E-learn Weblog of Willem van Valkenburg

Today we celebrated the fifth year anniversary of the Delft Extension School. It is a good moment to look back at what we accomplished.

You can look at the numbers as displayed in the graph above, but the impact has been much bigger for the university. As our Vice President Education mentioned at the celebration today, the activities have had a big impact on our campus education. Especially it has been an enabler for blended learning on campus.

When we started the Extesnion School we got some specific assignments:

• be an international frontrunner in open and online education
• create a flexible and international team

Both assignments we accomplished with honour. For the first bullet, I just refer to the MIT report. For the second bullet, let me list the nationalities in our team. We have team members from Italy, Mexico, Israel, Iran, Slovenia, South Africa, Canada, US, Spain, Sweden, Portugal, Chili, and Greece. And this week we hired a new learning developer from the UK.

Looking back on these five years it is amazing what we have accomplished. We sometimes forget this, because we see all the things we can do better. I would like to thank the great team that made this possible, not just the support team, but also the amazing teachers that took the extra step to create an online course.

Banner image is CC-BY Delft University of Technology

ICDE published an interesting guide on ethics in learning analytics. The guide is written by Sharon Slade and Alan Tait. The report proposes a number of core issues that are important for the use and development of Learning Analytics in ethics-informed ways:

• Transparency
• Data ownership and control
• Accessibility of data
• Validity and reliability of data
• Institutional responsibility and obligation to act
• Communications
• Cultural values
• Inclusion
• Consent
• Student agency and responsibility

These issued need to be further discussed and adopted to the local context. I think the guide helps to address the ethics issues related to learning analytics. We need to address these to make learning analytics a success within education. Many of the issues we have addressed in the TU Delft Learning Analytics Policy Framework.

Download the guide

The 4TU Applied Mathematics Institute in the Netherlands is organising an interesting conference about mathematics education. The conference will take place on 11th and 12th April 2019 in Utrecht.

The conference will bring together Mathematicians and teachers of Mathematics in Higher Education to explore and discuss new trends and innovations in Mathematics education.

The conference focuses on:

• Learning Analytics (Thursday)
• Digital Testing of Mathematics (Thursday)
• Blended and Online Learning of Mathematics (Thursday)
• Didactics of Mathematics teaching (Friday)
• Programming in Mathematics education (Friday)

Registration
For registration to the conference, please fill in and submit the registration form before March 24.

Registration fee
Euro 25 including two lunches and one dinner.

The Open Education Consortium is actively recruiting nominations for members of its Board of Directors.  We seek passionate educational leaders of high integrity who are committed to improving education worldwide through open educational practices. We welcome nominations from administrators, faculty, Presidents and Directors of educational institutions or other organizations that support the OEC’s mission and activities.

I hereby invite you to nominate candidates for Member of the Board of the Open Education Consortium (OEC).

The Open Education Consortium desires a strong, internationally diverse Board of Directors. Nominees from all regions of the world are welcome. This year, we particularly welcome nominations from Central/South America, Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Australia/New Zealand.

Responsibilities of Board Members

The Board of Directors is charged with setting the strategic direction of the OEC. Board members make high level decisions concerning the mission, outputs, finances and services of the Consortium.  Board members are expected to act in the best interest of the organization and its members in all deliberations.

The Board particularly seeks nominees with experience in fundraising and sustainability, membership growth and engagement, events and services, and operations including legal & finance.

Primary responsibilities of the Board of Directors include:

• Determine and refine the OEC’s mission and purpose
• Lead strategic planning and monitoring to ensure activities are in support of the OEC’s mission
• Ensure adequate financial resources and retention of assets
• Identify, support and evaluate the OEC’s Executive Director
• Monitor the ethical and legal integrity of the organization
• Orient and support new board members, build board capacity and set board policies
• Promote the OEC and its mission
• Commit to the full board term of two years

To fulfill its charge, the Board will hold four in meetings a year, two of which will be in person and two online. It is important that board members make every attempt to fully participate in all meetings. While substitutions are permitted if necessary, the substitute will not be allowed to vote on the Board member's behalf.

The Board member's institution is expected to cover the cost of the Board member's travel to meetings and time that is given to the OEC.  

Likewise, it is anticipated that Board members will serve as liaisons with various standing committees and work groups, and will represent the Consortium from time to time at various meetings and/or events.

The filing deadline for nominations is 13 February 2019 at 12:00 UCT. To Nominate yourself or one of your colleagues, please fill in the webform.
For questions, please send an email to the OEC Board Nominating Committee: nominating@oeconsortium.org

Babson Research group published an interesting report on the use of educational resources in US Higher education.

