Ole Proposal

A 21st Century Online LearningEnvironment (OLE)

A Proposal By

Trevor StorrAorakinet Director of eLearning

Darren SudlowCantatech eLearning Leader

September 25, 2008

Section 0 Contents

Contents

1 Executive Summary 4

2 Phoebe Storr, born 11 August, 1997 72.1 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 Context - Our Problem 83.1 Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.2 Our Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4 The Contemporary OLE Landscape 104.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104.2 Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104.3 Leadership and Management of OLE's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104.4 Technical Expertise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114.5 Professional Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114.6 Pedagogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

5 Our Proposal 135.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135.2 Scope of This Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135.3 Functionality Requirements of Proposed Software Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . 135.4 Interoperability Requirements of Proposed Software Stack . . . . . . . . . . . 145.5 Data Standards Relevant to this Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165.6 A Note on Open Source Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.7 The Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185.8 Application Hosting and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225.9 Management Structure and Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225.10 Professional Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235.11 Role of MOE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265.12 Evaluation and Feed Forward to the Wider Educational Community . . . . . . 285.13 Time line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285.14 Business Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

6 Advantages of Implementing a Cross-Cluster OLE 326.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326.2 The Buckinghamshire Grid for Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326.3 The Revised New Zealand Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2

Section 0 Contents

6.4 Personalising Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346.5 Initiatives for Maori Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346.6 Schools Plus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376.7 Other MOE Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376.8 Collaboration and Economies of Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376.9 Developing Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

7 Risk Analysis 387.1 Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387.2 Political . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387.3 Technical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387.4 Financial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

8 Next steps 408.1 To Further our Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

9 Summary 419.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

10 Acknowledgments 4210.1 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

1

Section 0 Contents

Nomenclature

ADL Advanced Distributed Learning

BOTs Board of Trustees

CETIS Centre for Educational Technology Interoperability Standards

EHSAS Extending Higher Standards Across Schools

ESDM Education Sector Data Model

GNU GNU's Not Unix

HR-XML Human Resources Extensible Markup Language

ICT Information and Communication Technologies

ICTPD Information and Communications Technology Professional Development

IMS IMS Global Learning Consortium

JISC Joint Information Systems Committee

LAMS Learning Activity Management System International

LEAP An ePortfolio standard produced by JISC CETIS

LIP Learner Information Package

MOE The New Zealand Ministry of Education

MUSAC A SMS produced by Massey University

NEN National Education Network

NZQA New Zealand Quali�cations Authority

OLE Online Learning Environment

PL Professional Learning

RAFA Raising Achievement For All

SCORM Sharable Content Object Reference Model

SMS Student Management System

2

Section 0 Contents

TELA MOE Teacher Laptop scheme

TLF The Learning Federation

WAN Wide Area Network

3

Section 1 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 Executive Summary

For many of the smaller, rural secondary schools in New Zealand, the challenge of providinga su�ciently broad range of curriculum options for students at the senior level of the schoolcannot be met within existing, local resources. Some of these schools have the added challengeof being situated in isolated regions where opportunities for collaboration are minimal. Ashigh speed internet access has extended to cover New Zealand schools, the potential to useweb based services and solutions for collaboration in teaching and learning has become areality. The challenge presented to schools is to better connect learners, teachers and leaderswithin and between schools by providing: leadership of learning, co-ordination of resources,provision of professional learning for teachers, virtual learning spaces for students and technicalexpertise and support.

One of the major innovations using web based technology has been the introduction ofOnline Learning Environments (OLE). OLE's are virtual 'places' where students and teacherscan conduct learning activities and are considered to be an essential component of futureschooling. They also provide schools the opportunity to connect with each other at a levelthat cannot be achieved by most at this point in time. The barriers to schools e�ectivelyusing an OLE are numerous though. We see the major barriers as following: cost, leadershipand management, technical expertise, professional learning and pedagogy. Schools cannotovercome these barriers without support.

We propose that an e�ective OLE should be available to all New Zealand schools at no orlittle cost. This OLE pilot will be limited to two clusters of schools, Aorakinet and Cantatech,and the Southern Region Health School. In total these 23 schools comprise approximately10,000 learners. In limiting the size of this project, we aim to develop expertise and experienceof OLE leadership and professional learning in a way that is manageable. We aim to havedeveloped capability and practise that can be scaled towards national implementation.

We propose to implement a suite of open source software that will meet or could be adaptedto meet the following requirements:

• Allow online courses to be developed that meet sound pedagogical principles.• Allow teachers to share and collaborate in the production and use of teaching resources

and professional learning.• Allow participants to create eportfolios that are freely viewable by parents and other

parties who have the learner's consent.• Provide desktop video-conferencing and shared whiteboard facilities.• Be interoperable with relevant SMS systems in order that learner enrollment to the

OLE is transparent process.

4


• Allow parents and caregivers to access appropriate learner data.• Be open standards compliant to enable interoperability with existing and yet to be

developed applications.• Are web-based and fully functional using all common web browsers and are capable of

being scaled appropriately.• Is capable of being integrated into a common framework so that users access the

applications through a single point of authentication.

Interoperability of the core applications in our proposal will enable the services to be used bya range of stakeholders. We make recommendations on which data standards are requiredto enable e�ective interoperability. The applications outlined in the proposal will requireenterprise level hosting and maintenance.

The potential bene�ts of the technology described in our proposal is dependent on teachersadopting new ways of working, learning and sharing. Teachers will need to learn how to use thetechnology and be aware of pedagogical theory that informs the creation of e�ective learning.Our model of professional learning will be able to satisfy the seven elements described in therecent Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration for Teacher Professional Learning and Development1.To achieve this we propose that professional learning be developed over a two year period. Acadre of teacher experts will formed to facilitate professional learning in their home schools.

This proposal reinforces the direction the Ministry of Education has been guiding our edu-cation system. By enabling implementation of initiatives such as The Revised New ZealandCurriculum, Personalising Learning, Schools Plus, Ka Hikitia, and Te Kotahitanga this pro-posal supports the Ministry of Education's key goals of:

• Ensuring the education system prepares all students for the 21st century.• Improving outcomes for underachieving students and especially Maori and Pasi�ka stu-

dents and students with special education needs.

The MOE has a central role in our proposal by providing �nancial support and access to thefacilities of central government including advice, expertise and assistance with governance.There are �ve distinct cost areas in this proposal: infrastructure and setup, ongoing hostingand maintenance, OLE system administration, project management and professional Learning.A period of two years will be adequate to determine if our proposal is a workable solution tothe barriers we have described. The development of this project into a sustainable national

1Teacher Professional Learning and Development Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (BES); Helen Tim-perley, Aaron Wilson, Heather Barrar, and Irene Fung; University of Auckland 2007; http://www.educationcounts.edcentre.govt.nz/goto/BES

5


venture that can o�er OLE services to schools will be informed by the outcomes and evaluationwhich will be made available to all stakeholders and any other interested parties.

Any project of this nature has associated with it a number of risks that need to be managedincluding personnel, political, technical and �nancial risks. By collaborating together, we aimto increase the cost e�ectiveness of OLE provision and also reduce the risks of operatingan OLE to the extent that it is seen as a 'service' that schools use. To meet our time lineof implementation during 2009 and 2010, it will be necessary to have secured funding bymid-November 2008.

6

Section 2 2 PHOEBE STORR, BORN 11 AUGUST, 1997

2 Phoebe Storr, born 11 August, 1997

2.1 2013

In 2013, Phoebe will be in Year 11. She can expect to have, with a single log in, access toan online space that includes:

• Desktop web conferencing through an open source platform which allows access to hersynchronous lessons led by her teacher living a considerable distance away. This alsoprovides opportunities for her to meet and collaborate with other students across thecountry.

• An online portfolio system which enables her to display evidence of learning.• An online learning environment that has blended learning courses developed by her

face-to-face teachers, but also allows her to take courses that she would not otherwisehave access to. These courses enable learning where she wants and when she wants.

Any learner in 2013 will expect to have enormous �exibility and choice to develop their owneducational pathways. What they have, is a situation that is truly 'personalised'. Their schoolhas been forced to consider the 'big' questions about the future of education and their rolein it. They now run a �exible, open timetable system that is not ruled by hour long periods.Learners wonder how di�erent things will be in another �ve years time.

Now imagine you are a teacher in 2013. You have access to a rich environment, which allowscourses to be developed that are truly blended. You have made online areas that support yourface to face classes, but you are also running a course by distance that is fully online and istaken by a number of student from around the country. Signi�cantly, there are also onlineareas which allow you to work with other teachers across New Zealand. This has enabled youto develop thematic courses than run across schools and regions. In this environment you seea marked increase in student engagement. The students enjoy the opportunity to meet andwork with others. In terms of your own learning this environment has had a signi�cant impact.A repository and search system allows you to share your resources with hundreds of teachersacross New Zealand. You have access to an enormous range of resources that are relevantto your teaching. Professional discussion occurs both synchronously and asynchronously andtakes place across the country. You are able to dip into courses that are designed to supportyour own learning. Your eyes have been opened to the enormous potential of learning in acollaborative environment. The wonderful thing is you are no longer tied to a timetable thatrestricts how you and your students learn.

7

Section 3 3 CONTEXT - OUR PROBLEM

3 Context - Our Problem

3.1 Context

For many of the smaller, rural secondary schools in New Zealand, the challenge of providinga su�ciently broad range of curriculum options for students at the senior level of the schoolcannot be met within existing, local resources. The Correspondence School has traditionallyprovided a service to students in these schools through its dual-enrollment programme, en-abling students to continue with their studies in their local school, with some of their subjectsbeing provided at a distance through the Correspondence School.

In 1994 a group of seven area schools in Canterbury worked together to establish a clusterlinked by an audio-graphics network, allowing a teacher in one school to teach a `class' com-prising students in one or several of the other schools in the cluster. Since then, other schoolshave established similar cluster arrangements, including the OtagoNet cluster, establishedin 2001, which uses video conferencing technologies to link teachers and students together.Clustering has enabled rural schools to not only o�er a diverse senior curriculum, but also o�ersta� professional opportunities that would usually be found in larger urban schools. Since1994, this clustering of rural schools has developed into the Virtual Learning Network of 20rural and urban clusters.

This proposal has been prepared by Trevor Storr, Director of eLearning, Aorakinet and DarrenSudlow, ELearning Leader, Cantatech. Both Aorakinet and Cantatech are large clusters of22 Secondary and Area schools that together span the area from Cheviot, North Canterburyto Oamaru, North Otago. The combined roll of Aorakinet and Cantatech is approximately9500 learners. As 'ePrincipals' we have the responsibility to lead collaborative eLearning bothwithin our clusters and nationally. This dual-facing role enables us to see both the realitiesand challenges of classroom practise and how national strategies and organisational structuresimpact on student learning.

3.2 Our Problem

As high speed internet has progressed, with the assistance of projects such as PROBE2, tocover all schools in New Zealand, the potential to use server applications for collaboration inteaching and learning has become a reality. The challenge presented to cluster schools is tobetter connect learners, teachers and leaders within and between schools by providing:

• Leadership of learning.

2http://www.e.govt.nz/resources/research/case-studies/project-probe/chapter1.html

8

Section 3 3 CONTEXT - OUR PROBLEM

• Co-ordination of resources, including personnel, technical, �nancial and logistical.• Provision and access to: professional learning for teachers, virtual learning spaces for

students, technical expertise and support.• Cost e�ective, interoperable, scaleable, web based services and solutions.

To make this happen our clusters require �nancial support for setup, leadership and profes-sional learning for the �rst two years of the project.

9

Section 4 4 THE CONTEMPORARY OLE LANDSCAPE

4 The Contemporary OLE Landscape

4.1 Introduction

OLE's (online learning environments) are virtual 'places' where students and teachers canconduct learning activities. Most OLE's are accessible through a web browser and enablelearners to access their virtual course 'anytime, anywhere' subject to good connectivity. Manysecondary schools have an OLE, though it is probably fair to say that they are under-utilised,while many Primary schools are not yet using an OLE. The barriers to schools e�ectivelyusing an OLE are numerous. We have categorised these barriers as follows:

• Cost• Leadership/Management• Technical expertise• Professional Learning• Pedagogy

4.2 Cost

The cost of an OLE to a school is di�cult to quantify precisely. The obvious cost is web-hosting and software licensing, but hidden costs include time and e�ort required to managean OLE. Proprietary OLE's often charge schools $5-$12 per pupil annually, including hosting.Additional setup charges are also incurred which may total several thousand dollars. While itis possible to host an OLE in school it is unwise to do so as upload speeds are likely to act asa bottleneck to clients and therefore commercial hosting is recommended. The commercialhosting costs for open source OLE's such as Moodle or Interact are di�cult to quantify ona per pupil basis as hosting is charged per server instance. Catalyst IT Limited (Wellington)currently charge Aorakinet $120 per month for a potential 6000 accounts. Hidden costs foroperating an OLE are also di�cult to estimate. Operating an OLE includes setting up andmaintaining user accounts, software updating and maintenance, disaster recovery planningand help desk activities. These will often be assigned to a teacher who �ts these tasks inaround other roles.

4.3 Leadership and Management of OLE's

Leading the deployment of an OLE and successfully managing an OLE once it is in placerequires skills that many schools are unlikely to have. Additionally, the pool of expertise

10


available to schools that can give unbiased and non-vendor speci�c advice about how bestto take advantage of OLE's in New Zealand is small. The challenges that schools faceinclude considering which OLE is most suitable for particular circumstances, through to theorganisation of classes within the OLE and management of user logins and other administrativetasks. These skills are time-consuming to learn and acquiring knowledge of best practise is noteasy as school based OLE management is not a mature �eld. OLE technologies are rapidlyevolving and most schools are unlikely to have the technical skills or the physical resourcesto trial and evaluate new and exciting developments, especially if these developments areopen source. This leaves schools in the unenviable position of relying on vendors to drive theinnovation of school based OLE's in New Zealand. The reality is that many OLE's used inschools are developed and run by businesses rather than educators, resulting in schools losingthe �exibility to implement an OLE that meets the needs of their learners.

4.4 Technical Expertise

Should schools run an OLE 'on site' then competent technical expertise will be required for theinitial installation and con�guration. This is likely to be a signi�cant barrier to innovative OLEuse and experimentation. Many advances in learning technologies are currently taking place,and some of these are open source. Traditional business models are unable to accommodatethe disruptive nature of open source technologies leaving New Zealand schools in the positionof being unable to participate in these advances. As previously mentioned, vendor led businessmodels favour those that maximise pro�t, not learning.

