BACK TO BASICS: GETTING REAL WITH ELEARNING

1
BACK TO BASICS GETTING REAL WITH E-LEARNING
Dr Iain Doherty, Learning Technology Unit,
Faculty Medical and Health Sciences, University
of Auckland
2
Strategy

• "Thinking strategically starts with reflection on
  the deepest nature of an undertaking and on the
  central challenges it poses.
• Retrieved May 30, 2007, from http//www.solonline.
  org/pra/tool/change.html

3
Uncomfortable Questions

• It is useful to ask yourself what is the
  unsayable truth at the core of this challenge?
• J. Flower 1997

4
The Level of the Unsayable

• Shouldnt we stop talking about improved learning
  outcomes?
• Can we really expect lecturers to commit to this
  strategy?
• Is a teaching qualification a requirement at our
  institution?
• How much money is allocated for supporting
  teaching with technology?

5
The Level of the Unsayable

• Isnt the LMS a rather expensive way to store
  files?
• Is all this research really necessary?
• Why cant we have a developer on this committee?
• Are we going to consult with anyone before we do
  this?

6
Complexity

• At least five questions for an elearning
  strategy
• What are we trying to achieve?
• Why is it important to achieve it?
• Who will be involved in the process?
• How is it going to happen?
• When do we need it by?
• Marks eight stage plan

7
North Tec

• What, why, who, when and how all answered!
• Urgency!

8
What are we trying to Do?

• Enhance teaching with the best available
  technologies.

9
Why is it important to achieve it?
10
Six Possible Answers (at least)

• Why?
• Improved student learning?
• Students demanding it?
• Market place demands it?
• Changes in governmental regulations?
• Lecturers are insisting on it?
• Dont want to be left behind?

11
1. Improved Student Learning

• Difference between what we thought we would
  achieve and what we are now trying to do
• Zemsky and Massy unrealistic expectations
  concerning eLearning has led to a perceived
  failure to realise potential
• Particularly a revolution in pedagogy to student
  centred learning

12
No Significant Difference

• No significant difference but . . .
• Subject structure and content must be based on
  sound pedagogical theory
• Must be a coherent supported learning framework
• Multimedia can then function to enhance teaching
  and learning
• Morice 2002

13
Salvation

• Our salvation rests in a commitment to a
  scholarship of teaching, intended to optimise the
  roles of human teachers and digital technologies
  in tertiary education.
• Reeves, 2002, p.7,

14
The Fine Grained Level

• Oliver makes the point that lecturers are doing
  what they have always done
• But things have changed at the fine grained level
  
• typing has replaced talking
• email has replaced meetings

15
What Weve Always Done

• My sense is that we are beginning to return to
  the old questions whilst acknowledging that
  technology has changed the way we do things
• Old questions
• Engaging students
• Supporting students
• Delivering curriculum
• Achieving outcomes
• Carrying out assessments

16
2. Are Students Demanding It (IT)?

• If we assume uniform student body then we are
  glossing over important questions
• Students are diverse across a university
• And they are diverse within Faculties across
  Schools
• And they are diverse within Schools

17
Diverse Student Body

• What do we mean by take ICT influences for
  granted?
• Oblinger P.38 Technology is assumed to be a
  natural part of the environment

18
Type 1

• Judy the 17 year old school leaver, entering
  University with a Broadband enabled computer in
  her bedroom and Personal communication device in
  her purse who works 10-15 hours per week mainly
  on Friday nights and weekends and intends to be a
  Full-time Uni student
• Holt, Smissen, Seagrave, 2006 P.327

19
The Net Generation

• Since they have been exposed to high amounts of
  technology during their lives they expect
  educators to appreciate their enthralment with
  technology and therefore provide innovative
  technological tools that that parallel and echo
  their inherent technology skills and
  characteristics.
• Maag 2006

20
Type 2

• Bob the mature age student from a small
  community in outback Queensland who works full
  time, has a poor home phone connection and no
  computer at home, minimal computer skills, and
  whose nearest reliable internet connection is
  200km away in local library that is open from
  10.00-4.00 Monday Friday.
• Holt, Smissen, Seagrave, 2006 P.327

21
Points

• School children and those born in the years
  immediately following introduction of PC do take
  ICT influences for granted
• However, there are still students who dont
• And the perception of those who do is that
  Schools and Universities are behind the times.

