six trajectories for digital technology in higher education (269058495)

8212019 Six Trajectories for Digital Technology in Higher Education (269058495)

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullsix-trajectories-for-digital-technology-in-higher-education-269058495 18

EDUC AUSEr e v i ew JU LY AU GUS T 201 5

W

ILLUSTRATION BY CJ BURTON copy 2015

hen we consider the future roles of digitaltechnology in higher education it is often helpful to thinkin terms of trajectories rather than predictions Predictions areremarkably fragile things Any unforeseen factor will renderthe prediction false or off-target and as those variables

increase so too does the likelihood that the prediction willfail Predictions also tend to be projections of the currentand the known ornamented with something that providesa futuristic hue In the case of digital technology giventhe acceleration of changemdashenabled by the very thingswhose course we are trying to predictmdashthe conundrum ofpredictions may be at its most acute

ldquoWe look at the present through a rear-view mirror We march backwards into the futurerdquo

mdashMarshall McLuhan

IN HIGHER EDUCATION

TRAJECTORIES FORDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY

By Malcolm Brown



18 E DU C A U S E r e v i e w J U LY A U G U S T 2 015

Six Trajectories for Digital Technology in Higher Education

It is thus more practi-cal to work with trajecto-ries With a trajectory weknow where something

is headed but we cannotsaymdashor we refrain fromguessingmdashwhere it will end

Working with trajectories isan admission that we can-not foresee the unantici-pated factors and develop-ments that might influencethe trajectory acceleratingit or perhaps instead derail-ing it entirely In this senseworking with trajectories isa more humble and realis-

tic way of facing the future A trajectory is also far lessfatalistic than a predictionThe latter asserts that thisis where we will end upwhereas a trajectory showswhere we might end up

In terms of teachingand learning I would liketo suggest three character-istics that provide contextfor the following discus-

sion of six digital technology trajectoriesThe first characteristic is personalization the growing capabilities and willingnessto use digital resources to create custompathways for learning and degree suc-cess One of the clearest illustrations ofdevelopments in this area may be MITrsquosexploration of breaking its courses downinto modules and enabling students andinstructors to ldquoreassemblerdquo the modulesto construct personalized educationalpathwaysmdasha process likened to construct-ing a playlist in iTunes1 Developments

such as these lend credence to the sugges-tion that we have entered the ldquopost-courseerardquo in higher education the course is nolonger the curricular atom or fundamen-tal building block2

The second characteristic is the adop-tion of hybrid learning models3 The footprintof the online dimension is expandingacross all venues of higher educationincluding institutions that have tradition-ally valued intimate face-to-face learning

Higher educationrsquos ldquoaffairrdquowith the MOOC thoughnow waning has had onelasting impact It has greatly

accelerated the migration ofhigher education into onlineeducation4 In addition thischaracteristic is intertwinedwith the first as instructorsinstructional designersand students are starting toinvent and modify learn-ing models and pathwaysas needed to achieve morepersonalized learning goals

The third characteris-tic is the analysis of ever-

increasing amounts of data andthe increasing influencethose analyses have in theconduct of higher educa-tion This use of ldquobig datardquoaffords much more nuancedand timely insights into allkinds of learning processesIt enables the creation ofcustom reports tailored tospecific learning contextsranging from institutional

dashboards to personalized assistance forlearners It provides the basis for measur-ing progress toward institutional strate-gic goals Equally important analyticsenables interventions in nearly real timeThis contributes greatly to learner andinstructor success as it allows the institu-tion to assist students at the very momentthey are falling behind

Clearly digital technology is the fabricof nearly everything associated with teach-ing and learning We can think of thisfact as an overarching trajectory digital

technology is the core strategic enabler oflearning in higher education But therersquosa twist Our thinking about digital tech-nology in higher education is shiftingaway from seeing it as IT infrastructure andinstead toward conceiving it as a digitallearning environment5 For those of us whohave worked in higher education informa-tion technology this is a significant shift inour thinking It means that the technologyis no longer in the foreground instead our

attention is focused on the learners andthe learning experiences that the technol-ogy enables6 It sets for all campus playersthe ambitious goal of a learning ecosystem

that is responsive and can be personalizedEnabling that ambitious goal are six indi-

vidual trajectories of digital technologydevice ownership and mobile-first thetextbook and open educational resources(OER) adaptive learning technologylearning spaces the next generation learn-ing management system (LMS) and learn-ing analytics and integrated planning andadvising services (IPAS)

Device Ownershipand Mobile-First

In the past there was much discussion ofthe digital divide the situation in whichsome students were able to afford digitalequipment whereas others could not

Although the problem has not been fullyresolved the picture has shifted Thecombination of lower costs for hardwareand the mobile computing revolution ofthe past decade has altered the landscapeMobile computing is a key technology inteaching and learning and the trajectoryis that it will continue to be so

