Let’s Not Romanticize 2019 for Online Learning
Last week I had the chance to paricipate in a fireside chat plenary session for OLC Innovate 2022 with Joe Moreau, Vice Chancellor Technology for Foothill-DeAnza Community College District. Joe is retiring at the end of the month, and we have known each other since the inception of the California Virtual Campus – Online Education Initiative (CVC-OEI), with Joe as the executive sponsor of the initiative. I have helped that initiative as an advisor throughout, working with executive directors Pat James, Jory Hadsell, and now Marina Aminy.
The topic of our fireside chat was the need to not look back at 2019 as a time when we had online learning figured out, but to look forward and figure out how to apply the lessons of the past two years. I have included an edited transcript of the session below as well as a link to the video. The key questions we addressed in the session:
08:48 Why the title for this session?
13:33 What was missing from the world of 2019?
17:37 What was missing from face to face that we can learn from online?
25:11 What are the most important lessons we have learned from the pandemic that should be applied to our 2019 view of the world?
29:45 Q&A with audience
@OLCToday “Get off my virtual lawn!” 😂
— Dan Keast (@keast_d)
Apr 14, 2022
Here is a link to the video of the conference session along with rolling closed captions.
Joe: When our friends from OLC reached out and asked us if we’d come in and do this session, you and I got together and we quickly came up with this title, “Let’s Not Romanticize 2019”, as something that we hoped would be provocative for people. We had kind of two different takes on that. Tell everybody about what your take was on that title.
Phil: One thing I’ve noticed both from writing and analyzing the market, is rhetoric, or words have a huge impact on the way people think about things. There have been two things that have really been gnawing at me for a while. One is that everybody jumped into ZoomU. There was a strong movement to say that’s emergency remote teaching. That’s not quality online education. It’s completely different. That is true, but the mantra of the terminology hides a lot of what’s been happening over the past 2 years, and leads us into a sense of complacency.
The second one happened even before the pandemic. It’s the phrase “online learning can be as good or better than face-to-face learning”. I get why people say that, because it’s true on its surface, but that doesn’t mean it always is. That doesn’t mean that we don’t have a lot of room to improve as a community.
So it’s really that rhetoric terminology was in the back of my head, when you came up with the title, which I loved. What a perfect frame to talk about this, because it also gets to what we should be looking at in the future. Then I was surprised that you sort of intended something a little bit different.
Joe: Two dots that I was trying to connect here was that. For many years, there’s been this dichotomy between online instruction and on ground instruction. The basic assumption that on ground instruction is inherently or fundamentally superior to online instruction. Phil and I have a very good friend and colleague, Pat James, who always reminds us that fully resourced instruction is the best instruction whether it’s on ground or online.
For years and years, myself and people like Phil, Pat, Jerry and others, have really been pushing back on this notion that there should be this comparison between on ground and online. What the comparison should be is between fully resourced instruction and not fully resourced instruction.
This notion that somehow we should return to whatever it was that we were doing pre-pandemic as the better thing that we should restore. It is a fundamentally flawed assumption in a lot of the thinking throughout the country, and probably throughout the globe, for that matter. I think I was intrigued by this concept that we came to think about.It should not be an automatic assumption that we’re going to somehow revert to a better place, because frankly, it wasn’t the best place we could be. We’ve learned so much in the last 2 years that should be incorporated into the new place.
Phil: Online education is not going away. We don’t need to defend it in the same way. We need to be focusing on everything we’ve learned, and given the centrality of the role of online education and strategy, how can we do better? There’s not really a need to be as defensive and look backwards as well.
Joe: Looking back to 2019, what were the things that you thought were missing from our approach to instruction, particularly online instruction, that we have an opportunity to get right now?
Phil: Well, I have to change my answer based on what we’ve already talked about. The unevenness of the resources that you’ve already mentioned is a huge part of it. Just because some elements are resourced and are successful, doesn’t mean more broadly it doesn’t have a ton of room. I would put that as number one.
The other thing I would say, and I’ve mentioned this in several different keynote I’ve done, the Achilles Heel of online learning is engagement. It has long been the case. If you look at surveys where students and even faculty have frustration, what always comes up that’s been the toughest challenge for us to deal with is, how do we feel engaged? How do they feel that they have a connection to their peers, a connection to their faculty, that they’re not just faceless avatars that’s going through their coursework on their own. We’ve had the dreaded threaded discussion board from LMS, and that we’ve relied on as one of our main sources of engagement for 25 years. Guess what? It only works in certain situations.
