Transcript of Recommendations on Digital Study and Working environment (DSWO)
- 1. Scientific Technical Council Recommendations on Digital
Study and Working Environment Utrecht, 1 September 2010, version:
1.0, status: Final Commissioning party: Stichting SURF Platforms
WTR 10.1749
- 2. Contents REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATIONS AND APPROACH
................................................. 3 Request for
recommendations
.....................................................................................
3
Approach.................................................................................................................
3 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
........................................................................................
4 Towards a Digital Study and Working Environment: DSWE
............................................... 4 Varying degrees
of ICT maturity
..................................................................................
4 What do users want?
.................................................................................................
5 Students
..............................................................................................................
5
Instructors............................................................................................................
5 Researchers
..........................................................................................................
6 New user
groups....................................................................................................
7 Consensus on overall approach
...................................................................................
7 Challenges in the change process for the DSWE
............................................................. 8
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
................................................................ 10
FINAL REMARKS
.....................................................................................................
14 APPENDIX 1: PARTIES CONSULTED
.........................................................................
15 APPENDIX 2: BIBLIOGRAPHY
..................................................................................
16
- 3. Request for recommendations and approach Request for
recommendations In a letter (10.0311), the platform managers of
Stichting SURF requested SURFs Scientific Technical Council (WTR)
to carry out a study of the Digital Learning and Working
Environment (DLWE) in higher education. In 2008, SURFfoundation
working in collaboration with the higher education sector drew up
scenarios for the future of the digital learning and working
environment as a prelude to a programme concerning this topic. In
order to give focus to such a programme and to select activities to
be prioritised, the platform managers wish to have a better idea of
the current position of the institutions, the problems that they
are facing, and their aims for the future as regards the DLWE. The
three platforms requested the WTR to concern itself in the study
with the technological, educational logistics, and pedagogical
aspects, and with aspects concerning research communication. The
research question for the study is: What is the current situation
as regards the digital learning and working environment in higher
education? What current problems are there as regards the DLWE, and
what ambitions and expectations for the future do the institutions
have with respect to the DLWE? In the light of the conclusions
generated by the study, the commissioning parties wish to have
recommendations for: 1. giving focus and direction to a joint
long-range programme; 2. activities to be prioritised. Approach The
WTR appointed a committee to carry out the evaluation, consisting
of Prof.dr. P. Kirschner Dr. E. van den Berg Prof.dr. J. van
Hillegersberg The committee was assisted by Dr L.A. Plugge,
secretary to the WTR. The committee had a large number of documents
available for the study; these derived from SURF (specifically
SURFnet), individual institutions, and partnerships. The WTR also
made use of the information assembled with a view to evaluating
SURFshare, for example the documents for the planned e-Science
Research Centre (eSCR). Not all of the institutions have set out
their aims for the future in writing; use was therefore also made
of interviews with stakeholders such as administrators, students
and researchers, and parties involved in support and
design/development (IT management and functional administrators). A
list of the interviewees is given in Appendix 1. The documentation
used is listed in Appendix 2. 1 September 2010 3
- 4. Findings and analysis Towards a Digital Study and Working
Environment: DSWE The WTRs assignment refers to the digital
learning and working environment. Given the research question,
however, the WTR is applying a broad definition under the name
Digital Study and Working Environment (DSWE): A combination of
digital services organised by an institution to support activities
by students, staff, and guests at/of an institution for higher
education and research. This definition refers to activities and
not to learning, teaching, or researching. The hope and expectation
is, for example, that a student will learn and that the digital
services will help him or her to do so. Whether that is actually
the case remains uncertain and difficult to demonstrate. The
definition therefore refers to the broader concept of activities.