One way to appreciate this trajec-tory is by taking a look at results of theannual student study conducted by theEDUCAUSE Center for Analysis andResearch (ECAR) In 2004 the studyrevealed that student technology owner-ship was divided between desktop andlaptop computers Most students ownedonly a single device The ownership ofldquopersonal digital assistantsrdquo was just under12 percent If we jump to the most recentstudies we see how thoroughly thislandscape has changed According to the

results of the 2013 study 30 percent of therespondents owned 4 or more Internet-capable devices In 2013 ownership ofsmartphones and tablets had increasedby 14 percent and 15 percent respectivelyover the previous year According to the2014 study ownership of smartphonesjumped to 86 percent and is projected tobe 90 percent in 2015 Tablet ownershipin 2014 jumped to 47 percent and its2015 trajectory is 58 percent ownership

The combinationof lower costsfor hardware

and the mobilecomputingrevolution ofthe past decadehas alteredthe landscapeMobilecomputing is akey technologyin teaching andlearning and thetrajectory is that

it will continueto be so





Significantly the percentage of studentsusing these devices directly for academ-ics is increasing moving from roughly50 percent (2013) to 70 percent (2014) for

smartphones and from 12 percent to closeto 50 percent for tablets7

Such ubiquity enables institutions toleverage the mobile environment Manyare moving to a mobile-first approachOne of the first schools to move to mobile-first was Abilene Christian Universitywhich has integrated mobile technologyinto its courses Lynn University is movingits LMS functionality off the traditionalLMS application and onto a component-based approach one informed bythis mobile-first approach Tennessee

Technical Universityrsquos Mobile LearningEnvironment and Systems Infrastructure(MoLE-SI) first introduced in the Col-lege of Engineering is now poised to beintroduced more broadly throughout thecurriculum8

Mobile technology affords studentsand instructors an unprec-edented degree of indepen-dence from the campus ITorganization Certainly theyneed campus networking

but even here their cellphone connectivity canprovide Internet access Itis helpful if the campus hasan agreement in place forGoogle Docs but if it doesnrsquotthey can use Google Docsanyway The use of appssuch as VoiceThread foraudio annotations or Diigofor collaborative taggingrequires neither permissionfrom nor enablement by the

campus IT organizationagain apart from network-ing To access resources fromiTunes U or to participate ina MOOC requires only thecampus network instruc-torsrsquo and studentsrsquo devices dothe rest Hence mobile tech-nology permits students andinstructors to personalizetheir environment which

puts their relationship with the campus ITorganization on a slightly different footing

The Textbook and Open

Educational Resources (OER)This trajectory is surprising The textbookis undergoing a remarkable bit of evolu-tion itrsquos vanishing as least in its traditionalform as a book whose text is furnished bya third-party company and is sold at thecampus bookstore As paradoxical as itsounds this is due largely to the compa-nies that have in the past provided text-books for higher education companiessuch as McGraw-Hill Cengage Learningand Pearson These companies are com-ing to see that profits lie in adding value to

the core text and not in providing the textsthemselves According to Michael Feld-stein these companies ldquojust want to beout of the textbook business They want tosell software and services that are relatedto educational content like homeworkplatforms or course redesign consulting

servicesrdquo Jonathan Bandsimilarly noted that the text-book publishers ldquoare wellaware of the expanded com-petition presented by the

Internet and have begun toadjust their business modelsaccordingly Pearson forexample is shifting from thesupply of educational materi-als to the provision of educa-tion services Such servicesinclude testing assessmentstudent information sys-tems and course manage-ment platformsrdquo9

One dimension of thistrajectory is the decline

in the purchase of com-mercial textbooks drivenlargely by their increas-ing costs According toinformation from the USCensus Bureau the price oftextbooks rose 812 percentbetween 1978 and 2012 By contrast over the sameperiod the cost of medicalservices rose 575 percent

new home prices 325 percent and theconsumer price index 250 percent10 Thishas motivated students and instructorsalike to seek alternatives According to

the ECAR 2013 student study 71 percentof students used OER in 2013 (up from 25percent in 2010) and 54 percent said thatopen resources are extremely importantThe ever-growing abundance of ancillarycontent relevant to education (eg iTunesU MOOCs and repositories such asOpenStax CNX) enables students to skipthe purchase of core textbooks altogetherand instead seek basic explanations ofcontent from these open resources Thecourse textbook is no longer a require-ment but rather an option

There are also initiatives entirelydevoted to enabling students to createtheir own custom course content largelyfrom OER The company Boundless(httpswwwboundlesscom) will mimicthe table of contents of a commercialtextbook and supply OER alternatives foreach chapter of the book A Pearson proj-ect (httpwwwpearsonhigheredcomcollections) uses a specially designedsearch engine called Gooru to enableanyone to find appropriate OER As an

indication of how rapidly untraditionalall of this is becoming this is a Pearsonproject but at the same time Pearsonis one of the major companies suingBoundless11

This trajectory seems to counsel usto expect that the classic higher educa-tion textbook will vanish replaced by a

variety of resources the most importantof which is OER We may also expect thatthe traditional commercial companieswill continue to invest in services such asadaptive learning technology (see the fol-

lowing section)