Joe: One of the things that I think we’ve struggled with, particularly from a student equity perspective, is creating a sense of belonging for a diverse student population. Just as engagement online is no small task, creating that sense of belonging for all students that come to us online, and certainly the ones that have come to us in emergency remote instruction has really been a challenge.
I believe that was missing pre-pandemic, and I don’t know how much better it’s gotten during the pandemic. I think we definitely don’t want to revert back to that part of who we were, or who we should be. We’ve learned a lot about what belonging means to students and what belonging means in an online environment. We can certainly continue to apply online, but also bring back to our classroom-based instruction.
Phil: Would you say that the awareness of the issue has increased?
Joe: I don’t know that the solutions have gotten much better, but the awareness certainly has.
Phil: It’s step one and we need to keep the focus on that as well.
Joe: We can’t take our foot off that gas pedal and go back to 2019.
Phil: We can’t over-emphasize enough the fact that you have different populations involved now. There’s the demographics, but there’s also I chose to go into online versus I was thrust into online or remote. As we come out of the pandemic there’s a much higher level of online and hybrid, so you have a whole lot of people who hadn’t consciously thought about it, and weren’t aware of what the issues were ahead of time.
Joe: Thinking back again about where we were, how we existed in 2019, stepping aside from specifically online instruction, what do we think was missing from the face-to-face environment that could be informed by what we’ve learned over the last 2 years?
Phil: I go back to the previous topics that we’ve covered about the dichotomy, or the false dilemma of online versus face-to-face face. I still hear this. I just heard it last week from one of our clients, that face-to-face is inherently better. Then you hear the reverse thing, how do you actually know that?
One of the things that was missing that online has shown us, is there’s an increased emphasis on outcomes and on visibility into the process given its online nature. It’s no longer this black curtain that nobody can see beyond. One of the biggest things that was missing was an intentional focus on how do you know students are learning in a face-to-face concept? How do you know that your teaching style or the course design actually works?
There was this intentionality missing of what’s the appropriate mechanism for the students that I’m serving? What do they need? Are we reusing the most effective approaches? There was just this veil that we had before.
Joe: How do you know they’re engaged? How do you know they feel a sense of belonging in your classroom? One of the things that has always struck me about this false comparison between online and on ground, is the different standards that we have for faculty preparedness.
At all the institutions I’ve worked at over the last 3 decades, we say to faculty you’ve got a master’s degree, or PHD, you must be really smart. get in that classroom and teach. Maybe sometimes we give them a little bit of help in terms of the teaching philosophy of the institution. Mostly we assume that they’re just going to go do it, and they’re going to be great at it. Some are, and some aren’t.
When it comes to preparing faculty to teach online we have this totally different standard that you’re going to need to be certified on the LMS. You’re going to need to work with a structural designer, and we’re going to assess and evaluate you differently. That’s all great. That helps those faculty be so much more prepared to deliver instruction to their students, and we are even beginning to bring in those kinds of things about what you need to do about engagement. What do you need to do about belonging? What do you need to do to prepare your curriculum to be more sensitive to issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and your technique to be more inclusive? But we still don’t do that for on ground. We need to take that lesson back from what we’ve done online and work with our on ground colleagues in a similar manner.
Phil: For that perspective, maybe it shouldn’t be such little work to get prepared for a face-to-face class. Maybe we can learn from online. But where I do see that happening at the individual level is when I talk to faculty members who have taught online, particularly those who have actually experienced it. One of the common refrains you hear is and now my face-to-face teaching is so much better, I’m taking the lessons back. It’s typically as an individual. What I’m not saying is overthink, thinking it systemically. How do we as an organization take that back?
Joe: One of the things that we did for CVC-OEI at the very beginning of the project in 2014 is create a course design rubric. Faculty could voluntarily submit their course for an evaluation through this rubric and it covered all kinds of things from assessment and accessibility to engagement and etc., and at the end of that, it came back with a report that says here’s where your course is really solid, here’s where it could be better.
Invariably, the faculty that took their courses through that process said, I wish I had the same process for my on ground class. Now I’m going to go do it myself for what I do face-to-face, because I learned so much about my teaching style, my teaching technique, my lesson construction, all of those kinds of things.
