Analysis of the SECTIONS Model in the 21st Century
MA Learning and Technology, LRNT 503 – Royal Roads University – Unit 3 Group Project- Brian Bailey, Susan Fisher, Rose Murray & Ingrid Wagemans 10/17/2010 – Evaluated by Elizabeth Wellburn, Royal Roads University – Graded A+
In their book, Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education, Bates and Poole (2003) described a model they designed which could be used for selecting and using technology for distance education programs. The model they designed was called SECTIONS which stands for Students, Ease of use and reliability, Costs, Teaching, Interactivity, Organizational issues, Novelty, and Speed. What follows is an analysis of these elements as we move into the 21st century and how to reframe the questions Bates and Poole originally asked, in light of Web 2.0 learning environments.
The first element of the Bates and Poole’s SECTIONS model considers students. They suggest that consideration should be given to student demographics, access to technology, and to how students learn (Bates & Poole, 2003). In 2007 twenty-four percent of all students, who were registered in a post secondary program, were taking at least one fully on-line course (Bates, 2011). Hughes (2009) argued that students continue to seek face to face learning environments. This may be in part because students lack the necessary skills or confidence for independent study. Students may need support, and may need to have an instructor select the content to be learned (Bates, 2011).
Distance education allows for courses to be structured around students’ interests (Bates, 2011). Magolda and Platt (2009) suggest that Web 2.0 allows students to participate in the process of creating content. Distance education tends to move students from concrete learning to abstract reflective learning (Bates & Poole, 2003). The challenge is to help students develop skills to critically evaluate, understand and search for relevant materials (Hughes, 2009).
Students’ access to the internet must also be considered (Bates & Poole, 2003). Many of the new programs require large band width (Hughes, 2009). The type of internet provider that students have access to, will determine what Web 2.0 technologies they can readily access. For some students access to a computer may be a concern (Bates & Poole, 2003), however the landscape of access to the internet is rapidly changing, and today many students have access to social media and Web 2.0 on their smart phones (Magolda & Platt, 2009). Since the book Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education was written in 2003, technology has advanced ways that individuals and groups of individuals can and do communicate.
A cautionary note around Web 2.0 is privacy. Many of the applications students use may not protect students’ privacy. The University of British Columbia (UBC) warns online students that there is a potential risk when using Web 2.0 applications. Their privacy may not be protected and postings may become the intellectual property of the site provider (Bates, 2010).
There are new questions to consider, including whether students understand privacy issues regarding the Web 2.0 technologies that they are using or may use. Do the students have the necessary skills to critically search for and evaluate the material they are locating on the web? Do the students have the confidence for independent study? Do students need structured support?
The “E” in Bates and Poole’s SECTIONS model considers “ease of use” (Bates & Poole, 2003). When choosing which technology to incorporate into an educational program, designers must consider the reliability of the program. Some programs have a tendency to “crash” on a regular basis (Bates & Poole, 2003). It may be necessary to have dual servers in the event that one server crashes. The bandwidth that information is transmitted has an effect on the speed and reliability of the program (Hughes, 2009). Slow transmission is frustrating for teachers and learners (Bates & Poole, 2003). As technology advances, the access to more bandwidth is changing. Students may now use mobile phones to access many programs online (Bates, 2011).
Programs should be easy to learn, to use, and to navigate. If too much time is lost in learning the program students and teachers will be frustrated. A way to address “ease of use” is to provide a preparatory course for students who lack necessary skills (Bates & Poole, 2003).
As we move forward into the 21st century new questions need to be considered. Is there sufficient bandwidth available to deliver the program to the end user? Are dual servers necessary to ensure reliability? Should students be required to take preparatory courses in order to ensure that they have the necessary skills for a course?