Adaptive Learning TechnologySituated ldquonext doorrdquo to OER is adaptivelearning technology12 This appears to bethe core service that publishers are bet-ting on Adaptive learning technology isin its start-up phase much as where learn-ing analytics technology was two yearsago Although its trajectory is not fullyestablished adaptive learning technology

The ever-growingabundance ofancillary contentrelevant to

education enablesstudents to skipthe purchase ofcore textbooksaltogether andinstead seek basicexplanations ofcontent fromthese openresources Thecourse textbookis no longer a

requirement butrather an option





certainly has the potential to exert a force-ful influence on teaching and learningover the next three to four years

Adaptive learning technology takes a

ldquonon-linear approach to instruction andremediation adjusting to a learnerrsquos inter-actions and demonstrated performancelevel and subsequently anticipating whattypes of content and resources learnersneed at a specific point in time to makeprogressrdquo13 It is then a kind of automatedtutor What is fascinating is how quicklythe major textbook publishers have castan anchor into this technology

983150 Pearson has teamed with Knewtonenabling Pearson to offer its MyLab

and Mastering adaptive learning toolsfor a broad range of subjects mostly inthe sciences

983150 McGraw-Hill has introduced ALEKSand Smartbooks the latter based on itsLearnSmart adaptive technology

983150 Macmillanrsquos New Ventures divisionhas a partnership with Knewton andhas access to PrepUrsquos technology

983150 Wiley has announced a partnershipwith Snapwiz to produce a new prod-uct offering called WileyPlus

There are other companies and even universities in the mix here as well

983150 The companies include Smart Spar-row CCKF and ScootPad

983150 Brightspace by D2L acquired thestartup Knowillage and its adaptivelearning technology called LeaP

983150 In Europe roughly a dozen institu-tions have formed INTUITEL withthe objective ldquoto enhance e-learningcontent and Learning Management

Systems (LMS) with features that so farhave been provided only by humantutorsrdquo

983150 The University of Phoenix has investedconsiderably in its adaptive learningtechnology Academic Activity Stream

983150 Professors at Ohio University createdan adaptive learning module (calledMOOCulus) that they grafted onto theCoursera platform for their MOOC oncalculus

Adaptive technology has established abeachhead in higher education practiceNotable early projects include ArizonaState Universityrsquos use of Pearsonrsquos MyLab

and Essex Community Collegersquos use of ALEKS14 Reports from these projects aremixed as is to be expected with a youngtechnology that is just getting going butthe blend of considerable interest15 andinvestments promises to make this a keytechnology for the foreseeable future

Learning SpacesLearning spaces is an umbrella term refer-ring to the physical spaces specificallydesigned to accommodate learning activi-ties including (but not limited to) formal

classrooms the learning commons labsand makerspaces The trajectory here asexplored more fully by Mark Valenti in hisarticle in this issue of EDUCAUSE Review ldquoBeyond Active Learning Transformationof the Learning Spacerdquo is that these spacesare evolving away from being places ofpresentation and toward being placesof discovery invention and knowledgeconstruction16

The makerspace is perhaps the clearestexample17 Currently mak-

erspace rooms are placesfor invention using physicalobjects Often these roomshouse a variety of equip-ment available to studentsindividually or in teams Asalways technology providesa very wide range of pos-sibilities 3D scanning andprinting technologies arecommon to almost all mak-erspaces enabling studentsto capture and reproduce

objects in three dimen-sions Programmable circuitboards such as Arduinoand Raspberry Pi enablea variety of projects Someschools seeking to enableas wide a range of projects aspossible provide equipmentsuch as sewing machinesmiter saws computerizedrouters 3D microscopes

large sheet printers oscilloscopes andsoldering irons The idea is to provide rawmaterials and tools to foster discovery andinvention18

This trend toward discovery contentsharing and knowledge creation is notlimited to makerspaces but also informsformal and informal learning spacedesign and once again digital technologyis the enabling agent Wireless projectionis a good example Until recently accessto projection on the main classroomscreen was limited to the person at thepodium reinforcing the message that theclassroom was more about presentationthan participation But institutions areincreasingly installing wireless projection

capabilities which enable any participantappropriately equipped to project hisher material on the main screen Wirelessprojection also allows the instructor toroam the room controlling the display ofhisher content using a tablet

Technology further enables team-based classroom design also called scale-up or active learning classrooms (see eghttpscaleupncsuedu) Traditionalclassroom design provides seats arranged

in rows with a podium for

the instructor at the frontThis design is informed bythe idea that the primarypurpose of the room is toenable presentations bythe instructor By contrastteam-based classroomsprovide seating at circulartables with six to ten seatsper table Most often theroom has no ldquofrontrdquo in thetraditional sense The team-based room is designed to

make collaborative studentwork the focus of face-to-face class sessions Theinstructor functions moreas a guide or mentor andless as a presenter Stu-dents in teams learn byactively working in collabo-rations and partnershipsThese designs are enabledby extensive wireless

This trendtoward discoverycontent sharingand knowledgecreation isnot limited tomakerspacesbut also informsformal andinformal learningspace design andonce again digital

technology is theenabling agent





networking display screens distributedaround the room room-wide access toelectrical power and mobile furniture