4.5 Professional Learning

Professional Learning and development that enables teachers to use OLE's in a way that issuitable for learning with their classes is often overlooked by schools, or given insigni�cantresourcing. It is our opinion that teacher development and support is at least as impor-tant, possibly more so, than the technology and software in implementing e�ective OLE use.Schools are likely to �nd di�culty in �nding expertise and providers of professional learning,as well as the resourcing of it - for example the cost not only of providing the professionallearning, but also in teacher relief required to attend the professional learning.

4.6 Pedagogy

In this context, pedagogy refers to the types of learning that can e�ectively take place usingan OLE. Most schools do not have the expertise to to develop e�ective pedagogies that can

11


be implemented using an OLE. The danger is that OLE's are implemented and used in a waythat reinforces traditional classroom practice, rather than being used as a means to bringe�ective change in New Zealand schools.

12

Section 5 5 OUR PROPOSAL

5 Our Proposal

5.1 Introduction

We propose that an e�ective OLE should be available to all New Zealand schools at no orlittle cost. The software components for this are freely available at no cost, but these alonedo not constitute an e�ective OLE. In this section, as well as software requirements, we willoutline the scope of our proposal, the leadership and management structure and provision foraccountability, a model for professional learning and Pedagogy to make the OLE an e�ectivetool for teaching and learning, the role of the MOE in enabling our proposal, a time line andbudget, the advantages of our approach, a risk analysis and what needs to be done next toimplement our proposal.

5.2 Scope of This Proposal

Our initial thoughts are that this proposal should be limited to Aorakinet, Cantatech andthe Southern Region Health School. In total these schools comprise approximately 10000learners. By limiting our scope to these schools we will have space to develop best practicebefore involving very large numbers of teachers and students. The development of capabilityto e�ectively run an OLE is essential before a wider roll-out is considered. The time line forthis project is two years. The software services that this proposal provides will be o�ered toother schools as soon as capability and capacity allows. This project should be considered apilot of a potential national project.

5.3 Functionality Requirements of Proposed Software Stack

We propose a suite of software that will meet or could be adapted to meet the followingrequirements:

• Allow online courses to be developed that meet sound pedagogical principles.• Allow teachers to share and collaborate in the production and use of teaching resources

and professional learning.• Allow participants to create eportfolios that are freely viewable by parents and other

parties who have the learner's consent.• Provide desktop video-conferencing and shared whiteboard facilities.• Be interoperable with relevant SMS systems in order that learner enrollment to the

OLE is transparent process.

13


• Allow parents and caregivers to access appropriate learner data.• Be open standards compliant to enable interoperability with existing and yet to be

developed applications.• Are web-based and fully functional using all common web browsers and are capable of

being scaled appropriately.• Is capable of being integrated into a common framework so that users access the

applications through a single point of authentication.

The concept of a suite of applications integrated into a framework along with adherence toopen-standards based interoperability are key ideas of our proposal. No single applicationcurrently ful�lls our requirements. By taking a `best of breed' approach we intend to achievenot only a great user experience, but also the �exibility to include or drop applications as futureneeds change. For example, MrCute, the content indexing solution outlined below, currentlyintegrates well with Moodle and has the particular function of indexing content. However,other content indexing applications exist with functionality that is extensive compared toMrCute. Alfresco 3 and Nuxeo 4 are applications which enable enterprise document, contentand knowledge management and collaboration. These are presently stand-alone applicationsbut with time could be integrated into the proposed suite and add extended functionalitywithout compromising the core services outlined above. A single application that attemptedto ful�ll the requirements listed above would quickly become feature poor compared to the`suite of applications' approach that we are advocating.

All the applications outlined in this proposal can be thought of as independent entities thatcan be combined together to provide a capable and fully-featured OLE. No single applicationhas critical dependencies on any other application resulting in a range of services that can beadapted to our needs as they change.

5.4 Interoperability Requirements of Proposed Software Stack

Interoperability refers to the conventions and rules for data exchange between applications. In-teroperability is becoming increasingly important in all sectors of technology. Stakeholdersare becoming more aware that the ability to transfer, access, edit and manipulate data usingapplications other than those that were used for creating it is essential for several reasons:

• So that dependency on individual applications is reduced.• So that dependency on individual vendors is reduced.

3http://www.alfresco.com/4http://www.nuxeo.com/en/

14


• So that data can be used by several applications in ways that were not originally antic-ipated.

• So that data can be exchanged and reused e�ciently.

Interoperability is best achieved through the use of open standards. These are data schemas whichare openly available to the public and royalty free. If data is encapsulated using an openstandard, then developers are free to create applications that can access and use the data.Bruce Perens 5 has written more extensively on the principles and practice of open standards.Interoperability can be achieved using proprietary �le formats or standards but this results ina lesser degree of risk management than if an open standard were used. The applicationswe are proposing are web based and provide a service to schools and learners. We considerit vital that the services are fully accessible and functional using any modern web browserand all computer operating systems in common usage i.e. Microsoft Windows, Apple OSX,Linux. This is vitally important as we for see web based services being accessed from `ap-pliance' type computers that run only a web browser. The cost of these appliances will beminimal compared to a present day computer.

Interoperability of the core applications in our proposal will enable the services to be used bya range of stakeholders including:

• Learners - to access courses.• Learners - to receive noti�cation by Short Message Service from their teachers that

events have occurred on their OLE course.• Parents - to access data about their children.• Parents - to receive data by Short Message Service about pupil absence.• Teachers - to teach learners.• Community - including adult learners.• Boards of Trustees - as part of their governance role.• Prospective employers - to view learner ePortfolios.• Other educational establishments - to view learner ePortfolios and to collaborate with

the production of learning resources.• Government agencies - to deliver national strategies.

The current state of interoperability across the range of applications we propose is in thedevelopmental stage particularly with respect to SMS integration with OLEs. For example, atpresent, importing data from the MUSAC SMS suite into Moodle is not currently possible but,5http://perens.com/OpenStandards/Definition.html

15


due to the adoption of the open speci�cations discussed above, is theoretically possible. Withfurther development, wider integration of SMS - OLE would be possible that would lead to aportal that allows the functionality described above.

5.5 Data Standards Relevant to this Proposal

Data standards relevant to this proposal are those that specify encapsulation of data inthe following domains: ePortfolios, audio and video, Student Management Systems, digitalrepositories and distributed learning. In the sections that follow we make recommendationson which data standards are suitable for the domains previously listed.

5.5.1 ePortfolio data standards

No single commonly used and widely accepted data standard for eportfolios exists. TheIMS Learner Information Package (LIP) speci�cation is very comprehensive but probably toocomplex for most applications. Other data speci�cations including IMS ePortfolio, HR-XML3.0, LEAP 2.0 have been created that try to overcome IMS LIP's complexity, but noneof them have gained widespread adoption. To ensure that data can be ported from oneePortfolio system to another, as a learner follows their own educational pathway, is currentlynot easy. However, as long as the data standard selected is open, then the possibility ofwriting a custom transformation application to port data from one standard to another, exists.The UK's JISC has produced a useful overview of ePortfolio interoperability6.

5.5.2 Audio and Video Data Standards

Video and sound data standards are important for the easy use of our proposed browser-basedvideo-conferencing application. To enable audio and video to run in a web browser, pluginsare required. These are additional, usually small, applications that add functionality to thebrowser. The most common plugins to enable audio and video in a browser are based onAdobe Flash, Java, Realplay or Microsoft Windows Media Player speci�cations. Only theAdobe Flash and Java speci�cations are open standards that are available to the public androyalty free.