There are two sets of cost factors to consider in Bates and Poole’s SECTIONS model. These are costs of individual items, and the drivers of the costs, or production costs (Bates & Poole, 2003). Individual item costs include the purchase or licensing of equipment and software. If the educational institution is using a central server and has negotiated a central site, then a program may not incur new costs to the institution. In Web 2.0, many tools are available on the internet at little or no cost to the user (Bates, 2011). Even Learning Management Systems (LMS) are moving to open source, although a 2007 Gartner survey suggests the real costs of installation, adaptation and maintenance are yet to be clearly identified (Bates, 2011).
According to Bates & Poole, the production and delivery of materials as well as the number of students participating in a program are the drivers of the costs (Bates & Poole, 2003). Some of these costs are incurred because of the use of specialists who assist in the development and delivery of course materials (Bates & Poole, 2003). Web 2.0 has opened the door to free educational resources, which may obliterate the need for specialists in the future. Bill Gates, in his talk at the “Techonomy” conference in August 2010 suggested that the best lectures will be available online and for free (Sparks, 2010). Many of the leading universities now have lectures available on the web for free (Loll, 2010). Other educational software such as wiki’s, blogs, and podcasts, are available for free. Users pay for customization, but the basic tools are free. On the other hand the costs of training and supporting the educators who deliver the courses are on the rise. At Algonquin College, an examination of the current budget for Full Time Employment (FTE) positions showed that a ratio of one technology and learning support position existed for every five faculty positions (Algonquin, 2010). With the continual and rapid changes to technology, this ratio is not expected to decline.
Another cost to consider is that of copyrights. With the advent of Bill C-61 the rules of copyright in Canada changed (Parliament of Canada, 2008). In the United States the practice of digital locks nullifies much of the fair dealing outlined in the bill. The implications for distance education are that the material produced in a given course will self-destruct within 30 days of the completion of the course (Geist, 2009). This cost has not been quantified yet but it will affect students in distance education in the future. Bates and Poole (2003) suggest that average student costs should be calculated over a five year period. Technology which was used five years ago may be obsolete today. With the explosion of new technology, is a five year average reasonable?
The “Teaching and Learning” of the SECTIONS model addresses learning needs, instructional approaches and the best choice of technologies to support learning (Bates & Poole, 2003). Bates and Poole (2003) outlined examples of how and when technology may be used to solve strategic teaching issues. They described the instructional benefits of television, radio and computers and suggested that teaching context played a role in determining which media or technology was most viable.
Pedagogical approaches to web-based learning are affecting change. Constructivists believe “all knowledge is relative, personal, and dynamic” (Bates, 2011, p.31). A new theory, connectivism, suggests that “the nature of knowledge is radically transformed by the technology of the Internet” (Bates, 2011, p. 31). Knowledge is advanced by connected networks which in turn create collective intelligence (Siemens as cited in Bates, 2011).
Web 2.0 is based on new social web technologies which enable communication, collaboration, participation and sharing (JISC, Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World, 2009). Educators must find ways to reach “adult learners ‘where they are’ and promote critical reflection in learning situations to help further learners’ growth and development in increasingly complex societies” (Hansman & Mott, 2010, p. 21). Social networking in Web 2.0 will assist learners in refining employability skills which are valued by employers. Web 2.0 tools have made choosing media and technologies an even more complex activity. They provide learners with the opportunity to access quality educational content and to create their own learning around areas of personal interest, and then demonstrate their learning. In this situation “neither party may be entirely comfortable, at least initially” (JISC, Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World, 2009 p. 7).
Interaction and interactivity, the “I” of the SECTIONS model, considers learning to be active, where learners respond to material and demonstrate their understanding (Bates & Poole, 2003). Bates and Poole (2009) noted that while it is easy for a machine to handle yes/no answers, it is easier for an instructor to handle unanticipated responses. In the seven years since that was written it is evident that software has become increasingly sophisticated in terms of being able to provide more nuanced feedback and assessment. A current issue in online education is that “students are often dissatisfied with the feedback and assessment process, and it is rarely used as an opportunity to further the development of self-awareness and literacy’s of learning” (Beetham & McGill, 2009, p. 7). Perhaps one reason for this is that the younger generation operate at “twitch speed” expecting instant responses and feedback (Downes, 2005).
