Instructional models and their cost- structure Nadeosa Conference June 25, 2014 Thomas Hülsmann Instructional models and their cost structure1

Department of Higher Education and Training “The only complexity within this is that ICT has created one specific new form of contact, which is not easily classified as either face-to-face or distance. Online communication allows students and academics to remain separated by space and time (although some forms of communication assume people congregating at a common time), but to sustain an ongoing dialogue. Online asynchronous discussion forums, for example, reflect an instance where the spatial separation between educator and learners is removed by the ‘virtual’ space of the Internet, but where there remains temporal separation. However, as a discussion forum allows sustained, ongoing communication between academics and students, it is clearly a form of ‘contact’ not a form of independent study. Thus, there may be cause to introduce a new descriptor for educational methods of direct educator-student contact that are not face-to-face, but are mediated through new communications technologies. “ (DHE&T, 2012, p.13; emphasis added) Instructional models and their cost structure2

What transitioning to online distance education could mean for UNISA Introduction What is distance education? Scale economies What is online DE? Type-i and type-c affordances STI/RID – Is it worth it? MOOCs: ‘Scale economies reloaded’ Applications to UNISA: The Virtual Seminar Model (VSM) The Digital Correspondence Model (DCM) The Signature Course Model (SCM) The MOOCs Model (MM) Conclusions Instructional models and their cost structure3

4 As a consequence it was necessary: 1.Separate the presentational part from the interaction part; 2.shift the locus of teaching to presentation and away from interaction; 3.to the extent possible, substitute real interaction by simulated interaction. Simulated interaction refers to in-text questions and in- text activities so typical for distance education study material. Traditional distance developed around a deficit: There was no technology allowing responsive interaction at a distance (RID). Traditional Distance Education Instructional models and their cost structure

In (1st and 2nd generation) distance education the two modes presentation (p) and (real) interaction (i) had to be separated. In conventional education the modes of presentation (p) and (real) interaction (i) are 'interleafed'. The teacher can seamlessly move from presentation to interaction. Due to the lack of responsive real interaction at a distance (RID) 1st and 2nd generation had to shift the focus of teaching from real interaction to simulated interaction. Interaction was designed into the content. From real to simulated interaction Instructional models and their cost structure5

Simulated interaction e.g. COL/PREST Simulated interaction works. We know that. But can it compensate for real interaction? Most educators think it cannot. Interactivity is designed into the text as, for example, in-text question or in-text activity: New forms of simulated interactions are available in digital learning environments !! Instructional models and their cost structure6

7

6

The ICT revolution: RID becomes possible The Virtual Seminar Model (VSM): a new paradigm for online DE? ICT allowed responsive interaction at a distance and addressed the Achilles Heel of DE. Many thought that the new responsive and highly interactive form of DE would be the new paradigm. We named it the Virtual Seminar model. The model is highly discussion driven. Hence high V but low F (syllabus; some discussion topics); otherwise it uses existing material (incl. OERs). Example : The Master of Distance Education and E-Learning (MDE) is a signature course of UMUC. In principle scalable if [tuition >> V]. But UMUC not a research university; high level of casualization of academic labor; high tuition fees. But it soon dawned distance educators that the new model came at a cost since it seemed to drive horses through the successfully established model of DE. Especially it seemed incompatible with scale economies. Instructional models and their cost structure9

The bad news: The incompatibility theorem 1.[RID   SE] High levels of responsive interaction at a distance (between student and teacher) are incompatible with scale economies. 2.Logically equivalent is [SE   RID] If an institution wants/needs to retain a high level of scale economies it needs to keep responsive interaction at a distance (between student and teacher) low. Instructional models and their cost structure10

Scale economies Instructional models and their cost structure11 Planners and administrators are interested in average costs to fall not as such in a high level of scale economies. AC should be low not F/V high. V defines the lowest level beyond which AC cannot fall; not any increase of scale makes AV fall below V. Hence V has to be watched. Scale economies may erode quickly. (Note the fall of AC between year I and 3 and compare it with year 8 and 10. Even when AC falls TC rises. The relevance of scale economies does not simply depend on number of students but also on number of programs offered. More programs cannibalize the potential of scale economies.