This includes looking up class timetables, scheduling appointments,
sending and receiving messages, collaborating on an assignment, and
so forth. Another reason for the broader definition is that as
students make progress in their programme, the boundary between
learning and research, for example, becomes blurred. The activities
carried out by a student who is working on an assignment or
conducting research for a graduation project do not differ all that
much from those carried out by a member of staff, for example
researchers. The WTR therefore recommends referring in future to a
Digital Study and Working Environment or DSWE, a name that will do
justice to this broader definition. It became clear during the
interviews that many of the interviewees define digital learning
and working environment more narrowly: they regard it as synonymous
with the electronic learning environment (ELE) for students and
instructors. A smaller number of interviewees used the broader
definition. The preponderance of the narrower definition (i.e. a
synonym for the ELE) means that the findings in fact provide more
information on digital environments for students and instructors
than for researchers and (even less so) support staff and
administrators. Varying degrees of ICT maturity As anticipated, the
various institutions differed considerably with respect to the
maturity of their ICT facilities and services. Indeed, they can
scarcely be compared with one another in that regard. Early
adopters and followers can be found at both large and small
institutions, and at both research universities and universities of
applied sciences. The institutions also differ enormously with
respect to the specific ICT services that they have pioneered. In
some cases, the difference lies in the maturity of the
architecture. For example, the three universities of technology are
currently implementing a service-oriented architecture. Among these
three universities the Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e)
has made the most progress in implementing such architecture.
Another example of a mature architecture based on services and
brokers as well as mature, integrated service delivery can be found
at Zeeland University of Applied Sciences. What typifies the latter
two examples is that the institutions have focused more on
providing proper ICT services for support purposes, and less, or
hardly at all, on using ICT as a general or pedagogical tool. The
arguments put forward by institutions that focus more on
educational support processes are: a well-organised educational
setting is a requirement for creating a proper teaching and study
environment; proper, well-integrated services focusing on support
processes produce immediate and visible advantages in terms of the
amount of time that staff (instructors, researchers and other
staff) and students must invest in order to teach or take lessons;
focusing on support processes makes the task (i.e. providing ICT
support) clearer and more manageable for a centralised ICT
department; it forces the organisation to review its support
processes and to make agreements on (de facto) standardisation and
on removing duplicate data and data systems, so that the data and
systems can be used collectively; 1 September 2010 4
- 5. it makes it possible to support multiple didacticala models,
so that instructors can select the most effective one instead of
taking a one size fits all approach. It is the WTRs impression that
institutions that have organised and standardised their support
processes properly are better able to provide integrated ICT
support for these processes and receive higher marks in terms of
user satisfaction. What do users want? Students The interviewees
were largely in agreement on the following point: students think
that the ICT facilities provided in higher education generally lag
behind those made available by many commercial vendors, whose
customers include students. According to the interviewees, there
are also too many instructors who fail to make effective use of ICT
in their teaching. As mentioned above, in terms of the services
provided, there are considerable differences between institutions,
as well as between instructors. When asked, the interviewees were
also able to provide examples of what they consider effective use
of ICT by instructors and the institution. It is clear that in the
eyes of many students, too many instructors still frequently have
technical problems when using new facilities, for example smart
boards, and/or are unable to use facilities in the most effective
manner, for example Microsoft PowerPoint. In the first example, the
problem lies in the users technical skills; in the second, it is
related to presentation and teaching skills, i.e. didactics. But it
is not only instructors who lack the necessary knowledge and
skills. Many students also have only a limited (i.e. one-sided)
knowledge of new facilities. The interviews revealed that students
are often very familiar with facilities popular in their age group,
such as Skype, MSN, Facebook, Twitter, Hyves, Gmail, Hotmail, etc.
They are less familiar or even entirely unfamiliar, however, with
information sources that are generally available, for example
iTunes-U for open courseware. Describing young people as digital
natives is a generalisation that overestimates their knowledge and
skills. Opinions among students differ as to what aspect of ICT
requires the most attention. In order to improve the quality of
their education, they believe improvements are needed both in the
ICT facilities for supportive processes in education and in the use
of ICT for didactical purposes. They have a slight preference,
however, for ICT facilities for the supportive processes. Such
prerequisite facilities create an environment that makes it
possible for instructors, students and researchers to focus on
their core activities. Instructors Unlike the students, who are
united in two national organisations, instructors do not have a
national platform through which they can express their views. That
is also the conclusion of a report by the Association of
Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) entitled Towards instructor
professionalism in Dutch higher education: Why a professional
infrastructure is needed to achieve scholastic success
[Docentprofessionaliteit in het Nederlandse hoger 24 onderwijs -
Naar een professionele infrastructuur als voorwaarde voor
studiesucces] (Van Alst et al., 2009). The reports first
recommendation is, therefore (p. 53): In line with examples abroad,
there should be a platform of, for and by instructors that will act
as their permanent representative in the higher education sector.