To your point earlier about what’s missing, the resources across the board. Having that systemic approach to supporting faculty, and students for that matter as well, in any modality is something that I think we need to take back from the last couple of years and figure out how to systemically weave that into the fabric of who we are academically.
Phil: Well, you’ll have to put up with us reminiscing. I guess we’re the 2 elderly gentlemen “get off of our virtual lawn”, as we sit up here. I definitely saw that with the introduction of rubrics, and how much it did. There was another thing that was just like, I still remember, like seared into my memory.
CVC-OEI didn’t just do rubrics, it also did peer reviews, right? We were setting up a steering committee back in 2016 or sometime around there, and there were faculty members who were involved in the course redesign with rubric and the peer review. We had several faculty members stand up and say that peer review is the best thing I’ve ever done as an instructor, and they’d never thought of having other people giving them advice on how to do things, and it was liberating for them. It gets back to that veil. They themselves were throwing back the veil and saying that was incredibly powerful.
Joe: The challenge that we’ve had certainly in California, and probably throughout the country, is that as valuable as that experience is, it doesn’t scale very well. To your point, figuring out how to do this systemically is going to be one of the challenges that faces us over the next 3 to 5 years. That was a really valuable lesson. How do we scale it from a few dozen faculty to a few thousand faculty? That will require an infusion of resources.
Phil: It also takes learning lessons, too. We won’t mention the specific example, but we were just talking over breakfast today about an organization that’s all about scale. Part of scaling is: Have you actually learned the lesson of what actually does work in the real class?
Joe: Are you scaling something that’s worth scaling? We keep talking this morning about this notion of lessons we’ve learned from the last 2 years from pivoting rapidly to online emergency remote instruction and the forever impact that will have on this scope and nature of our online programs. What are you seeing as some of the most important lessons that we need to hang on to and begin to weave into that fabric of who we are?
Phil: Well, you’ll notice us thread weaving through this. Again, it goes back to that false dichotomy that we were talking about. Zoom University is not real online education. Yet, I’ve worked with a lot of schools where people are having sort of epiphanies. Not necessarily lecturing through synchronous video, but in terms of hey, the synchronous video technology is so much better than it used to be. There’s so much engagement.
It’s not just Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Blackboard Collaborate. You have a new generation of tools that are starting to enter, and InSpace is out there. They were here yesterday, I got to see a great demo with them. Class Technologies, Engageli, you’re starting to see these tools that really have some fascinating ways to add engagement to synchronous videos. A lot of schools are realizing this can be a tremendously valuable way to increase engagement, even if so much of the design of the course is asynchronous, that we shouldn’t throw it out of our toolkit.
When we look at how to design online, we’ve learned a lot around this synchronous video approach that in many cases, should be mixed. There’s a real ability so we learned that we can do it. Students think of it, as this is class and there’s a real opportunity to blend and talk about the future of hybrids. Well one of the nature of the future of hybrids is blending asynchronous and synchronous together within a cohesive design.
Joe: That’s an interesting point because I’ve worked with many people particularly over the last 10 years, who have almost shunned synchronous activity. That’s not real online instruction, because that requires people to be at a certain place at a certain time. But it should be a tool in the toolbox.
Phil: There are ways to do it. It doesn’t equate that with lecturing through the synchronous video. I know a lot of schools serve military students or people who are away so you have time zone issues, and we can’t ignore that. But it’s a valuable part of the toolkit, and in particular it can address some of the weaknesses we had in asynchronous online pre-pandemic. it’s a rich opportunity in my mind.
Joe: One of the lessons that I hope we will take forward is we need to be better prepared for next time. There will be a next time. When that next time is, I don’t know, Phil doesn’t know. Probably none of us in the room know, but I think we can absolutely count on the fact that there will be a next time.
Now, in my own experience, I’ve been through a couple of previous times, like wildfires in the Santa Cruz Mountains, or unreliable power throughout the region. Things of that sort, but there probably will be another pandemic. Hopefully we will do a better job of managing that than we did on this one. But there will be a next time, somehow, somewhere. For us to not take the lessons that we learn from pivoting over, oftentimes a week or a weekend, is not doing our students and our faculty a very good service by not having that level of preparedness in our portfolio.
Phil: There was an interesting story, Inside HigherEd covered it about 2 months ago. There was a school in Massachusetts that had a bomb threat or something of that nature, and they were able to switch immediately to remote for about 3 days while they worked it out, but without shutting down classes.
