Post on 05-Feb-2016
description
1
Rescuing the “e-University”
conceptEarlier work on
Critical Success Factors revisited
Professor Paul Bacsich
Campus Futurus, 22 March 2004, Oulu, Finland
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
Most commercial e-universities have failed, downsized or overspent their development funds
Many public sector e-universities have also had problems
These have affected both single-institution and consortia models
The problem is neither purely a dot-com issue or confined to the “English” world
So what is going wrong? And how can it be put right?
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
e-universities in UK
Open University (UK)
University for Industry (UK)
UK eUniversities Worldwide Limited (UKeU)
NHS University
Russell Group consortia: WUN and U21
Post-92 universities – Virtual Campuses
Scotland: Interactive University
9
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
10
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
11
And around the world
Australia: Deakin, Edith Cowan, USQ… Canada: Athabasca, [OLA]…. Germany: FernUniversitat Dutch Ou, Dutch Digital U Finnish VU Swiss VU India: IGNU Mexico: Tec de Monterrey China: CCRTVU
12
Types of e-university
Green fields/new build – e.g. TechBC Consortium “Orange skin” – Virtual Campus Those run or serviced
by non-HE organisations
13
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
14
Critical Success Factors for Consortia
Binding energy
Organisational homogeneity
or managed diversity
Stratification
Linguistic homogeneity
Bacsich, for UNESCO
15
Alternative view
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
Harasim, TL-NCE
16
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 organisational structure Centralised organisational structure, specified
responsibilities
17
Other issues
National responses still confused many 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 DL
But many institutions slow to change
18
But not enough
Few big successes: Phoenix Online, UMUC
Many failures or problems US: WGU, Fathom, NYUOnline, US OU Even Cardean much shrunken Canada: TechBC, OLA Dutch Ou Scottish Knowledge UK: HEFCE statement on UKeU,
frequent adverse comment on Ufi
19
Reasons
They - 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 - likely for some
20
Commercial e-Unis need to learn that...
Market-led courses are essential, even though market research is hard
“Time to market” is crucial “Quality” is not a differentiator; price is; brand
may be MLE functionality is not now a differentiator It is not really an English-speaking world in
HE, or even a 56 kbps world They must be a university and a company -
few can do that
21
Public-sector e-Unis 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 (cf 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”
22
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
23
On pedagogy
There is no world consensus on pedagogy, not even across the Atlantic!
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
24
On sales/marketing/PR
It is essential There is not the financial margin in the system
to use conventional techniques (people, press, TV, etc) especially across the world
A weightless product needs weightless techniques
Corporate customers are cautious, they do not choose newcomer suppliers
It is hard to avoid competing with your suppliers/partners
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;
do not build from scratch!!! 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 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 - and how essential?
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
paul@matic-media.co.uk