In a similar way, instructors opinions also only reach SURF through
indirect channels, for example via the platform contact persons and
the ICT expertise centres. Those representing the instructors are
therefore generally not instructors themselves, even though the
demands that instructors in higher education make on ICT may well
be even more varied than those of students. That is because
instructors specialise in different fields, and the requirements
that they have probably differ considerably from one HERPb a In
Dutch and in German there is a clear distinction between didactics,
i.e. a teaching method or educational style, and pedagogy which is
about leading children in their growth toward adulthood. b HERP:
The Higher Education and Research Plan [Hoger Onderwijs en
Onderzoek Plan], a policy plan issued every other year by the Dutch
Ministry of Education, Culture and Science for the higher education
sector. The HERP sectors are: Agriculture, Nature, Technology,
Health, Economics, Law, Behaviour & Society, Language &
Culture, Education, and Miscellaneous. 1 September 2010 5
- 6. sector to the next, but also within each sector, per
academic phase, and between research universities and universities
of applied sciences. In addition, there are also groups that act as
instructors but are not officially registered as such, for example
guest lecturers, graduate students and student assistants. Within
the given timeframe of this study it was not feasible to obtain a
representative picture of what instructors require, based directly
on their opinions. Each of the institutions can, however, gather a
general idea of what those requirements might be. For example,
surveys conducted by a number of the institutions show that
instructors generally regard the existing ELE facilities as
satisfactory. (See, for example, reports 8, 19, 25 and 26 in the
bibliography.) A study at VU University Amsterdam8 reveals that the
majority of instructors (approx. 82%) use mainly the basic
functions, such as uploading content (documents), and to a lesser
extent posting notifications and, occasionally, posting lists of
marks (p. 21). It is unlikely that this picture will differ
dramatically from one institution to the next, given what the
students, among others, say about their instructors ICT skills. On
top of this, instructor professionalism/support is a frequent and
recurring issue. This corresponds to the notion that the
instructors limited knowledge and skills still inhibit widespread
and more intensive use of ICT in education. Researchers The extent
to which researchers use ICT and what they wish to do with it,
depends largely on their field of research. In data-intensive
fields, for example high-energy physics or bioinformatics,
researchers involved in research programmes are better able to join
forces and articulate their needs. The degree to which researchers
utilise network bandwidth may serve as an indication of the extent
to which they use ICT. Figure 1, p. 7, shows that only a small
percentage of the researchers (C) are heavyweight users of
bandwidth. The majority of users consist of lightweight (A) and
moderate (B) users. Currently, a special infrastructure is being
set up for researchers in the C category, i.e. those working in
data-intensive interdisciplinary fields. The future eScience
Research Centre (eSRC) and SURF data & computing facilities
(SURFcdf) will provide support for this new infrastructure. For the
vast majority of researchers (A in Figure 1), ICT plays a
subordinate and sometimes a very subordinate role. In their case,
the eSRC is a too powerful solution to a relatively small problem,
at least for the time being. In addition, some researchers simply
are not (yet) convinced that digitising their research data is the
right thing to do, for example because of a fear for loss of
information. Despite the differences between these groups of
researchers, the interviews showed that researchers in every field
have the same basic (generic) need for low-threshold facilities to:
communicate with fellow researchers; share data; collaborate on
documents and data; store data for individual and collective use. 1
September 2010 6
- 7. a Figure 1: Researchers categorised by bandwidth use
SURFgroepen is cited explicitly as an example of a good facility.
Researchers also thought that SURFgroepen is a good alternative to
the (free of charge) services offered by commercial service
providers such as Google Docs or Windows Live. Specifically, they
had their doubts about the privacy of the latter and felt that they
were at the mercy of the arbitrariness of commercial service
providers. New user groups Knowledge networks [lectoraten] have
been around for some time now, but ICT facilities have not yet been
sufficiently geared towards taking this structure into account.
Knowledge networks focus on education, business, research and
research results. This calls for more outward-looking ICT
facilities that must also be accessible by third parties. Although
institutions are attempting to key into these changes, major
adjustments have yet to be made. Both research universities and
universities of applied sciences have more or less rediscovered the
alumnus. Unlike universities in the English-speaking world, Dutch
universities do not have a tradition of alumni associations. The
institutions are now considering how to cultivate the relationship
with their alumni, for example by offering them online facilities.
