George Veletsianos, PhD

Professor, researcher, consultant, speaker, educational technology, learning design, online education, emerging technologies

Category: online learning Page 1 of 17

New Course | Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Education

By

On November 19, 2024

In courses, emerging technologies, futures, generative artificial intelligence, online learning, teacherbots

The Learning Technologies program at the University of Minnesota will be offering a new course this Spring.

CI 5330 (Spring 2025)
Special Topics in Learning Technologies: AI in Education
Instructor Dr. George Veletsianos (georgev |at| umn.edu)
Fully Online
Jan 21, 2025 – May 05, 2025

Short description: This graduate-level course offers an introductory and expansive investigation of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in education. It will enable learners to (1) investigate the foundations, possibilities, realities, and challenges of AI in education, and (2) gain practical experiences with using AI in education. Through practical and conceptual activities learners will grow their knowledge, skills, and experiences with GenAI in education, and become able to speak fluently about this technology’s proposed benefits (e.g., personalization) and challenges (e.g., biases) in education. The course will balance conceptual and practical experiences, and enable students to use AI tools more effectively and creatively. This course is relevant to numerous learning and teaching contexts, including K-12, higher education, adult education, professional settings, and informal settings.

Long description: This graduate-level course offers an introductory and expansive investigation of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in education. The course focuses on the foundations, possibilities, realities, limitations/challenges, and practical implementation of GenAI in education. Learners will critically examine literature and practice surrounding GenAI and consider both the benefits of this emerging technology (e.g., personalization) as well as its challenges (e.g., biases and environmental concerns). The course will balance conceptual, theoretical, and practical experiences and will emphasize both theory-to-practice and practice-to-theory through active engagement with AI tools. The course is relevant to multiple learning and teaching contexts and will encourage learners to apply concepts to their unique educational contexts, including K-12, higher education, adult education, professional training, and others.

All learners are expected to be active and ongoing participants in the learning process and foster a community of learning. Course activities will use various technologies to seek and share content; and class interactions will incorporate a variety of text-, audio-, and video-based tools. This is a completely online and asynchronous course and will require regular and active participation in class discussions as well as reflective, practical, and analytic work. The course will follow an engaging and flexible online format to include asynchronous activities that are convenient for working professionals and conducive to online learning for students who may be joining the course from across the country and abroad. This is not an independent study course, nor is it self-paced. Rather, the modules and learning activities are designed to promote and encourage social interactions and the development of a learning community as we learn together.

Upon successful completion of this course, you will be able to:

  • Define a variety of terms relating to GenAI (e.g., machine learning, large language models, etc)
  • Identify conceptual, theoretical and practical issues relating to GenAI
  • Expand your GenAI literacies
  • Apply GenAI tools, processes, and technologies to education topics of interest
  • Explain benefits and drawbacks of GenAI
  • Formulate and articulate informed perspectives on key theories and issues relating to GenAI in education
  • Discuss the role and practice of GenAI in different contexts
  • Discuss contemporary research being conducted in GenAI and the major issues being studied
  • Identify, synthesize, and critically evaluate major issues affecting GenAI in education
  • Practice and develop prompt engineering techniques
  • Use GenAI to develop an education micro application

 

Kind and accurate summary of “Learning Online: The student experience”

By

On September 9, 2024

In my research, online learning, sharing

I just came across the following summary of my book Learning Online: The student experience from librarians at the University of Northern Iowa, within a list of books focused on Universities and Education in the Digital Age. I am posting it here for posterity and to be able to track it later:

Online learning is ubiquitous for millions of students worldwide, yet our understanding of student experiences in online learning settings is limited. The geographic distance that separates faculty from students in an online environment is its signature feature, but it is also one that risks widening the gulf between teachers and learners. In Learning Online, George Veletsianos argues that in order to critique, understand, and improve online learning, we must examine it through the lens of student experience. Approaching the topic with stories that elicit empathy, compassion, and care, Veletsianos relays the diverse day-to-day experiences of online learners. Each in-depth chapter follows a single learner’s experience while focusing on an important or noteworthy aspect of online learning, tackling everything from demographics, attrition, motivation, and loneliness to cheating, openness, flexibility, social media, and digital divides. Veletsianos also draws on these case studies to offer recommendations for the future and lessons learned. The elusive nature of online learners’ experiences, the book reveals, is a problem because it prevents us from doing better: from designing more effective online courses, from making evidence-informed decisions about online education, and from coming to our work with the full sense of empathy that our students deserve. Writing in an evocative, accessible, and concise manner, Veletsianos concretely demonstrates why it is so important to pay closer attention to the stories of students–who may have instructive and insightful ideas about the future of education.

 

Two weeks left to contribute to the 2024 Spring Pan-Canadian Digital Learning Survey

By

On May 13, 2024

In online learning, scholarship, sharing

The invitation below is from the good folks at that Canadian Digital Learning Research Association (Disclosure: I’m a member of CDLRA and prior to leaving Canada, I was member of the board of directors).

—–

The CDLRA’s Spring Pan-Canadian Digital Learning Survey is open until May 31st.

