The eCampus initiative at the University of Stellenbosch and the impact on teaching and Learning

1
The e-Campus initiative at the University of
Stellenbosch and the impact on teaching and
Learning

• The Digital Academic Library A Reality Check
• 1 November 2002
• Antoinette van der Merwe
• advdm_at_sun.ac.za

2
AGENDA

• The Digital Library Do we make a difference?
• A. e-Campus Initiative
• Rationale process
• Brief description
• Current projects
• B. e-Learning Initiatives and the e-Learning
  Project
• E-Learning _at_ the US
• How is the e-Learning project implemented?
• Advantages
• Challenges
• Some suggested challenges

3
Does the DL make a difference in the TL process?

• Digital Library Federation (DLF) defnition
• Digital libraries are organizations that provide
  the resources, including the specialized staff,
  to select, structure, offer intellectual access
  to interpret, distribute, preserve the integrity
  of, and ensure the persistence over time of
  collections of digital works so that they are
  readily and economically available for use by a
  defined community or set of communities.

YES!!!
4
The broader context at the US The e-Campus
initiative
5
RATIONALE AND PROCESS

• Integrated, coordinated approach to ensure
• effective integration of ICT in all business
  processes in order to improve the quality of
  core functions of the University
• core academic business, services and business
  business operate on a single platform
• Initiative started in 1999
• e-Campus Forum in June 2000
• Strategy concrete action plans
• Wide consultation
• November 2001 University Council
• Acknowledged strategic importance
• Special Funding

6
BRIEF DESCRIPTION

• Nine components
• Management
• Infrastructure
• Support
• Training
• e-Learning
• e-Information
• e-Student Administration
• e-Research
• e-Services
• 26 projects

7
CURRENT PROJECTS
8
e-LEARNING INITIATIVES THE E-LEARNING PROJECT
9
E-LEARNING _at_ US WEBCT (ONE OPTION)

• Lone Rangers
• Beginning of 1999 - Introduction of WebCT
• http//learn.sun.ac.za
• Infrastructure
• 3 servers (WebCT 2002, Tygerberg 2002, WebCT
  modules under development)
• Statistics
• Modules on WebCT 2002 534
• Students on WebCT 200214650
• Modules on Tygerberg 2002 105
• Students on Tygerberg 2002 1635
• Modules o WebCT Dev 698
• Workshops
• 8 General
• 25 Departmental

10
STUDENTS USING WEBCT
11
WHAT IS E-LEARNING USED FOR?

• On-Campus
• Value-add to f2f teaching and learning
• 1. Good teaching learning principles as main
  driver (Gartner - 3)
• 2. Students want it (Gartner - 2)
• 3. Enhanced customer service (Gartner - 1)
• Ranges from minimum presence
• Module framework and some form of communication
  on the Web
• To very sophisticated
• Advanced online content, interactivity,
  communication and assessment

12
e-LEARNING PROJECT (2002)

• Part of e-Campus AND Strategy for Teaching
  Learning
• 3 Year project
• 2002 30 of all modules have minimum electronic
  presence
• 2003 40
• 2004 30 ...
• Minimum presence
• Module outline (with outcomes) on web
• Some form of electronic interaction (eg e-mail,
  Bulletin Board)

13
PROCESS

• Febr 2002 Guidelines e-Learning funding
  approved by Senate
• Febr 2002 Decentralize e-Learning project
• Dean appoints person responsible in faculty
• Dean reports back on targets in Feb 2003

14
ADVANTAGES

• E-Campus initiative as concrete framework
• Emphasis on strategic importance of e-Learning
• Monetary incentives
• Compulsory workshops
• Focus on infrastructure and support for
  e-Learning
• Integration (?)

15
CHALLENGES

• Bottom-up vs Top-down
• Specifying a generic minimum presence for a
  University (top down!)
• 10 Faculties with countless disciplines
• Different needs / different priorities
• Varying class sizes
• Diverse student population
• Diverse lecturer population (computer literacy)
• Funding too much
• Funding too little
• You have to attend a workshop / use e-learning
• Resistance to new and foreign ways of doing
  things
• Lecturers insecure
• Time management of lecturers (want TIME not
  money)
• Teach them to fish vs give them a fish (give them
  a bite of the fish and then teach them)

16
CHALLENGES

• Decentralised approach to funding
• Panic no uniform guidelines
• No uniformity in allocation of funding
• Different time schedules
• Instructional design of modules
• Integration of ICT, adding value vs another
  add-on
• Availability of assistants (pool of assistants vs
  subject specific assistants)
• Support lecturer and student level
• Sustainability of efforts revision
• Integration with digital library?

17
Some suggested challenges for a bigger difference
18
Some suggested challenges for a bigger difference

• 1. Library integration with Course Management
  System (CMS)
• Only 15 of surveyed institutions Real Time
  (Gartner)
• 2. E-Learning and Library integration
• 46 of all surveyed institutions Already or
  planned in 12 Months (Gartner)
• 3. Infrastructure
• 4. WINWINI - "what I need when I need it."
  (Students, lecturers, researchers) (Carl Berger,
  Director of Instructional Technology, University
  of Michigan)
• 5. Pull and push technology
• Pull technology - Open a browser, type in an
  address and download the information
• Push technology - Computer automatically
  transfers new information on a given topic and
  sends me a message

19
INTERDEPENDENCE OF ELEMENTS

• No innovation comes without strings attached. The
  more technologically advanced an innovation is,
  the more likely its introduction is to produce
  many consequences, some of them anticipated, but
  others unintended and hidden. A system is like a
  bowl of marbles Move any one of its elements and
  the positions of the others are inevitably
  changed also. The interdependency is often not
  fully understood by the adopters of an
  innovation, and may not be comprehended by the
  change agents who introduce a new idea in a
  system.
• Rogers (1995)