Cultural differences between the United States and the Netherlands
mean, however, that it would be impossible to simply adopt the same
models used there, for example. Consensus on overall approach
Despite all the differences, there is clear consensus in the Dutch
higher education sector about the use of ICT facilities in
education. Three trends appear to be developing: 1. the emphasis on
using ICT for didactical purposes is shifting to an emphasis on the
ICT facilities for supporting processes to lighten the
organisational and administrative burden, thus allowing instructors
and students to focus on teaching and learning; 2. giving users
(students and staff) more freedom to decide for themselves which
facilities they will use, in what way, when, and on which devices;
3. a reassessment of the facilities and functionalities that are
needed to better serve users, and a reconsideration of who should
produce these services: external service providers or the
institutions IT department. a Illustration provided by Prof.dr.ir.
Cees de Laat 1 September 2010 7
- 8. With respect to item 3, the interviewees noted that one way
to approach the problem of service provision was to determine
whether a facility/service was needed in order to qualify for
accreditation. This is similar to Edwards and Peppards qualifying
and underpinning processes a,1 (see Figure 2). The yellow diamond
represents the strategic processes, with the competitive processes
making it possible for the organisation to compete and promote
itself. The transformational processes indicate the organisations
ability to adapt to changing circumstances, for example in
legislation, but also to the ICT induced behavioural changes. As
time passes, some competitive processes change into underpinning
processes. For example, providing access to the Internet was a
competitive advantage in the 1990s, but in the past ten years,
Internet access has gradually become an underpinning process: it is
no longer considered a unique feature in higher education, although
it remains a necessary one. Digital access to scientific data
sources is an example of a qualifying process: without such access,
the institution cannot give its students a good education and it is
unlikely that it will obtain accreditation. An example of a
transformational process is the training of teaching staff in the
use of new technology, or the setting up of a new curriculum.
Competitive processes include employing a distinctive educational
method or special facilities to support education. 1 Figure 2
Operational processes as categorised by Edwards & Peppard
Challenges in the change process for the DSWE Technology advances
in a rapid pace, and our culture is changing just as rapidly. The
ideal that we imagined at the start of the present century that we
would have information at our fingertips, anytime, anywhere, using
any device has become reality. The market and the public have
embraced these changes with enormous speed so quickly, in fact,
that some users appear to treat privacy and security somewhat
nonchalantly, or perhaps naively. It is not only the general public
that is wrestling with the blurring boundaries between private,
public, work and study, but also and in particular the higher
education and research sector. The higher education sector has
always been an open community, particularly at research
universities. The latest advances require us to redefine the limits
of openness, however. What inside information is allowed out, which
outsiders are allowed in, and to what are they granted access? This
question is all the more urgent because technology and society are
changing so rapidly that the institutions of higher education
appear unable to keep up. Technology is growing ever more complex
and we are becoming increasingly dependent on it. Moreover, the
institutions ICT departments are increasingly having difficulty
keeping pace with the new technology and to live up to their users
expectations of quality. The fact is that a growing number of users
have better and more flexible online facilities at home a With
gratitude to J. Jasperse, Zeeland University of Applied Sciences 1
September 2010 8
- 9. than at work or school. This development increases the
pressure on the institutions and their ICT departments. All too
often, users both students and staff find that only suboptimal use
is made of ICT in various supporting processes. The problem
frequently comes down to the alignment between ICT and the
supporting operational processes. It was notable how often the
interviewees said that their institution's management was not
prioritising this issue sufficiently. There are also institutions,
however, that have indeed recorded good results when it comes to
alignment and delivering quality. These institutions have a number
of features in common: they have a particular vision, they focus on
support processes, they follow a consistent policy, and their units
and departments cooperate closely with one another. Nevertheless,
even these successful institutions are facing a new set of
decisions: What services/functionality should our institution offer
and what can students and staffs get themselves from commercial
providers? How should we deal with all the new devices that users
want to use to gain access to information and services? How should
we deal with new groups of (guest) users, users at other
institutions, companies, or civil-society organisations, and the
general public? How do we take care of our data if we no longer
know precisely where our commercial service provider is storing it,
and the service provider cannot or does not want to reveal this
information, for example for security reasons? How can we offer
users more choice and freedom while also bearing in mind the
requirements of security, the need for standardisation, and so on?