The purpose of the 2024 Pan-Canadian Digital Learning Survey is to explore critical issues in digital learning and to assess the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on digital learning at publicly funded post-secondary institutions in Canada. The survey will ask you to share your personal perspective and will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. The primary objective of the research is to provide institutional leaders and key interest groups in Canadian higher education with valuable information as they develop institutional strategies.

If you work at a post-secondary institution in Canada, you are eligible to take the survey.

Click here to participate in the survey now!

Topics covered in the 2024 Spring Survey include digital learning trends (including Generative AI), attitudes and preferences toward technology, challenges related to digital learning, and feelings about the future. You do not need to be an expert in digital learning to participate. Whatever your experience level with technology may be, we want to hear from you!

More information about the project and ethics approval is available here.

Online, Hybrid, and Multi-Access Learning and Teaching in British Columbia: Post-Pandemic Trends and Intentions (report)

By

On September 18, 2023

In online learning

In a new report funded by the British Columbia Council on Admissions & Transfer (pdf) Valerie Irvine, Nicole Johnson, and I examined the evolving nature of online, hybrid, and multi-access learning within the British Columbia (BC) post-secondary education system. Our objectives included assessing potential changes in the scope and nature of online learning in BC, understanding stakeholder insights on learner preferences towards online and hybrid learning, and identifying areas that require further exploration and discussion.

Recent pan-Canadian research indicates that higher education institutions anticipate a future with more online and hybrid options. This aligns with the growing demand for such learning modalities and changing learner preferences, as corroborated by studies in the USA and UK. Understanding these trends in the BC context is crucial since returning to in-person education while simultaneously catering to the growing demand for online learning presents considerable challenges for BC institutions primarily built around traditional, in-person instruction.

To develop a greater understanding of the changing nature and volume of digital learning modes and learner preferences toward them we conducted interviews with twenty-five individuals comprising administrators, faculty members, and staff from the BC Ministry of PSEFS or system support organizations.

Major findings suggest that while in-person education in the province is predominant, participants (a) reported the learners demand more online and hybrid options, and (b) expect that online, hybrid, and multi-access learning in the BC post-secondary system will become more prevalent. We also identified that shifts in learner preferences are shaped by a variety of factors and vary by learner subpopulations, that modality is messy and masks variability, and that the “right mix” of modalities is unknown. Finally, we noted that online and hybrid learning enable access, and provide opportunities for equity, diversity, inclusion, and decolonization.

Recommendations for BC post-secondary institutions include the following:

  • Develop criteria for determining course and program modality.
  • Collect and analyze disaggregated data on learner preferences, choices, and contexts using consistent definitions of in-person, online, hybrid, and multi-access learning,
  • Support faculty members’ development to teach in online, hybrid, and multi-access contexts.
  • Increasing capacity for research, teaching, and collaboration
  • Approach alternative delivery modes with anticipation and foresight.

Please read and share the report. The question of the role of online and blended learning in BC is by no means a settled question, so we’d love to hear you input, questions, and insights!

Are cohort-based course platforms “universities of the future?”

By

On June 28, 2023

In courses, future education, my research, online course marketplace, online learning, papers

The edtech industry includes numerous learning providers and platforms providing tools, technologies, and resources for course creators to create and sell online courses. These platforms are interesting for very many reasons. What roles do they play in the learning and development ecosystem? How do they measure effectiveness and learning outcomes? What kinds of pedagogical and instructional design practices do they support and advocate for? What education-related claims do they make?

two people working on five laptops. They sit at a table littered with other devices, like phones, headset, and ipads. Photo by Marvin Meyer on Unsplash

In a paper we published a few months ago, we examined one such platform because it describes itself as building ‘the university of the future’ and has recently received significant attention and funding. This makes it a compelling case study to better understand the potential roles and risks associated with education platforms operating outside of and alongside more traditional higher education institutions.

We highlight specific concerns about cohort-based platforms. These include lack of transparency, risk of surveillance, lack of adequate financial support for learners, and over-reliance on social media networks as signifiers of educator/instructor qualification (this last one is a big one). Suggested benefits include adaptability, suitability to changing skills needs, and responsiveness to changing environmental scenarios.

The published version of the paper is here, but here’s a pre-print pdf: Veletsianos, G., & Houlden, S. (in press). On the “university of the future”: A critical analysis of cohort-based course platform Maven. Learning, Media, & Technology. 

 

Issues that hybrid, online, and blended modes of teaching and learning introduce to collective agreements and bargaining

By

On April 11, 2023

In futures, instructional design, learner experience, online learning, short reflections

A few weeks ago, I was invited to offer input to a committee at a Canadian university examining issues that hybrid, online, and blended modes of teaching and learning introduce to collective agreements and bargaining. I appreciated that the committee identified experts to speak with in order to gain an evidence-informed understanding of the issues they were facing rather than allow their deliberations be guided by assumptions and beliefs (which, to be honest, many of the conversations around modality default to!).

I thought the questions I was asked were relevant to many, and so I am sharing them below. The gist of my responses follows each question.

