Assessing the Value of Synchronous Learning

Phillip Knutel, Bentley UniversityLouis Chin, Bentley University

Jim Lee, UMass Online (Lowell)MJ Potvin, Suffolk University

My Background with Online Learning• Worked for the VP for IT and Dean for Academic Outreach

(online learning) at Michigan – He left to start Internet2– I left as Director of Academic Technology for Academic

Outreach to come to Bentley– My Ph.D. dissertation research was on enabling widespread

faculty adoption of extant technologies• Excelsior College

– 36,500 online students; 500 employees, and few faculty– Competency testing model– I serve on Curriculum Development Committee– President John Ebersole on Boston Higher Education

Innovation Council (BHEIC)– I serve on Steering Committee for BHEIC

Fellow BHEIC Steering Committee Members Include:

• Kris Clerkin, SNHU Executive Director, College for America– $2,500/year associate’s degree for working adults– ConAgra sponsor; plan to enroll 100,000 in 1st 5 years

• Sean Gallagher, Senior Strategist & Market Development Officer, Northeastern University– Launching campuses in Charlotte, NC and Seattle, WA

• Peter Stokes, Vice President for Global Strategy and Business Development, Northeastern University– Former Executive Vice President and Chief Research Officer,

Eduventures• Michael Sandler, Founder, Eduventures

Online Courses/Collaboration Team Members• Received an asynchronous online MS in 2013 • Completed doctoral dissertation at BU on online learning• Worked at and taught for the University of Phoenix Online

(asynchronous)• Worked at and taught for Northeastern Online

(asynchronous)• Taken (and even completed!) Carnegie Mellon MOOC

(asynchronous)• Regularly attend and present at online learning conferences• Began creating asynchronous course materials in the 1980s• Regularly assist faculty in developing asynchronous

resources to enhance learning outside the physical or online classroom

Collaboration Tools• Seek out & implement the best available technology to:

– Facilitate student engagement– Appeal to variety of learning styles– Support collaborative & peer-to-peer learning– Provide immersive learning environments– Improve information literacy– Time-shift content delivery (“flipping the classroom”)– Enable staff collaboration

• No allegiance to any particular tool or method– Saba Centra, Oovoo, Google Drive & Hangouts, Citrix

GoToMeeting (love the phone bridge!) & Podio, Adobe Connect, Wimba Pronto, Cisco WebEx, BaseCamp, etc.

– Collaborative tools class project

Online Learning Context• Total enrollment in US higher ed: 21M• Students taking at least one online course: 6.7M (32%)• Annual online growth rate: 9.3% (lowest in 10 years; was 37% in

2005) = 570K• Online “adoption barriers” by chief academic officers:

– Even at institutions that offer online degrees, only 38% of faculty accept the value and legitimacy of online education

– 89% (highest ever) consider it “important” or “very important” that students need more discipline to succeed

• Most faculty say students don’t read assigned material in traditional classes– 74% (highest ever) concerned over low retention rates

• Usually due to lack of engagement with professor and other students– 40% concerned over lack of acceptance by employers

• 2.6% of colleges & universities have a MOOC– 9.4% planning one, 55% undecided, 33% no plans

http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/changingcourse.pdf

Our Online Strategy

– Leverage Bentley’s strengths in teaching and state-of-the-art academic technology to offer the highest quality online experience available, and …

– Do so in the most cost-effective way possible

Asynchronous vs. Synchronous Learning Models

● Studies show no significant difference in the effectiveness of asynchronous versus synchronous learning. 1

● Anecdotal evidence that synchronous learning increases student satisfaction and retention. 2

● While students’ general perceptions were slightly better in the synchronous model, and significantly better in “Clear Delivery” and “Enthusiasm”, retention rates were similar (above 80%). 3

1. http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/asynchronous-and-synchronous-e-learning 2. http://www.copesu.org/uploads/2/0/2/7/20279527/report-synchronous-and-asynchronous-learning-tools.pdf3. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED513632

