1. COHERE
Blended learning: a strategy for online higher education research
Calgary, October 17-19, 2012
MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF
TECHNOLOGY:
ARE WE FAILING AS
MANAGERS?
Dr. Tony Bates,
Tony Bates Associates Ltd,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
1

2. Overview
1. Introduction
2. Why managing LTs is important but
difficult
3. Research: lessons from 11 case
studies of LT management
• Leadership and planning
• Quality
• Resources
• Training
• Governance
4. Supporting innovation
5. Questions/discussion

3. Introduction
How many of you think that the current
model of post-secondary education is
sustainable?
3

4. Why managing learning technology is
important
• Not a „side-issue‟ any more
• Effective use of LTs key to
• innovation
• productivity
• 21st century skills development
• blended learning Virtual border crossing: Loyalist College
• flexible learning
• lifelong learning
4

5. Changing modes of delivery
distributed learning
blended learning
hybrid fully online
face-to- classroom
(reduced f2f + (distance)
face aids online)
no e-learning fully e-learning

6. What kind of institution?
where on the continuum
should the institution be?
what factors should influence
this decision?
how do we turn goals into
reality?
who should decide?

7. Question
Does your institution have a plan for learning technologies, or
flexible delivery, or innovation in teaching? (or is currently
developing one)?
Is it any good?
7

8. Why managing learning technology is
difficult
• universities/colleges difficult to manage
• all management is messy (Mintzberg)
• LT only one, new aspect of
management;
• academic + technology + management
• rapid technological change
• culture: fear of managerialism;
resistance to change
8

9. What do we know about managing
learning technologies?
• Less than 10% of publications on topic
• Ontario: few institutions have a plan for
LTs; need help
• So: Bates and Sangrà (2011): 11 case
studies: 6 in Europe; 5 in North America
• Changes since then: more institutions now
doing serious LT planning (e.g. UBC,
Saskatchewan)
• Results from case studies still apply
9

10. Measuring/evaluating learning
technology integration: some criteria
1. Central in strategic plan
2. Good technology infrastructure
3. Digitalized admin/student services
4. Strategic rationale for use of LTs
5. % faculty and students using LT
6. Innovative uses of LT
7. Support/training in use of LT for
teaching
8. Better learning outcomes as a result
10

11. Leadership and planning
• Institutions with LTs in strategic plan did
better
• Strengthens change agents
• Main goals for technology in case studies:
• „modern‟ infrastructure
• digitalize administrative services
• enhance quality of classroom teaching
• „Weak‟ goals: rarely innovation, flexible
learning, new markets, never
productivity
11

12. The importance of strategic thinking
strategic thinking more important than
plan, focusing on:
Being clear on the broad goals for LTs
How best to achieve these goals in
teaching and learning through faculty:
visioning
discussing
planning programs
designing courses
12

13. Set clear goals for online learning
For example:
1. increase flexibility of access for
diverse student body
2. increase personalization of
learning and interaction
3. develop 21st century skills
4. develop hybrid learning
5. increase cost-effectiveness (better
services; lower cost)
13

14. MEASURABLE GOALS
(after strategic thinking)
Academic Performance indicators
Strategies Intended outcomes
goal (within 5 years)
Flexible 1.Offer online a. Increase lifelong learning 1. 5 online masters in
learning professional market development
masters b. Develop self-financing 2. Target
programs enrollments/revenues
c. Retain alumni achieved
d. Increase links with 3. New research faculty
employers hired
4. 10 organizations
contributing to
programs (cases, hiring
grads, adjuncts, etc.)
2. More hybrid 1. Increased interaction with 1. Survey of faculty +
learning in instructors students
undergraduate 2. Improved cognitive skills 2. Better student
teaching 3. Improved student assessments/grades
satisfaction
14

15. Quality assurance
Approach of „best‟ case studies:
• Standard program approval
processes
• Learning design, project teams,
IDs to ensure quality
• Formal QA processes NOT used
• Lack of evaluation/research of
LTs at strategic level
15

16. Resources
No institution knew the real cost of e-learning
Few institutions knew where the money would come
from
Accounting/budget processes do not capture „true‟
technology costs in teaching
Increased spending on LT support units
Unintended consequences: larger classes, more
contract instructors, increased faculty workload
Important to replace activities (or increase revenues)
16