The learning space trajectory clearly

embodies the ldquonewrdquo priorities of learner-centeredness the socialcollaborativedimensions of learning and the impor-tance of active learning engagements19 The built environment is particularlyconspicuous both because of its costand because it physically affords cer-tain kinds of usage while discouragingothers Classrooms are ldquoarchitecturalembodiments of educational philoso-phiesrdquo20 The new classroom designsoffer clear evidence that the trajectory isindeed moving away from presentation

and toward knowledge construction byall course participants

The Next Generation LearningManagement System (LMS)Much like an institutionrsquos student infor-mation and fiscal administration appli-cations the LMS is now a fixture of thehigher education technology landscapeSince its inception in 1997 the LMS hasmatured to the point that nearly everyhigher education institution runs at least

one LMS A 2014 ECAR study revealedthat the current model of the LMS hasbeen very effectivemdashboth in its designand in the way faculty use itmdashfor theadministration of learning especially inthe conduct of a course According to thestudy 99 percent of institutions have anLMS in place and on average 85 percentof faculty use it whereas 56 percent ofstudents report using the LMS in most ifnot all of their courses For postsecondaryteaching and learning this level of adop-tion is unprecedented But in contrast to

these high numbers the percentages ofstudents and faculty who use the moreadvanced LMS features are low Accordingto the ECAR study ldquoFaculty and students

value the LMS as an enhancement to theirteaching and learning experiences butrelatively few use these systems to theirfull capacityrdquo21

In spite of these high adoption per-centages there is widespread impatiencewith what we might call the ldquoLMS 10rdquo

The trajectory here is the col-lective anticipation of andinvestigation into an entirelynew model for this func-

tionmdashone that is from theground up learner-centeredunlike the LMS 10rsquos orienta-tion around the instructorand the course The com-munity is clearly seeking toreplace the current LMS witha robust and comprehensivedigital learning environment

As the ECAR study reports15 percent of institutionsintend to replace their LMSin the next three years22

Compared with the turnoverrate of administrative enter-prise applications this is asignificantly large percent-age suggesting a fair degreeof restlessness

What woul d an ldquoLMS20rdquo look like EDUCAUSEin partnership with the Billamp Melinda Gates Founda-tion has been conductingresearch into this very ques-

tion as outlined further inan article in this issue ofEDUCAUSE Review ldquoWhatrsquosNext for the LMSrdquo23 To achieve this next

version of the LMS however highereducation will need a new paradigm Inthe past the instinct of the IT commu-nity when confronted with a challengelike this would have been to build anew and ldquolargerdquo enterprise applicationto meet the new requirements But itis no longer clear that this traditionalapproach will work The construction

of a single application assumes that onedesign can meet the needs of the major-ity of schools instructors and studentsmdashan idea that seems dubious especially ina post-course era in which personalizedcustom education pathways are emerg-ing as the priority

One sign of out-the-box thinkingabout the future LMS is the formation ofUnizin (httpunizinorg) a consortiumof universities ldquocoming together in a stra-

tegic way to exert greatercontrol and influence overthe digital learning land-scape [Unizin] enables

each institution its facultyand students to draw onan evolving set of tools tosupport digital learningfor residential flippedclassroom online coursesdegrees badged experi-ences for Alumni or evenMOOCs if desired Unizinsupports the differing mis-sions and strategies of uni-

versitiesrdquo Almost exactlya decade ago at a similar

moment of restlessnesswith the LMS severalhigher education institu-tions pooled resourcesto build their own LMSapplication called SakaiToday Unizin is taking a

very different approach itconsists of a set of pooledresources and volume-purchasing discountsThe key is Unizinrsquos goal to

facilitate the promotion ofa digital learning environ-ment while at the same

time recognizing that institutions willhave different cultures and prioritiesEach institution in the Unizin consor-tium will blend the components in a waythat is appropriate to its culture and itsstrategic ambitions

Learning Analytics andIntegrated Planning and Advising Services (IPAS)

All analytics for teaching and learningis intended to increase student success A key ingredient is sustaining studentldquomomentumrdquo24 Research indicates thatstudents who experience early successin a learning endeavor tend to completecourses and degree programs at higherrates By contrast students who do nothave early success are much more likelynot to complete their courses and degreesIt is also now becoming clear that students

The constructionof a singleapplicationassumes thatone design canmeet the needsof the majorityof schoolsinstructorsand studentsmdashan idea thatseems dubiousespecially ina post-courseera in which

personalizedcustom educationpathways areemerging as thepriority





who are metacognitively participatoryin their learning achieve higher successrates than students who are not Analyticsfor teaching and learning seeks to pro-

mote learner success by providing nearreal-time information to instructors andadvisors helping them build and sustainpositive learner momentum Student-facing analytics also seeks to address themetacognitive dimension by providingdata to the learner so that heshe has amore objective basis for learning deci-sions I will focus here on two types ofanalytics for student success (1) learninganalytics which enables instructors andstudents to monitor engagement andprogress at the course level and (2) inte-

grated planning and advising services (IPAS) anenterprise-level technology that blendsdata from a variety of campus systems

