20 Trends in (ODE) Online Education

 

A critical analysis of the developments and present status indicate at least 20 visible trends in ODE and  online education. These are:

 

1.      MOOCs:  According to Class Central[1], by the end of 2019, 900 universities around the world announced 13,500 MOOCs. 2,500 MOOCs were launched by 450 universities in 2019 alone.  The MOOCs are being accessed by millions of learners all over the world. India’s SWAYAM, latest to arrive on the scene   has registered 10 million learners.

2.      OER: More and more countries and higher education institutions are enacting   OER Policy and setting up OER Repositories.  The Creative Commons OER policy registry lists 112 current and proposed OER Policies from around the world. According to one estimate, there are 1600 OER repositories that include online presentations, course material, learning modules, podcasts, simulation tools, etc.

3.      Discussion Forums:  Both synchronous (e.g. Webinars) and asynchronous    discussions are hosted on e-platforms like Google meet, Zoom, Microsoft Teams, CISCO, etc.  

4.      Blended Learning: More and more institutions are blending online education with face-to-face interactions, discussion forums, hands-on and constructionist practices.

5.      Mobile Learning: With deep penetration of Smartphones, mobile learning is increasingly becoming popular through mobile apps, and innovative use of the handheld device to access online learning material, participation in online discussion forums, and taking online tests.

6.      Electronic Delivery of Learning Material: More and more distance education providers are replacing the practice of postal delivery of printed learning material with electronic delivery.  Institutions upload the learning materials on a  platform for learners to download as and when they need.   Institutions are also sharing the savings on the cost of printing with distance learners by reducing course fees.  

7.      Online Examination and Assessments: More and more online education providers are adopting online examinations and assessments.  

8.      Application of Learning Analytics: Increasing number of ODE institutions is adopting learning analytics for learning diagnostics and improving course delivery.

9.      Student Hub: Student hub as a one-stop-shop for students for all kinds of information and support is becoming a new trend in online education. The student Hub, in some   universities also provides an online interactive facility featuring a discussion forum. 

10.  Personalization: To overcome  isolation in online education, an emerging trend is to provide personalization. Besides  personalization of educational content, media, pace and assessment mechanisms   according to the preference of the learner,   personalization is also being devised for breaking isolation, especially for the  hibernating learners, and those who are sliding back on performance[2]. 

11.  Integration of private providers on online learning: The online education programs are dominated by private providers like FutureLearn, Coursera, Udemy, Udacity, SWAYAM and others. An emerging trend is integrating private providers in online education offerings of the universities.

12.  Nano-courses: Learners’ preference is moving towards shorter nano-courses that can be completed within a few days or weeks. More and more learners are shopping nano courses according to their choice; and collecting badges and micro-credentials.  

13.  Micro-credentials and Badges: Learners are seeking Micro-credentials as mini degrees in recognition of their evidence of learning on completion of the online course, and not by participation only. Badges are also used as micro-credentials. The trend is shifting from standard diplomas and degrees to the mini qualification of micro-credentials.

14.  Beyond 18-23: Online education, especially short nano-courses, is unlocking adult lifelong learning. More and more adult learners, mostly in employment, have been taking online courses for professional development and skill up gradation. Online education, thus, has broken the age cohort concept for higher education. 

15.  Cross Border Delivery: Educational delivery, conventionally restricted to the geographical boundaries,  is changing with cross-border delivery and cross border access to courses. 

16.  Changing Demography: More and more women, members of the weaker sections, and minority communities are participating in online   education courses.  

17.  Participation of Global Organization: UNESCO, OECD, COL, World Bank, European Commission and other global and multilateral organizations have been advocating the use of online   education.  The World Economic Forum estimates that more than one billion people in the world will need to be reskilled by 2030. Online education is the appropriate response to the challenge.

18.  Policy Shifts of the Governments: More and more country governments are indicating preference for online open and distance education. The government finds it a low-cost response to the challenge of educating the large mass of the young and adult population, especially at a time when the governments are steadily reducing  public funding of education.

19.  Faculty Role Changing: The role of the faculty  is changing from teaching face to face students  to content generation and  providing online tutorial.

20.   Mindset Shift: With the active involvement of global organizations and country governments  promoting online education, there is  a   shift  in the  mindset for better.  

