Exactly how is personalization operationalized with the design & delivery of open courses?

A study was conducted to better understand how massive open online courses (MOOC) instructors adapt their courses to enhance or personalize MOOC design and delivery. This study explored the activities, tools, and resources that instructors of MOOCs used to improve the personalization of their MOOCs. Following email interviews with 22 MOOC and open education leaders, regarding MOOC personalization, a questionnaire was developed and completed by 152 MOOC instructors from around the world. While more than 8 in 10 respondents claimed heavy involved in designing their MOOCs, only one-third placed extensive effort on meeting unique learner needs during the actual design of that course and even fewer were concerned with personalization during the delivery of it. An array of instructional practices, technology tools, and content resources were leveraged by instructors to personalize MOOC-based learning environments. Aligning with previous research, the chief resources and tools employed in their MOOCs were discussion forums, video lectures, supplemental readings, and practice quizzes. Additionally, self-monitoring and peer-based methods of learner feedback were more common than instructor monitoring and/or feedback. Some respondents mentioned the use of flexible deadlines, proposed alternatives to course assignments, and introduced multimedia elements, mobile applications, and guest speakers among the ways in which they personalized their massive courses. A majority of the respondents reported modest or high interest in learning new techniques to personalize their next MOOC offering.

Keywords: massive open online courses (MOOCs), personalization, instructional design, open course, instructors

Interested in learning more? Check out the forthcoming publication.

Bonk, C. J., Zhu, M., Kim, M., Xu, S., Sabir, N., & Sari, A. (in press). Pushing toward a more personalized MOOC: Exploring instructor selected activities, resources, and technologies for MOOC design and implementation. The International Review of Research on Open and Distributed Learning (IRRODL).

Abstract adapted from article

 

Help! How do I write a good AERA proposal?

Ring, ring! —  It is a hot Sunday afternoon.

It is the first day of my journey to visit family over a holiday break. Looking down at my phone I realize I have a missed call from…a professor…what? The education faculty never call me.

“Hello. Sorry I missed your call…” After a few seconds my mentor asks, “What are you doing on June __? Will you be in town?” I hesitantly answer with a negative, then affirmative. Turns out I am recruited, alongside a couple of other doctoral students, to do a presentation/workshop on how to submit successful AERA proposals.

As I crawl back into my car, it hits me – I have never had a conference proposal rejected. Why? Surely in my oh so very short journey as an alt-academic I must have had at least one, right?

Then I am struck with another, larger dilemma. I have no idea what I did right. I can’t even begin to describe to my mentees what I did “right” to get nearly two dozen peer-reviewed proposals accepted. If I have no clue, how can I explain it others.

Writing conference proposals had become so ingrained into my writing schedule that I hardly noticed when I take the time to compose them. I needed to shed this second skin, and think about my overall process (and the struggles I faced while writing AERA proposals the first time around).

Please remember that these notes are based on my experiences and preferences. Your faculty and friends are certain to have contradictory ideas.

---

Here is the list I came up with; Justin Whiting and Verily Tan from IU’s Creativity Labs also helped, and were present for the “Writing an AERA Proposal” Workshop. Please note that most of the links direct to specific 2017 AERA content.

Writing a successful proposal

General info

• Don’t wait until the night before. This is not a 1-page proposal. Also log into the AERA submission system days before you start writing. This will help you structure sections on a word processor.
  • You can revise and upload a newer version of the proposal before the deadline.
  • If you are submitting a research project for presentation you will need IRB approval. If you don’t have it, be prepared to justify why!
• Make sure your proposal follows APA guidelines, is spell checked and grammar proofed. Duh, right? But when you are pulling an all-nighter to write an AERA proposal you will be surprised what slipped through the cracks. Get someone to proof-read for you.
• Work smart, not hard. If you have preexisting work, you can adapt it and build your AERA proposal off that.
• Look over some example proposals.You can always ask your peers, faculty, and even family members look it over.
• Figure out what kind of presentation (Paper, Poster, or Roundtable) you want to do before you start writing and tailor your proposal. More info here.
• If you select the option of submitting a Paper.  Think about also letting your proposal be considered for a Poster or Roundtable that way at least you have a chance at presenting something.
  • Don’t be stuck on only wanting to do a Paper presentation. Posters and Roundtables can be more productive, especially for students as they give you a chance to interact more with audience. Posters are great for getting feedback, especially if you have some flexibility/are in the early states of your research project.
  • Also figure out what division and section, or SIG you want to send it to. That way you can tailor the proposal to better align with their call.
  • If you are confused about which section/SIG to submit to, read over their Call for Proposals. You can find individual SIG/Section calls in the submission portal too!
    • Link to Division descriptions
    • Link to Special Interest Group (SIG) descriptions
• Remember that AERA likes completed studies. Write in the past or present tense. Also you should present some data…even if they are preliminary findings.
  • Methods section is particularly important – i.e., research question, data sources, analysis methods
  • Preliminary findings may suffice. If accepted the expectation will be to report more detailed findings and insights.
• Review all of the detailed guidelines. Did you include all the parts that you needed to? If you are missing even one element, such as a discussion, it hurts your chances greatly.
• Here are the sections you need to include:
  • Objectives or purposes
  • Perspectives(s) or theoretical framework
  • Methods, techniques, or modes of inquiry
  • Data sources, evidence, objects or materials
  • Results and/or substantiated conclusions or warrants for arguments/point of view
  • Scientific or scholarly significance of the study of the work
• Make sure you meet the word count limit criteria!
  • Title (15 words)
  • Abstract (120 words)
  • Paper (no more than 2,000 words)
• You do not have to incorporate the annual theme into your paper, but it does help if you can. You shouldn’t try to completely change your research, presentation, or writing style just to fit the theme, but it will help if your research is in line with others. Again, an important part of this is submitting to the correct SIG with similar research.
• Omit author identification information from your proposal. That includes your writing, in text citations and references.
  • Confused? Here is how to do it: According to APA, in-text cite would be (Author, YEAR). References: Author. (YEAR).
  • Also you may have to change the order of authors on your proposal. AERA only allows a certain number of first author entries per person.

Specific to the proposal

• Make your proposal stand out from the start! The abstract and introduction are very important. Remember most reviewers end up reading 10 or more proposals, make yours memorable.
• Be descriptive (yet concise) in your methods section. Let your reader know what you did during your study! A good test for this is calling up a parent/sibling and having them read then explain the section to you. If they can accurately describe your methods after reading the section, then you win!
  • This is a hard skill to master, and it takes time – So, don’t expect your first proposal to be perfect even when you submit it. Just focus on getting it done to the best of your ability.
• Explain why your research is important. Yes we know it furthers the knowledge base…but really, why should someone care. What is the impetus?
• Your research doesn’t need to be perfect. Do your best and get feedback, but don’t get stuck on trying to change the world or have the perfect paper. Remember that you will have more than one reviewer, so don’t be discouraged! Proposal scores are averaged out between 3+ reviewers, so you get feedback from different perspectives too!

 

Questions? Shoot me a line at nsabir@indiana.edu

Please add anything I missed in the comments below.

You can view the hour long workshop on YouTube: https://youtu.be/gT73BwAvFxQ

 

 

KM Self Study Part III

I began a self-study of my learning organization’s growth and flexibility, in hopes to better understand and articulate challenges we faced in adapting new educational paradigms and standards. These postings cover not only the daily occurrences at my college of education, but also some of the experiences I have had while working at other organizations. If you have questions or thoughts please email me at nsabir@indiana.edu.