Learning AnalyticsThe adoption of learning analytics hasbeen accelerated by the integration ofthese capabilities into the major LMSsThis enables a campus tolicense a learning analyticsmodule flip the ldquoonrdquo switchand quickly provide this

service For example Black-board D2L and Canvashave released learning ana-lytics modules for their LMSapplications (all called ldquoAna-lyticsrdquo as in ldquoBlackboard

Analyticsrdquo and ldquoCanvas Ana-lyticsrdquo) All of these modulesprovide similar capabilitiesidentifying at-risk studentsmeasuring student engage-ment and participation andoffering ways to see which

curricular activities seemto be producing the bestresults

Alt ho ug h in te grat io nwith the core LMS makes thetask of providing learninganalytics services relativelystraightforward questionsremain One question iswhat use students instruc-tors and advisors will make

of the information In the past mostinstructors have confined their use of theLMS to its more basic functions Anotherquestion is how much support will be

provided to conduct the interventionsneeded when a student is flagged as beingat risk A final question concerns thesophistication of learning analytics Someobject that the current set of mainstreamlearning analytics functions such ascounts of how often a student logs into acourse website is at best only a proxy forhow much they are learning In spite ofthese questionsmdashor perhaps because ofthemmdashlearning analytics will see increas-ing adoption over the coming years

Integrated Planning and Advising Services(IPAS)Learning analytics can be seen as a partof the larger IPAS suite of student successservices According to the 2014 ECARIPAS benchmarking study these servicesseek to realize a comprehensive visionof a technology-enabled and integrated

digital environment thatprovides students advisorsand faculty with the follow-ing capabilities

983150 Education planning(identifying the degreeand the best path to itsachievement)

983150 Progress tracking (askingwhether the learner ison course toward degreecompletion)

983150 Advising and counseling(offering services such asmentoring and tutoring)

983150 Early-alert systems (ini-

tiating proactive inter- ven tio n wi th at -r is kstudents)

The top drivers forinvesting in an IPAS systemare ldquothe strategic priorityof student success and thedesire to reorient the institu-tion from an enrollment to acompletion culturerdquo25

At the technology level IPAS requiresa fluid exchange of data between majorapplications such as the student infor-mation system (SIS) and the LMS At

the level of institutional culture IPASrequires a viable cross-institutionalpartnership between the IT organizationand other campus offices The key stake-holder groups are faculty (who oftenhave workload concerns) and of coursestudents

The IPAS trajectory shows growingadoption In light of this momentum it islikely to be a key and increasingly ubiqui-tous academic technology in the future

As noted in the ECAR study ldquoIPAS is com-ing to a student success effort near you

Our study-group institutions overwhelm-ingly said it is important to their effortsand that they plan aggressive adoptionand investmentrdquo26

Conclusion Swirl

ldquoWe shape our tools and afterwards ourtools shape usrdquo


In higher education student swirl refers

to the practice of students formulating acustom multi-institutional pathway to adegree This is not a recent term it appearsto have been coined in 1990 by adminis-trators at Maricopa Community CollegeBut the practice is gaining momentum27

Student swirl is essentially a disag-gregationreaggregation cycle Tradition-ally the learning process and the degreeconferral were aggregated into a singleinstitution The hop from a two-yearinstitution to a four-year institution wasthe nearest thing to student swirl Today

however the aggregation of the learn-ing process and the degree conferral hasbroken apart Students now have moreoptions In short the path to the degreeis no longer linear or uniform in the tra-ditional sense nor does it need to be Inaddition the tempo of progress towardacademic goals can accelerate or deceler-ate depending on the requirements ofthe learner Indeed there are alreadyindications that shifts in pacing have

In each casethere is a similarpattern anindividualizationor fragmentationtogether with areassembly ofthe micro-unitsinto new customconfigurationsThis swirl inpostsecondaryeducationaltechnology isperhaps the

most importanttrajectory of all



J U LY AU G U S T 201 5 E DU C A U S E r e v i e wwww edu ca u se edu e r

ldquoarrivedrdquo the NYU School of Medicinefor example now offers an acceleratedtrack to the MD degree28 Schools are alsoexploring badging and micro-credential-

ing as ways to mark progress toward anacademic goal especially in the domainof competency-based education29 Obvi-ously we need to have discussions anddebates about the quality of these newswirled academic pathways but theoptions have emerged and are beingexplored

Digital technology in postsecondaryeducation is undergoing swirl as wellConsider some of the key trends

983150 The evolution or morphing of the

campus IT organization in its role asthe provider of the IT environmentand also with respect to its role inteaching and learning

983150 The increased independence ofinstructors and students using their

own tools to form their connectionsresulting in custom pathways toachieve learning goals

983150 The trend away from large central

applications run on campus serversin favor of confederations of appsmany of which run in the cloud

983150 The growing importance of inter-operability and interface standards

983150 The increase in multiple mobile deviceownership

983150 The capacity of data analytics to prof-fer custom portraits of learners andto make predictions and suggestionsbased on those portraits

