (T,R,O), including support inputs for each. For HEFCE funded institutions we find 'T' was costed at £6,445,964,000 (5,597,262,000 publicly funded) and 'R' was costed at £5,015,054,000 (3,399,198,000 publicly funded). The major activity for higher education in England is publicly funded teaching (~41%) followed by publicly funded research (~25%). The aggregated figures for the whole of the UK show a similar pattern. So taken as a whole, the majority of income to UK higher education comes from the public purse and is for teaching. I will leave readers to reflect on this.
You will by this time undoubtedly be delighted to know I've come to the end of this probably too long article, but before I do so let me have just one last jab. Higher education institutions may well attract highly effective individuals who may be perceived as utterly inefficient in some aspects of their work; but by dint of their intellect, creativity, sometimes obsessive personalities, and pure hard work they make the conceptual leaps from which we all ultimately benefit. Inefficient they may be, but it is their effectiveness which perhaps enables lesser mortals to take their work and make it more efficient?