Our Online StrategyApproach designed to1. Maintain the same quality of education throughout

• Accreditation teams have praised this consistency• Engagement with synchronous resident and online colleagues• Leveraging our students as Technical Assistants to ensure faculty

can focus on student learning

2. Outreach to students, enabling them to learn from a distance (work or location reasons)• Utilize technology used by distributed, global work teams

3. Develop our skill set for an increase in synchronous online communities• In hybrid classes, with asynchronous elements• Allow growth while constraining the size of physical classroom

Online Continuum

(1) Asynchronous Online

• Online correspondence course

• Can be offered to thousands or hundreds of thousands of students (MIT)

• Startup and operating costs are possibly in the millions

(2) Synchronous Online

• Live, engaging, interactive

• Ideal for dynamic content

• Local students cannot attend in traditional campus classroom setting

(3) Bentley Hybrid

• Broad appeal to local, regional, and distance markets - attend online or in person

• Asynchronous access to materials via Blackboard

• Profitable once marginal cost of technical assistant is covered

Anytime with internet connectionSet dates for enrollment, assignment deadlines, quizzes, tests

From anywhere except no campus, classroom attendance is possible

Delayed and mostly text-basedSometimes through recorded videos

Limited to online studentsPhysical face-to-face networking not supported

10-20% higher than in person

Paid for course development and/or a premium for teaching online

Bentley Hybrid

Time

Place

Faculty-student interaction

Audience

Attrition

Compensation

Asynchronous Online

Anytime for class material and preparatory exercisesSet time for live, interactive class sessions

Students can attend in person or online from anywhere

Live, audio and video with in-class whiteboards boards projected virtually

Online & area students who want to network and build relationships in person

Same as in-person

Nothing above salary for teaching traditional class, but a technical assistant is needed

Defining Characteristics

Faculty requirements: Multimedia course material development

Post lecture learning materials

Time working with students

Asynchronous Online

Significant faculty time must be invested designing, developing, and revising material with instructional designers who specialize in creating asynchronous content

Syllabus, assignments, online quizzes, discussion boards, blogs, wikis, etc. must be prepared for asynchronous learning

Professor or teaching assistant must respond to student electronic discussions and questions via email or other electronic media

Yes

No

No

Bentley Hybrid

Normal course development with any paper materials scanned and digitized

Syllabus usually include links to readings from library databases. Other materials optional due to live class meetings

Normal class meeting time and office hours, email

Yes

Yes

Yes

Work on individual assignments orCollaboratively in groups anytime, anywhere

Work in live, real-time groups during class, with professor’s live guidance

Watch playbacks of live, participative classes for clarification of missed concepts & further reinforcement

Student potential:

Since 2001, via “Word of Mouth”

– 20,188 students have enrolled in 696 hybrid and online classes taught by 110 faculty

– This year• 30% of graduate classes were offered in hybrid format• 37% of graduate students took at least one hybrid class• 39% of students in hybrid classes attended online

– Growth leveled off since 2008-09 due to gradual elimination of PF courses, real estate MS, GS classes for HFID, etc.

Quality Assessment• Quality indicators at Bentley include:

– 80% of online students rate their experience 8/10 or higher

– 100% want more hybrid classes– 90% of all students utilize playbacks for learning

reinforcement/missed classes– Attrition rates no different than on-campus classes

• Attrition rates for freshmen average 35% for online versus 20% in traditional courses

– Same Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET) scores

External Validation• Bose has visited campus twice to see our state-of-the-art

classroom setup, digital processors, and ceiling microphone systems in action

• “While mixing online instruction with face-to-face time is not exactly new, momentum for hybrid learning has been building ever since a Department of Education meta-study in 2010 quietly announced that traditional education simply doesn't stack up. In that study, online education was determined to be more effective than traditional classrooms--and blended learning topped the lot.”