  • What is your sense of the future of online, hybrid, and blended course delivery in Canadian universities?
    • Necessary, valuable, and growing. Ignore them at your own peril.
  • How do you see the work, the workload, the rights, and the responsibilities of faculty changing within this shifting terrain?
    • Rising workloads at first, but shifting over time (similar to how workload is higher when assigned a new course; opportunity to learn & explore relationship between online/hybrid and pedagogy, which may transfer to other settings). Responsibilities around quality similar, if not higher (which is unfortunate given that conversations around quality are different in relation to in-person courses). Rights: an opportunity for expanding the conversation to encompass in-person practices: reflect on ownership and where the real value of faculty lies – it’s not content.
  • What would you suggest are the biggest advantages to these delivery modes, and what would you flag as the biggest challenges that institutions face in moving towards these modes?
    • advantages: rethinking pedagogy, flexibility, supporting justice and EDI, reaching and supporting different kinds of learners; challenges: institutional infrastructure to support online/hybrid learning quality at the same level as supporting in-person.
  • What kinds of supports—technological, training, in-class, infrastructural, workload-based, or other – do you see as necessary for faculty to successfully deliver course through online modes?
    • This is the right question to ask. It’s not just about individual skills, competencies, and perceptions – it’s about how the institutions will support these learning modalities at the system level. In addition to the ones mentioned in the question, my answer highlighted that online/hybrid learning is a team sport and noted the need for instructional design support.  
  • As part of our own deliberations, we are concerned with the process through which mode of delivery for particular courses is determined. Do you have any advice on how this best happens? Are there any lessons from experiences at other universities about this?
    • This is a difficult one, especially at a time of many circulating viruses. I emphasized the need for flexibility and a decision-making process that is based on mutual trust and cooperation, and that is informed by student input. Ideally one where decisions aren’t top-down and aren’t solely guided by individual preferences. Also: the proportion of courses that are online need not be uniform across departments.

BC’s guidelines for digital learning strategy: inadvertent effects?

By

On April 4, 2023

In online learning, sharing

As you may or may not be aware, BC has developed a digital learning strategy. Here’s an earlier draft, and some earlier thoughts. With its release coming soon, I thought I would post a final set of thoughts that apply to this policy, but to other policies as well. I am only posting this because I saw that the University of California recently closed a loophole that allowed learners to fully complete their degree online. Such decision reminds me once again that decisions which are laser-focused on modality miss the bigger picture. Which then reminded me of the BC digital learning policy.

My reading and analysis of the guidelines coming to BC is that they raise quality standards for online and hybrid learning. This is a good thing. But, they are silent on the quality standards for in-person learning, and might therefore have inadvertent effects.

Because of the focus on a specific modality, the strategy creates a de facto level of standard for digital learning courses/programs/efforts that is higher than that for in-person courses/programs/efforts. While the document focuses on guidelines for “technology-enhanced learning,” it’s not explicit that these guidelines ought to apply to ALL courses.

In other words, the policy presumes that guidelines are unnecessary for in-person courses, or at the very least outside of the purview of the policy . As one example, note how the following important guideline specifically focuses on the digital but not the in-person context:

“Digital PSE in BC must achieve true, meaningful, and lasting reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. It should advance and implement decolonial practices, promote Indigenization, and recognize Indigenous knowledge, pedagogies, and learning. To achieve these goals, technology-enhanced learning should…”

What I’d rather see is this:

“Digital PSE in BC must achieve true, meaningful, and lasting reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. It should advance and implement decolonial practices, promote Indigenization, and recognize Indigenous knowledge, pedagogies, and learning. To achieve these goals, technology-enhanced learning should…”

Or this:

“Digital PSE in BC must achieve true, meaningful, and lasting reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. It should advance and implement decolonial practices, promote Indigenization, and recognize Indigenous knowledge, pedagogies, and learning. Technology-enhanced learning provides risks and opportunities towards these goals, and in this context, institutions should… To achieve these goals, technology-enhanced learning should…”

Setting a higher standard for digital learning compared to in-person learning is a problem for two reasons.

First, a different levels of standard produces the very real possibility of stifling innovation in digital learning and prioritizing in-person learning. Institutions which are considering digital learning will need to account with these guidelines, especially if they need to highlight how they are meeting them in QA and new degree approval processes. Yet, it’s unclear whether in-person offerings need to account for them. By raising the bar for one kind of approach, we might be inadvertently guiding institutions into the alternative modality.

Second, a different level of standard will impact the sector unevenly, and will disproportionately impact institutions and disciplines which are predominantly digital/online. The impacts that the strategy will have on in-person trades programs are limited compared to the impacts that it will have on education programs, which are typically blended. The impacts that it will have on  smaller institutions which are exploring expanding their digital learning offerings are greater that the impacts it will have on predominantly in-person institutions.

What is a possible solution?

This is a difficult one. One approach might be to clarify and be explicit that these guidelines apply to all courses/offerings regardless of modality. Designing education with ethics, equity, and decolonization in mind ought not be limited by whether the course takes place in-person, online, or in blended fashion. Further, any change in QA and course approval policies at the Ministry level will need to apply to all programs – not just “digital” ones.

Page 1 of 17

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén