The “e-University” concept

1. The “e-University” concept Critical Success Factors revisited With relevance to Vietnam Professor Paul Bacsich 29 March 2004, Oxford

2. Contents • Posing the problem • Review of the theory of “the e-University” • Revised criteria: a new synthesis • Conclusions

3. The problem

4. The problem • It is still a major challenge to set up a new e-university • And to grow e-learning from a base of (print-based) distance learning • The issues affects both single-institution and consortia models, public and private sector • The problem is neither purely a dot-com issue or confined to the “English” world – it was a topic at the recent AAOU meeting in Thailand • How can we do better?

5. My background • Worked on telewriting and videotex for learning in UKOU in 1977-83 • Analytic work for EU and EADTU in 1980s • Early CMC work from 1984: Australia and UK • Introduced FirstClass to UKOU in 1991 (JANUS project under EU FP3 “DELTA”) • Set up Virtual Campus Sheffield Hallam U: 1997 • Consultancy work for “e-U” then UKeU: 2000 on • Analytic work on “Virtual U’s” - UNESCO: 2001

6. The theory

7. Global eLearning trends • “A successful knowledge-based economy depends upon availability of skill sets” • “Governments are determined to deliver step change in higher education outcomes” • Growing competition for in-demand skills • In-country provision important for recruitment and retention • “Growing use of technology-based learning”

8. The practice

9. e-universities in UK • Open University (UK) • University for Industry (UK) • UK eUniversities Worldwide Limited (UKeU) • NHS University • Post-92 universities – Virtual Campuses • Scotland: Interactive University • Russell Group consortia

10. UK: Oxbridge and Russell Group • World University Network (WUN) • Sheffield, Leeds, York, Bristol, Manchester, Southampton – plus US partners • Universitas21: • Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Nottingham • Cambridge-OU alliance (UKeU pilot) • Oxford with Stanford, Princeton, etc

11. UK: New Universities • Sheffield Hallam • early Virtual Campus • Robert Gordons (Scotland) • early Virtual Campus • Ulster (N Ireland) • later Virtual Campus • Glamorgan (Wales) • Middlesex (London) • Global University Alliance: Derby+Glamorgan plus others non-UK hosted by NextEd

12. And around the world • Australia: Deakin, Edith Cowan, USQ… • Canada: Athabasca, [OLA]…. • Dutch Ou, Dutch Digital U • Finnish VU, Swiss VU consortia • Spain: UNED, Open University of Catalonia • India: IGNU, regional OUs, NIIT • China: CCRTVU, eChina (BNU/BFSU/Tsinghua) • Hong Kong OU • Malaysia: UNITAR, …. • Thailand: STOU, RKU, Assumption

13. Types of e-university • Green fields/new build – e.g. UOC • Consortium – e.g. Finnish VU • “Orange skin” – Virtual Campus eg Middlesex • Those run or serviced by non-(public) university organisations – e.g. UKeU, Cardean

14. Purposes behind e-universities • Government initiative: • national or regional or local • International initiatives: • AVU; ITU; UN VU (environment) • several imminent examples in Mid East now • Business opportunity: • Publisher • Broadcaster • IT company

15. Critical Success Factors for Consortia Bacsich, for UNESCO • Binding energy • Organisational homogeneity or managed diversity • Stratification • Linguistic homogeneity

16. Alternative view Harasim, TL-NCE • Bottom up is good • Realism • Common vision • yet clear differentiation of roles • Management and marketing (funded) • Contracts in place and accepted by all • Role models of other consortia

17. European view (Bavarian VU) • Clear goals • Sufficient funds • Definition of USP • Clear target group and proposition/programmes • High quality • Student-centred pedagogy • Solid marketing strategy, growth-oriented • Common execution of project across partners • Common centralised organisational structure, specified responsibilities

18. Other issues • Many national responses confused • agencies without clear mission • Increasing consensus on mainstream e-pedagogy and evaluationbut big national differences on how seriously cost-effectiveness issues are addressed • Truly international consortia do not yet exist • E-learning still growing through DLBut many institutions slow to change

19. More is needed • Only a few big successes since the days of the “mega-universities” • Phoenix Online, UMUC • Many failures or problems • US: WGU, Fathom, NYUOnline, US OU • Even Cardean much shrunken • Canada: TechBC, OLA • Dutch Ou • Scottish Knowledge

20. Reasons for problems • e-U’s - or their funders - did not understand the existing CSF literature - likely • New CSFs are emerging - also likely • Bad luck - not likely for all • Bad management, especially in the dot.com era - likely for some

21. Commercial e-U’s need to remember that... • Market-led courses are essential, even though market research is hard • “Time to market” is crucial • “Quality” is an unclear differentiator; price is; brand may be • MLE functionality is not so clear a differentiator, to students • It is not really even a 56 kbps world

22. Public-sector e-U’s need to learn that... • There still must be a business model even if it is not commercial, funds do not just appear! • Flow of funds to partner Unis is always an issue • Open source is part of an answer not the answer (c.f. Malaysia) • Consortia are hard to manage, especially large ones (earlier CSFs are still valid) • While a single MLE may not be acceptable in a consortium, interoperability is not yet “there”

23. Non-degree courses • Almost all successful e-universities have a substantial non-degree programme • OU, UOC, IU (SCHOLAR) • This allows focus on individual training (e.g. in IT), a corporate focus, smaller modules, less regulatory burden, less dependence on partner universities, etc etc

24. On pedagogy • There is no world consensus on pedagogy, not even across from UK to US! • Very often the “pedagogic consensus” is not even explicit • Many pedagogic theories are not sustainable in business terms or in terms of what students (or employers or regulators) want • Especially in international operations, one must be flexible in pedagogy

25. Remaining factors... • Intellectual Property is much talked about as an issue • But it is not a CSF “show-stopper” • Ethical considerations are starting to inhibit research/evaluationand the situation could get worse • Staff development is an endless and thankless task, but must be done again and again, as staff move on and retire

26. Remaining factors (ctd) • Accessibility issues are starting to inhibit innovation in mass deployment • Will get worse if a “compliance culture” spreads out • Multi-standard services (PC/Mac/Unix) are getting harder to do and more restrictive in functionality • Lack of clear view on “mid-band” (512 kbps) is inhibiting service development

27. Further recommendations • Have plenty of funds, not all commercial • Hire some “names” from the university sector • Adapt existing systems; do a gap analysis • If commercial, accept the need for sales staff and value their input; if public-sector, do good PR • Keep a close eye on competitors - they always exist, if only for the attention of Ministries • Get the outsourcing strategy right • Have an innovation strategy - in Europe, FP6 • Be pragmatic – survival is the prime imperative!

28. Standards • “Learning object” concept has difficulties that must be overcome • IMS – good work but still early days • EML (Dutch Open universiteit) – interesting • Assessment needs much more focus • both MCQs and assignments • Interoperability still hard • Major challenge is still co-operative learning

29. Is research useful? • European research: FP3 set the scene; FP4 added little, FP5 more; FP6? • Canadian work lacked evidence of scalable approaches and discontinuity with TL-NCE • Too much gap between theorists and industrial-strength pedagogic practicetheorists are usually in universities and not seriously active in e-learning services • US still too synchronous and transmissive • Australia too fragmented but key institutions • Big IT companies need convincing that research is directly relevant

30. Thanks to UNESCO, EU, HEFCE, British Council, DFID,Canada, Australia, Finland, UKOU, SHU and UKeU Paul Bacsich pbacsich@ukeu.com