Institutes of education managing change and shift: A reflective piece utilizing Daft’s framework (part III)

Bias, mission & goals

I think the “most dangerous” of biases Daft discusses is, seeing what you want to see: Not because you truly want to “see” something, but rather because the information we gather, interpret and present to others is constantly shaped by our epistemological and ontological underpinnings. I’m stealing this story from a workshop I ran while working with Organization D.

So, Organization D’s mission statement is something along the lines of a peaceful world and each department has specific/specialized goals targeted at regions or themes. The organization’s goal doesn’t face conflicting departmental goals so much as the message gets lost in all the moving parts and sometimes there are not clear guidelines. On September 21, Peace Day, K-12 educators tackle teaching complex issues of global conflicts and cultural awareness often using social media and synchronous technologies. A couple of years ago there were not too many model schools for this initiative, and teachers dreamt up great projects for their students to do. One the more common examples was Skyping/email a classroom across the world and then reflecting about the experience. In some cases the lack of organizational support/resources lead to a propagation of negative stereotypes, especially at the k-5 level (“Japanese people know origami.” “Koreans eat dogs and that is gross!” “Baby girls are killed because parents want a son.” and “Peace means you can travel wherever you want.” – Just to name a few that were brought up at this workshop). As teachers began to post their students’ work on online forums the banter began about how irresponsible the teachers and Organization D had been to allow students to internalize stereotypes that could lead to conflict.

I think that sometimes working with an organization’s mission statement can be a game of Telephone particularly when they are broad and allow departments a little too much freedom. While having a broad mission statement can be great because it allows you to cover a lot of ground, different parts need to certain have specific objectives that support the official goal.

In many of teams I have worked on, the problem is rather apparent, there is a ____ need and the difficulties lie in crafting solutions. Often times the problem is over simplified by managers, as they are not the individuals placed in the field and their foundation for identifying and understanding the problem is relayed through secondary channels. Because the services the organizations deliver are so embedded in in-country dynamics that crafting solutions becomes a greater focus. Our organizations proposed solutions and timelines are also heavily impacted by major stakeholders – so it becomes a bit of a juggling act.

In our case, because the focus is shifted towards finding a sustainable and compatible solutions for all parties the identification of the issue at hand tends to get brushed over. In the past I have seen this lead to all sorts of communication-based issues, loss of funding, misusing fiscal and time based resources, and I’ve even see projects fail shortly after the first round of evaluations.

While the analytical and researcher based curriculum team I work with attempts to institute changes leveraging an incremental decision model, where instructional concepts are put through an iterative development process to ensure a best fit, this far from what actually happens. In the past four years each terms begins with the goal of trying to replicate a systematic and incremental decision process yet after a couple of weeks that fades away. Because the curriculum development team has to account for student (user) diversity and variation in needs, and constant flux in environmental factors a garbage can model would be more appropriate. Throw into the mix that we have a 60% instructor turnover, annually, and retaining structure can become problematic. Overarching goals are ill-defined, and problems and solutions are often identified vague and attended to simultaneously leading to additional problems. More often than not our team crafts “solutions” for problems which don’t exist and may not even be an issue, and major problems are sometimes pushed to the side for another term (another batch to deal with). Do I think this is effective? No. However, it is the culture of my organization and my mangers’ preferred style to allow for a more organic approach.

It is far too easy to go along with a group or majority decision. This happens a bit differently in my team. We currently have 1 very hands off manager and 11 instructor-designers, who have equal say in how we facilitate our programme. While there are some team players that naturally take a more leadership role and others who are more outspoken about distinct issues, a groupthink mentality is often applied to major decisions. Now this isn’t because of a lack of expertise or diversity but rather an understanding of “let’s agree to disagree” and if we continue to “disagree” the team isn’t nearly as productive, if at all.

Fin.

KM Self Study Part II

I began a self-study of my learning organization’s growth and flexibility, in hopes to better understand and articulate challenges we faced in adapting new educational paradigms and standards. These postings cover not only the daily occurrences at my college of education, but also some of the experiences I have had while working at other organizations. If you have questions or thoughts please email me at nsabir@indiana.edu.

Institutes of education managing change and shift: A reflective piece utilizing Daft’s framework (part II)

Structure, control & culture

At my current job, we have a fairly decentralized system (for immediate interactions) which leads to a series of issues. In an effort to empower the workers and support their professional development management takes a more horizontal approach. However, we our departments have major communication issues and because some people are so attached to their work/frame of mind this has also lead to discrepancies in polices. Since all parties are not on the same page this imposes stagnant approaches to problems.

In our organization the most frequent trap is, “people don’t have enough time to learn.” Because our organization experiences a disruptive environment that requires constant reevaluation our employees are always having to relearn skills and procedures. For example, just last week a peer created a learning module that involved a specific set of software and today we discovered that our student-consumers don’t have access to it. This required a complete revamp of the module and all our staff had to learn new material and procedures in the span of a couple of days.

I think the most difficult step I have seen organizations encounter is the first step, setting up procedures and guidelines. My experiences have shown me that a lack of clear vision often makes the initial process difficult. I have seen firms have a vague vision of execution, access to resources, and reflection but in the process of establishing these steps the organization distinguishes their current direction from their ideal process. That said, I believe that the research findings lack one step, reevaluation of the model or steps. Somewhere along the process there should be a place for leadership to pause and assess if their current process is allowing employees to learn in the most effective and efficient means possible, and if the scaffolding holds up to desired outcomes.

I believe that organizations’ design and structure should be drive by their goals, needs and access to resources, rather than what is considered “best practice.” The text talks about how vertical structures are more efficient and horizontal structures encourage more personnel growth so I think that leveraging both aspects would be a good approach. Our process aligns more with virtual network grouping’s model. While this approach enables flexible and is responsive to changes in the environments, it can be difficult to coordinate and communicate with all member of the organization. The only times I have seen this grouping truly be effective/efficient is when someone very motivated, organized, and patient took the role of integrator.

For day-to-day operations the college of education functions as a pooled Interdependence system; however in the large scale it serves as a reciprocal interdependent system. All of the departmental outputs and procedures feed into one another at the end of the terms however weekly operations allow individual offices and departments to function as separate entities with standardized procedures. This multifaceted approach requires our organization to function with a very high level of communication and collaboration. More often we feel like a cross departmental team working as a single entity rather than separate offices. The logistics trains are not felt by most of the employees but rather the supervisors take on the initiatives to collaborate all of the reciprocated activities.

I think that organizational decisions should be driven by needs, and not what the managers see working at another organization and hope to replicate in their own. Before an organization (re)creates a hybrid structure leadership should consider the weakness that need to be addressed.

I used to freelance for a Country B’s pharmaceutical company, Company A, working with both the local branch and the overseas offices. In Country B the organization is very centralized and represents a typical functional grouping model, however the counterpart organization in State Z is completely different. Because the US branch is considerably smaller it outsources most of its marketing and large-scale production, and much of the staff work across several departments. As citizens of Country B liaisons come to State Z for a year or two many of them actually struggle with adapting to “lack of structure” and several have even opted to return to the Country B’s company because the hybrid model in the US organization was uncomfortable for them. I think it is interesting how an environmental culture impacts an organization’s culture so heavily.