What SURF must ask itself is what role it can play as a
collaborative organisation / partnership in the light of the
developments outlined above. This topic is addressed in the
following section. 1 September 2010 9
- 10. Conclusions and recommendations Given the above findings,
the WTR has reached the following conclusions. 1. The boundaries
are blurring between many basic/generic activities in education,
research and the processes that support them. Although every user
group will continue to perform specific activities, and therefore
will continue to require dedicated ICT facilities, there are a
growing number of ICT services that are no longer specific to just
a single group (communication by e-mail, chatting,
video-conferencing, collaboration on documents, information and
data-sharing, word- processing, presentation of results or progress
reports, etc.). Each group uses these generic facilities to process
different types of content and employs them for a different
purpose, but the functionality remains the same. The facilities
themselves are content and purpose-neutral. The mobile phone went
through a similar evolution; at first, mobile telephony was a
solution used only by specific groups, but in the end it became
part of everyones life. The increasingly generic nature of many ICT
functionalities is having a particularly significant impact on how
we think about the learning environment. Previously, systems were
specifically developed for education. Nowadays there is a trend to
develop systems with generic functions to support different groups
of users. Each group still has its own specific facilities, but a
growing number of services are identical for all users and can also
be found in use in business and in other types of organisation.
Provided that security and privacy requirements are met, this makes
these services highly suitable for delivery from the cloud. Given
that many of the activities do not differ fundamentally from one
another, there is now the tendency to support working (instructors,
researchers and management) and studying (students), as opposed to
thinking in terms of electronic learning environments. The
electronic learning environment is evolving into a digital study
and working environment (DSWE), offering facilities that can also
be used by researchers. This emphasis on basic support processes
was confirmed during a meeting of the DLWE Special Interest Group
on 22 June 2010.32 This is an important observation for SURF,
because the focus within the current three platforms will shift
from the individual platforms to the area where education, research
and organisation/operations meet. It will thus be vital for the
platforms and subsidiaries to coordinate and collaborate with one
another. Organisation (Operations) Research Education Figure 3
Generic ICT facilities in the overlap between platforms 1 September
2010 10
- 11. Recommendation 1: More than before, collaboration will be
necessary within SURF both within SURFfoundation and with/between
the subsidiaries in planning new innovation activities. This goes
beyond collaborating on long-range plans; it also means working
together on the annual plans. It is no longer enough to simply read
and comment on the annual plans. More alignment is required during
the preparation of the annual plans to decide on the division of
responsibilities. Recommendation 2: SURF and the institutions
should cooperate on surveying which services are generic in nature
and investigate whether multi-institutional collaboration would be
possible in the case of some services. A possible option is set up
shared services covering the entire higher education sector. A
pertinent example is the intended infrastructure for Testing and
Test feedback-based Learning. The deployment of monolithic systems
for a single user group and/or a single purpose (such as a learning
environment") no longer fits within a modular system of generic
services. SURF can organize demand aggregation and provide a basic
infrastructure with facilities to simplify the use of cloud
services. SURFfederatie is an example of such a facility. 2. The
views on ICT in higher education sector are subject to change;
instead of focusing on using ICT for pedagogical purposes, the
trend is towards using it for support purposes. When it comes to
using ICT for didactical purposes, the specific needs and
requirements differ dramatically from one programme, course, course
unit or even instructor to the next. This makes the ICT tool
requirements so varied that it is difficult to make the necessary
arrangements centrally, for an entire institution. The educational
units will have to take their own decisions when it comes to using
ICT for specific didactical purposes. Central services can then
consider how best to satisfy these wishes: whether through
decentralised facilities, centralised facilities, or other services
provided either internally or by external parties. On the other
hand, there are a growing number of generic facilities that can be
organised centrally. However, in many cases it is no longer obvious
that it is the institution that should produce them all or make the
necessary arrangements. Undoubtedly, institutions will continue to
provide some generic educational services and facilities, for
example timetabling. The technical work can, however, be
outsourced, provided that there is a proper information
infrastructure for data-sharing between systems. Recommendation 3:
Conclusion 2 has significant implications for the focus of SURFs
innovation activities. Previously, ICT-related educational
innovation was entrusted to the ICT and Education Platform, given
the attention paid to innovation in the teaching-learning process.