Campus Technology, May 3, 2013

Quality Assessment• University of Tennessee’s Physician’s Executive MBA

program found:– Blended learning programs can be completed in half the

time, at less than half the cost– Rich mix of live/synchronous, asynchronous, and physical

classroom delivery improved learning outcomes by 10% over traditional classroom

– Multiple modes enhanced amount and quality of learning• EDUVENTURES 2005 study of 18-25 year olds (now

25-32 year olds):– 85% interest in hybrid online + on campus college programs

with 56% were more likely to consider a hybrid over a purely online one

Third party cost indicators and perspectives• Over 50% of Fortune 100 companies use Saba Centra in

the workplace- Our online students learn to collaborate with this tool

Sample of MBA Programs That Also Incorporate Synchronous Collaboration Tools

Synchronous Collaboration Tool Costs?

• Bell Canada Return-on-Investment (ROI) Study– 2.5 hour asynchronous course w/ short video took 1,487

hours to develop• 5 year ROI = 288%• For every $1 spent developing web-based training, Bell saved $3• Break-even after 111 students

– 4 hour synchronous course using Centra took 144 hours to develop

• 5 year ROI = 3,283%• For every $1 spent developing web-based training, Bell saved $33• Break-even after 4 students

– Linking self-paced (asynchronous) material to live e-learning delivery has a profound effect on overall usage and completion rates

– Can dramatically increase the ROI of self-paced (asynchronous) content

– Provide an online experience equal in learning & satisfaction of our on-campus students

Bentley University doctoral student’s dissertation research

– Video

Hybrid approach can offer cost-effective high quality

Asynchronous?• Can be much more competitive and profitable when:

– Content is more static than dynamic• To recoup investment in materials development

– Enrollments are very high (hundreds to thousands)• Often use lots of adjuncts and Teaching Assistants to engage

students• Bentley’s Technical Assistants do not teach but manage the

technical issues, so faculty can focus on teaching

Stanford Researchers, December 2003• How static is content in Bentley’s technology-infused business

curriculum?– Asynchronous intro courses?– Implications for reputation/brand?

• MOOC dropout rates average 90%+ (95.5% for MIT’s 1st MOOC)– Ownership?

• Campus Technology (June 2004)– Estimate of $10K-25K per credit hour or $300K-750K

development costs for an asynchronous MS• University of Maryland’s University College asynchronous online

MBA program– Estimated $22,399 loss for a class of 15; $61,838 profit for a

class of 20• Northeastern Online’s asynchronous program has 23 F/T

employees and made $2M profit in 2010 (after third-party provider’s cut)

• Arizona State’s Online program has 24 F/T employees; generated $6.2M profit in 2011

Asynchronous Course Development Costs

When You Read About High Enrollment/Revenue Numbers at UMass Online etc…

http://www.umass.edu/senate/News%20and%20Updates/2012-2013/MELLENBROOK_REPORT_FEB12.pdf

Total Online Enrollments

Net Positive Revenue Add’l Funding from President’s Office

FY01 5,009 - -

FY02 8,024 - -

FY03 11,122 - -

FY04 15,780 - -

FY05 17,661 - -

FY06 21,478 - -

FY07 26,855 $45,000 $1,150,000

FY08 32,888 $13,900 $1,150,000

FY09 38,435 $4,000 $850,000

FY10 43,855 $1,256,724 $700,000

FY11 49,350 - $500,000

High Quality, and Highly Profitable

• We’ve largely replaced labor with capital – “Hybridized” existing smart classrooms

• Use investments to support 80+ additional non-course events/year– Faculty receive no additional compensation for teaching

online– Student technical assistants

• Each hybrid class profitable after 1.3 online students enroll– $4615 cost per class covers ALL incremental capital (servers,

classroom equipment), depreciation, & operating (student salaries, full-time salaries & benefits, software licenses, etc.) expenditures

– All online enrollments after this represent pure profit