E-Learning in the Future

1. E-Learning in the Future Professor Paul BacsichSheffield Hallam UniversityGreat Britain Ramkhamhaeng University 28 February 2002

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

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

4. 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

5. 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 f2f for teaching and examinations

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

7. 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”

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

9. Oxbridge and Russell Group • Cambridge-OU alliance (eUniv pilot) • Oxford with Stanford, Princeton, etc • World University Network (WUN) • Sheffield, Leeds, York, Bristol, etc (eUniv pilot) • www.wun.ac.uk • Universitas21: • Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Nottingham • www.universitas21.org

10. New Universities • Sheffield Hallam (eUniv pilot): • FirstClass and Blackboard; and soon Sun... • Coventry: • first large UK WebCT site • Robert Gordons (Scotland) • Middlesex (London)

11. 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

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

13. 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)

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

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

16. 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

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

18. 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

19. 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

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

21. 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

22. 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 eUniversity • The practice: • Training vendors • The theory: • Hambrecht report

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

24. 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

25. 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!

26. 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

27. 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….

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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