The term effectiveness and measuring an organization’s effectiveness does seems to get a bit ambiguous without a bounded case paired alongside. The goal based approach focuses more on the holistic meeting of an overarching organizational goal while the internal process approaches focuses more on internal workings, such as positive work environment and organizational morale, and not on the organization’s output. One of the great features about using a resource-based approach is that it includes the initial bargaining mix and can include the environment-organization factors.

At my current position several leadership department and offices have a very centralized command structure, which is bounded by accreditation, fiscal and international policy constraints. This bureaucratic system constrained employees to follow set protocols and stifled creativity. Several supervisors and office directors have shifted organizations’ directions by changing their leadership style to account for employee empowerment by moving from a bureaucratic to clan style of leadership and management. This transformation has been a slow progress with slight changes over several years and plenty of employee turnover. This shift allowed employees to further bring their expertise into the design of services.

To be continued…

KM Self Study Part I

I began a self-study of my learning organization’s growth and flexibility, in hopes to better understand and articulate challenges we faced in adapting new educational paradigms and standards. These postings cover not only the daily occurrences at my college of education, but also some of the experiences I have had while working at other organizations. If you have questions or thoughts please email me at nsabir@indiana.edu.

Institutes of education managing change and shift: A reflective piece utilizing Daft’s framework (part I)

Bureaucracy, leadership, & delegation

Well, I think that overly bureaucratic organizations waste resources energy and are slightly inefficient, I don’t believe they are formed with ill intent but a rather formed over time to fulfill various needs as they arose. Perhaps my views are tainted while working in institutes of higher education for the past five years. In some of the more complex organizations I have seen an over emphasis on functional goals rather than an organization’s mission. As a complexity of each department grows, the accountability in day-to-day demands also increases. Additionally, I think the fear of immediate loss, whether it be a material resource or personal, outweighs a motivation for long-term gain.

While working on a research project abroad I experienced this form of bureaucratic structure personally. Because the staff was so focused on not losing critical resources and not wasting time they lost sight of the larger picture: evaluating the state of vocational education in a fragile society. To revamp the focus, one of the team’s project manager (re)evaluated the goals to move from a rule and procedure base to a larger picture. I believe the goal was to have employees move for a narrowminded focus, centered on day-to-day activities, to one that better incorporated the organizations mission.

While working for my department, a college of education, our group currently faces two main issues: leadership and delegation. When a group of instructional designers was constructed there was one supervisor. However the supervisor was more of a coordinator and less of a leader. To remedy this issue the group decided each individual would take on different leadership based roles. However it does quickly became an issue as boundaries and positions were not clearly defined. Our designers began to overstep each other in a deconstructive manner as the each tried to push their own agenda. (Again there was no ill intent – We all genuinely believed what we were doing was in the best interest of our students.) And, soon the issue went from a lack of leadership to too many cooks in the kitchen. To better establish boundaries as a cohort the instructional designers divided up responsibilities, tasks and timelines. Currently this is where our organization stands; it is trying to manage leadership, employee empowerment, co-design and co-learning, and task delegation. Looking back at four years of organizational restructuring, I think had we set aside specific boundaries and structures, the overpowering leadership and lack of delegation would not be as much of an issue as it stands today.

To be continued…

Reflecting on teaching another term

Every semester the university conducts formal course evaluations which enquire about the course as well as the lecturer. This past semester was my second to last term teaching W200 where I could incorporate student feedback into my teaching practices. Since I began position as an Associate Instructor teaching W200: Computers in Education I have struggled with a few repetitive issues which include a lack of clarity in giving project directions and my unapproachable personality. One of the big changes I have made in my instruction is bringing in specific examples of my k12 teaching experience and to explicitly describe my instructional decisions. I believe that making the learning environment authentic, by drawing my experiences, would make the content more approachable. Also by explaining to the student why I make certain teaching decisions I believe that will help them become better educators. While I felt as though I had improved on these aspects they were negatively commented up on in my fall 2015 evaluations. Again this semester, some of my students felt that I wasn’t giving clear enough directions on the major projects and that my personality was blunt and overly sarcastic. Despite these negative remarks the students ranked my instruction fairly positively. Overwhelmingly, the students didn’t like the course load and the 3 hour classes. My students believed that I was an outstanding instructor (3.4/5 and 2.9/5) and promoted an “atmosphere conductive to learning” (3.6/5 and 3.5/5). The students stated that I motivated them to do their best work (3.3/5 and 3.1/5) and I emphasized student learning and development (3.7/5 and 3.4/5).

Looking for new places to Nest

Google’s Nest Expansion into Germany and Uruguay using a cross comparison between New Zealand and South Korea

A concept paper based on 2015 November global conditions

As the brainchild of former Apple employees, Tony Fadell and Matt Rogers, Nest is a producer of Wi-Fi-enabled smart home technology that is focused on reinventing common household appliances. The company’s goal is to reimagine the customer experience by leveraging complete feedback systems, from users to energy companies, and to develop thoughtful and simple homes. In order to realize this goal, the company offers a thermostat, security camera and smoke/CO2 alarm. Given the nature of this product, Nest has certain needs to be met before it enters any given foreign market. Some key areas of interest are disposable income, IP rights, environmental/energy focus and internet penetration. When looking at a possible expansion into a foreign market, Nest needs to be sure that it can meet local market needs. As such, Nest is focusing on countries that have high levels of English proficiency and a Western focus. Through an analysis of Germany, New Zealand, Uruguay and South Korea, it was decided that Nest should enter the German market first then possible expand into Uruguay.

Unlike many of its competitors, such as Samsung’s SmartThings and German-based tado®, Nest’s impetus for international market expansion are not solely driven by monetary gain but rather a mission for environmental sustainability and human safety leveraged upon technological solutions. Furthermore, while Google bought Nest is more interested in forming partnerships with existing firms, such as Mimo, a baby camera and monitoring system, or Lutron, an application that allows homeowners to control their lights, shades and thermostat, just to name a few.

While Nest’s current international expansion is driven by sustainable & responsible practices, several factors must be taken into consideration for continued market expansion. In September 2014, Nest expanded its mainly North American and U.K. market to include: Belgium, France, Ireland and the Netherlands. While customer support and software interfacing is available in local languages, Nest has no plans of changing the existing Open Source Compliance to account for the new language markets. Hence, Nest has an established platform of investing in Anglo-based markets with a high to medium proficiency in the English Language.

Nest’s most popular product, the Learning Thermostat, retails for 249 USD not including shipping and installation charges, whereas in the United States the average cost of a simple thermostat are 20.5 USD. Leaving a margin of the population with a means, a disposable income, willing to spend more than twelve times the average amount on a high tech device that exceeds minimal expectations.

This desire can be attributed to several key factors. The first is consumer by in to the innovation and gadget culture. Additional incentives from energy companies, insurance firms, and internet service providers assisted Nest in capturing further consumers. Consumers also believe in the brand/product identity; in a vision of a safer, more environmentally friendly home that is easily controlled via Wi-Fi. Popular media has also swayed consumers into integrating smart technology into their home, and Nest through its product line and its partnerships provides an adequate space for that.