The study shows multiple factors are in place to support rapid future increases in awareness and use of OER:

• Faculty and department chairpersons believe that the high cost of course material has a negative impact on student access.
• The 5Rs that underpin OER (Retain, Reuse, Revise, Remix and Redistribute) are a perfect match to the extensive use of 'revise' and 'remix' that faculty are already practicing.
• Faculty members express considerable resentment towards commercial publishers over price and unnecessarily frequent updates, among other issues.
• Faculty report a growing acceptance (or even preference) for digital materials.
• The 'open' a spect of OER resonates with faculty; they see it as an excellent match to academic principles

Key findings from the report:

• Faculty awareness of OER has increased every year, with 46 percent of faculty now aware of open educational resources, up from 34 percent three years ago.
• For the first time, more faculty express a preference for digital material over print in the classroom.
• 61 percent of a ll faculty, 71 percent of those teaching large enrollment introductory courses, and 73 percent of department chairpersons, "Strongly Agree" or "Agree" that "the cost of course materials is a serious problem for my students."
• Department chairpersons overwhelmingly believe that making textbooks less expensive for students would be the most important improvement to course materials.
• Less than one -in-five faculty members are aware of any departmental-, institution-, or system -level initiative to deal with the cost of course materials.
• Faculty are acting independently to control costs by supporting used textbooks and rental programs, placing copies on reserve, and selecting material s based on cost.
• Overall faculty satisfaction with required textbooks is high, with over 80 percent either "Extremely Satisfied" or "Moderately Satisfied." That said, faculty express considerable resentment about price, unnecessary frequent updates, and other issues with commercial textbooks.
• Faculty often make changes to their textbooks, presenting material in a different order (70 percent), skipping sections (68 percent), replacing content with their own (45 percent), replacing with content from others (41 percent), correcting errors (21 percent), or revising textbook material (20 percent).

It is really good to see the growing awareness of OER in the US.

I would be interested to see how these number relate to Dutch higher education.

TU Delft

The TU Delft strategic framework states that we want to replace commercial textbooks by open resources in all BSc programmes as much as possible. Last month we released the first 4 open textbooks. The are available on textbooks.open.tudelft.nl.

Full Report PDF: Freeing the Textbook: Open Education Resources in U.S. Higher Education, 2018 (pdf)

Image design by Mark Favazza. CC-BY-NC-SA Babson Survey Research Group

For the EMBED project we like to validate a framework for blended education and learning. Therefor we want to ask the opinion of experts in the field of blended education and learning. This blogpost describes the research design and explains how you can participate in this research.

Introduction: The EMBED project

The European Maturity model for Blended EDucation (EMBED) is a strategic partnership between seven1 institutes of higher education in Europe. EMBED will create a reference model for developing and implementing blended learning, embracing all levels of an institution: the design of the blended course (micro level), organisational aspects such as staff support and training (meso level), and institutional leadership, developing policies and strategies making the institution continuously innovative (macro level). The maturity model is a model with criteria and instruments to assess the degree of maturity of blended learning and innovation.

This research

The aim of this research is to validate the maturity framework for blended education. We developed a draft maturity framework, based on an extensive literature research and dozens of interviews. The draft maturity framework consists of two levels; the micro-level (course and curriculum level) and the meso level (institution level). For each level we have identified dimensions to describe the level and indicators to measure the maturity. The next step is to validate the draft maturity framework with experts in blended learning (that would be you).
This validation will be done using a Delphi research. In a Delphi research we ask experts in the field of blended education their opinion about the draft framework. This will be done in two rounds. We will use the input from round 1 to adjust the framework for round 2.

Round 1 (will take place between 21 November 2018 and 12 December 2018)
In the first round you will validate the dimensions of the draft framework. We defined 7 dimensions on micro-level and 9 dimensions on meso-level. We’re asking if you agree with the dimensions and also to give reasoning why you agree, or not. This will be done using an online questionnaire, which will take about 30 till 60 minutes to complete. The questionnaire will be available from 21 November till 12 December.
After Round 1 we will refine the framework based on the input of the participants.

Round 2 (Will take place between 16 January 2019 and 6 February 2019)
In the second round we will present the revised list of dimensions. First we will ask you to rank the dimensions in order of importance. After the ranking we will present the indicators for maturity per dimension. We will ask you to what extent you agree with the indicators and why. In this round we will also use an online questionnaire and it will take about 60 minutes. The questionnaire will be available from 16 January 2019 till 6 Februari 2019.

What do we ask of you?

We ask the following of the participants in this research:

• You have any experience in the field of blended education, learning or teaching. This can be in a role as director, manager, teacher, educational advisor or something else.
• You can spend 60 minutes per round, to fill in the online questionnaire. Round 1 will be from 21 November 2018 till 12 December 2018. Round 2 will be from 16 January 2019 till 6 February 2019.