5.5.3 Student Management Systems

Student Management Systems are applications that manipulate data associated with learnersin schools. For example, data is kept by schools recording pupil names, addresses etc. The6http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/e-portfolios/interoperability

16


New Zealand Education Sector has selected a semantic interoperability solution, the NewZealand Education Sector Data Model (ESDM). This standard is published and maintainedby the MOE. To enable learner data to be ported into the OLE, it would have to betransformed from the ESDM format to one that the OLE may use.

5.5.4 Digital Repositories and Distributed Learning

Data in an OLE is in the form of courses, captured interactions, learner data and re-sources. Several data speci�cations exist that de�ne the complex relationships betweenthe constituent data sets that comprise an OLE. These speci�cations include among othersthe IMS Learning Design speci�cation, the IMS Question and Test Interoperability speci�ca-tion, the IMS Content Packaging speci�cation and the Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL)Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) speci�cation. The Centre for Educa-tional Technology Interoperability Standards (CETIS) have produced a more comprehensiveoverview of the various speci�cations that describe digital repositories and distributed learningdata 7. The speci�cations produced by both IMS and ADL are open and freely available.

5.6 A Note on Open Source Software

The software that is recommended in this proposal is licensed under open source licensingterms. This licensing a�ords us several advantages in terms of usage and risk-management.The individual components of the software stack are licensed as follows:

• Shibboleth, 8 Apache License, Version 2.0.• Moodle, 9 GNU General Public License, Version 2.• LAMS, 10 GNU General Public License, Version 2.• Dim Dim, 11 GNU General Public License, Version 3.• Mahara, 12 GNU General Public License, Version 3.• MrCute, 13 GNU General Public License, Version 3.• Ubuntu server, 14 various open source licenses.

7http://zope.cetis.ac.uk/static/briefings.html8http://shibboleth.internet2.edu/9http://moodle.org10http://www.lamsinternational.com11http://www.dimdim.com12http://mahara.org13http://www.wortech.ac.uk/mrcute14http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/serveredition

17


Open source licensing allows users to freely distribute, use and modify software. In addition,if a user makes changes to the source code of a program, they are obliged to make thosechanges freely available to others. A more complete account of open source licensing can befound at the Open Source Initiative's website15 . It would be a mistake to assume softwarelicensed using an open source license is without cost. All software has a cost associated withusage and in our case these will be measured in time taken to install, con�gure, maintain,and operate the software. Licensing costs however will be nil. Apart from cost advantageswith regard to licensing, the use of open source software is advantageous for us in termsof risk-management. The core component of the proposed software stack, Moodle, has avery large user and developer base which mitigates against the software being abandoned. Infact, the opposite is the case, Moodle is undergoing continuous and rapid development toincorporate new features. The proposed software stack also stores course data in a SCORMcompliant format which allows interoperability with other SCORM compliant software. This issigni�cant as it allows us to port data to other SCORM compliant OLE's and prevents us lockin to the proposed software stack. Additionally, we believe there are ethical reasons why we aseducators should use open source software. Sharing our knowledge and experience gained withthe worldwide educational community could act to further promote and improve the softwareused in this proposal. The New Zealand government16 has produced a brie�ng paper thatoutlines recommendations for government agencies with regard to using open source softwarewhich notes that `�value for money� and ��tness for purpose� principles should continue tounderlie any software procurement decision made by government agencies'.

5.7 The Software

5.7.1 Shibboleth17

The Shibboleth System is a standards based, open source software package for web single sign-on across or within organisational boundaries. It allows sites to make informed authorisationdecisions for individual access of protected online resources in a privacy-preserving manner.

Shibboleth allows users to have a single authentication point to access services that wouldotherwise require multiple entry of authentication credentials. For example, using Shibbolethto provide authentication services to a Moodle/Mahara/LAMS cluster would allow a singleusername:password combination to access these services as shown in Figure 1.

Shibboleth Single Sign-on and Federating Software was developed speci�cally to address thechallenges of:15http://www.opensource.org/16http://www.e.govt.nz/policy/open-source/open-source-200303/chapter1.html17http://shibboleth.internet2.edu/

18


Figure 1: The proposed OLE Software Stack.

19


• Multiple passwords required for multiple applications .• Scaling the account management of multiple applications.• Security issues associated with accessing third-party services.• Privacy.• Interoperability within and across organizational boundaries.• Enabling institutions to choose their authentication technology.• Enabling service providers to control access to their resources.

An individual uses his or her login and password to access resources o�ered by the organi-zations. IT shops can use their authentication technology of choice - Shibboleth sits on topand provides the web single sign-on functionality.

A long-term goal could be to enable Shibboleth style authentication to access resources acrossa range of services provided to schools including NZQA. The open source nature of this systemprovides for interoperability with the wide range of services the MOE may o�er in the future.

5.7.2 Moodle18

Moodle is a course management system widely used overseas and in New Zealand. Moodleis designed to encourage a social constructionist pedagogy and is particularly rich in web2.0type tools that allow learners to collaborate together in constructing knowledge while havingthe necessary 'traditional' elements such as quizzes and 'lessons'. Moodle has a very largeuser and developer base which mitigates the risk of the software becoming unmaintained.Moodle is modular and its functionality is easily extended by installing additional modules.This allows SMS vendors to develop ways of allowing SMS systems to automatically enrollstudents on courses. Indeed, Kamar are presently developing a module to do this.

5.7.3 LAMS 19

LAMS is a tool for designing, managing and delivering online collaborative learning activities.It provides teachers with a highly intuitive visual authoring environment for creating sequencesof learning activities. These activities can include a range of individual tasks, small group workand whole class activities based on both content and collaboration. LAMS creates 'digitallesson plans' that can be run online with learners, as well as shared among teachers. TheLAMS Community allows teachers to share and adapt digital lesson plans, and discuss their18http://moodle.org19http://www.lamsinternational.com

20


experiences of using LAMS. Teachers can �nd digital lessons plans that are freely availableto use and adapt, and they can share their own creations and adaptations.

5.7.4 Dim Dim 20

Dim Dim is a free web conferencing service where you can share your desktop, show slides,collaborate, chat, talk and broadcast via web cam with absolutely no download required forattendees. Clients access the Dim Dim server using a web browser. The anticipated roll outof �bre to schools during the next �ve years will drastically alter the range of services thatschools will be able to access. We envisage learners and teachers engaging with each other viadesktop web cams using a free solution such as provided by Dim Dim. Three versions of DimDim are available, open source community, professional and enterprise which vary according tohosting and support provided. Unlike other proprietary products, Dim Dim could be installedwithin a �bre based NEN enabling high quality desktop-to-desktop web conferencing.

5.7.5 Mahara 21

Mahara is an open source e-portfolio, weblog, resume builder and social networking system,connecting users and creating online learner communities. Mahara is designed to provideusers with the tools to demonstrate their life-long learning, skills and development over timeto selected audiences. Mahara means 'think' or 'thought' in Te Reo Maori.