As Nest relies on a protocol called Weave to (inter)connect devices. In 2016, Nest plans to open up its thermostat software to communicate with non-nest platforms and devices. While this shift will allow third party applications and products to interact with the Nest interface, the requirement for a stable information and communications technologies (ICT) and Wi-Fi infrastructure are ever more prominent. Until 2016, Nest consumers have been using a Google serviced, cloud-based application program interface (API). This API allows Nest devices to communicate with one another without the presence of a wireless, internet network.

Leading the charge with Nest into 2016 are General Electric Co. (GE) and Procter & Gamble.   Currently, GE has established markets in South Korea, Germany, and New Zealand; Whereas GE’s only presence in Latin America is Brazil. Procter & Gamble also has a base of operations for its market distributions in Germany and New Zealand, it does not have corporate sites in Uruguay and South Korea.   As Nest looks to international markets for expansion, existing partnerships in new countries and available corporate sites from partnership firms can provide valuable scaffolding.

Since Nest’s thermostat inception into the U.S. market the company has been fighting off a series of lawsuits and allegations of patent stealing. For example, in 2012, Honeywell, a leading competitor in the home environment management market, filed for a series of patent infringements against Nest. Then a year later Allure Energy sues Nest over the learning capability of the thermostat product line. Furthermore, a series of class action suits has been brought against multiple Nest products. On many occasions Nest has successfully defended its intellectual property (IP), and continued market expansion via big box venues and online platforms.

The annual Corruption Perceptions Index reports can provide insight into the comparative rankings between Germany (Score 79/Rank 12), New Zealand (Score 91/Rank 2), Uruguay (Score 73/Rank 21) and South Korea (Score 55/Rank 43). Regardless of the faults or claims, Nest’s next market for expansion must provide a manageable space for the company to continue to fight legal actions presented on an international scale. To assist Nest in the barrage of legations, nations that have a firm support system of international IP rights and low corruption levels.

To this end the selected nation for market expansion should have low levels of corruption and a strong support for Nest’s intellectual property. Additional support systems in the form of existing partnerships in potential host nations can offer valuable support. Additionally, the nation selected for market expansion must have a stable ICT infrastructure that can accommodate Nest’s product lines. It was under these considerations, and from the selection available, that Germany was selected as the most viable option.

Germany is often viewed as one of the most important and most difficult markets to enter in the European Union. If businesses enter the German market without establishing brand equity in other European markets first, it can be difficult to gain the required exposure. On the other hand, it is difficult to gain a foothold in a saturated market. This situation puts Nest in a unique position to be successful in Germany. While there are a number of reasons why Germany is an ideal market for Nest, the four areas that should be highlighted are social, economic, environmental and manufacturing. The social aspects show that 41.7% of the population is within the target age range and focused on modernization, which is in line with the segmentation study. Germany is the largest economy in the EU and the fifth largest economy in the world. Germany is focused on reducing its reliance on non-renewable sources of energy in an effort to reduce its footprint on the global environment. The core philosophy of Nest is to reinvent home appliances through technology in order to help the individual consumer and their family to reduce their energy footprint. When entering the German market, Nest could utilize its current capital resources in Ireland, which has an established relationship with U.S. tech companies, to manufacture its products. Through this analysis it becomes clear that Nest should continue with its European expansion by entering the German Market.

We compared all the four countries we researched based on five critical factors: the English Proficiency Index, total disposable income, IP rights index, the Climate and Energy Index and Internet Penetration.

English Proficiency Index is a report which attempts to rank countries by the average level of English skills amongst adults. It draws conclusions from data collected via English tests available for free over the internet. The rating is out of 100. No surprises as New Zealand had the highest index followed by Germany and then South Korea. English is the native language for New Zealand while in the other countries it’s a second language.

The next criteria we compared was total disposable income. Disposable income is total personal income minus personal current taxes. We equated disposable income to be the correct measure to buy nest products. Germany had the highest total disposable income standing at $ 2500 Billion while South Korea came in second at $775 Billion. We were aware that these numbers were influenced by population but even when we performed the analysis as disposable income per person the results were the same.

We also looked into the IP rights index. This economic index has continuously proven to be the most inclusive and far reaching study on the correlation between economic success and property rights worldwide. Developing economies tend to struggle as weak protectionist policies over intellectual and physical property rights tend to be more prevalent. Germany is known for its engineering and hence was no surprise that it was one of the top countries in IP rights protection. It had a rating of 9.3 (3rd globally) while the rest of the countries behind with South Korea closest at 8.5.

One of other criteria we thought was important to our analysis was Climate and Energy Index. Climate and Energy assesses mitigation actions and access to energy relative to a country’s level of economic development. Instead, this indicator is measure of countries’ ability to reduce the intensity of carbon emissions over time. Our products are targeted at saving energy (Thermostats), so we equated countries with better Climate Index as potential markets. New Zealand just edges Germany on this indicator. All though both New Zealand and Germany are not world leader in this index, they are, however, head and shoulder above South Korea and Uruguay.

Lastly, one of the most important criteria we analyzed was Internet Penetration (% of population). Our devices are connected to the Wi-Fi all the time and without internet they will not be effective. Hence, this criteria had a lot of weight in our decision to choose the right country. Three of the countries Germany, New Zealand and South Korea were all close. New Zealand (94.6%) edged Germany (88.6%). Although the percentages are similar but the population of Germany is 10X that of New Zealand. The number of people with internet is higher in Germany.

In conclusion, we had a consensus that Germany was the right country to enter. We also considered New Zealand as a close alternative but population/ Market size was a hindrance to scale operations. Germany was also closer to some of the European countries we were already present in. We hypothesized that we could use some of existing infrastructure and distribution channels within Europe.

As we mentioned earlier, Germany has appropriate feature of business expansion, but Germany also has growing opportunity of new market. For example, Germany has many highly skilled workers due to the high level of education system. This means if NEST establish local manufacturing facilities, they can easily employ highly skilled workers who also has knowledge about high-tech products and software, and they can keep creating high quality and innovative products. Also, since Germany has already many local companies that have such high skill and knowledge, partnership with such local companies might be an effective way of business expansion. Furthermore, from the impression toward recent immigration issue, the number of people who would concern about security issue might increase, which would increase the opportunity to buy security products of NEST.

On the other hand, there would be some risks to expand business in Germany. One of the risks is that there is an already existing market of smart home devices in Europe, so the market might be already saturated. Also, funding in Germany to establish new branch or factory would be a risk. In addition, since there are some competitors like SAMSUNG that has similar smart home devices already expanded business in Germany, NEST might not be able to make enough profit if they face excessive competition.

Thus, although Germany is an appropriate market to expand business in the short run, it would be necessary to develop new market in the long run to mitigate the risk. As we consider in long-term perspective, Uruguay is one of the suitable market among the countries we researched. Uruguay has one of the highest level of living quality, so the people would have enough disposable income to buy smart home appliances. This means Uruguay is the one of the first countries that we should consider about business expansion. Also, because Uruguay is one of the countries of MERCOSUR and is adjacent to big market Brazil, it has huge economic advantage. Moreover, reliable intellectual property protection would be another advantage because NEST can make long-term relationship with local companies.

One of the possible risks would be that the economic growth opportunity and increase in disposable income is not clear. Another risk factor would be that consciousness for environment and security might not be necessarily as high as North American and European countries. Besides, the number of highly skilled workers who have knowledge on high-tech product and software would be possible risk factor.