How can you participate?

If you like to participate with the research for the EMBED project, please enrol using this link:
https://delftxtudelft.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3fPI86ZZiG2D5kx

At the annual EADTU conference Open, Online and Flexible Higher Education Conference at Aarhus University (Denmark) I was also invited to present about the European project we are currently participating in. The Erasmus+-funded project focuses on developing a European Maturity Model for Blended Education (EMBED).

 My keynote focused on the three levels of blended education that our framework will connecting.

Defining the blend

In the project we focus on the blend between online and face-to-face activities. We use these definitions:

• Blended Learning
  learning as a result of a deliberate, integrated combination of online and face-to-face learning activities.
  
  
• Blended Teaching
  designing and facilitating blended learning activities.
  
  
• Blended Education
  the formal context of BL that is determined by policies and conditions with regard to the organization and support of blended learning.

Three levels

Within the project we identified three levels:

• Micro
  blended learning and teaching of a course or programme. Primary actors are the students and teachers.
• Meso
  This is the context of the institute for blended education. Is there a policy for blended learning? Is there support available for teachers? Are classrooms setup suitable for blended learning?
  The primary actors are the leadership of the institute and support staff to make blended teaching and learning possible
• Macro
  the macro level is outside the institute, such as governmental policies, accreditation organisations. Interesting societal discussion on more classtime for students can influence the maturity of blended learning on the micro level.

In the feedback I received, it is especially the MESO level that is a eye-opener for many people. It is important that all three levels align to reach a level of maturity in blended education.

 Below the slides of my keynote, the session was not recorded.

Two weeks ago I attended the annual EADTU conference Open, Online and Flexible Higher Education Conference at Aarhus University (Denmark). One of the interesting presentations was of Diana Laurillard. She is working at the Knowledge Lab of University College London (UCL). The title of her presentation was Blended and Online Learning: Teachers changing the pedagogical landscape. Central in here presentation were two questions:

• Does pedagogy need to change for a digital world?
• How do we change the landscape of pedagogy?

She answered these questions with the help of the Conversational Framework she developed.

This framework is

• a series of iterative exchanges
• between learner and a ’teacher’ and
• between a learner and their peers
• at two levels of concepts and practices.

Her conclusion was that the fundamentals of learning have not changed, but the range of means by which we support learning differs. There are many more activities you can do online to learn a concept and to practice. Teachers need support to show them the options and learn them when to use specific means. Below her slides:

HP/Educause have published an interesting report on extended reality (XR). XR is a wide range of technologies along a continuum, with the real world at one end and fully immersive simulations at the other. The HP/EDUCAUSE Campus of the Future project explored the efforts of 11 colleges and universities to investigate the ways that augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and 3D scanning and printing technologies can benefit teaching, learning, and research.

This report describes a wide range of pedagogical uses of 3D tech in higher education, from augmenting experiences in the physical world to creating simulations of things that are inaccessible in the physical world, and from designing virtual things that may be made into physical things to repeating experiences virtually that cannot be repeated in the physical world. The report also discusses hurdles in implementing 3D technology and the possible future of 3D technology in higher education, and it makes recommendations—in terms of technical requirements, support needs, and organizational policies—for institutions wishing to deploy 3D technology on campus.

The key findings of the report:

• 3D technologies give users virtual superpowers. In a virtual reality (VR) simulation, a user can fly like Iron Man, have superstrength like Wonder Woman, and walk through walls like Kitty Pryde. VR and augmented reality (AR) give users X-ray vision like Superman’s. VR and 3D printing give users the ability to manipulate very small objects, like Ant-Man and the Wasp; to manipulate energy, like Magneto; and to create objects from empty space, like Doctor Manhattan and Elsa of Arendelle.
  
  
• VR is like being there. A well-constructed simulation is visceral: One’s intellectual and physiological reactions to objects and events in VR are similar—and sometimes identical—to one’s reactions in the physical world.
  
  
• VR and AR are multisensory experiences. Much VR and AR development focuses on the visual functionality of those technologies, but they are capable of more. The auditory functionality of VR and the haptic functionality of both VR and AR are critical for creating a realistic simulation.
  
  
• 3D technologies enable active and experiential learning. Virtual reality simulations enable users to interact in a space or around an object in ways beyond what is possible in the real world. Augmented reality enables users to interact with an object while possessing “superpowers,” such as the ability to see through surfaces or to see data overlying objects. With 3D printing, users can quickly create physical objects that might otherwise exist only in simulations. These functionalities enable users to gain hands-on experience with objects that might otherwise be inaccessible in teaching and learning contexts.
  