5.7.6 MrCute22

MrCute is a module available for Moodle that enables content repository type functionality tobe added to Moodle's OLE capabilities. MrCute is an acronym for Moodle Repository CreateUpload Tag Embed, and is intended as an optional Moodle module and block which allowsdirect and straightforward access to institutional and other repositories of online learningmaterials. MrCute is currently being developed by the Worcester Institute of Technology inthe UK. MrCute allows content to be easily shared by teachers. Content can be indexedand searched by keyword or content. The implications of this are in terms of ease of use.For example, all content on a Moodle site with the keyword or tag of 'genetics' would bereturned using a MrCute search, regardless of where the content creator saved it. In short,this module facilitates the e�ective sharing of content. A short video showing how MrCutemakes accessing TLF learning objects a simple task is available23.20http://www.dimdim.com21http://mahara.org22http://www.wortech.ac.uk/mrcute23http://moodleman.edublogs.org/2008/04/10/tlf-learning-objects-in-moodle-yes-we-can/

21


5.7.7 Ubuntu Server24

Ubuntu server is a Debian based Linux distribution packaged by Canonical. Ubuntu serverwill be used as the server operating system on which the applications and packages in thisproposal will run. Ubuntu server has the usual range of Linux tools and services.

5.8 Application Hosting and Maintenance

The applications described above will require enterprise level hosting and maintenance. Thereasons for this are:

• Expertise: Enterprise hosting solutions will have access to timely expertise so thatapplications can be maintained e�ciently.

• Infrastructure: Enterprise hosting solutions will have the required infrastructure includ-ing upload bandwidth and disaster recovery solutions.

• Cost: Enterprise hosting solutions are likely to be able to provide a more cost-e�ectivesolution than one provided by ourselves.

• Core Business: Our core business is educational leadership, not enterprise hosting.

The applications will best be hosted in New Zealand as this will result in a faster experiencefor the end user. It is likely that hosting will move to servers located within a �bre-basedNEN so that speeds are increased further.

5.9 Management Structure and Accountability

The management and accountability model of this project needs to take account of the diverserange of project stakeholders. We see this project being led by a steering group comprised ofthree project managers sharing a full-time position and a 0.2FTTE OLE systems administrator.The role of this group is to lead the project and ensure that procedures are developed andtasks monitored and completed. Accountability, evaluation and �nancial compliance tasksare also the responsibility of this group. The members of the steering group will have bothindividual and co-responsibilities to ensure that a degree of risk-management reduction is inplace in the event of a member of the steering group moving on. Areas of expertise requiredfor the steering group members are:

• Project management.• Technology - leadership of the service implementation, development and provision.

24http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/serveredition

22


• Professional Learning and Pedagogy- leadership of teacher learning to enable e�ectiveOLE use.

• Operations and Liaison - leadership of the on-going operation of the OLE and liaisonwith users.

For the purposes of this proposal, the entity in which absolute accountability resides wouldbe a School Board of Trustees.

The administration tasks needed to keep an OLE operating smoothly should not be theresponsibility of a teacher. These tasks include:

• User and password maintenance including rights and permissions.• Setting up the front-end hierarchy of courses and metacourses.• Verifying faults/errors reported by users.

The project will employ an OLE administrator for the duration of the project. This role willconsiderably reduce the burden on schools of operating an OLE.

5.10 Professional Learning

The aim of our professional learning model is to develop and share pedagogical expertise.The potential bene�ts of the technology described in our proposal is dependent on teachersadopting new ways of working, learning and sharing. Teachers will need to learn how to use thetechnology and be aware of pedagogical theory that informs the creation of e�ective learning.Additionally, the challenges of participating as professionals in a collaborative environmentwill need to be articulated and understood. We believe that appropriate professional learningwill result in teachers feeling more con�dent and capable in using the technology and so leadto greater use. Professional learning needs to be delivered in many ways so that teachers canaccess learning at appropriate times and even `just in time'.

5.10.1 Best Evidence Synthesis

There is recent research on what constitutes e�ective professional learning for teachers. TheBest Evidence Synthesis Iteration for Teacher Professional Learning and Development25 usedstudies involving 97 New Zealand and international individuals and groups which met a set

25Teacher Professional Learning and Development Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (BES); Helen Tim-perley, Aaron Wilson, Heather Barrar, and Irene Fung; University of Auckland 2007; http://www.educationcounts.edcentre.govt.nz/goto/BES

23


of methodological criteria and had substantive student outcomes associated with teacherprofessional learning and development.

The studies identi�ed seven elements in the professional learning context as important forpromoting professional learning in ways that impact positively and substantively on a rangeof student outcomes;

• Extended time for opportunities to learn was necessary but not su�cient.

� Learning opportunities typically occurred over an extended period of time andinvolved frequent contact with a provider.

� How time was used was more important than the exact nature of the provision(for example, release from teaching duties).

• External expertise was typically necessary but not su�cient.

� Engagement of external expertise was a feature of nearly all the interventions inthe core studies with funding frequently used for this purpose.

• Teachers' engagement in learning at some point was more important than initial vol-unteering.

� Neither who initiated the professional learning opportunities nor whether they werevoluntary or compulsory was associated with particular outcomes for students.

• Prevailing discourses challenged.

� Where prevailing discourses were problematic they were typically based on as-sumptions that some groups of students could not learn as well as other and/oremphasized limited curriculum goals.

• Opportunities to participate in a professional community of practice were more impor-tant than place.

� Interventions in the core studies were both school-based and external to the school.

• Consistency with wider trends in policy and research.

� Approaches promoted typically were consistent with current research �ndings,recommendations of professional bodies (e.g. national subject associations and/orcurrent policy.

• Active school leadership.

� School based interventions in the core studies had leaders who provided one ormore of the following conditions:

24


∗ Actively organised a supportive environment to promote professional learningopportunities and the implementation of new practices In classrooms.

∗ Focused on developing a learning culture within the school and were learnersalong with the teachers.

∗ Provided alternative visions and targets for student outcomes and monitoredwhether these were met.

∗ Created the conditions for distributing leadership by developing the leadershipof others.

Table 1: Professional Learning Activity 2009 -Phase One:Aim: To develop a cadre of eTeachers capable of providing professional learning in their

own school during year two of the project.

• One teacher from each school plus three project managers.

� One week visioning and course development - February 2009.� Two days planning for Term Two - April 2009.� Two days planning for Term Three - June 2009.� Two days planning for Term Four - September 2009.� Three days planning for Year Two - December 2009.� Support through online forums and VC to form a community of practice.

5.10.2 Our Model of Professional Learning

Our model of professional learning will be able to satisfy the seven elements described above.To achieve this we propose that professional learning be developed over a two year period.

The focus for the professional learning in year one will be in developing the capability ofone teacher from each of the schools who are part of Cantatech, Aorakinet and the SouthernRegional Health schools. These eTeachers will lead professional learning in their school. It isimportant that a school's own sta� lead the professional learning of their teachers. This willensure sustainability and the �exibly to develop approaches that �t with a school's professionaldevelopment plan It will be recommended to schools that the chosen eTeachers are also partof the Distance Learning Programme. This will enable professional learning to be linked topedagogical approaches in a distance environment and further develop the quality of teaching.Tables 1 and 2 describe our preferred model of professional learning.

In terms of time the �rst year would involve:

25


• A full week of immersive professional learning between February and April 2009.• Two days at the end of each term to plan for the following term.• Three days in December 2009 to re�ect, evaluate and plan for 2010.

In the second year professional learning will be linked to existing school initiatives. Examplesmight include EHSAS, ICTPD contracts, RAFA, etc. This will reduce the professional learningburden for sta� and also provide a context for learning how to use the OLE. This will allowprofessional learning to be adapted to the needs of each school. Schools will have one thirdof their sta� released for eight days (two days a term) in the year. Those schools not involvedin a project will have contexts developed based on a shared focus within strategic plans.