Efficacious learning requires that learner do something with the material they are presented with. As an important part of this process of active learning, feedback lets the learner know if they have learned the materials correctly (Bates & Poole, 2003). Although arguments over the benefits of, face to face interactions, or fully on line programs continue to rage on, the fact is that “across the North American post-secondary system, fully online programs have been increasing by an average of 20% per annum since 2002” (Bates, 2011, p. 24). Clearly online learning will be a mainstay in the future.
When educators started using new Web 2.0 technologies with their students in 2003, they noticed that students discussed their assigned topics with peers worldwide (Downes, 2005). Learning created in this manner is obviously much more interactive for the learner than content created by an instructor. The trend is to increasing learner-created content and hence increased interactivity and interaction (Downes, 2005). So how does one ensure the quality of learner-created content? How can learner-created content, coupled with the power of social networking be used in a way that creates a rich learning environment in alignment with the achievement of the defined educational objectives of the course or program the learner is enrolled in? These are new questions to consider when engaging Web 2.0 learning.
In their SECTIONS model for selecting and using technology in education, Bates and Poole state that, “without appropriate organizational support for technology-based teaching, the workload of university and college teachers becomes impossible” (Bates & Poole, 2003, p. 103). The implementation of a useful technology can be derailed due to poor organizational support, poor leadership and lack of a plan. If an institution is not prepared to support the technology, the instructor must be prepared to spend a lot of time and effort being an innovator (Bates & Poole, 2003).
What has changed greatly since 2003 is that “many learners expect to be able to access their personal technologies in institutional environments, and to personalise technologies provided for them by institutions” (JISC, Effective Practice in a Digital Age 2009, p. 5). In fact, Bates states that “Web 2.0 represents not just a new generation of tools, but a significant shift in approaches to teaching and learning that challenge the very existence of formal educational institutions” (Bates, 2011, p.39). On the teaching side, institutions need to discuss E-pedagogy with the teachers who will end up using the technology with their students. New questions to consider may be what is the best way to use a particular technology in the classroom? Or, is there a need for more research?
“Novelty”, in the SECTIONS model considers the “newness” of a technology (Bates & Poole, 2003). Research indicates that Web 2.0 technologies are developing at a rapid rate. What is considered novel today may be considered mainstream within six months (Bates, 2011). This rapid change also suggests that institutions, teachers and learners must have the desire and capacity to stay abreast of new developments. They must determine how much work would be required to use each technology, how reliable and user friendly they are and what privacy and copyright issues would need to be considered for each platform (Bates, 2011). “There is no sign that the pace of change in ICTs is slowing…even more complex and challenging now…it is critical that educational organizations have processes in place that encourage dynamic change, innovative uses of technology, and monitoring and evaluation of what works and what does not” (Bates, 2011, p. 39).
The “Speed” of the SECTIONS model addresses two questions. “How quickly can courses be mounted with this technology? How quickly can materials be changed?” (Bates & Poole, 2003, p. 79). Linked to these questions are other considerations. “How fast-developing is the subject? How frequently must materials be updated? Which technology would best support that? How easy and quick is it to make changes? Can changes be handed over to someone else to do or must you make them?” (Bates & Poole, 2003, p. 104).
Web 2.0 technologies allow for relatively intuitive, quick and easy use. “These tools again are relatively simple to use….Posting video to sites such as YouTube is free, quick and easy” (Bates, 2011, p.26). How quickly materials can be changed ties closely to an instructor’s pedagogical approach. Are they objectivist, constructivist or connectivist? If they are the former, speed related to subject content developments, frequency of teaching material changes, ease of making changes and who would best be suited to make the change, may be a significant factor. If they are a constructivist or connectivist these considerations will be less significant due to the structure and organization that their program is likely to take. Questions to consider are, “What kind of content do we want the learners to access? Where is it? Do we have to create it from scratch, or does it already exist on the Web? Can learners find their own materials? If so, what guidelines or criteria should we provide?” (Bates, 2011, p. 38).