Interaction equivalence theorem Miyazoe & Anderson’s (2010) Image placeholder … deep and meaningful learning is supported as long as one of the three forms of interaction (student-teacher; student- student; student-content) is at a high level. The other two may be offered at minimal levels, or even eliminated, without degrading the student experience’. (Lane, 2014, p.2). RID: Is it worth it? Instructional models and their cost structure 12

The good news: The ICTs afford more than RID The term ICT draws together two main sets of affordances of digital technologies: 1.Type-i affordances: information processing, retrieval and exchange, and 2.Type-c affordances: sustaining communication between people at a distance. Instructional models and their cost structure13

“ An affordance is a quality of an object, or an environment, which allows an individual to perform an action. For example, a knob affords twisting, and perhaps pushing, while a cord affords pulling.” The term goes back to J.J. Gibson. The affordances of an object are the things an object allows you to do. With respect to actions affordances enable and constrain. You can better stack cubes than round things.J.J. Gibson Designing things configure affordances of the actor and the object to produce the desired effects. A handle of a cup allows avoiding the touching the hot part and using the handle. Talking about the affordances of digital technologies refers to what they allow you to do. And they allow/afford, among other things, responsive interaction at a distance. Affordances Norman, D. (1988) The Design of Everyday Things. New York, Basic Books Instructional models and their cost structure14

Why MOOCs cost nothing TC(N) = F + V*N F = 0 because development costs are treated as sunk costs; V= 0 since the main contributors to V, costs attributable to distribution and STI are zero. Hence: [[F= 0 ^ V=0]  TC= F+V*N=0] even if N is very large. This is, however, a slightly stylized account of the real situation. The emerging real costs seem to be around the level of $ or even more. Udacity now starts charging. The possibly intended effect is reducing numbers, increasing completion and generating revenues to enable them to improve student support. Instructional models and their cost structure15

The Correspondence Model (CM) The question is why at all UNISA should reinvent itself as an online teaching institution? Is there not the option to remain a correspondence institution? UNISA has a student clientele which is divided: many still cannot meet the reception cost of online DE, either because of technology infrastructure but also because of the costs. But the market is probably shrinking. Many have invested in the necessary equipment and want to see the returns. However, for business and ethical reasons UNISA should serve the traditional students. The business reaon is that they probably will have a competitive advantage in this laggard market while in the online distance market competition is likely to increase. Instructional models and their cost structure16

The Digital Correspondence Model (DCM) This seems to be the easiest option. In its most elementary version it simply requires a shift from text in print to text on screen. All the print related transaction costs of printing, storage, handling and distributing study guides could be saved (or reduced). If STI remains unchanged then V should fall slightly. The strategic advice may be: exploit better the type-i affordances of digital technologies. There are many things especially in assessment where automated marking (quizzes) can be used for formative assessment and free teacher workload for other purposes. Combining quizzes with learning analytics can lead to targeted interventions which would not erode scale economies (e.g. Koller)) Other forms of type-i affordances such as simulations could be used where appropriate. Much of this may well be available as OERs. Instructional models and their cost structure17

The Signature Course Model (SCM) The Signature Course Model (SCM): The enrollment of signature courses can be quite high. Numbers of students in a class are still too high for the TA using a VS approach. According to Baijnath, N. (2014) the TAs are told to take a rather hands-off attitude and reference is made to heutagogy. The approach also recalls the cMOOCs approach which encourages formation of groups for mutual support. It is worth to watch this approach closely. Interesting is also the use of digibands especially the plan to load replication software on them and thus save students considerable airtime. Instructional models and their cost structure18

The MOOCs Model (MM): Many UNISA courses are in terms of their size as massive as many MOOCs and in this respect would qualify as MOOCs, albeit as “correspondence MOOCs in silos’. Moreover, MOOCs are “scale economies reloaded’ and in this respect seem very compatible with the cost structure UNISA needs for its big courses. Hence it makes sense to watch the MOOCs development closely. MOOCs are scale economies reloaded: hence perfectly compatible with the scale economies UNISA requires for many of its courses. MOOCs make more use of videa and audio whichh may be attractive especially for academically underprepared students. The format projects teacher presence. The recorded lectures being punctuated with quizzes increase the impression of responsiveness in the teaching learning transactions. Instructional models and their cost structure19

Tentative conclusions There are various instructional models. Using the affordances of digital technologies can be done in various ways. There is no techno-determinism at work. On the contrary technology is highly malleable to be moulded to institutional purposes. Thanks! FVRIDSE VSMlowhigh lowClass size CMmoderatelow high MMMhighlow very high DCMModerate+low-lowhigh +as compared to CM SCMhighmoderatemoderate (?)high -as compared to DCM MMhighlowVery lowhigh Instructional models and their cost structure20

Themed issue in the Journal Distance EDucation: Distance Education and Time: Instructional and organizational implications for managing time, workload, and costs Instructional models and their cost structure21