Joe: So I see we have a couple of questions coming in here. First one is, how do you suggest we advocate for systemic evaluation and improvement for campus-based courses in addition to our online remote courses?
Phil: I do think it’s already starting to happen. In other words, people are realizing when they’re pushing out. Part of it is accepting the view of transparency and outcomes within online trust that’s going to also influence the same discussion on the classroom side. That’s not all that we can do, but part of it is, let’s not be defensive. It’s not fair that you’re judging online differently. Embrace it, publicize it, and lead to more questions.
I think leadership in many cases are very willing to think about these topics now, because they’ve had to go through this over the past 2 years. It’s really been eye-opening for a lot of them. Keep the foot on the pedal.
Joe: It’s also a topic that probably our faculty are more open to than they have been in the past. Once that classroom door closed, it was kind of a siloed world in some regards. I think so many of our faculty are coming out of this thinking. I’m still not a big fan of online, but all these things that I was able to use. I know how I can use them. in my regular class, and i’m going to keep doing that. That’s going to require a continued investment of resources. That’s one of the ways that our faculty can help us advocate for that.
Phil: We shouldn’t overlook that aspect where you’re talking about before the pandemic. Most of the people who taught online chose to do that. That also meant there was a tremendous number of people, and we’re mostly talking faculty members, who talked a lot about online and its shortcomings, but they’d never done it themselves.
Joe: Speaking from a position that they’d never stood in.
Phil: Yes. Well, guess what? We were all known. Yeah, we just got handed a situation where they all have experience. Now some of them are running away when they can and say, I don’t want to deal with that again. There’s a lot of them who are saying, well, now that I did that, if I’m going to have to do this again, I want it to be better in this aspect. There’s an improvement mindset that’s come out there and it’s based on a position of going through this in a very short time period so they can be much better equipped to be constructive in their engagement on these topics. I think there’s a lot of opportunity now to push for a lot of these improvements because of what we’ve actually gone through. There is a silver lining to the cloud.
Joe: I’ve said many times over the last couple of years the pandemic has been horrible, but it’s not all bad. Here’s a great question. What do you hope that we’re talking about at conferences like this one decade from now.
Phil: Scale gets to it, but it’s the nature of systemic change. In other words, I think we have very concrete individual examples now of people improving their teaching and learning, both for online and taking it back to the classroom. We’ve been talking about how we’re missing the systemic change. You talked about the sense of belonging and being aware of it. I hope that we’re actually having a debate of, hey, we’ve had so much systemic change and the quality of teaching and learning and the sense of belonging for these students and how they come together. And we’re going to be having arguments about whether we need to learn how to measure that even better. We know it’s going so much better. How do we use feedback loops to improve it even further?
Joe: We know we want belonging to be better. How do you measure that? That’ll be an important thing.
Great question here. For those of us at institutions that would want to simply roll back to 2019 as soon as possible, how can we help to keep that from happening? One of the things that I think we could really use as a tool to prevent automatic reversion is doing a better job of knowing what students want. I don’t think we know that, for the most part. I think we think we know what students want or we think we know what’s best for students.
Most of our students across the country are not the traditional right out of high school students. They have families, they have jobs, they’ve stopped in and out of college over time. They have an idea of what they want and when they want it. We don’t do a very good job of asking them. And I think we could really up our game in terms of finding ways to do micro analysis about student need or student preference and using that as data points to inform our decision making about what is the next state of affairs for us?
Phil: I’m just going to double down on what you’re saying. The best way to keep this change in this awareness of what’s needed is student feedback. That happens at two levels. It can happen within a course on improving the ability to get real time student feedback, not just what are you learning? Actually, tools like this that we’re using where you can see in the classroom what questions students have, but getting their feedback on did this help you learn at the course level? Since we’re talking about systemic change, go ask students to do surveys with a lot of open ended questions, not just closed in to check the box. Build that into your culture to ask students and get valuable input. People worry about doing too many surveys. If students see that you’re making improvements based on what they’re saying, they’re willing to give you that feedback. So building a structure to the individual and group level to get student feedback is going to be the best way to keep institutions from backsliding to 2019.
Joe: As we begin to return to more significant campus based operations, students will have a different take on what kinds of things they want to do face to face, and what kind of things they want to do online, both in terms of instruction and support services. We need to make sure that we provide the right mix of those resources for students. I think that’s going to be the tricky part. and that’s the thing we need to know students’ needs to in preference data to really inform that.