 

---

[1] https://www.classcentral.com/report/mooc-stats-2019/#:~:text=By%20the%20end%20of%202019,were%20launched%20by%20450%20universities .

 

[2] I read a case in a paper (missed the reference) where UKOU called up on the phone a registered learner whose grades were going down. During the telephone call, the UKOU counselor found that the candidate was passing through some difficult times at home. Counselor advised the candidate to hibernate for some time to overcome the personal problems, and then return back so that he may maintain his record of good performance. 

NEP2020: Does It Aspire Transformation?

 

Yes, indeed. It does.

It aspires transformation as policies in all areas, in all countries, in all ages do. Aspiring transformation is in the nature of policy; is the purpose of the policy.

Policy derives from the experience of the past, stands in the present and paints the future. Changing the present to the future is transformation. It is true, whether it is education, agriculture, industry, health, or any other field. Education evolves; its aspirations are equally evolving. Every new aspiration stands on the shoulder of the previous aspirations, including the unfinished agenda.

Aspiration  to transform is equally true across the countries. NCLB and ESSA of the USA, 2012 policy of Finland, Singapore’s 4-stage plan from 1997 to 2015, and many others – all aspire transformation. The aspiration to transform is the reason for the policy. If the policy does not aspire transformation, it doesn’t qualify to be a policy.

The policies use different words to express their intent of transformation. First Indian National Education Policy of 1968 expressed its intention with the strong word, ‘radical change’. 1986 policy expressed the same intention with a modest matured expression that ‘only a comprehensive policy’ would be able to achieve the transformation necessary.

There are also differences in the ways the  policies are made -- across the countries, and within India.  Research, diagnosis and consultation of stakeholders are three pillars of all scientific policymaking. The 1968 policy was formulated based on the basis of the recommendations of the  Kothari Commission. The largescale consultations, a huge amount of serious research, and expert-authored position papers spread over a period of two years, 1964-66 were the inputs to the report of the Commission. It was a landmark.  Commission went round the country consulting all possible stakeholders.  The Commission was chaired by no less than a scholar of the stature of Prof D.S. Kothari with Sri J. P. Naik another architect of Indian education as the Member Secretary. And, it was the first National Policy. It had to pioneer both the process of policy making in Indian education and the product. There was no precedence; it had no shoulder to stand upon.

The 1986 policy took off where 1968 policy left. It was developed in a very different fashion. It started with developing   a diagnostic document -what has been achieved, what have been some of the missed opportunities, and what can be done. The diagnostic document titled, The Challenge of Education was debated extensively all over the country. Several hundred well-documented reports were received in NIEPA that was entrusted to carry out the content analysis and derive policy implications from the collective wisdom of all stakeholders in the country.  Based on the analysis, a draft policy was developed that went into another round of extensive discussion with all stakeholders before finalizing. Prime Minister himself participated in several discussions (one was chaired by Dr.  Malcolm Adisesiah) during the policy formulation; he also reviewed the entire policy document word by word and commented before it was finalized (as professor of NIEPA, then, I witnessed).

As the World Wide Web or the Internet was still to be born (1990-91), 1968 and 1986 policy had no opportunity for online consultation.

Both the 1968 and 1986 policies went to the Parliament for debate and approval before the declaration of the   National Policy on Education.

2020 policy was developed still differently. A Committee was set up under  Sri TSR Subramaniam in 2016.  The committee submitted its report  in on 7^th May 2016. Another committee was constituted under the chairmanship of Dr Kasturirangan in 2018.  The committee submitted its report on 31^st May 2019. Taking full advantage of development of ICT and well developed network of institutions, there was extensive consultation on the Subramaniam report and then on the draft document. With the vibrant World Wide Web, there was large scale online consultation.  Prime Minister took keen interest in the policy making and the aftermath. The President and the Prime Minister actively engaged themselves in public speaking on the policy.

One indication of the aspiration of the national policies is the active involvement of the highest executives, namely the prime ministers in the country.

