E-Learning in the Future Professor Paul Bacsich Sheffield

E-Learning in the Future Professor Paul Bacsich Sheffield Hallam University Great Britain Ramkhamhaeng University 28 February 2002

Overview – Exemplars in the UK – Vendor views – Training views – Standards views – Research views – Conclusions 2

e. Universities in the UK • UK e. University • UK Open University • UK University for Industry • Russell Group - consortia • New universities - Virtual Campuses • Scottish Knowledge 3

UK e-University • www. ukeuniversitiesworldwide. com • Holding company collectively owned by HEIs • Joint venture with corporate world (PPP) Sun Microsystems • Potential market of 100, 000 students: – UK postgraduates and CPD – corporate universities and businesses – selected non-UK markets – individuals, companies or governments 4

UK e-University - approach • Web-based learning delivered via Internet to PCs across the world – includes not just e-content but also – e-collaboration – e-assessment – e-navigation and advice • Some use of f 2 f for teaching and examinations 5

UK Open University • www. open. ac. uk • “We will be an e-university too” (Sir John) • 150, 000 students online, via First. Class • One e-course has 13, 000 students • Corporate University initiative • US Open University (not) • Relationship to e. University? 6

University for Industry • www. ufiltd. co. uk • Classic Broker model… • Oriented to colleges not universities – e. g. adult literacy and numeracy • Somewhat prescriptive approach • Standardised technology and systems • Fretwell-Downing “Learning Environment” 7

University for Industry New Directions • Bite-sized learning • New focus on Web not CD-ROM • New focus on c. Collaborative learning • New focus on corporate markets – big and small • Worldwide strategic partnerships? 8

Oxbridge and Russell Group • Cambridge-OU alliance (e. Univ pilot) • Oxford with Stanford, Princeton, etc • World University Network (WUN) – Sheffield, Leeds, York, Bristol, etc (e. Univ pilot) – www. wun. ac. uk • Universitas 21: – Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Nottingham – www. universitas 21. org 9

New Universities • Sheffield Hallam (e. Univ pilot): – First. Class and Blackboard; and soon Sun. . . • Coventry: – first large UK Web. CT site • Robert Gordons (Scotland) • Middlesex (London) 10

Scotland • University of Highlands and Islands – consortium of colleges - www. uhi. ac. uk • Scottish University for Industry: – focus on linking learners to learning opportunities – “a broker and facilitator, providing information, support, guidance, advice and encouragement to learners” • Scottish Knowledge – consortium of many Scottish universities 11

Selection of MLE (LMS) for Thai universities - issues • I will draw on a study for HEFCE UK e. University Planning Team (Summer 2001) • and later work done for PWC to specify the e. University MLE (January 2002) • and work for other institutions and companies (M&A etc) 12

Managed Learning Environments • • Pre-assessment Interaction with learning content Self-assessment Tutorial support Automated progress-chasing External assessment Group communications Learning support material (e-library) 13

The task was to… • Determine what “e-tools” are suitable for the UK e. University • And what exemplars are relevant • Looked at related areas (training etc) • Looked at Standards • Looked at Research 14

Vendor views • Survey of 76 leading vendors for UK e. University; 40 responses • Vendor orientation to universities, not training or high schools • Generalised criteria • Vendors included Blackboard, Web. CT, Centrinity, Fretwell-Downing, Smart. Force, Cisco, Sun, Microsoft 15

New Procurement Paradigm • “conversation” between customer and supplier business models, iterating to BAFO • Generalised features: – system information (such as architecture, scalability, standards) – user information (such as “industrial-strength” reference sites) – “futures” on pedagogy and technology 16

Features 1 thru 6 • Architecture • Standards & interoperability • Costs over life cycle • Scalability • User interface & compatibility • Reference sites - relevant, big 17

Features 7 thru 12 • Reliability - 5 9’s and global • User empowerment • Company size and stability • Ease of support and training • Ability to embed new technology • Ability to embed new pedagogy 18

Vendors - conclusions • Co-operative learning in most of the products • But little grasp of new technologies e. g. wireless and ITV • Even less grasp of new pedagogies (with some exceptions) • IMS and standards making an impact • But very few oriented to scalability 19

Other thoughts on procurement • TMG Corporation (US) report – gap analysis – “off-the-shelf (with modifications)” approach • e. Army. U (US) – Two-stage procurement process • SYe. LP (Yorkshire) – four e-schools pilots leading to BAFO for one 20

Suggestions for Thai universities • Form a consortium to lead discussions with small number of key vendors – leverage on bulk buying power – and multiplier effect of country • Add to my analysis key features needed for Thai environment – alphabet, language, culture 21

Future of e-learning: links to corporate training • Increasing convergence between HEIs an and corporate training – eg Oracle and SAP MSc courses at SHU – and SHU e-MSc offered via e. University • The practice: – Training vendors • The theory: – Hambrecht report 22

Criteria from Hambrecht report • Leveraging on standards • Scalable to any size enterprise • Flexible technology • Easy integration with client systems • “Media rich” 23

Hambrecht views on e-training • Higher retention of content through personalised learning • Improved collaboration and interactivity among students • Live (synch) Web-based course delivery expected to surge (TV…) • Online training is less intimidating than instructor-led courses • Trend toward IT certification growing rapidly 24

Training - conclusions • Practice: – Training vendors following along ever more closely behind university-oriented vendors in co-operative learning – but in advance in other areas, eg personalisation and assessment • Theory: – Hambrecht report validates group communication! 25

Standards - views and conclusions • IMS - good work; but major untouched challenge is co-operative learning • EU PROMETEUS work - early days • EML (Dutch Open universiteit) interesting • Easy to over-focus on IMS • UK HE approach - CETIS 26

Research • This may be too much of a personal view as conf. organiser, evaluator, reviewer, . . . • Look at impact from EU research work • Look at impact of work elsewhere – UK – TL-NCE – Australia, Singapore, New Zealand, Hong Kong…. 27

Research - conclusions • European research: FP 3 set the scene; FP 4 added little, FP 5 too early to judge • Canadian work more integrated, but lacks evidence of scalable approaches • Too much gap between computing theorists and industrial-strength pedagogic practice – theorists usually in universities not seriously active in e-learning services • US too synchronous and transmissive 28

Conclusions from input • Vendor views confirm co-operative learning in universities is important • Gaining ground in e-training too • Many exemplars confirm this • Standards: little to say yet about collaborative learning • Research: new paradigms not clear 29

Conclusions for research • Focus on co-operative learning – Start with basic asynch “BBS” model – Allow new models to be supported, especially those with business potential • Develop scalable approaches – more focus on assessment? • Support multiple media and devices 30

Open source issues • Exemplars: – Linux, MIT, Canadian, Finnish, IMS, UK interest • Purpose: – Challenge commercial vendors – Facilitate research by providing flexible system Professor Paul Bacsich p. bacsich@shu. ac. uk 31