While Germany represents the ideal current market for Nest to launch its products, competitor presence and Nest’s over saturation in European spaces are growing concerns. For example, Samsung’s SmartThings are already spreading across the U.K. and Ireland, and Nest has entered both these markets as well as Belgium, the Netherlands, and France. Hence, the team suggests Nest explore a Latin American market after Germany, via Uruguay.

Uruguay has a strong history of protecting investor’s IP rights, and great partnerships with U.S. based partnership firms, especially in the areas of science, innovation, and environmental stewardship. Uruguay has a stable democratic society and social benefits that sustains a highly trained, urbanized work force. Additionally, Uruguay has a history of supporting environmental, security, and energy conversational investors as a host nation. Furthermore, Uruguay’s proximity to Brazil could prove to be fruitful in future endeavors.

German Environment – Contributing author Rose Mason

Germany presents the widest range of opportunities for Nest as it seeks to continue its market expansion in Europe. The powerhouse of Europe, Germany is one of the main European markets that needs to be entered in order for Nest to have a sustainable presence in Europe. According to a study conducted by the European Commission, Germany, the UK and France hold the top positions as European ICT (information and communications technology) Poles of Excellence. Nest has already entered the UK and France. It would be remiss of them to miss out of the opportunities presented in Germany, Europe’s largest economy. By delving into the opportunities and risks of this market expansion, the reason why Nest should enter the German market will become even more apparent.

While there are a variety of opportunities when looking at the German market, five main topics take precedence: environmental/energy focus, economic focus, disposable income, technological focus and international IP rights. Nest’s core philosophy is to reduce waste, use energy wisely and lead social responsibility efforts. Nest and Germany are aligned in this philosophy. Germany is focused on phasing out nuclear power by 2021, creating buildings that consume zero energy from 2020 and establishing carbon free energy in all sectors. While Germany has had some setbacks, it has made some progress. According to the graphic on slide 13, Germany gained 28% of its energy from renewable sources, a 3% increase, 16% from nuclear energy, 51% from fossil fuels, a 7% decrease, and 5% from other. These initiatives show that Germany has a very real interest in energy conservation. Nest can only succeed in countries like Germany because of the strong focus on preserving energy.

The economic opportunities presented by Europe’s largest economy cannot be ignored. GDP and market size are typically one of the most interesting and important aspects to many business leaders when they look to enter a new market. Even the mention of Germany as the world’s fifth largest economy is bound to get the interest of many companies. With a population of over 80 million of which 41.7% are aged 25-54, Germany is a prime country for Nest to target. This target age range tends to have higher paying jobs, disposable income and families. Ignoring a country with a strong history of economic growth and an ideal target population would be a clear mistake.

Even though the Eurozone is in a minor slump, Germany still has positive GDP growth of 0.4%. Known for its thorough and strict cultural aspects, it is highly unlikely that Germany will go through a downturn anytime soon. Even with the costs of providing for the many Syrian refugees that it has promised to take in there shouldn’t be any long-term negative impacts on such a strong OECD economy.

When looking at the product line for Nest, it becomes very apparent that Nest produces premium products that require customers to have high levels of disposable income. According to the OECD Better Life Index, the average household in Germany has a net-adjusted disposable income per capita of USD 31,252. This amount is above the OECD average of USD 25,908 and on par with the disposable incomes of the other European countries in which Nest is currently operating. German employees are used to higher than average levels of compensation and wealth, to a certain degree, is seen as a source of power. Not only do Germans on average have enough disposable income to purchase Nest products, their culture has a preference for such premium products. Given the fact that the German government is going to enforce some fairly strict environmental and energy goals for the country, which could cause additional expenses for the average German, there is an unmet need for products that could help consumers reduce their long-term energy expenses.

All of Nest’s products focus on using technology to reinvent common household appliances and solve common energy problems in the home. The caveat to the product’s performance is that they only perform well in countries that have strong ICT positions. Without access to strong, connected wireless networks, the products are severely limited in their abilities. As stated above, Germany holds thirteen regions throughout the tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 EIPE (European ICT Poles of Excellence) Composite Indicator, which is the most of all of the European countries included.   Germany is the only country with a region that has a perfect score in the EIPE Composite Indicator. This strong connection with technology makes Germany a more than ideal country for Nest to operate. Given the fact that the German market is hard to enter, it makes sense that Nest entered other European countries first. Sometimes it is better to establish a presence in surrounding countries to build demand in the preferred country instead of going into the preferred country and starting out with a blank slate.

Due to the technological nature of Nest products, a country with high international intellectual property (IP) rights is a necessity in order to protect the product and the country from imitations. According to the International Property Rights Index, Germany ranks 8/19 regionally and 11/97 globally. These rankings are on par with those of the other countries in which Nest operates. Germany’s strong IP rights will ensure that Nest’s product is protected.

Even though any market expansion includes numerous risks, there are three main risks in the areas of manufacturing, culture and competition. In regards to manufacturing, it is often stated that Germans prefer products that are manufactured in Germany. For this reason, there could be some resistance to Nest. While the extent of Nest’s manufacturing locations is unknown, the assumption is that Nest is following the practice of other major technology firms in Europe by manufacturing in Ireland. It is unlikely that Germans would have a distinct aversion to this practice, but they may prefer the product to be manufactured domestically. Culturally, Germans tend to be more direct and thorough than Americans. If there were a manufacturing issue, Nest would be sure to know about it. According to past market expansions, Nest should be able to mold itself to the needs of the German market. The idea that Germans tend to aggregate towards the norm is very useful for Nest. Combining the government’s energy and environmental policies with this cultural aspect could cause Germans to have a particular interest in the product in order to be more aligned with the government and each other. This could be very beneficial for any smart home technology company looking to enter the German market. Currently, only Samsung SmartThings is in the German market, but their product line isn’t as advanced as Nest’s. Furthermore, the German market is very attractive and often becomes saturated very easily. By using the brand equity that Nest has already built in Europe, now would be the ideal time to enter this market.

Germany is the powerhouse of Europe. Poised on the forefront of innovations and progress in renewable energy, technology, international IP rights and more, it is a more than ideal country for Nest to enter. There are a few stumbling blocks that could get in the way, such as the desire for domestic manufacturing and more of a direct culture, but these risks can be mitigated once a thorough understanding of Germany is done. By meeting German consumer’s needs, Nest can provide the German market with products that it needs to meet its energy goals. Success for Germany and Nest are intertwined.

Uruguay in Comparison– Author Najia Sabir

Within Latin America, Uruguay is unique for its success as an “equitable society and its high per capita income, low poverty rate and absence of extreme poverty,” as declared by the World Bank, the Human Development Index, the Human Opportunity Index and even the Economic Freedom Index. Overall, Uruguay represents a market with a stable economy, decent communication and IP infrastructure, and growing consumer base which in turn represents a viable market for Nest. Additionally according to the CIA World Factbook, Uruguay has achieved very high levels of access to government services such as free education, clean water, sanitation and electricity. These opportunities have allowed citizens high levels of governmental trust.

Both Uruguay’s domestic and international relationships are favorable for Nest to move into this market. Uruguay has a stable constitutional republic with an independent judiciary and a fully integrated civil law system based on the Spanish Civil Code.   It also has a westernized cultural attitudes mixed with regional environmental concerns means that the country is actively promoting a growth in environmentally friendly technologies and related businesses. As mentioned before, one of Uruguay’s largest imports is technologies and one of its existing import partners is the United States, where Nest is based.