Phil: Well, let me give you a softball, because there’s a question here about how does this impact staffing? How should we think about remote and hybrid staffing? It’s a softball for you because I’ve heard you talk about this. How does that impact that support for students as well?
Joe: That’s one of the things that I know about my institution and certainly many across the country are struggling with. How do we address this concept of remote work? We’ve had so many of our staff say, well, look, I’ve been working remotely for two years. Why are you going to force me to come back to campus? I’ve proven that I can perform my job successfully, in a trustworthy and honorable manner by doing it from home. Why do I have to come back and sit at that desk, in that building? I think that’s a place where we need to find that balance between on ground and online, because there will be things that are done more successfully on ground. That doesn’t mean that everybody has to be there. How can we begin to tailor the preferences and needs of our staff in a way that reflects the preferences and needs of our students? We need that data from both of them to be able to make that match.
Phil: Here’s another one set up for you. They loved which modality is best in the fully resourced
\ borrowing from Pat James. Now the question is. tell us more about what you mean by fully resourced.
Joe: I think that’s going to vary by discipline. Let’s think just briefly about lab sciences. In most institutions, lab sciences are more heavily resourced courses than many other kinds of courses. You’ve got a lab assistant, you’ve got somebody who’s setting things up for you and with you, assisting in the class and in orchestrating experiments, tests, and things of that sort. They help break all that down after the class is over. It would be really, really difficult for the faculty member to try to do that all by themselves.
I think when we look at other kinds of disciplines throughout our institution, we’re probably not even coming close to providing that level of support for our faculty and other disciplines. When was the last time you had lab assistant level support for history or for sociology? Do we have instructional designers available for all of the people who might want to use them? Probably not. For those faculty that want to use open educational resources, do we have librarians that can assist with curation? Probably not. If we’re talking about faculty that want to utilize greater components of the LMS or greater components of remote access to applications and things of that sort. Do we have adequate support for those things? Probably not. Whether we’re talking about on ground or online, it doesn’t really matter.
I’m going to talk about this in greater depth later this morning. We’ve been operating these things on a shoestring budget. We made significantly greater investments in support over the last two years. The tendency to withdraw now that we’re back to normal is too easy. I think we need to push back against that.
Phil: I would add two things on resourcing. One is if anybody is spending time manually setting up a core shelf or a new term and having to change calendar dates and do that type of system set up, you’re actually helping the system that’s under-resourced. We need to focus on using technology to automate, in particular administrative work that doesn’t add value to students and not have instructors do it. Also because they might not do the best job either.
The other one is student support. If you’re doing online in particular, do you have 24/7 support? Can students get help both on the actual content of the course, but also just on general advice and advising outside of normal business hours? Fully resourced has to include student support as well.
Joe: Going back to what we were talking about, that kind of balancing of remote work for staff, there are some extraordinary opportunities for us to structure the workday for some of our staff in a dramatically different way. Stepping out of the limiting services to business hours, I know I have a ton of staff who have young children. Would they be interested in working a split shift? Say they work from 9 to 1, after they’ve gotten their kids off to school. Then they get their kids home and they get the homework done, they get dinner ready, whatever the case may be, and they put their kids to bed and then they work an 8 to 12 shift or something like that. That might be ideal for some people. It might actually provide the access that students need given their own life demands.
Phil: I think it would be a lot better if when we look at going back to work, remote or hybrid staffing, that it’s based primarily on serving students and secondarily on union rules or on what we’re allowed to do. That’s the opportunity we have in front of us.That’s obviously not an easy question.
Joe: Yes, easier said than done. Said by the guy who doesn’t sit at the collective bargaining table.
Phil: That’s why I can say it.
Joe: There you go. Here’s a great question. We’re talking about digital learning equity as a scope and scale not seen before. How can we be sure that we keep conversations about equity at the forefront?
Phil: Well, to a certain degree, I do. We really think it’s going to go backwards that we’re not going to keep talking about it. The challenge to me is not talking about it. The challenge to me is coming up with solutions that demonstrably work, that you can actually go to first generation students and say, hey, are you getting better support now? Do you have a better ability to academically succeed? I think student feedback is really the same answer I’m doing because we don’t just talk about it. We need to do it and actually get feedback to see if it’s working.