An examination of Web 2.0 has demonstrated a need to reframe Bates and Poole’s questions. Since 2003, Web 2.0 has changed and challenged how we view the component parts of Bates and Poole SECTIONS model (2003). Technology is changing how people interact socially and in learning environments. New questions need to be considered, and some questions previously asked are losing relevance. Technological change advances rapidly in the 21st century. The SECTIONS model has provided a useful framework for designing educational plans in the past. Will simply reframing questions keep it relevant as technology marches distance education forward? Or will a new model be required for the 21st century?
References
Algonquin College. (2010, April) Approved budget 2010 – 2011. Retrieved from Algonquin College, Reports website: http://www.algonquincollege.com/reports/pdf/budget_2010_2011.pdf
Bates, A., & Poole, G. (2003), Effective teaching with technology in higher education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Bates, T. (2010), Can web 2.0 tools be legally used for education in Canada? E-learning &
distance education resources March 5, 2010, Retrieved from:
http://www.tonybates.ca/2010/03/05/can-web-2-0-tools-be-legally-used-for-education-in-canada/
Bates, T. (2011), Understanding web 2.0 and its implications for e-learning. In M. Lee, &
C. McLoughlin, (Eds.), Web 2.0 – based e-learning: Applying social informatics for
tertiary teaching (pp 21-42). Hershey: Information Science Reference
Beetham, H. & McGill, L. (2009, June).
Thriving in the 21st Century: Learning literacies in a
digital age (LLiDA project). JISC, Retrieved from
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/projects/llidareportjune2009.pdf).
Downes, S. (2005, October). E-Learning 2.0. Elearn Magazine, Retrieved from
http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1
Downes, S. (2010, January 4). Questioning pedagogy [Web blog post]. Retrieved from
http://www.downes.ca/post/53339
Effective practice in a digital age. (2009, June). JISC Publications. Retrieved from
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/effectivepracticedigitalage.pdf
Geist, M. (2010, June 2). Geist: Long-awaited copyright reform plan flawed but flexible. The Toronto Star, Retrieved from: http://www.thestar.com/business/media/article/818180–geist-long-awaited-copyright-reform-plan-flawed-but-flexible
Hansman, C. & Mott, V. (2010).
Adult learners. In C. Kasworm, Rose. A, & J. Ross-Gordon,
(Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 13-24) Los Angeles: CA: Sage Publications
Higher Education in a web 2.0 world. (2009, June). JISC Publications. Retrieved from
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/heweb20rptv1.pdf
Hughes, A. (2009). Higher education in a web 2.0 world. (May 12, 2009). JISC Publications. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/generalpublications/2009/heweb2.aspx
LeBlanc, S. (2010, September 27). Why MOOC engagement is so hard [Web blog post].
Retrieved from http://sleve.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/why-mooc-engagement-is-so-hard/
Loll, R. (2010, May 10). Searching for the Quantum Origins of Space and Time. Perimeter
Institute for Theoretical Physic, s Retrieved from: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/en/Outreach/Public_Lectures/View_Past_Public_Lectures/
Magolda, P. & Platt, G. (2009).
Untangling web 2.0’s influences on students’ learning. About
campus 14 (3), 10-16. Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=15&hid=13&sid=e7953502-dce4-43f0-9d98-2325a2a6d3c6%40sessionmgr13
Parliament of Canada, House of Commons of Canada, Second Session, C – 61, Thirty-ninth
Parliament (2008). Bill C – 61. Retrieved from
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=3570473&file=4
Sparks, D. (2010, August 6). Bill Gates on in-person vs. online education [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2Qg80MVvYs&feature=player_embedded.