Diverting for a moment. The three practices provide important research opportunities for policy research. There is research on impact of sample size on research outcomes, e.g. beyond a size of the sample (large sample), cost of research increases without increase of the worth of the research findings. I didn’t come across any research on scale of consultation and quality of outcome in the context of policy making. This provides and opportunity for research.  Similarly, another research opportunity is on the online consultation. Online consultation, like online surveys, divide the prospective sample into respondent and non-respondent samples. This division is on the basis of enthusiasm and voluntariness to share the viewpoints; and not the knowledgeability on the subject of the discourse.  The issue remains unexplored – what would be the result if non-respondent knowledgeable sample would have responded?

Consultation is necessary, but not end of the road for policy formulation. The policy is a political statement on the subject by the political party in power (in case of democracies) or the ruler  (in autocratic states).  Hence, the views of the ruling dispensation are important for any policy.  

There is some common core of aspirations across the countries.  As Tan[1], analyzing the tensions in Chinese education policy mentioned, educational policies derive from educational theories and best practices across the countries. For example, student-centric education, higher-order cognition, technology-enabled/integrated education are the common core of educational policies across the countries; also reflected in NEP2020. I have personally seen the schools that India aspires to create as described in NEP 2020 in Singapore, Japan, China, UK, USA and Canada.   I have also seen some Indian schools that fit into the aspired framework of the imagined schools of the future.

Comparing new policies with the previous ones is not very relevant. 1968 policy was developed in a context that changed by 1985. 1986 policies derived the advantage of the implementation of 1968 policies for little more than 15 years. Similarly, the 1986 policy was formulated based on the developmental context that existed then. 2020 policy derives the benefits of implementation of 1986 policies over the last 34 years that has substantially changed the context. The quality of aspiration needs to be tested laterally with contemporary policies in comparison to other countries like E-9 countries.

Every policy stands on the shoulder of the previous policy(ies). Barack Obama’s Every Student Succeed Act  (2015) stood on the shoulder of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. Singapore’s four-stage plan leading to the ambition of making “Lifelong Self Learners” was a step by step progression from  1997 to 2015 and now. Finland’s Phenomenon-based Learning policy is not disconnected from its experience and achievements. NEP 2020 had the privilege and advantage of standing on the strong shoulders of 1968 and 1986 policies.

In 1947, India inherited 19% literacy; a total of 241,369 students registered across 20 universities and 496 colleges. NEP 2020 takes off with 77.7% literacy, 37.4 million students across 993 universities, 39,931 colleges, and 10,725 stand-alone institutions, (according to the AISHE-2019) at 26.3% GER in higher education.The situations are totally different. Things are different. Aspirations have to be qualitatively different.

Questions that need Answers

 I’ll refer my readers to two useful policy frameworks – one by the World Bank Group and another by UNESCO authored by Robert Kozma[2] in the context of Power of ICT Policies. I prefer Robert Kozma’s framework as it provides a useful four-layer  aspirational taxonomy – Basic Education, Acquiring Knowledge, Deepening Knowledge and Creating Knowledge; and various dimensions like Policy Vision, Professional Development, Pedagogy, Curriculum, Assessment, School Organization (and ICT Use) on the other axis. The unresolved questions are  what is NEP 2020 aspiration – Basic Education, Acquiring Knowledge, Deepening Knowledge or Creating Knowledge.   Unresolved question is how would NEP 2020 feed to both Bihar (with 13.6% GER) and Tamil Nadu already at 49% GER?

Unresolved question is whether and how NEP2020 responds to the 4-layer knowledge taxonomy with the dimensions of policy vision, professional development, curriculum, Pedagogy, assessment and institutional organization?

 Aspiration is natural for all policies. Aspirations need to be judged against a set of criteria. These are:

1.      Is it contemporary?

2.      Is it Futuristic?

3.      Is it optimistic enough to be inspiring?

4.      Is the aspiration rooted in reality to be implementable?

5.      Would it enhance global parity?

6.      Would it reduce in-country regional disparities?

 For example, India ranked 129 among 189 countries in the world on HDI in 2019. India lifted 271 million people out of poverty between 2005-15; but remains home for 364 million poor people (28%) (UNDP 2019 report). Many questions would appear on the way from 2020 to 2040. How does NEP 2020 aspire to lift the poor and ensure the quality of life, social justice and all that have been enshrined in the Indian Constitution? How would GER help in improving HDI, or what percentage of GER is the minimum threshold for lifting India’s poor and illiterate out of the situation where they are. How would NEP 2020 change or contribute to the improvement of Quality of Life Index of India and also its ranking in the world? Would it help change the Pareto Principle of 20% Indians amassing 80% of the wealth to assuring better distribution of wealth ensuring End of Poverty[3]?

 Conclusion

1986 policies weathered 34 storms, scorching summers and freezing colds offering a solid ground for NEP2020 to stand upon. NEP 2020 is a new-born spotless baby fresh from the garden. We welcome and celebrate her appearance as heartily as India did to its pioneer 1968 and predecessor 1986 policies. 

---

[1]Tan, Charlene. (2016). Tensions and challenges in China’s education policy borrowing. Educational Research. 58. 1-12. 10.1080/00131881.2016.1165551.

[2]Kozma, R. B. (2011) A Conceptual Framework: The Knowledge Ladder. In UNESCO (2011).Transforming Education: The Power of ICT Policies. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/FIELD/Dakar/pdf/Transforming%20Education%20the%20Power%20of%20ICT%20Policies.pdf

[3] Please see The End of Poverty: How We Can Make It Happen In Our Lifetime by Jeffrey Sachs (2005).

5W Model: Learning Environment in 21st Century

 

6 Minute read

5W Model: Learning Environment in 21^st Century

Marmar Mukhopadhyay

Introduction

 It is quite a popular theme for the last about three decades.  There are a large number of writings accessible on the net.  There is an equally good number of slides in the slide share domain. I have however not come across any futurological study on the learning environment in the 21^st Century. What we find are imagination projected on a future canvas. Mine is no different. We are actually already 2 decades old in the 21st century.  What remains is about 80 years. 

It's a generic concept. If we see it through the prism of Future Shock, it is a Utopia. 21^st century has Eritrea and Finland; or Niger with an average of 2-year schooling and Luxemburg or Norway - the richest countries in the world where people can afford almost anything they wish. Whose learning environment are we talking about, any way! It looks more of a romantic tryst with ideas.

Within India, Learning environment in Kolkata–Delhi-Bangaluru-Mumbai-Chennai is not the same. Within Kolkata – learning environments in new generation institutions like Adamas University and the oldest - my alma mater is not the same, though both share the space in the 21st century. We need to find a set of descriptors of the learning environment that can explain changing time – next eight decades of this century, and geographical space from Niger to OECD Countries.

 Majority of the authors portrayed the 21st century learning environment on the basis of technological developments.  As I understand, the learning environment cannot be shaped without the involvement of the people.  I see the 21st century learning environment moving on two legs - one is the 21st century learners, and second is developments in technology. 

21^st Century Learners

This is another popular theme among the Netwriters/Bloggers. Dr. Sarah Elaine Eaton’s 21 Characteristics is the most comprehensive[1]. 21^st century learners are far more exposed to environmental stimulations due to digital media, limitless human networking. Many more brain neurons are regularly excited creating new synapses and brain patterns making them much smarter learners. They prefer to decide what and how they want to learn. Having landed at the Level 3 of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, their focus is on ‘making a difference’ rather than earning to survive or ‘live   happily ever after’.  They   confidently assert freedom; love risks and challenges and are ready to fail to innovate and create. Master of social media, they connect and collaborate naturally with others across the lands and seas.  They prefer to explore, experiment and discover knowledge and solution to perplexing problems than accept what is told to them.  Endowed with natural intelligence, they happily unburden their cognitive overload on artificial intelligence, machine learning, block-chain, augmented reality. They are the masters of Alexa and her next generations.  They are not ‘prisoners of geography[2];  they know they are global citizens.

Technological Developments

Technological developments are fast, disruptive and unpredictable.  Technology integration is predictable. Early indications are integration of Smart board, Clickers, video-aided education, PPT slide-presentation, clickers, Computer and video games, online education, blended learning improve  student learning outcomes.  Technology integrating teachers are doing better. Online education is doing better and makes a big promise.

New Technologies like Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Block Chain Technology, Game-based Learning, Virtual Reality, Learning Analytics, Big Data, Mobile Apps, Internet of Thing, Adaptive Computer Testing, Bite Size Learning, Cloud Computing, Online ICT Tools, Open Education Resources are fast changing the contours of educational canvas. 