Entering into a new content can prove to be a challenge and in-country management will prove to be the most difficult. As a Spanish speaking nation in a new regional market, infrastructure and human resources will need to be developed from the ground up. Montevideo, the capital, can serve as the ideal location for establishing shipping, administration, and marketing all in one space. The city and neighboring regions have abundant airports and six large trading ports will simplify shipping. During start-up, Spanish speaking management may be pulled from existing, multilingual staff or from Nest’s existing European partners. Additionally, Montevideo has several established legal firms that can assist U.S. Nest in setting up regional hubs.

Uruguay’s economic strategies make it well suited for smaller technology companies like Nest. Uruguay maintains a low level of institutional corruption, focus on consistently high levels of employment, and broad social policies have created an environment that is relatively insulated from severe economic fluctuations. According to the World Bank, Uruguay was one of the most successful Latin American countries in weathering the ongoing world fiscal crisis. Uruguay’s continued focus on sustainable growth coupled with the support of the World Bank and other financial institutions creates a positive forecast for economic growth. Furthermore, Uruguay’s strong policy focus on environmental sustainability means that NEST’s corporate policies will be well received. Here are just two examples: (1) Uruguay is the first Latin American country to implement the UNDP Poverty-Environment Initiative (PEI); and TIFA includes Memorandums of Understanding on renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency and Small and Medium Enterprises.

Uruguay has strong trade ties with the United States through Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), and is also actively participates in international fora including the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and World Trade Organization (WTO). Uruguay’s positive relationship with Latin American countries both in and outside of Mercosur render it a good starting point for future expansion in the region. While there might be some challenges related to linguistics and the need to translate customer service centers to Spanish and currency issues. Any additional issues are fully supported by the US-Uruguay trade & Investment Framework Agreements (TIFA). Historically, business ventures between Uruguay and U.S. firms have been very welcoming.

With the current whirlwind of litigations and lawsuits follow Nest intellectual property protection becomes a critical issue. And, Nest should not invest in a nation that cannot support this company’s technology and products. Uruguay has a strong and growing IP regime due to its western oriented trade agreements. Additionally, with such a growing economy locally and globally, Uruguay has made strides in terms of protecting its IP rights and trades; in 2014 it grossed nearly 37 million in charges for the use of intellectual property. In Uruguay, IP protection has improved greatly in the last 10 years and the receipt of patents on Nest technology will limit ease of entry for other U.S. competitions, such as Honeywell and Samsung. Once the patent expires, the Nest’s trademark and marketing strategies should help maintain a strong market share for NEST products in the related technology space.

In 2014, Uruguay was ranked as a high-income nation with an estimated $20,600 GDP, with an average annual (estimated) growth rate of 5.2 % between 2006 and 2014. In 2014, 25.5% of Uruguay’s GDP comes from imported goods and the top imports consist of: “refined oil, crude oil, passenger and other transportation vehicles, vehicle parts, cellular phones” coming from the following nations respectively: “Brazil 20.3%, China 16.9%, Argentina 13.1%, US 10.2%, Venezuela 4.6%.” With such a strong history of economic performance Uruguay has been able to withstand external disturbances.

Furthermore, Uruguay’s proximity to Brazil’s large consumer base can offer additional and future incentives for Nest’s sales. For example, Brazil is located only 1,050km from the nation’s capital which is also a trading post. Additionally, Uruguay has 660 km of coastline, and six international shipping ports which Nest can readily access to distribute products within the host nation.

The CIA World Factbook found that the 6.5% of the population was unemployed (in 2014), and 18.6% of the population fell below the national poverty line (in 2010). More specifically, moderate poverty dropped from 32.5% (in 2006) to 9.7% (in 2014), while extreme levels of poverty has nearly vanished: 2.5% to 0.3% during the years. Not only are poverty levels low but most citizens live in highly urbanized areas (95.5%), and with the median age of 34.3 years old Uruguayan citizens are the prime demographic consumers of Nest’s products. These are the individuals are the most likely to install Smart technologies in their homes.

Uruguayans represent the right consumer market demographics for the Nest product line with a lower median age and highly urbanized population; the physical and IP infrastructure is able to support initial market penetration; as a nation, Uruguay supports Nest’s company mission to support environmental causes and ensure consumer security; and product distribution and protection would be easily managed with a regional hub in Montevideo.

New Zealand’s Proximity – Contributing author Mitsuhiro Ito

From our analysis, New Zealand could be one option but not necessarily the best county to expand business. The reason we considered this is as follows. From Ghemawat Cage Analysis, we found New Zealand has a lot of similar cultural background with US. They have same official language, English, and their majority of religion is Christianity. Also, they are both colonization experience by England, and now have highly developed and have less corruption and highly political stability. However, they have different time zones because New Zealand is quite far from US, which means New Zealand has closer relationship with Asia and Oceania countries, especially Australia. Economic situation is a little different from US. New Zealand is not as highly developed as US. GDP per capita is lower than US, but internet penetration is as high as US.

From the Country Framework Analysis, we found different aspect of New Zealand as a whole. Historically, New Zealand got independence from England, so New Zealand had strong relationship with England, but opened the market for acquiring new business opportunities. New Zealand has strength on agricultural and dairy product, and has strong trade relationship with Australia, China, US, and Japan. They import oil and minerals from mostly from Australia, so Australia has especially strong relationship on trade. Also, tourism is one of the best resources to attract foreigners to New Zealand.

The strategic goals of New Zealand are very clear. They expect foreign investors to invest more on their economy and they want to be more competitive. Earthquake in Christchurch was serious disaster, so the government invests a lot of budget on rebuilding Christchurch. On the political standpoint, they are very positive toward renewable energy. Because nature tourism is one of the biggest industries, preserving nature and eco-friendliness are important for them. Although they have ethnic minority, their political condition is stable and the right of such minority is protected.

On performance, New Zealand is very characteristic. Because they want to attract foreign investors, their market is highly open and this openness to foreign investors ranked 1st on starting business. To attract foreign investors, administrative procedure and cost are considerably reduced. However, GDP growth is not as high as other developing countries, and private consumption is lower than OECD average because of less disposable income and high level of household debt. Their IP protection is reliable and higher than average. On social point, their population will be expected to grow stably, and unemployment rate is considerably low.

Thus, New Zealand has some cultural similarity to western countries, and strong trade relationship with Asia and Oceania countries. They have great natural tourism resources, so they have mind of energy efficiency and environment consciousness. Also, they have very open market and it is highly ranked in starting business. Economically, New Zealand has stable growth and population also will grow stably. In addition, New Zealand has somewhat higher protection policy for IP.

These are the general country analysis of New Zealand. We also analyzed the fitness of business expansion to New Zealand of NEST. New Zealand has cultural similarity to western countries, which means communication between headquarter and local branch would be easier. In terms of economic aspect, New Zealand has stable growth and low private consumption, so it might be difficult to sell new product to the people. IP protection ranking is higher than average, but not the highest. Environment consciousness is important for selling smart home devices, but it not clear that they are interested in high-tech devices. They are mostly interested in renewable energy to protect the environment, due to having rich geothermal energy, which means they do not necessarily have interest on high-tech energy management system. Moreover, there are no competitor is existing in New Zealand, but it may also mean that New Zealand is not so attractive, or it is not necessary to build branch there because they can import any products from US or Australia with readable instructions. Internet penetration is also important and growing number of tablet is positive trend for mobile device market.