Professional learning will be developed so teachers can continue their own learning on a�exible, individualised basis. This will include:

• Consulting with learning design experts to produce a range of exemplar courses so thatteachers have real examples of good course design.

• To produce template courses for various subjects, ready for teachers to complete.• To develop an online 'teacher experts' professional community that engages in ongoing

discussion around Pedagogy and is available for consultation and professional learningwhen requested by teachers.

• To develop a series of online tutorials speci�c for our OLE.• That a helpdesk for the OLE be considered.• To run an annual one-day workshop to promote e�ective learning design and Pedagogy.

In short, the 'stand and deliver' model of providing professional learning is no longer appropri-ate. Teachers need access to professional learning and expertise at short notice, just when itis needed. The teacher experts described in this model have a dual role of facilitating profes-sional learning through an online community and giving professional learning to individuals orgroups as requested or required. The professional learning will take place using web2.0 tools,video-conferencing or if need be, face-to-face. In e�ect, the teacher experts will provide helpdesk facilities for both OLE use and ePedagogical advice.

5.11 Role of MOE

We have outlined the rationale that supports our proposal, the technology required to imple-ment it and the strategies needed to enable the professional learning that will allow teachersto use it. The MOE has a central role in providing �nancial support and access to the facil-ities of central government including advice, expertise and assistance with governance. We

26


Table 2: Professional Learning Activity 2010 -Phase Two:Aim: To develop a cadre of eTeachers capable of providing professional learning in their

own school during year two of the project.

• Area Schools Project:

� Recognises that area schools will use OLE's with younger learners than HighSchools.

� Cadre teachers work with 1/3 of teachers in own schools.� Develop projects between schools.� Relief for 1/3 of area school teachers for two days per term.� 132 teachers / 3 = 44 teachers.� 2 days per term relief x 44 teachers = 352 teacher relief days.

• `Already in a project', Project:

� These schools will be in an MOE funded initiative e.g. EHSAS, ICTPD during2010.

� 11 schools are in such initiatives.� eTeacher from phase 1 will be provided with 10 days relief to work within the

existing initiative.� EHSAS schools will have cadre teachers work with 1/6 of teachers in own

schools.� Ensures that OLE project aligns with existing school development plans.� 10 days relief x 11 teachers = 110 teacher relief days.� 8 days relief x 37 teachers = 296 teacher relief days.

• Personalising Learning Project for `Schools not in a project':

� These schools are not in an MOE funded initiative e.g. EHSAS, ICTPD during2010.

� Apart from the Southern Region Health School, these are secondary schools.� Cadre teachers work with 1/3 of teachers in own schools on `Personalising

Learning' using an OLE.� Develop projects between schools.� Relief for 1/3 of teachers for two days per term.� 168 teachers /3 = 56 teachers.� 2 days per term relief x 56 teachers = 448 teacher relief days.

• Support for all three projects through online forums and VC to form a communityof practice.

27


propose that as a matter of public good and the future development of education in NewZealand that this project should be fully funded because:

• The experience gained during the operation of this project will be invaluable whenconsidering how a larger, perhaps national OLE, could be developed.

• Without a project of this kind the New Zealand schooling sector will not have theexperience or expertise required to take advantage of the scalability that OLE's o�er.

• This investment will increase the capability and capacity to deliver aggregated, scalableweb2.0 services to New Zealand schools in a way that commercial providers are unlikelyto consider.

5.12 Evaluation and Feed Forward to the Wider Educational Community

A formal evaluation of this project is necessary for several reasons:

• For purposes of accountability.• To inform best practise for further developments in this project.• To enable the wider educational community to share and use our experience and capa-

bility.

Evaluation and review of the e�ectiveness of the project are scheduled for December 2009(mid-point) and December 2010.

The results of the evaluation will be made available to all stakeholders and any other interestedparties by publishing them on the Virtual Learning Network Website plus, if appropriate, bypresentation at suitable conferences.

5.13 Time line

A period of two years will be adequate to determine if our proposal is a workable solution tothe barriers we have described. A draft time frame for the project is shown in table 3.

28


Table 3: Indicative Project Time line2008

1. Initiation and planning (November - December).

2009

1. Achieve a working Moodle/LAMS instance with authentication handled by Shib-boleth on enterprise server.

2. Trial Dim Dim.

3. Implement professional learning model for eTeachers- ongoing throughout 2009 .

4. Evaluate progress made during 2009.

2010

1. Dim Dim - production phase.

2. Open up OLE service to other schools at a sustainable subscription rate.

3. Phase 2 of professional learning: In school learning.

4. Project evaluation and plan for post 2010.

5.14 Business Model

There are �ve distinct cost areas in this proposal:

• Infrastructure and setup.• Ongoing hosting and maintenance.• OLE system administration.• Project management.• Professional Learning.

29


The development of this project into a sustainable national venture that can o�er OLE servicesto schools will be informed by the outcomes and evaluation. Sustainability will requireownership of the venture by schools. The most e�ective way of enabling this is for schools toform a partnership with the MOE. The cost of hosting and maintenance, infrastructure andsetup, OLE system administration, project management and professional learning should bean ongoing shared responsibility. Any costs need to be a�ordable for all schools.

As OLE's become an essential part of future schooling, teachers nationwide will need tobecome familiar with their use. The evaluation of the project professional learning modelwill provide useful data about how best to nationally develop this capability in teachers.

5.14.1 Summary of Budget Costs

A summary of the spending areas and costs is shown in Table 4. A breakdown of these costsand assumptions that were made during their calculation is available from the authors.

30


Table 4: Summary of Budget Cost AreasSetupArchitecture setup $8000Architectural and core application setup $8000Graphical themeing of core applications $4000Single sign-on authentication across application stack $12000School sign-on/setup management features $8000Create SMS compatible output $5000Total setup $45000

Per month hosting and administration $800Per month for ongoing enhancements $1000Total hosting for 2 years $43200

Project Manager and System AdministrationSalaries - Nov 2008 to Dec 2010 $178500O�ce and personnel costs $30000System administrator for OLE $40000Computer and broadband for sysadmin $3440Total project management and system administration costs $251940

Professional Learning Year One - Develop cadre of eTeachersOne week visioning and course development - at start of Term One $62100Two days planning for Term Two - at end of Term One $27270Two days planning for Term Three - at end of Term Two $27270Two days planning for Term Four - at end of Term Three $27270Three days planning for Year Two - at end of Term Four $38880Total Professional Learning during Year One $182790

Professional Learning Year Two - widen scope to other teachersArea Schools Project $88000EHSAS Schools Project $94452ICTPD Schools Project $7500Personalisation Project -remainder of schools $112000Total Professional Learning during Year Two $301952

Total Budget $824882Less $20000 contribution from schools(waived for pilot) $804882

31

Section 6 6 ADVANTAGES OF IMPLEMENTING A CROSS-CLUSTER OLE

6 Advantages of Implementing a Cross-Cluster OLE

6.1 Introduction

This proposal reinforces and supports the direction the Ministry of Education has been guidingour education system. The MOE's `Brie�ng For Incoming Ministers of Education'26 statestwo key goals for its work in education:

• Ensure the education system prepares all students for the 21st century.• Improve outcomes for underachieving students and especially Maori and Pasi�ka stu-

dents and students with special education needs.