The focus will now shift to the ICT and Organisation (Operations)
Platform, in view of the attention given to the support processes.
The most important challenges will be business process redesign and
ICT alignment. SURF can initiate and coordinate discussion of the
institutions' policy, and draw on expertise to support that
discussion. Based on these results, the individual institutions
will be able to define their policy and redesign their processes.
SURF can then investigate which services (or service components)
have generated enough collective interest to offer them in
partnership with the institutions (or groups of institutions).
Primary responsibility for the support processes will continue to
be borne by the individual institutions, and not by SURF. Only the
institutions are capable of redesigning their own processes and
making arrangements about data sources and data flows. 1 September
2010 11
- 12. Recommendation 4: SURF can play an important role in
disseminating best practices; it can also encourage and support
collaboration in developing and disseminating new architecture and
systems and in standardising data and drawing up process models.
Models and standards of this kind are vital when it comes to
outsourcing services (or service components) to a shared service
centre or to individual commercial parties. 3. Not enough has been
done to improve the ICT-related knowledge and skills of
instructors. Their technical knowledge and didactical use of ICT
often fall short. Instructors today can draw upon a huge number of
tools to support their teaching, but their knowledge of the
available tools is inadequate. In the report Knowledge and
Innovation Agenda [Kennis en Innovatie Agenda]27 (KIA) 2011-2020,
the KIA partners list five priorities, the first one being "an
outstanding instructor for every participant in the educational
process" (p. 4). In order to achieve this, it is essential for
instructors to have sufficient knowledge and skills to make
effective and efficient use of ICT in their teaching. This
necessitates an effective platform so that instructors can
communicate their needs and requirements directly. Recommendation
5: SURF should offer institutions more options for upgrading their
instructors professional skills via the SURFacademy, so that
instructors acquire the technical and didactical knowledge they
need to use ICT facilities in their teaching. The focus in that
respect should not be on the latest gadgets, but on a basic
knowledge of facilities (such as smart boards) and basic user
skills (for example making effective use of presentation software).
One obvious means would be to incorporate these skills requirements
into the Basic Teaching Qualification [Basiskwalificatie
Onderwijs], a teaching certificate for university lecturers. It
would be preferable to address this at grass-roots level, as close
as possible to the instructor. With respect to this goal, a more
direct connection between SURFs target groups and its existing
platforms is advisable. 4. There is no hard evidence to support the
high expectations with regard to the knowledge and skills of
students in using ICT for educational purposes. Institutions need
to pay more attention to students computer information skills. The
fact that students and their peer group make use of ICT does not
mean that they are knowledgeable about effective use of ICT
facilities for educational purposes. In addition to ensuring "an
outstanding instructor for every participant in the educational
process", the KIA report27 also lists the following aim: "a more
tailor-made approach in teaching". That should include promoting
heterogeneous ICT knowledge and skills in order to improve the
student success rate. Recommendation 6: SURF can encourage the
institutions to enhance their students ICT knowledge and skills as
part of their effort to improve the student success rate. In the
past years several innovative projects in this area have been
carried out that deserve a broader and more consistent follow-up.
5. To some extent, the services provided by the institutions
developed from a past situation in which they were uncommon. That
is no longer the case, however. Similar to the decision to dispense
with PC shops and home Internet connections, the institutions will
have to decide what services do and do not lie within their area of
responsibility, and also what services they wish to offer as extras
for promotional reasons. In its 2008 Trend Report28 the WTR wrote
(p. 57): "Higher education must urgently start to make its services
available online and transform them from mass services into
interactive, context sensitive and no-threshold services. Attention
should be given to the opportunities provided by, for example,
location-specific information and knowledge of student profiles.
Access restrictions that now apply to location (outside campus) and
time (outside office hours) must be eliminated, and existing paper
processes must be converted into electronic ones." The
recommendations and examples given in that report continue to
apply. 1 September 2010 12
- 13. Recommendation 7: As recommended by the Veerman Committee,
SURF should encourage institutions to look critically at the
services they offer, and in particular to consider new services
that can help them promote the institutions individually, as a
group, and nationally or internationally. Accreditation criteria
will also play a role in this regard. Recommendation 8:
SURFdiensten can play a key role in helping users (instructors and
students) find, assess and use services offered on the Internet.