Based on these analysis, New Zealand is good place to start business, but not for business expansion of NEST. Because the high ranking in starting business is due to the low cost and short procedure, the ranking does not necessarily mean New Zealand is suitable place to expand business. Most critical point would be economic market. Economic size of New Zealand is not as high as other developed countries and is not expected to grow in the future, and the price would be not competitive because export would have some cost, even though they have proximity to Australia and Asia.

Therefore we conclude that New Zealand is not the best place for expand business. Because they might have potential needs for smart home devices, it would be possible to consider New Zealand to export our product, not to expand business.

Ideally not South Korea – Contributing author Vasudeva Bandi

After evaluating South Korea on CAGE, country analysis and on the 5 factors that I thought were critical, I recommend not to enter South Korea. South Korea is one of the developing countries we are looking at for expanding Nest. South Korea is a country with 50 Million population and had strong GDP. The FDI funds inflow is also increasing at a fast pace.

Evaluating South Korea using CAGE framework, there were interesting observations on the cultural as well economic aspects. On cultural front, Nepotism is prevalent. Decisions are made on personal preferences and family relations. Trying to enter such a market may have some ethical challenges and difficulty. Secondly, English is not widely spoken. Since all our products are in English, it would be hard to market our products there. Lastly, South Korea is an early adopter of technologies. Smart homes technology has already been in the market for a while. In fact, Samsung operates SmartThings, smart devices manufacturer, for over a couple of years. Samsung has a great leverage in the South Korean market and competing against a giant like Samsung in an already mature market may not be a profitable idea.

On the administrative side, South Korea free trade agreement with South Korea means countless new opportunities for U.S. exporters to sell more American goods, services to Korean customers. South Korea ranked 8th out of 183 economies in terms of ease of doing business. South Korean government is keen on pulling in more FDI $ 19 billion in 2014. The future outlook also looks good for investment as new government regime is looking to increase FDI.

Geographically, South Korea is small country. Its location- Proximity to China is a major concern for IP related issues. It is also an opportunity to gain a foothold in small market before launch in larger market like China. Also one important factor to look into is transportation of products to South Korea. Transportation costs are higher because of the physical distance between US and South Korea.

The economic side of analysis is encouraging. GDP is strong & stable. It is predicted to grow 3% year over year till 2020. The taxes are also low as compared to many other countries around. However, the average household net-adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 19, 510 a year (Lower than US). Nest products are expensively priced and the disposable income is relatively low as compared to average of comparable countries.

South Korea is interesting politically as monetary stability has been well maintained, but the government subsidizes certain industries. It is also an export driven an innovation driven culture. Business freedom is one of the highest comparable to united states. Also, government playing a major part by keeping imports low and encouraging FDI. Exchange rates depreciated favoring import of raw materials as well as export of finished products.

Competition from local and big firms such as Samsung is intense in the South Korean market. All the major electronics and smart home forms have a relative presence in the market. Looking on the whole there are opportunities such as ease of doing business, tough Penalties for Piracy and Counterfeiting. The challenges outweigh the opportunities. Imports are not as high as exports. While the disposable income levels are also not high. There is a high degree of corruption and nepotism. Also, competition is intense.

This hypothesis that South Korea is not the right place to expand was validated by analyzing 5 critical factors we had identified. English Proficiency Index, total disposable income, IP rights index, Climate and Energy Index and internet penetration.

English Proficiency Index is moderate with a value of 53.6. While, total disposable income was comparatively on the lower side of averages across similar/comparable countries. Since our products are all technologically advanced, IP rights protection was an important aspect of consideration. Not surprisingly, South Korea is an innovation fostering country hence IP protect is strong. Also, our products are more connected to saving energy. So, Climate and Energy Index was the right measure to evaluate how importance of energy conservation in the country. South Korea was not keen on energy conservation. Hence the market will be not as huge. Since all our devices operate using Wi-Fi, the last of the factors was internet penetration. South Korea has very high internet penetration and has highest average speed of connectivity.

Considering all the factors, even though there are some opportunities, South Korea represents a difficult market to expand and capture. Resources may better utilized to target other markets on the Asian continent.

 

 

Sample LoR for Student Reference

Recently, I was asked to write a letter of recommendation for a peer.

As I am frequently asked to write recommendations by my students for scholarships, grants, and jobs I thought I would post a sample. With the important details removed of course!

 To whom it may concern,

I have always been impressed with STUDENT’S passion, undeterred enthusiasm, and impressive communication skills as I have worked with they in varying capacities at the School of Education in Indiana University at Bloomington, Indiana (since X to present). Having worked with STUDENT as a fellow doctoral student, as well as on a team of graduate instructors, teaching preservice teachers, has allowed me multiple perspectives and additional insight into their work ethic. During my years of working alongside STUDENT, they has continuously proven to be dedicated, reliable, and resourceful, and I completely recommend they for a position in your company.

Their ability to work with preservice teachers in the computer lab is superb. They not only provides valuable customer service, but also takes the additional time to personally get to know their students and clients. By investing in her students STUDENT receives not only glowing reviews but also positively impacts the experience and development of future teachers.

Not only was STUDENT tasked with assisting students who walked into the computer lab, but they also had to create instructional job aids and update the course website. During the semester, STUDENT was consistently given multiple tasks and managed to complete all assignments efficiently and enthusiastically. They was responsible for weekly updating course content which consisted of lecture presentations and video tutorials. their weekly modules were thoroughly prepared, organized, and implemented. Also as software, browsers, and programs updated STUDENT took the initiative and updated student instructional material to incorporate the changes. Furthermore, on multiple occasions STUDENT has been tasked with projects for which they spent additional time off clock researching, learning materials and completing work.

I am confident that STUDENT will be an asset to any staff that they joins. They is confident, knowledgeable, has the necessary skills to complete quality work, and passionate about any task to which they commits herself to.

Please feel free to contact me (nsabir@indiana.edu) for additional information if needed.

Sincerely,

Najia Sabir

Directing Collaborative Research Practice in a Global Arena

Research study presented at 2014 Midwestern Regional Conference of the Comparative International Education Society (MCIES). Please join us as we discuss how researchers are using collaborative and qualitative technologies to shape their research process.

For additional questions please email me @  nsabir@indiana.edu

Abstract:

Information technologies have rapidly shaped the scope of international education research practices as contemporary software developments that allow global collaborative research projects. This study evaluates value-based judgments about technologies considered relevant to the educational research process. To explore the role of these digital tools bounded within the context of researcher development and ongoing qualitative research projects, this participatory action research study looks at the reflexive journaling of ten doctoral students across a 14 week period. The shift in international education research paradigms and constant updating of expectation in practice prompt a need to better understand technological resources valued. The thematic journal analysis revealed a call for: (1) open educational resources across information management systems, used in the literature review process and theory building stages; (2) resources that promoted accessible, collaborative, and transparent information collection and analysis; and (3) technologies that integrate reflective practices and commentary during the entire research process. Digital tools that reflected these characteristics were highly valued in conducting collaborative research in a global arena. The findings from this study provide groundwork for current international education researchers to successfully navigate the technological logistics of conducting collaborative research endeavors.

 

Suggested citation:

Sabir, N. (2014, October). Directing collaborative research practice in a global arena. Presentation at the 2014 Midwestern Regional Conference of the Comparative International Education Society, Bloomington, IN.

