1

The “e-University”

conceptCritical Success Factors

revisitedWith relevance to Vietnam

Professor Paul Bacsich

29 March 2004, Oxford

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

It is still a major challenge to set up a new e-university

And to grow e-learning from a base of (print-based) distance learning

The issues affects both single-institution and consortia models, public and private sector

The problem is neither purely a dot-com issue or confined to the “English” world – it was a topic at the recent AAOU meeting in Thailand

How can we do better?

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

The practice

9

e-universities in UK

Open University (UK)

University for Industry (UK)

UK eUniversities Worldwide Limited (UKeU)

NHS University

Post-92 universities – Virtual Campuses

Scotland: Interactive University

Russell Group consortia

10

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

11

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

12

And around the world Australia: Deakin, Edith Cowan, USQ… Canada: Athabasca, [OLA]…. Dutch Ou, Dutch Digital U Finnish VU, Swiss VU consortia Spain: UNED, Open University of Catalonia India: IGNU, regional OUs, NIIT China: CCRTVU, eChina (BNU/BFSU/Tsinghua) Hong Kong OU Malaysia: UNITAR, …. Thailand: STOU, RKU, Assumption

13

Types of e-university

Green fields/new build – e.g. UOC Consortium – e.g. Finnish VU “Orange skin” – Virtual Campus eg Middlesex Those run or serviced by non-(public)

university organisations – e.g. UKeU, Cardean

14

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

15

Critical Success Factors for Consortia

Binding energy

Organisational homogeneity

or managed diversity

Stratification

Linguistic homogeneity

Bacsich, for UNESCO

16

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

17

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 centralised organisational structure,

specified responsibilities

18

Other issues

Many national responses confused 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

19

More is needed

Only a few big successes since the days of the “mega-universities”

Phoenix Online, UMUC Many failures or problems

US: WGU, Fathom, NYUOnline, US OU Even Cardean much shrunken Canada: TechBC, OLA Dutch Ou Scottish Knowledge

20

Reasons for problems

e-U’s - 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, especially in the dot.com

era - likely for some

21

Commercial e-U’s need to remember that...

Market-led courses are essential, even though market research is hard

“Time to market” is crucial “Quality” is an unclear differentiator; price is;

brand may be MLE functionality is not so clear a

differentiator, to students It is not really even a 56 kbps world

22

Public-sector e-U’s 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 (c.f. 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”

23

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

24

On pedagogy

There is no world consensus on pedagogy, not even across from UK to US!

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

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 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,

if only for the attention of Ministries 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

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

pbacsich@ukeu.com