Crowdsourcing can be used to survey the services/information
sources that are suitable for use in teaching, research and
studying. Systems of this kind can be modelled on existing popular
software sites.a Technical access and the use and integration of
institutional services can be organised via SURFnets new
Collaboration Infrastructure (CoIn). 6. Institutions will need to
adjust their policies (e.g. security) and their technical
facilities to the growing range of (wireless) devices being used.
The use of multifunctional mobile devices is growing unabated, and
it would be putting off the inevitable to simply forbid or ignore
this trend. Mobile devices have already become indispensable,
similar to the unstoppable advance of the PC and the Internet in
the corporate environment. Recommendation 9: SURFnet can play an
important role in developing and supporting the development of
institutional policies and technical facilities to grant access by
means of wireless devices. This topic has a close relationship with
SURFnets current interest in identification, authentication and
authorisation and the wireless network topic in GigaPort3. 7.
Researchers need more basic support for international collaboration
with fellow researchers. Such basic facilities should be
low-threshold, reliable and meet security/privacy requirements.
Recommendation 10: SURF can play an important role in creating a
multi-institutional facility for researchers. This will require
close collaboration and coordination between SURFshare, the eSRC
(NWO, SURF and KNAW), SURFnet (CoIn) and SURFdiensten. a Examples
are Tucows en Cnet download. 1 September 2010 13
- 14. Final remarks The observed shift away from using ICT for
didactical purposes to using it in support processes represents a
minor revolution in the way we think about ICT in higher education.
The advantages are clear, however: better and more effectively
integrated support processes, facilitated by ICT, create an
environment that enables a focus on what really matters: research,
teaching and studying. It gives users the freedom and flexibility
in organizing their core activities. However, the story does not
end with properly supported processes. At least as important are
attention to the knowledge and skills of users to manage the
growing variety of new ICT facilities. Development of a DSWE
requires more innovation in the way institutions are organised.
Experience shows this is a complex undertaking due to the number of
stakeholders involved and the complexity of the organisations.
However, the need for change is urgent. The urgency is emphasised
by the public pressure for a more efficient and effective use of
resources whilst the number of students is growing. Collaborating
in SURF does preclude individual merit on the contrary. By
collaborating on properly organising the underpinning and
qualifying processes, institutions create opportunity to
concentrate on their distinguishing features. On behalf of the
Scientific Technical Council, Prof.dr. F. Leijnse Dr. L.A. Plugge
Chairperson Secretary 1 September 2010 14
- 15. Appendix 1: Parties consulted The following persons were
interviewed for this study (degrees and other titles have been
omitted): S. van den Berg Wageningen University and Research Centre
C. Brouwer Board member of the Open University of the Netherlands,
Chairman of the ICT and Organisation Platform CIO Consultation
Group members present during the meeting in Ermelo on 19 May 2010
P.W. Doop Board member of the University of Amsterdam, Vice
President of the Executive Board and Chairman of the Board of the
SURF ICT and Research Platform S. Dormans Radboud University,
Social Geography, and postdoctoral researcher at the Royal Academys
Virtual Knowledge Studio until March 2010 G. Eenink SURFdiensten,
on behalf of J. Bakker E. Fioole Avans University of Applied
Sciences, LIC G.E. Jansen VU University Amsterdam N. Juist SURF
SharePoint, Inholland F. Kalmthout Board member of Avans University
of Applied Sciences, ICT and Education Platform R. Ketelaar
student, representing the student union LSVb J. Koets student,
representing the student union ISO R. Kooy COMIT, The Hague
University of Applied Sciences, CIO Consultation Group B. Mons
NBIC, BioAssist programme coordinator D. Paap student, representing
the student union ISO, treasurer G. Pronk SURFnet Platform contact
persons Platform Contact Persons Day, 10 March 2010 R. Rexwinkel
SURFnet M. van Rijn Avans University of Applied Sciences, DIFF SIG
DLWE Special Interest Group Digital Learning and Working
Environment, 22 June 2010 J. Snijders Avans University of Applied
Sciences, LIC D. van der Ven student, representing the student
union LSVb R. Waterham Chief Information Officer, Eindhoven
University of Technology, 3TU P. Wolters InHolland University of
Applied Sciences D. van Zaane Green Knowledge Network A. Zandstra
Wageningen University and Research Centre The interviews were
conducted between April and June 2010. 1 September 2010 15
- 16. Appendix 2: Bibliography 1. Edwards, C. & Peppard, J. A
critical issue in business process re-engineering: focussing the
initiative, Cranfield School of management, 1997. 2. SURF,
Toekomstscenario's: De nieuwe digitale leer- en werkomgeving voor
studenten en docenten in 2020, nov. 2008. 3. SURFnet, Collaboration
Infrastructure, report 2009. 4. SURFnet, Roadmap 2010 Online
MultiMediaal Samenwerken, augustus 2009, versie 0.5. 5.
