1 / 30

Rescuing the “e-University” concept

Rescuing the “e-University” concept. Earlier work on Critical Success Factors revisited. Professor Paul Bacsich Campus Futurus, 22 March 2004, Oulu, Finland. Contents. Posing the problem Review of the theory of “the e-University” Revised criteria: a new synthesis Conclusions.

lavi
Download Presentation

Rescuing the “e-University” concept

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Rescuing the “e-University” concept Earlier 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 Bacsich, for UNESCO • Binding energy • Organisational homogeneity or managed diversity • Stratification • Linguistic homogeneity

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

  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 DLBut 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

More Related