22
3. Market Place Demands It

• Distance courses where there is a clear rational
• Low student numbers
• Courses under threat
• Students in full time employment
• Perceived market opportunity/threat
• Yes, there are examples of market demands for the
  FMHS

23
4. Governmental Reforms

• Yes we have seen this around undergraduate
  medical education
• More undergraduate medical students
• More rural placements
• This does place a requirement upon lecturers

24
5. Lecturers Demanding It

• Demanding would be a bit strong . . .
• There are lecturers who can see benefits
• Theyre the ones who submit project requests to
  the Learning Technology Unit
• But they dont constitute a critical mass

25
Who will be involved in the process?
26
Project Team

• Project Manager (often instructional designers)
• Instructional Designers
• Contract Developers
• Academic Staff
• Students
• Others administration, IT support

27
Bear in Mind

• It is not unusual that lecturers at HE have no
  formal training in teaching and learning
• The pressure to publish or perish does not
  encourage attention to teaching and learning
• Lecturers lack the time/incentive to develop
  e-learning solutions

• Nunes and Mcpherson, 2003 Reeves, p.7, 2002

28
Student Involvement

• In terms of meeting students to determine their
  requirements
• In terms of evaluations of the courses that we
  put together
• In terms of particular interventions e.g. use of
  simulations to teach clinical skills.

29
How are we going to achieve it?
30
(No Transcript)
31
A Sobering Thought

• E-learning was first introduced 30 years ago as
  Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI)
• Ten to fifteen years of e-learning development
  around Learning Management Systems
• We are still struggling with the basics of
  teaching (with technology)

• Zemsky and Massy, p.7, 2004 Mergel, p.14

32
Current State of E-Learning

• Zhang and Nunamaker in Powering e-learning in
  the new millennium refer to the prevalence of
  static text, PowerPoint presentations and
  unstructured multimedia in e-learning

Zhang and Nunamaker, p.215, 2005
33
Current State of E-Learning

• Zemsky and Massys, What Happened to E-Learning
  and Why?
• E-learning has led to little more than use of
  PowerPoint, computerized assessment, discussion
  board
• In reality e-learning has prompted almost no
  development of new course/program configuration

• Zemsky and Massy, p.12, 2004

34
Current State of E-Learning

• Reeves makes reference to the poverty of
  pedagogical innovation
• Staff predominantly use learning management
  systems for course administration and
  management
• Students dissatisfied with lack of innovation

• Reeves, p.3, 2002

35
Current State of E-Learning

• Zemsky and Massy note Most faculty still teach
  as they were taught they stand in front of a
  classroom providing lectures intended to supply
  the basic knowledge the student needs

• Zemsky and Massy, pp.3 57, 2005

36
Current State of E-Learning

• Reeves states that by far the majority of
  lecturers continue to teach in terms of
  traditional pedagogical model of the lecture
• Traditional forms of teaching seem to have been
  relatively untouched by the enormous investments
  in technology

• Reeves, p.3, 2002

37
Still stuck in the lecture

• There is much in the literature concerning
  teaching and learning online that advocates using
  the online environment to promote communication
  and interaction amongst students. Despite this
  much of what happens in practice in this area is
  focussed on preserving and translating lecture
  materials to the online environment.
• Sheely 2006 P.769

38
The Gap

• Change yes . . .
• But there is a significant gap between these
  success stories and the broader picture of what
  is happening in Universities as a whole
• Causal link between predominance of lecturing and
  state of e-learning content in the LMS is clear

39
Complexity - How

• Are we going to continue to focus on the LMS as
  the centre of the eLearning strategy?
• If not what other solutions are available?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of
  these solutions?

40
When do we need to achieve it by?
41
Now!

• A web year is three months of normal time
• The world is moving at an incredible rate
• We dont have the luxury of sitting and thinking

42
Now . . .

• Universities are not structured for rapid change
• Sub committee to committee to deputy VC to Senate
• Can take a year to develop a strategy and have it
  passed by Senate

43
Conclusions
44
Transformation

• Transformation is a highly complicated process in
  which new values and beliefsabout what is right,
  what is important, and what is possible become
  part of peoples hearts and minds.
• Latchem, C. Hanna, D.E. (2002). Leadership for
  open and flexible learning. Open Learning, 17(3),
  203-215, 213.

45
Quality Assurance

• Quality Assurance and eLearning Guidelines
• Plenty of example of them
• http//www.eadtu.nl/e-xcellenceQS/files/members/E-
  xcellenceManualGrey/index.html

46
Quality Assurance Manual

• They provide the concrete steps that allow the
  vision to be realized
• 2.1.2 At excellence level
• Understanding of the role of e-learning is
  widespread within the institution and there is an
  institution-wide engagement with the development
  of policies and plans for its achievement and
  enhancement.
• What excuses do we have for not progressing in
  terms of quality assurance?