  
• Simulations enable individual practice and skill-building. In the medical professions, for example, VR enables students to repeat hands-on experiences that might not otherwise be possible (e.g., repeating a dissection multiple times) and to experience events that they might not otherwise be able to (e.g., diagnosing a rare condition, testing specific types of emergency medicine). Through repeated practice, students emerge more skilled.
  
  
• Simulations enable high-touch, high-cost learning experiences to be scaled up. While developing a simulated lab may be expensive, it is far less expensive than building and maintaining a physical lab. Furthermore, a simulated lab can be made available to individuals who are not co-located. VR and 3D printing therefore make it possible to provide lab experiences to a far greater number of users, perhaps even simultaneously.
  
  
• 3D technologies foster and sometimes require collaboration between campus units. The deployment of new technologies often fosters new collaborations across campus. Supporting users of 3D technology on campus requires a range of expertise, which encourages (if not requires) collaboration between campus IT units and instructional designers. The use of 3D technology has also fostered collaborations involving students and faculty across academic disciplines.
  
  
• Training is critical. Some early adopters on campus will teach themselves to use 3D technology, but many campus users will need support to learn to use this technology. The development of training sessions and workshops on 3D technology–related topics is critical for these technologies to gain traction on campus beyond the rarefied circles of early adopters.
  
  
• It takes time for the benefits of 3D technology to be realized on campus. While 3D technology is getting easier to use, it must still be set up and configured; software must be installed and possibly updated. Furthermore, users need time to learn to use the technology, and instructors need time to figure out how to use the technology in their teaching. Courses take months to be redesigned. The first year of deployment of 3D technology may be largely devoted to learning to use and integrate it into teaching and support practices; it may take until year two for the full benefits of using 3D technology on campus to be realized.

The report gives a good overview of current activities in the field of extended reality. On the website there is a lot of additional content.

Reference

• Pomerantz, Jeffrey. Learning in Three Dimensions: Report on the EDUCAUSE/HP Campus of the Future Project. ECAR research report. Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE, August 2018.

Last Thursday was the official opening of the new education building Pulse at TU Delft. This building is a state-of-the-art teaching building to facilitate the growing number of students on campus.

Blended and active learning

There are no traditional lecture rooms in this building. All rooms are setup for interactive teaching and learning. The students are grouped around a table (or can be easily turned around) to work together on assignments. Almost all walls double up as whiteboards and there are numerous LCD screens to enable groups to share information.

For the design of the building we used different inputs:

• According to the TU Delft Vision on Education we use "diverse teaching methods to stimulate active learning and use digital technologies to enhance  teaching & learning" (page 12). 
• Since a couple of years we have a team from different departments that created together the cookbook Education Spaces. The cookbook describes requirements for lecture halls, classrooms and study workplaces at TU Delft and contains four generic chapters: A) Pedagogic Classification, B) Education Space Typologies, C) Education Space Requirements, and D) Study Workplaces. It has been drawn up in close co-operation with teaching staff, students and supporting staff.
• Analysis of our current educational spaces and the expected demand in the coming years. This analysis showed that we especially needed rooms for 60-120 students.
• Pulse’s design came about in close cooperation with students and lecturers who discussed the preferred lay-out for the instruction rooms and the experience of the study landscape in the building. Their input has, for instance, resulted in the building having a lot of writable walls in the lecture rooms, extra lockers and longer opening hours. Students will be able to take classes by day, have a nice meal outdoors on the patio and then continue to study until late in the evening.

The building

The result is a building of 4,700 m2 with a total of  1,020 education spaces:

• 2 terraced rooms with a capacity of 125 people
• 8 rooms with capacities of 60 to 100 people
• Three special rooms for non-standard educational settings
• Approx. 160 self-study spaces

Energy-neutral building

Pulse is the first energy-neutral building of the university and scored the highest BREEAM score. The building is equipped with approximately 750 m2 PV panels combined with underground thermal storage and a triple-glazed façade. An intelligent building management system ventilates, lights, cools and heats the various spaces at Pulse in accordance with their usage. 

Training for lecturers

My team is offering a short training session of 1,5 hours. The training will focus on the delivery of lectures from an active learning perspective, whilst trying to fully benefit from the didactic advantages of the 4Q system and digital writing system. It would be disappointing if these beautiful rooms would be used for classical lectures.

Tomorrow the first official lectures will start in Pulse. Then we will know how students and lecturers will experience the new building. The proof of the pudding is in the eating!

Photos

Below some photos to give you an impression of the building or take a look at the virtual tour of the building. Photos are provided by the education spaces team and are copyrighted TU Delft.