In this section we outline how our proposal helps schools implement the above two goals,primarily by enabling implementation of recent MOE initiatives including the Revised NewZealand Curriculum, Personalising Learning, Ka Hikatia and Schools Plus. We begin though,by noting a similar initiative to our proposal that has taken place overseas.

6.2 The Buckinghamshire Grid for Learning

An environment similar to the one proposed here is already in existence overseas. The Buck-ingham Grid for Learning,27 now in its fourth year of development, is a wide area network(WAN) constructed using optical �bre connections. It currently connects over 95% of Buck-inghamshire schools (over 200) to a fast, resilient system that provides safe, �ltered internetaccess through JANET 28 (the national Joint Academic Network) and enables each schoolto be part of the NEN (National Education Network). However, the provision of connectivityis just one aspect of The Buckingham Grid for Learning as it also provides a suite of toolsfor teachers and students that includes, email, web conferencing using Adobe Connect and�nally a LMS using Moodle. This proposal will begin the journey in implementing an OLEthat will surpass what is available in Buckinghamshire.

6.3 The Revised New Zealand Curriculum

The revised New Zealand Curriculum signals a dramatic change in the way schools operatein terms of their core function - learning. It gives schools the �exibility to devise a schoolbased curriculum, one that re�ects the needs of their students and communities with which26http://www.minedu.govt.nz/~/media/MinEdu/Files/TheMinistry/BriefingIncomingEducationMinister05Dec07.

pdf27www.bucksgfl.org.uk28http://ja.net

32


they engage. Local communities play an important part in their school's curriculum designand this environment would support the development of such a curriculum. But students alsobelong to '21st Century communities'. These stretch beyond regional, geographic or nationalboundaries. In the world we live the idea of connectivity is paramount. For a country asgeographically isolated as New Zealand, it is even more important. The OLE meets theseneeds in a way not possible before. One of the revised curriculum's consistent themes isthe idea of connectivity. It is part of the vision outlined early in the document, �...who willbe con�dent, connected, actively involved and lifelong learners�. That same page refers tostudents being �members of communities� and both the principles and values underpinningthe curriculum emphasise the importance of communities. Schools involved in this project arerural and often isolated. Despite this they are members of a number of di�erent communitiesthat go beyond their local district. Until now video conferencing has provided much ofthe connectivity that these schools need, but this is a limited resource. It enables students,teachers, parents, BOTs, to engage with many di�erent communities on many di�erent levels.It connects learners on a scale that provides real meaning to the term '21st Century learning'.

In terms of e�ective pedagogy, the curriculum clearly expects teachers to facilitate �sharedlearning� with their students. The aim being to develop the class as a community and forstudents to share their learning with each other. The OLE would enable learning to bedeveloped far beyond what is conceivable in a traditional classroom. Moodle is built ona social constructionist philosophy in which learners and the teacher construct knowledgetogether, but an OLE also allows the development of cross cluster learning. Learners fromdi�erent schools could engage, discuss and re�ect using social networking technology such asforum and chat rooms, as well as through web or video conferencing. It would allow knowledgeto be constructed across classrooms and schools, which would provide real �coherence� tolearning.

The curriculum also targets eLearning as an aspect of e�ective pedagogy:

`For instance, e-learning may:

assist the making of connections by enabling students to enter and explore new learningenvironments, overcoming barriers of distance and time

facilitate shared learning by enabling students to join or create communities of learners thatextend well beyond the classroom

assist in the creation of supportive learning environments by o�ering resources that takeaccount of individual, cultural, or developmental di�erences

enhance opportunities to learn by o�ering students virtual experiences and tools that savethem time, allowing them to take their learning further.

33


Schools should explore not only how ICT can supplement traditional ways of teaching butalso how it can open up new and di�erent ways of learning.'

The OLE enables teachers and learners to do all of the above.

The revised curriculum demands to see learners who are 'connected', 'actively involved' and'lifelong learners'. Our schools plan to improve competencies such as 'managing self' and'participating', develop a curriculum that embodies principles such as 'learning to learn' and'community engagement'. They are also required to foster values such 'innovation, inquiryand curiosity'. An OLE that allows students to develop their own learning pathways, to self-manage, to connect and collaborate with others will reinforce the core elements of the revisedcurriculum. The revised curriculum places the students at the centre of learning, as does thisproposal.

6.4 Personalising Learning

In 2006 the term �personalising learning� was at the forefront of Ministry's �Lets talk about:Personalising Learning�. The ideas within the document are aligned with the revised cur-riculum, but currently most schools struggle to implement these. They are restricted bystructures that re�ect 20th century needs. The ability to 'personalise' learning is one of thereal strengths of online environments. The notion of learning 'anyplace, anytime, anywhere'is the real value of the OLE.

The ICT Strategic Framework for Education from 2006-7 articulated a vision: �To improvelearner achievement in an innovative education sector, fully connected and supported by thesmart use of ICT.� This was supported by goals including � A more learner-centred educationsystem transcending organisational boundaries.� This goal is perfectly realised by our proposalwhich allows for �exibility of learning and connectivity across schools and regions.

6.5 Initiatives for Maori Students

Links to Maori education may be less obvious and are therefore worth examining in detail.

6.5.1 Ka Hikitia

The MOE recently released a new strategy for Maori students entitled, `Ka Hikitia - Managingfor Success: The Maori Education Strategy 2008-2012'. This strategy is based on realisingMaori potential, and at its heart lies the idea of `Ako', an approach to teaching and learningthat embraces two key themes. The �rst theme recognises that the relationship betwen the

34


educator and learner is integral to achieving quality educational outcomes - `Maori students,whänau, hapü, iwi and educators sharing knowledge and expertise with each other to producebetter mutual outcomes.' The second key theme recognises the importance of allowing Maorito learn as Maori and that the student's culture is embraced by the teacher and school. Atthe secondary level the strategy recognises that the engagement of Maori students is criticalto their educational success.

6.5.2 Te Kotahitanga

The Te Kotahitanga research programme began in 2000 and was developed to improve teach-ing strategies and in particular the e�ectiveness of teachers to increase the engagement andacademic achievement of Maori students within mainstream secondary schools. The �rstphase of the programme commenced in 2000 with a research project. After the collationand analysis of narratives from Year 9 and 10 Maori students, a professional developmentprogramme was developed and implemented in four schools. In 2002, the �ndings wereused to inform a professional development programme which was introduced into eight moresecondary schools.

One of the key areas identi�ed for improving Maori success in education is e�ective teachingand learning. In particular, how a teacher builds relationships with students and developsstrategies involving collaboration and co-construction.

6.5.3 Links to this proposal

The percentage of Maori students in each school is shown in Table 5. Clearly, Maori are asigni�cant consideration in every school. The successful implementation of Ka Hikitia will beimportant for the students and local the Maori community

One of the most important tools in this OLE is Moodle. Moodle is built on the philosophyof co-construction and many of the tools available in this environment allow teachers andlearners to build knowledge together in a partnership. It encourages the sort of learning thatboth Ka Hikitia and Te Kotahitanga outline as important for Maori success in education.While many seem to think anything online represents a disconnection in relationships, this isfar from the truth. Technology allows individuals and communities to connect on a scale notpossible without it.