Joe: Doing it doesn’t need to be this enormous thing. I think a collection of small advances may actually serve students more effectively. Because one of the things that we know about our students, regardless of what the issue may be, is that it’s not a one size fits all solution. It is almost always the least effective approach. How can we dial in those solutions for the specific needs of this student community, this age group, this student profile, first gen students, single parent students, or whatever the case may be. Being able to make those small changes may lower barriers for students that are really, really meaningful. It may not take a lot to lower that. But without that data, we don’t know what to do other than simply keep talking about it.
Phil: Here’s another one I don’t have to directly deal with, so I’ll start by answering it. The question is, how do we foster the reflection and learning from the past while managing the burnout and exhaustion of today? Part of my job is to be able to take a step back and not be so busy, as most of my clients are. First of all, I acknowledge this is a tough challenge. There are a lot of people burned out, but what I have observed mostly is making improvements based on that feedback. A lot of the burnout conflates. Not just the hours work, it’s the frustration of why do I have to keep doing this or why this is so frustrating. I shouldn’t have to do it.
Joe: I know it needs to be done, but I don’t know how to.do it.
Phil: Yeah, exactly. It’s just like you were saying with an iterative approach to deal with diversity or equity, and how to improve those students’ lives. Same thing with staff. We’ve got to make incremental improvements to their work life. Here’s what they’ve been complaining about. We’ve made this small change to make their life a little bit better. From what I’ve observed, granted I’m an outsider, that’s one of the biggest things that affects burnout. It’s not just the total hours of work. It’s the frustration of I’ve been saying what I need and just give me a little bit. If I start seeing improvements and a way out of this, it really helps.
Joe: I think one of the other things that we haven’t really settled on, and I use that word very carefully because I don’t want it to apply stasis. It is that when we, in the face to face world, for generations we’ve had an instructional model, in terms of the class meets this many hours and the instructor can expect to put in this much time in prep and grading and there’s going to be office hours, so on and so forth. We’ve put some reasonable boundaries around the work involved in delivering that instruction. I don’t know that we’ve really done that in the online space as much as we probably should. What does that really look like?
It’s been particularly exacerbated by the consumerization of IT and the consumerization of online services. Students have this expectation that if they submit a question to a faculty member, that in 4 hours they’re going to get an answer, even if they put it in at 2:00 in the morning. I think our faculty particularly feel a lot of pressure to always be on. Frankly, that’s not fair. I’m not always on, although I can be called on. But I’m not on 24/7. I think our faculty feel a lot of pressure to be on 24/7.I think we need to begin to work with our students to put some boundaries around that. To be able to fully resource those courses to make sure that what we’re asking all of our people to do and what we’re asking our students to do and what to expect is actually reasonable.
Phil: You keep hearing the phrase about the new normal. What are your thoughts about the new normal?
Joe: Going back to our good friend and colleague, Pat James, many of you probably know Pat, she’s been a pioneer in the online learning world for four decades. She sent me a post on the WCET list recently and she said we should stop talking about normal, period. Not the old normal. Not the new normal. That is not a healthy framework for us to utilize. What we really should be talking about is the now. What do students need now? What do faculty need now? Because one of the things that we have learned over the last two years is that everybody has changed. Just as Phil was talking about, the faculty who had never taught online but still had an opinion about it, and now they’ve been there. Now that opinion has been transformed, for better or for worse. The same has happened with students.
There were a lot of students that didn’t want to have anything to do with that. I’m not good with computers. I don’t like the way it works. I like to be in class. They’ve also had their opinion transformed. So you’ve got a lot of students who are now saying, I’d like to do it that way, but this other one, I’d like to do it this way. The new now is what we really should be focusing on, not the normal.
Phil: There is a thread that we’re talking about. Don’t look backwards other than lessons learned, but let’s focus on now. Also there’s a lot of iterative improvements that we can apply, things that we’ve seen individually, but we need to figure out how to do it at large. From that sense, there’s a tremendous opportunity for us where we are right now, the changes we’ve gone through, lessons learned that haven’t scaled yet. We have a huge opportunity and that’s what we need to be focused on.
Joe: I think our good friend and colleague Angela is indicating to us that we might be at time. So Phil and I will be around throughout the morning. I’ve got another session talking about a lot of these kinds of things, but more specifically from an institutional investment perspective at 10:45. We’d be happy to talk with anybody. Love to hear what your experience has been and hope you’ve gleaned a few gems that you can take home.Phil: Thank you very much.