Selection of Web-based tools for global e-Universities and implications for WWW research

1. Selection of Web-based tools for global e-Universitiesand implications for WWW research Professor Paul BacsichSheffield Hallam UniversityGreat Britain

2. Overview • Introduction to the issues • Vendor views • Training views • Exemplars (large) • Standards views • Research views • Conclusions Bacsich/SHU/UK

3. Tools for UK e-Universitywww.hefce.ac.uk • student-orientated • quality • innovation • flexibility • cost-effectiveness Bacsich/SHU/UK

4. UK e-UniversityStructure and market • Holding company collectively owned by HEIs • Joint venture with corporate world (PPP) • Market of 100,000 students: • UK postgraduates and CPD • corporate universities and businesses • selected overseas markets – individuals, companies or governments Bacsich/SHU/UK

5. e-Universities - other players • OU: Open (Corporate) (e-)University • (e-)University for Industry • “EU VU”: Scottish Knowledge, Finnish VU • “EU OU”: UNED, FernU, Dutch Ou • OLA, Athabasca (Canada) • Cardean/Unext, GUA/NextEd (global) • MIT ?? Bacsich/SHU/UK

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

7. Vendor views • Survey of 76 leading vendors for UK e-University; 40 responses • Vendor orientation to universities, not training or schools • Generalised criteria • Vendors included Blackboard, Centrinity, Cisco, Fretwell-Downing, IBM/Lotus, Luvit, Microsoft, SmartForce, WebCT,... Bacsich/SHU/UK

8. 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 Bacsich/SHU/UK

9. Features 1 thru 6 • Architecture • Standards & interoperability • Costs over life cycle • Scalability • User interface & compatibility • Reference sites - relevant, big Bacsich/SHU/UK

10. 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 Bacsich/SHU/UK

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

12. Australian work - A’Herran • For Administrators • Scalability, Value for money, Integration • For Technicians • Robustness, User base, Tech Support, Maintenance • For Course Developers or Teachers • Customisability, Flexibility, Integration of materials • For Learners • Consistency, Accessibility, Quality of design Bacsich/SHU/UK

13. Similar thoughts on procurement • TMG Corporation report • gap analysis • “off-the-shelf (with modifications)” approach • eArmyU • Two-stage procurement process Bacsich/SHU/UK

14. Training • The practice: • Training vendors • The theory: • Hambrecht report Bacsich/SHU/UK

15. Hambrecht criteria • Leveraging on standards • Scalable to any size enterprise • Flexible technology • Easy integration with client systems • “Media rich” Bacsich/SHU/UK

16. 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 • Online training is less intimidating than instructor-led courses • Trend toward IT certification growing rapidly Bacsich/SHU/UK

17. 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! Bacsich/SHU/UK

18. Exemplars • Open University: process and co-operation dominates over e-content • Ufi less clear • older paradigm • Scottish Knowledge - yes • Cardean - yes • UK e-University - yes • theoretical arguments - system does not exist Bacsich/SHU/UK

19. 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? Bacsich/SHU/UK

20. 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…. Bacsich/SHU/UK

21. Research - conclusions • European research: FP3 set the scene; FP4 added little, FP5 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 Bacsich/SHU/UK

22. 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 co-operative learning • Research: new paradigms not clear Bacsich/SHU/UK

23. 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 Bacsich/SHU/UK

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