Professional learning is a key ingredient for improving teaching and learning for Maori students.This OLE would allow collaboration and professional learning between sta� across clustersand schools. Synchronous and asynchronous technology would enable ongoing discussion onwhat strategies work for Maori students. This technology already exists, but the collaboration

35


Table 5: Percentage Maori Roll of Aorakinet and Cantatech SchoolsSchool % Maori on RollAkaroa Area school 20Amuri Area School 15Ashburton College 10Cheviot Area School 11Craighead Diocesan School 4Dar�eld High School 10Ellesmere College 11Geraldine High School 6Hurunui College 11Mackenzie College 4Mountainview High School 10Mt Hutt College 7Opihi College 16Oxford Area School 7Rangiora New Life School 12Roncalli College 4St Kevin's College 8Timaru Boys' High School 6Timaru Girls' High School 8Twizel Area School 14Waimate High School 9Waitaki Girls' High School 10

36


is sporadic and unsustained. This OLE 'pulls together' varied and distant groups and wouldmake ongoing conversation sustainable.There is of course enormous potential to bring Maori communities, learners, whanau, and iwitogether across the country. Maori students would have the opportunity to work with otherMaori students from di�erent regions. Students would have access to relevant courses thatre�ect who they are as.

6.6 Schools Plus

The new government scheme, Schools Plus, aims to ensure `young people stay in school,complete quali�cations in line with their abilities and needs, and go on to build on these qual-i�cations beyond school. ' It clearly links with both NCEA and the New Zealand Curriculumby providing further learning pathways for students who would otherwise leave school. Inparticular, it will focus on tertiary and vocational training. This OLE would enable schools toprovide �exible learning options for their students by enabling them to connect to a numberof training providers around the country. Distance would no longer matter. This opens up arange of options for schools and learners that wouldn't otherwise exist.

6.7 Other MOE Initiatives

The use of a managed OLE to support recent MOE initiatives such as Distance Music Pro-grammesis obvious but, currently, no managed OLE, with a concurrent professional learningprogram, is available. The current proposal could be used to support these initiatives andothers as they arise.

6.8 Collaboration and Economies of Scale

By collaborating together, we aim to increase the cost e�ectiveness of OLE provision and alsoreduce the risks of operating an OLE to the extent that it is seen as a 'service' that schoolsuse. We see that if MOE funding were available beyond the end of this project, that primaryand other small schools would particularly bene�t by being able to use a managed OLE andtake advantage of the opportunities for collaboration with others.

6.9 Developing Capability

In limiting the size of this project, we aim to develop expertise and experience of OLE lead-ership and professional learning in a way that is manageable. We aim to have developedcapability and practise that can be scaled towards national implementation.

37

Section 7 7 RISK ANALYSIS

7 Risk Analysis

Any project of this nature has associated with it a number of risks that need to be managed.In this section we outline some of those risks and how we anticipate managing them.

7.1 Personnel

There is a risk that the personnel involved in this project may leave and take with themknowledge that is vital for its success. To mitigate this risk the three ePrincipals who belongto the steering group will have a degree of role-overlap. Additionally, it will be a requirementthat technical speci�cations and procedures are comprehensively documented. Due to therebeing �ve 'teacher experts', the risk to the project caused by the loss of any one of theseposts is minimal.

7.2 Political

There is some risk that commercial vendors will see this project as a risk to their businessmodel. They may complain to the MOE or other agencies about this. We believe that thisrisk is mitigated because:

• This project is being proposed, managed and delivered by schools.• No similar open source business model for aggregated services exists in New Zealand.• It is a matter of public good that these services be made available to New Zealand

schools.

7.3 Technical

There are some technical risks associated with this project. Some of the services we proposeare not fully mature and we anticipate that there will be technical problems that we will haveto overcome. These risks are mitigated by the time frame that progresses from implementingthe most mature packages �rst (i.e. Moodle) through to those that are least mature (e.g.Dim Dim). Additionally, enterprise hosting will signi�cantly reduce the risks to data held onthe server as the hosting speci�cation will include back-up hosting. Third-party technicalexpertise will also be available as needed.

38

Section 7 7 RISK ANALYSIS

7.4 Financial

There is some risk that if initial funding for this project is secured, it is not sustained beyondtwo years. This risk is mitigated by ensuring that the platform of services o�ered is usedby a wide range of initiatives and stakeholders e.g. other projects that the MOE has aninterest in including Ka Hikitia, itinerant music teachers, ICTPD and others. The intentionis to make the services we o�er an obvious mechanism for enabling learning of all kinds. Wesee this project as the initial phase of the development of an MOE funded core service toenable eLearning that may be viewed in a similar way to the TELA Laptops for TeachersProject. Other funding models for this project have been considered, for example partnershipfunding where the MOE contributes (for example) $2 for every $1 that schools contribute.If insu�cient funding were available in future years, this type of arrangement with schoolswould have to be considered. Finally, if the project were to �nish outright, the data in Moodleis SCORM compliant enabling it to be transferred to other OLE's.

39

Section 8 8 NEXT STEPS

8 Next steps

8.1 To Further our Proposal

The �rst and most important decision that needs to occur is a discussion with interested partiesabout the purpose of this project and the details of how it will progress. Once agreementhas been gained, funding will have to be sourced. The leadership and accountability modelwe have outlined is outside the framework implied by `Tomorrow's Schools'. This could be amajor obstacle to this project and lobbying may need to take place to gain support for ourideas. To meet the time line suggested above, it will be necessary to have secured fundingby mid-November 2008.

40

Section 9 9 SUMMARY

9 Summary

9.1 Summary

To deliver the educational needs of today's learners, schools need access to a good OLE thatprovides portal style access to a range of services such as NZQA, desktop video-conferencing,digital portfolios and learning resources. Teachers need ways to collaborate and share exper-tise. Schools also need a platform through which initiatives such as Ka Hikitia and SchoolsPlus can be received. The software required to build a platform that can satisfy this need isavailable at no cost. What has been missing, until now, has been a plan that sets out a seriesof steps to implement an OLE designed for 21st Century learners. We believe this proposaladdresses the key components required to evaluate how a 21st Century OLE might operate.We have outlined the considerable barriers that schools face in using an OLE e�ectively andhow these may be overcome. We have also described what software and technical supportand infrastructure is required along with a professional learning model so that it is used ef-fectively by teachers and learners. Our leadership and management model takes into accountkey stakeholders. Our time line is realistic and our demands of the MOE reasonable. Wehave the commitment and will to make our proposal work. We believe that now is the timeto turn our vision into actions.

41

Section 10 10 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

10 Acknowledgments

10.1 Acknowledgments

This paper is the result of discussions and debate amongst the MOE funded 'ePrincipal' group.However, several colleagues need to be recognised for their ability to challenge our thinking andclarify our thoughts. Eddie Reisch, Senior eLearning Advisor, MOE, has always been a phonecall away and has assisted greatly with developing our ideas on integrating the technical andpedagogical aspects of this proposal. CAM, Chris Allot-McPhee, Senior eLearning Advisor,MOE, has also provided reassurance and expertise with regard to our ideas on leadership andmanagement. Maurie Jackways, former Principal of Mount Aspiring College, Wanaka, hashelped greatly with researching the best evidence synthesis on professional learning. Lastly,we wish to thank Chris Parsons, Principal of the Southern Region Health School, for support,encouragement and turning our vision into action.

Trevor Storr, Director of eLearning, Aorakinet, [email protected]

Darren Sudlow, eLearning Leader, Cantatech, ds@dar�eld.school.nz

42

Ole Proposal

Education

Transcript of Ole Proposal