In each case there is a similar pattern

an individualization or fragmentationtogether with a reassembly of the micro-units into new custom configurationsThis swirl in postsecondary educationaltechnology is perhaps the most impor-tant trajectory of all We have entered

into a period of both dislocation when theknown and familiar begin to disappearand relocation when we invent new meth-ods techniques and configurations But

perhaps what characterizes our currentsituation best is the rapid tempo of theseswirl processesmdasha tempo that shows nosign of abating

It is a time that is both stressful andenergizing with both loss and newopportunity Our task as educators is tocarefully sift through these new optionsbeing wary not only of clinging to thepast but also of embracing digital snakeoil The fundamental challenges to usare to not look into the future ldquothrougha rear-view mirrorrdquo and to not have

our ldquotools shape usrdquo Change in highereducation is inexorable as evidencedby these six trajectories for digitaltechnology The only way forward to adigital learning environment is throughthoughtful participation in the swirl 983150





Malcolm Brown (mbrown

educauseedu) is Director of

the EDUCAUSE Learning

Initiative (ELI)

Notes

This article is excerpted and adapted from the paperSwirl Trajectories for Digital Technology in Higher Education developed with support from the Josiah Macy JrFoundation Concepts discussed herein were presented

at the Macy Foundation Conference ldquoEnhancingHealth Professions Education through Technologyrdquo in Arlington Virginia April 9ndash12 2015 1 See Steve Bradt ldquoThe Future of MIT Education

Looks More Global Modular and Flexiblerdquo MITNews August 4 2014 httpnewsofficemitedu2014future-of-mit-education-0804

2 Randy Bass ldquoDisrupting Ourselves The Problemof Learning in Higher Educationrdquo EDUCAUSEReview 47 no 2 (MarchApril 2012) httpwwweducauseedueroarticledisrupting-ourselves-problem-learning-higher-education

3 This is sometimes called blended learning but theterm hybrid better suggests the evolution andexperimentation of this characteristic

4 As a vivid reminder of this we need only recallthe circumstances surrounding the resignation

and reinstatement of Teresa Sullivan as presidentof the University of Virginia in the summer of2012 See Sara Hebel Jack Stripling and Robin Wilson ldquoU of Virginia Board Votes to ReinstateSullivanrdquo Chronicle of Higher Education June 262012 httpchroniclecomar ticleU-of-Virginia-Board-Votes-to132603

5 I owe this insight to Diana Oblinger EDUCAUSEpresident (2008ndash2015)

6 On the future of the academic computingarchitecture see Rob Abel Malcolm Brown andJack Suess ldquoA New Architecture for Le arningrdquoEDUCAUSE Review 48 no 5 (SeptemberOctober2013) httpwwweducauseedueroarticlenew-architecture-learning ldquoSpecifically thisnew open architecture for connected learningneeds to support and enable unprecedented

agility flexibility and personal izationrdquo 7 Robert V Kvavik Judy Caruso and Glenda

Morgan ldquoECAR Study of Students andInformation Technology 2004 ConvenienceConnection and Controlrdquo October 4 2004httpwwweducauseedulibraryresourcesecar-study-students-and-information-technology-2004-convenience-connection-and-control Eden Dahls trom J D Walkerand Charles Dziuban ldquoECAR Study ofUndergraduate Students and InformationTechnology 2013rdquo September 16 2013 httpwwweducauseedulibraryresourcesecar-study-undergraduate-students-and-information-technology-2013 Eden Dahlstromand Jacqueline Bichsel ldquoECAR Study ofStudents and Information Technology 2014rdquo

October 30 2014 httpwwweducauseedulibraryresources2014-student-and-faculty-technology-research-studies

8 ldquoAbilene Christian Universityrdquo NMC Spotlightshttpwwwnmcorgspotlightsacu CarlStraumsheim ldquo Build It Yourselfrdquo Inside HigherEd September 24 2014 httpswwwinsidehigheredcomnews20140924lynn-u-free-itself-its-learning-management-system-creates-its-own-software see the Tennessee Tech Universitywebsite MoLE-SI httpswwwtntecheduengineeringresourcesmole-si

9 Michael Feldstein ldquoA Weird but True Factabout Textbook Publishers and OERrdquo e-Literate

November 19 2014 httpmfeldsteincomweird-true-fact-textbook-publishers-oerJonathan Band ldquoThe Changing TextbookIndustryrdquo Disruptive Competition Project blogpost Novemb er 21 2013 httpwwwproject-

discoorgcompetition112113-the-changing-textbook-industry (emphasis added)

10 See Mark J Perry ldquoThe College Textbook Bubbleand How the lsquoOpen Educational ResourcesrsquoMovement Is Going Up Against the TextbookCartelrdquo Carpe Diem December 24 2012 httpwwwaeiorgpublicationthe-college-textbook-bubble-and-how-the-open-educational-resources-movement-is-going-up-against-the-textbook-cartel