System Update Available for Education 3.0

“Education 3.0 is characterized by rich, cross-institutional, cross-cultural educational opportunities within which the learners themselves play a key role as creators of knowledge artifacts that are shared, and where social networking and social benefits outside the immediate scope of activity play a strong role” (Keats & Schmidt, 2007, as cited by Lwoga, 2012).

The notion of Education 3.0 was first introduced in the literature circles in a First Monday article by Keats and Schmidt (2007) and then later expanded upon by Professor Lengel (2013). In short, Education 3.0 is a shift in how information is generated, communicated, validated and disseminated within a technology supported learning environment. The progress from education 2.0 to 3.0 mirrors the progress from web 2.0 to web 3.0 technologies. The move towards Education 3.0 is a result from the growing dissatisfaction of current education paradigms and a need to design a system that meets the challenges of today’s society (Abas, 2010; Daggett, 2012; Toffler, 1984; Watson, Watson, & Reigeluth, 2013).

According to Lengel (2007) education 3.0 describes transformative practices while education 2.0 focused on industrial age skills and education 1.0 focused on agricultural talent. Harkins (2008) takes this notion one step further by describing education 3.0 as “knowledge-producing” and education 4.0 is marked as “innovation-producing” education (p.19). However, Harkin (2008) disagrees with Lengel (2007) historic description of how education 3.0 was established, he writes that education 2.0 was internet enabled, while education 1.0 was focused on memorization. Moravee (2008) and McPheeters (2010) mark the shift into education 2.0 with the emergence of 21 century learning skills. Gerstein (2013) writes that education 3.0 is a connectivist, heutagogical approach to teaching and learning, where as education 2.0 was a cooperative and social teaching and learning process. Siemens (2005) defines connectivist learning as one that is connected, interactive and transformative. Additionally, Gerstein (2013) calls for educators to implement Education 3.0 practices instead of “talking about doing eduction 2.0” and actually doing education 1.0 (n.p.).

One of the fundamental backbones of Education 3.0 is the shift in openness and expansion of the learning environment (Paskevicius, & Ng’ambi, 2011), where the students are producers and collaborators using new tools and information available to them (Keats & Schmidt, 2007). With the shift towards Education 3.0 Free and Open Education Resources (FOERs) (Blackall, 2009; Heller, Chongsuvivatwong, Hailegeorgios, Dada, Torun, Madhok, & Sandars, 2007; Lwoga, 2012), mobile learning (Gerstein, 2013), and social networks have become imperative to successful implementation (Blackall, 2009). Furthermore, Keats and Schmidt (2007) claim that the interactivity of emerging technologies has the potential to connect students to larger “socio-political learning environments” (Carmichael & Farrell, 2012). Instructors are seen as conductors and facilitators of learning, while the student armed with internet resources contribute to the classroom experiences. Furthermore, the roles of institutes are also changing; the primary role has shifted to one of “accreditation” (Bradwell, 2009), moving away from the role of information gatekeepers. Several reports and texts (e.g. Davidson & Goldberg, 2009; Wiley, 2009) echo the call to restructure education to meet the changing students and society.

The chart below is aggregated from several readings, including: Moravec (2008b), Gerstein (2013), Keats and Schmidt (2007), and Lengel (2013). It discusses how the purposes and values of certain instructional elements has changed over time.  For example: the way in which meanings are constructed have differed; the technology competencies of the learners has grown; the learning pathways have changed, in that students no only learn from instructors; the space in which learning occurs has also changed; as have the instructor roles.

It is imperative that learners have a positive experience with the learning tools and environments in that the resources are user-friendly and accessible (Wang, 2013). Additionally, as individual learners have varying preferences, instructors leveraging Education 3.0 techniques need to consider learning styles (Oblinger &Oblinger, 2005). Kolb (2005) identifies four different learning modes: concrete experiences are a receptive and experience-based model; abstract conceptualization is an analytical and conceptual model; active experimentation is an authority-directed and impersonal learning model; and reflective observation is a reflective model. These four approaches can be further combined to include additional learning models. The ways in which people interact with technology also differs and produces varying opportunities ingrained in the world around them (Orlikowski, 1992). Watson et al. (2013) call for reform to current educational practices to better engage students.  Furthermore, Wang’s (2013) empirical study found that students engaged in traditional learning displayed less satisfaction than students using web 3.0 technologies.

 References

Abas, Z. W. (2010). A framework for higher education 2.0: 21st century education for 21st century learners.

Blackall, L. (2009). Open educational resources and practices. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 3(2), 63-81.

Bradwell, P. (2009). The edgeless university. London, UK: Demos.

Carmichael, E., & Farrell, H. (2012). Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Online Resources in Developing Student Critical Thinking: Review of Literature and Case Study of a Critical Thinking Online Site. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 9(1), 4.

Daggett, W. R. (2010). Preparing students for their technological future. International Center for Leadership in Education.

Davidson, C. N., & Goldberg, D. T. (2009). The future of learning institutions in a digital age. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Gerstein, J. (2013, May 13). Education 3.0 and the Pedagogy (Andragogy, Heutagogy) of Mobile Learning. Retrieved September 8, 2014.

Harkins, A. M. (2008). Leapfrog Principles and Practices: Core Components of Education 3.0 and 4.0. Futures Research Quarterly, 24(1), 19-31.

Heller, R. F., Chongsuvivatwong, V., Hailegeorgios, S., Dada, J., Torun, P., Madhok, R., & Sandars, J. (2007). Capacity-building for public health: http://peoples-uni. org. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 85(12), 930-934.

Keats, D., & Schmidt, J. P. (2007). The genesis and emergence of Education 3.0 in higher education and its potential for Africa. First Monday, 12(3).

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of management learning & education, 4(2), 193-212.

Lengel, J. G. (2012). Education 3.0: Seven Steps to Better Schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Lwoga, E. (2012). Making learning and Web 2.0 technologies work for higher learning institutions in Africa. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 29(2), 90-107.

McPheeters, D. (2009, October). Cyborg learning theory: Technology in education and the blurring of boundaries. In World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (1), 2937-2942.

Moravec, J. (2008a). Moving beyond education 2.0. Education Futures.

Moravec, J. (2008b, September 29). Toward Society 3.0: A New Paradigm for 21st century education. Retrieved September 12, 2014.

Oblinger, D., Oblinger, J. (Eds.), (2005). Educating the Net Generation, Educause. Retrieved from: http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/

Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization science, 3(3), 398-427.

Paskevicius, M., & Ng’ambi, D. (2011). The Potential for Education 3.0 in a Developing Context using Giddens’ Structuration Giddens’ Structuration Theory. Retrieved from: http://www.bluelightdistrict.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/mpaskevi_Research_Paper_v2.pdf

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International journal of instructional technology and distance learning, 2(1), 3-10.

Toffler, A. (1984). The Third Wave: The Clasic Study of Tomorrow. New York, NY: Bantam Publishing Group.

Wang, J. E. N. N. Y. (2013). Education 3.0: Effect learning style and method of instruction on user satisfaction. European Academic Research I 1(5), 755-769.

Watson, W. R., Watson, S. L., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2013). Education 3.0: Breaking the mold with technology. Interactive Learning Environments, (ahead-of-print), 1-12.

Wiley, D. (2009). Openness, Disaggregation, and the Future of Schools.TechTrends, 53(4), 37.