DLWO-Sharepoint Consortium, Jaarplan 2009-2010. 6. Verkenning Next
DLO VU, Resultaten Behoefteonderzoek, Onderwijscentrum VU, okt
2009. 7. Verkenning Next DLO VU, Overzicht Alternatieve Systemen,
Onderwijscentrum VU, okt. 2009. 8. Verkenning Next DLO VU,
Evaluatierapport Blackboard 2009, Onderwijscentrum VU, okt. 2009.
9. Verkenning Next DLO VU, Evaluatierapport Digitaal Portfolio /
Blackboard Content System, Onderwijscentrum VU, okt. 2009. 10. DU,
E-learning trends 2004, juni 2004. 11. DU, Eindrapportage Digitale
Leer- en Werkomgeving Next Generation, april 2005. 12. 3TU, Op weg
naar een federatieve Digitale Leer- en Werkomgeving, jan. 2008. 13.
Wind, H. Verkenning van de samenwerkingsmogelijkheden op het gebied
van de werkplekomgeving, RuG CIT, UMCG, Hanzehogeschool, 7 april
2010. 14. Cynop, Advies keuze teleleerplatform 2000, juli 2000. 15.
DLWO- Sharepoint Consortium, Jaarplan 2009-2010, juli 2009. 16.
Stuurgroep ICT Vernieuwing, Avans & ICT, presentatie Portaal,
ELO en Mobiliteit. 17. SURFnet, Gebruikersonderzoek SURFgroepen en
SURFmedia, 2010. 18. Wageningen UR, Systeemvisie uitgangspunten
Virtuele Werkplek Wageningen UR, versie 0.5, 15 maart 2010. 19. Van
der Zanden, P. The facilitating university, proefschrift, december
2009. 20. Universiteit Twente, Functionaliteiten voor de student in
een Digitale Leer- en Werkomgeving, november 2005. 21. SURFnet
Kennisnet Innovatieprogramma, Jaarplan 2009. 22. SURFnet, SURFworks
Jaarplan 2010, oktober 2009. 23. SURF, Portals: de nieuwe ELOs?
e-Learning reeks deel 5, september 2005. 24. Van Alst, J., De Jong,
R., Van Keulen, H. Docentprofessionaliteit in het Nederlandse hoger
onderwijs - Naar een professionele infrastructuur als voorwaarde
voor studiesucces, mei 2009, VSNU. 25. Baars, G., Van de Ven, M.
ICT-Monitor 2008 - ICT in het onderwijs aan de Erasmus Universiteit
Rotterdam, EUR, juli 2008. 26. Lam, I., Ritzen, M. En ELO voor de
UU, IVLOS-expertisecentrum ICT in het onderwijs, juli 2008. 27.
KIA-overgangsbestuur, Kennis en Innovatie Agenda 2011-2020, Den
Haag, juni 2010. 28. WTR, ICT fundament voor vernieuwing,
Trendrapport 2008. 29. Van Popta, E. Onderwijsconcept en digitale
Leeromgeving, Presentatie, 22 juni 2010. 30. Juist, N. Een visie op
DLWO, Themabijeenkomst en presentatie, 22 juni 2010. 31. Zijlstra,
E., Blijker, G. Een nieuwe ELO voor de HvA from scratch,
Presentatie, 22 juni 2010. 32. Zijsltra, E. Uitwerking sheets van
themagroepen tijdens visie bijeenkomst DLWO, 22 juni 2010. 1
September 2010 16