11 Kevin Carey ldquoNever Pay Sticker Price for aTextbook Againrdquo Slate December 20 2012httpwwwslatecomarticlestechnologyfuture_tense201212boundless_and_the_open_educational_resources_movement_are_threatening_publishershtml

12 This technology is also called intelligent tutoring

systems For an introduction see the ELIpublications ldquo7 Things You Should Know AboutIntelligent Tutoring Systemsrdquo July 9 2013 httpwwweducauseedulibraryresources7-things- you-should-know-about-intelligent-tutoring-systems and ldquo7 Things You Should Read AboutIntelligent Tutoringrdquo April 1 2014 httpwwweducauseedulibraryresources7-things-you-should-read-about-intelligent-tutoring

13 Tyton Partners ldquoLearning to AdaptUnderstanding the Adaptive Learning SupplierLandscaperdquo April 2013 httptytonpartnerscomtyton-wpwp-contentuploads201501Learning-to-Adapt_Supplier-Landscapepdf

14 For a contextualized look at adaptive learningsee the case study concerning Essex CommunityCollegersquos use of this technology in its mathematics

curriculum httpe-literatetvseriespersonalized-learning

15 Paul Fain ldquoGates Foundation Helps Colleges KeepTabs on Adaptive Learning Technologyrdquo InsideHigher Ed April 4 2013 httpswwwinsidehigheredcomnews20130404gates-foundation-helps-colleges-keep-tabs-adaptive-learning-technology Roger Riddell ldquoAdaptive LearningThe Best Approaches Wersquove Seen So Farrdquo EducationDive October 31 2013 httpwwweducationdivecomnewsadaptive-learning-the-best-approaches-weve-seen-so-far187875

16 Mark Valenti ldquoBeyond Active LearningTransformation of the Learning SpacerdquoEDUCAUSE Review 50 no 4 (JulyAugust 2015)

17 See the ELI publications ldquo7 Things You ShouldKnow About Makerspacesrdquo April 9 2013 http

wwweducauseedulibraryresources7-things- you-should-know-about-makerspaces and ldquo7Things You Should Read About MakerspacesrdquoOctober 25 2013 httpwwweducauseedulibraryresources7-things-you-should-read-about-makerspaces

18 Two useful examples of makerspaces include themakerspace at the North Carolina State UniversityHunt Library (httpwwwlibncsueduspaceshunt-library-makerspace) and Case WesternReserve Universityrsquos think[box] (httpengineeringcaseeduthinkboxhome)

19 The Learning Space Rating System (httpwwweducauseedueliinitiativeslearning-space-

rating-system) an ELI initiative provides a set ofmeasurable criteria to assess how well the designof classrooms is supporting and enabling activelearning activities

20 Torin Monahan ldquoFlexible Space and Built

Pedagogy Emerging IT Embodimentsrdquo Inventio 4no 1 (2002)

21 Eden Dahlstrom D Christopher Brooks andJacqueline Bichsel The Current Ecosystem ofLearning Management Systems in Higher EducationStudent Faculty and IT Perspectives research report(Louisville CO ECAR September 2014) httpsneteducauseeduirlibrarypdfers1414pdf 410

22 Ibid 6 For a useful summary of the currentLMS market in higher education see Phil HillldquoState of the US Higher Education LMS Market2014 Editionrdquo e-Literate October 22 2014 httpmfeldsteincomstate-us-higher-education-lms-market-2014-edition

23 Malcolm Brown Joanne Dehoney andNancy Millichap ldquoWhatrsquos Next for the LMSrdquo

EDUCAUSE Review 50 no 4 (JulyAugust 2015)24 Ronald Yanosky Integrated Planning and Advising

Services A Benchmarking Study research report(Louisville CO ECAR March 2014) httpsneteducauseeduirlibrarypdfERS1312pdf 3ndash4

25 Ibid 10 7 26 Ibid 42 27 Alfredo de los Santos Jr and Irene Wright

ldquoMaricoparsquos Swirling Students Earning One-Thirdof Arizona Statersquos Bachelorrsquos Degreesrdquo CommunityTechnical and Junior College Journal 60 no 6 (JuneJuly 1990) National Student ClearinghouseResearch Center ldquoTransfer and Mobility ANational View of Pre-Degree Student Movementin Postsecondary Institutionsrdquo February 2012httppasindianaedupdftransfer20amp20mobilitypdf (at the time the report was published

24 percent of students had changed schools morethan once)

28 See the description of this accelerated track on theNYU School of Medicine website httpwwwmednyueduschoolstudent-resourcesmedical-educationmd-curriculumthree-year-md-degreeFor some reservations about this approach seeStanley Goldfarb and Gail Morrison ldquoThe 3-YearMedical SchoolmdashChange or ShortchangerdquoNew England Journal of Medicine September 192013 httpwwwnejmorgdoifull101056NEJMp1306457

29 A prominent example is College for America(httpcollegeforamericaorg) at Southern NewHampshire University (SNHU)

copy 2015 Malcolm Brown The text of this article is

licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-

NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 40 International

License (httpcreativecommonsorglicensesby-nc-

nd40)