Digital divide in this age of digital learning is reality. There are three faces of digital divide. These are attitude, skill and access. Adults at home, institution and governance are at disadvantage. 21^st century learners possess better digital attitude and skills; thereby overcome deficiency in access. Adults in power centres have better access to digital devices; their poor attitude and skills   decelerate  unfolding the power of the learning environment.  

21^st Century Learning Environment: Agenda and the Challenge

The central  agenda of the 21st century learning  environment is to Create Lifelong  Self-learners.  Instead of mastery of a subject,  agenda is Mastery of the Art of Learning. With tremendous developments in technology, and knowledge revolution,  knowledge and information will suffer   obsolescence  faster than any time in the history.  Accordingly,  the biggest challenge of the 21st century learning environment will be to enhance  the conceptual complexity of the learner,  and continuous rebuilding of the cognitive structure to make it more and more capable of  abstract   and creative thinking,  leaving the concrete information to be stored in technological devices to be retrieved on JIT basis. In such a fluid unpredictable situation,  any description   or projection of the 21st century learning environment is fraught with risk of obsolescence  that may also  smack of misplaced romanticism. To be resilient and relevant for sometime at least, in this ever changing scenario,  I propose a 5W Model  where every component is also capable of changing.  In other words,  we need a model that  does not stand on here and now basis only,  but dynamic enough to change with the changing scenario.

5W Model

My 5W  Model comprises of 5 words -  Whenever,  Whatever,  Whichever,  Wherever, and Whomever.

I define the 21^st Century Learning Environment as Learn 

Whenever–Whatever-Whichever-Wherever-Whomever.  

21^st Century Learning Environment would include unnoticed, unintended incidental learning into an individual's  learning portfolio.

Whenever: Learning will no more be restricted to  fixed institutional time,   or the age of a person.  The 21st century learning environment will provide  learning opportunities anytime of the day,  anytime of the month and year not excluding Saturday-Sundays as non-learning days,  and anytime in life.  In other words,   the concept of learning at a particular time of the day,  and a particular number of days in a semester,  and in the first 25 years of life  would  no more  be valid.  People will  access  learning resources and learn anytime during the day,  or the year,  and any time during life. 

Whatever:   21st century learners  would have the opportunity of learning whatever she/he  wants to learn.  It can be a group of subjects from HASS  or STEM.  It can be phenomenon based multidisciplinary learning.  Learners can choose to learn forest fire,  Tsunami,  epidemic or pandemic, growing up, or scholarship. Learners can choose a full course on medicine or take  bite-size learning of diabetes or joint pain only. They would collect badges and accumulate at their sweet time and will.  

Whichever:  Learners would exercise freedom to learn the ways they  choose to. They may learn through  online  or face to face offline programs,  or blended learning.   They will  assess their own learning outcomes,  at their own style and pace, and instruments of their own choice. After all, self assessment is the most powerful source of feedback for improving learning outcomes.

 Wherever:  The geography of learning will be totally unbound.  It may be in the classroom;  or  home,  or Clubhouse; on the lush green meadows or in the sea or in the sky.  Learners will access   learning opportunities from local institutions, any university   and academic institution within the country or anywhere in the world. 

Whomever: The conventional concept of designated teacher would change to learn from anyone – people in white collar, yellow collar, blue collar or open collar; learn from their learning and experience, and expertise rooted in real situation through apprenticeship, tutorials, assistantships, etc. Teacher would provide the critical support in choosing appropriate person to learn from.

The 5W  model  indicates total freedom of the learner To learn whatever she wants to learn, whenever,  whichever and wherever. This is possible because of 21^st Century Learners’ will and zeal to learn and technological development that has successfully dismantled the geographical boundaries creating free access  to quality learning opportunities anywhere in the world via Internet and Open Education Resources.  

Conclusion

UNESCO’s International  Commission  on session on Future of Education: Learning to Become is in session. It is consulting everyone. I’ll wait for  the global collective wisdom about The Future of Education, and 21^st Century Learning Environment.

 

---

[1] https://drsaraheaton.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/21st-century-learners/

[2] Title of a beautiful book by Tim Marshall