17. Resources
• Few administrators understood
fully the cost implications or main
cost drivers
• Technology too often an added cost
for no measurable benefit
• The time of the instructor is main
cost; need course design models
that control time and costs in using
technology
17

18. It‟s the teaching, stupid!
(or: Human resource development)
‘There is increasing empirical evidence…that prevailing
practices in higher education do not encourage the sort of
learning that contemporary society demands…
However, there is an impressive body of evidence on how
teaching methods and curriculum design affect deep,
autonomous and reflective learning…
Yet most faculty are ignorant of this scholarship, and
instructional practices are dominated by tradition rather
than research evidence.’
Knapper, 2010
18

19. Training
• Instructors in most institutions
were not adequately prepared to
teach well (with or without
technology)
• Training of all instructors in
teaching should be systematic and
compulsory (especially in
universities)
• „Core‟ pedagogical training needed
• Systemic difficulties in doing this
19

20. Training
• Academic administrators in most
institutions were not adequately
prepared to make good decisions
about technology
• Administrators on appointment
need special orientation for
technology decision making
• An online course for
administrators?
20

21. Governance
Case studies:
• Growth of LT support units
• Growth of technology committees, but no
clear mandates/decision-making authority
• Duplication and gaps in technology
support/decision-making
• Need for a clear governance structure for
technology that includes teaching and
learning
21

22. What is governance?
Kezar and Eckel (2004: 371-398):
a multi-level concept including
several different bodies and
processes with different decision-
making functions
Who makes decisions about what?
Different models of governance for non-
How and where are they made? profit organizations (Gill, M. 2002)
Who is responsible once a
decision is made?

23. Functions of governance
(for learning technologies)
• Set mission/goals/direction
• Assign responsibilities
• Determine decision-making authority
• Manage (LT) resources
• Manage risk
• Evaluate results
• Others? (ethics, ......)

24. Why is governance an issue?
• Good governance leads to a better
institution
• Provincial governments showing
greater interest in technology
governance
• Many institutions do not have clear
governance structures for learning
technologies: gaps/overlap, e.g.
should IT dept support mobile
learning?

25. Areas of governance
Institutional
Academic Admin
Technology
LT IT

26. Two ways of looking at governance
Managerial by position
Board
President
VP Academic VP Admin/Finance
AVP Academic Dean Dean Director, IT Registrar
Director, Centre for
Teaching/Learning/Technology

27. Two ways of looking at governance
Functional: where decisions are made about learning
technologies
Board
Strategic plan IT governance
Executive team
Academic plan Technology committee IT/admin. plan
Technology plan Departments
Programs
IT Services
Centre for
Teaching/Learning/Tec Courses
h.
influences Instructors
Plans
Service units Students + clients

28. Governance
F Governance of
learning
technologies
(From Bates and
Sangrà, 2011)
28

29. Governance
• Needs to be formalized
• Responsibility of institutional
executive
• In universities, decisions taken
throughout institution
• Important to have right people
at the table
• Integrated planning essential
29

30. Innovation in teaching as a strategic
direction
• Knowledge-based work: Ontario:
70% with post-secondary education
• Mass higher education
• Advances in teaching methods
• Impact of technology
• Fiscal constraint: more with less
• Not changed teaching models from
19th century
30

31. What kind of innovation?
• Improvement or change?
• Disruptive (new markets) e.g.
MOOCs
• Sustaining: evolves existing market
with better value (e.g. hybrid courses)
• Sustaining to maintain core values:
knowledge preservation and creation;
rationality; evidence-based research;
+21st century skills: clarity essential
31

32. Strategies to support innovation
• Leadership is critical
• Make innovation in teaching a
strategic priority
• Innovation too often in pockets
• Resource and reward
• Evaluate and disseminate across
relevant areas
32

33. Institutional strategies for innovation
Strategic thinking
(planning)
Governance
(decision-making structures)
Development of human
resources
(training)
33

34. Questions
Do we need to disrupt or sustain
higher education?
Can you plan for innovation?
Are we using learning technologies
strategically?
Why do blended learning?
Is it possible to make the necessary
changes? If not, why not?
34

35. References
Bates, A. and Sangrà, A. (2011) Managing Technology in
Higher Education: Strategies for Transforming Teaching
and Learning San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Kezar, A., Eckel, P. D. 2004. “Meeting Today‟s Governance
Challenges.” The Journal of Higher Education Vol. 75, no.
4: 371-398.
35