It is thus more practi-cal to work with trajecto-ries With a trajectory weknow where something

is headed but we cannotsaymdashor we refrain fromguessingmdashwhere it will end

Working with trajectories isan admission that we can-not foresee the unantici-pated factors and develop-ments that might influencethe trajectory acceleratingit or perhaps instead derail-ing it entirely In this senseworking with trajectories isa more humble and realis-

tic way of facing the future A trajectory is also far lessfatalistic than a predictionThe latter asserts that thisis where we will end upwhereas a trajectory showswhere we might end up

In terms of teachingand learning I would liketo suggest three character-istics that provide contextfor the following discus-

sion of six digital technology trajectoriesThe first characteristic is personalization the growing capabilities and willingnessto use digital resources to create custompathways for learning and degree suc-cess One of the clearest illustrations ofdevelopments in this area may be MITrsquosexploration of breaking its courses downinto modules and enabling students andinstructors to ldquoreassemblerdquo the modulesto construct personalized educationalpathwaysmdasha process likened to construct-ing a playlist in iTunes1 Developments

such as these lend credence to the sugges-tion that we have entered the ldquopost-courseerardquo in higher education the course is nolonger the curricular atom or fundamen-tal building block2

The second characteristic is the adop-tion of hybrid learning models3 The footprintof the online dimension is expandingacross all venues of higher educationincluding institutions that have tradition-ally valued intimate face-to-face learning

Higher educationrsquos ldquoaffairrdquowith the MOOC thoughnow waning has had onelasting impact It has greatly

accelerated the migration ofhigher education into onlineeducation4 In addition thischaracteristic is intertwinedwith the first as instructorsinstructional designersand students are starting toinvent and modify learn-ing models and pathwaysas needed to achieve morepersonalized learning goals

The third characteris-tic is the analysis of ever-

increasing amounts of data andthe increasing influencethose analyses have in theconduct of higher educa-tion This use of ldquobig datardquoaffords much more nuancedand timely insights into allkinds of learning processesIt enables the creation ofcustom reports tailored tospecific learning contextsranging from institutional

dashboards to personalized assistance forlearners It provides the basis for measur-ing progress toward institutional strate-gic goals Equally important analyticsenables interventions in nearly real timeThis contributes greatly to learner andinstructor success as it allows the institu-tion to assist students at the very momentthey are falling behind

Clearly digital technology is the fabricof nearly everything associated with teach-ing and learning We can think of thisfact as an overarching trajectory digital

technology is the core strategic enabler oflearning in higher education But therersquosa twist Our thinking about digital tech-nology in higher education is shiftingaway from seeing it as IT infrastructure andinstead toward conceiving it as a digitallearning environment5 For those of us whohave worked in higher education informa-tion technology this is a significant shift inour thinking It means that the technologyis no longer in the foreground instead our

attention is focused on the learners andthe learning experiences that the technol-ogy enables6 It sets for all campus playersthe ambitious goal of a learning ecosystem

that is responsive and can be personalizedEnabling that ambitious goal are six indi-

vidual trajectories of digital technologydevice ownership and mobile-first thetextbook and open educational resources(OER) adaptive learning technologylearning spaces the next generation learn-ing management system (LMS) and learn-ing analytics and integrated planning andadvising services (IPAS)

Device Ownershipand Mobile-First

In the past there was much discussion ofthe digital divide the situation in whichsome students were able to afford digitalequipment whereas others could not

Although the problem has not been fullyresolved the picture has shifted Thecombination of lower costs for hardwareand the mobile computing revolution ofthe past decade has altered the landscapeMobile computing is a key technology inteaching and learning and the trajectoryis that it will continue to be so

One way to appreciate this trajec-tory is by taking a look at results of theannual student study conducted by theEDUCAUSE Center for Analysis andResearch (ECAR) In 2004 the studyrevealed that student technology owner-ship was divided between desktop andlaptop computers Most students ownedonly a single device The ownership ofldquopersonal digital assistantsrdquo was just under12 percent If we jump to the most recentstudies we see how thoroughly thislandscape has changed According to the

results of the 2013 study 30 percent of therespondents owned 4 or more Internet-capable devices In 2013 ownership ofsmartphones and tablets had increasedby 14 percent and 15 percent respectivelyover the previous year According to the2014 study ownership of smartphonesjumped to 86 percent and is projected tobe 90 percent in 2015 Tablet ownershipin 2014 jumped to 47 percent and its2015 trajectory is 58 percent ownership

The combinationof lower costsfor hardware

and the mobilecomputingrevolution ofthe past decadehas alteredthe landscapeMobilecomputing is akey technologyin teaching andlearning and thetrajectory is that

it will continueto be so


























lowing section)




































































































Conclusion Swirl





































Initiative (ELI)

Notes















































nd40)


























lowing section)




































































































Conclusion Swirl





































Initiative (ELI)

Notes















































nd40)
































































































Conclusion Swirl





































Initiative (ELI)

Notes















































nd40)





























Initiative (ELI)

Notes















































nd40)

six trajectories for digital technology in higher education (269058495)

Documents