Ian C. Reid [HREF1],Associate Director, Flexible Learning Centre, University of South Australia [HREF2],ian.reid@unisa.edu.au
For AUSWEB99, I wrote a paper called Online strategy in Higher Education [HREF3] which was a synthesis of the strategic thinking in the literature about how the Web should be used in universities for teaching purposes. Since that time we have seen the explosion of the use of the web for teaching in higher education. We have seen LMSs come and go, both as individual products, and as the sole means by which universities can address strategic dilemmas in providing online teaching tools. Open source software has emerged as a competitor to commercial products and Web 2.0 tools are impacting on online teaching practices. In addition, universities are focusing on a range of new pedagogical strategies in order to improve the quality of their programs. This paper revisits the earlier discussion, reflects on its salience some nine years later, and proposes future directions.
In May 1998, the University of South Australia committed itself to a strategy for providing teaching and learning resources online to all students and, in May the following year, launched an authoring and delivery platform, UniSAnet, developed within the University. Key features were its interoperability with other University systems, the capacity to scale up to any number of students or courses without further technical work, and a commitment to provide sufficient functionality to meet the general needs of academic staff who wished to work online without them having to acquire significant new skills (Reid, 1999).
A second version of UniSAnet was introduced in 2002 and over time a broad range of tools and services has been added to the base system (from both commercial and in-house sources) so that it has become the University’s online teaching and learning environment (Nunan, Reid, & McCausland, 2002). UniSAnet is now one of the most visited educational sites of any kind in Australia and averages over 2 million hits per day. UniSAnet currently comprises:
Subsequent to the establishment of these services, student demand for online learning services grew, staff became more sophisticated in applying these information and communication technologies to the learning process, and technological developments opened up new possibilities for teaching and learning arrangements.
This paper reflects on the priorities that the original UniSAnet addressed, and future prospects for online learning in universities. It reflects on institutional strategies from the particular perspective of the University of South Australia, but addresses generic concerns that are relevant to all universities.
UniSAnet concentrated on a functionality that could be accessed via a standard browser interface without the need for the installation by the user of specialist software, particularly plugins. The UniSAnet platform, whilst including text-based materials, online discussions and interactive quizzes, could then be used to extend the richness of the resource base for teaching and learning by increasing the use of a range of multimedia forms and commercial products. It provided a simple and consistent user interface for all of the University’s online offerings.
UniSAnet was implemented in stages. Underlying these was the strategic intent to:
It needs to be stressed that UniSAnet was, and still is, a university-wide initiative. As such, standards which met the criteria I described in the 1999 paper (Reid, 1999) prevailed that were consonant with the University’s mission and reputation. It was intended to provide opportunities for staff and courses to be represented online, within the context of university ownership of the online presence, both in terms of its presentational standards and existing delegations which controlled information relating to the institution and its programs. Thus the templates and professional guidance linked to the web forms and wizards was designed with both quality standards and the institution’s teaching and learning strategy in mind (Nunan, 2000).
The world (and the web) in 2008 is a different place to what it was when the earlier AUSWEB paper was written some nine years ago. Universities’ online strategies must respond to a new environment. In devising the best online teaching strategies, it is not enough for universities to have access to the best technologies for online learning. Universities’ teaching and learning priorities should drive their online strategies. New pedagogical concepts will drive innovation and quality in future online teaching and learning. The contributions which an online teaching and learning environment can make to the development of some of these concepts in university teaching and learning are now discussed. The concepts discussed here are derived from the teaching and learning strategy of the University of South Australia (University of South Australia, 2007).
Many universities have articulated graduate outcomes or graduate attributes which they aim to develop in their students which are broader than discipline knowledge alone (Nunan, 2002). By committing to the development of a broad range of qualities in graduates, universities’ online teaching and learning environment must possess a number of characteristics. They must:
Considerable emphasis is being put on the concept of student engagement in universities (Kuh, 2001). Student engagement builds on a university’s commitment to student learning and extends to a focus on improving the students’ experience of their learning. As student engagement becomes a more important focus of teaching and learning strategies, it is important to consider the catalytic function that online learning can have in improving the engagement of students in their learning. As Laird & Kuh (2005) note, from a study of over 60,000 students in the U.S.:
Institutions of higher education have invested substantial resources to make various forms of information technology accessible to students. The results of this study and others indicate that these investments are paying off, given that most students use information technology for educational purposes and this use is positively related to a host of other effective educational practices and outcomes (Kuh and Hu, 2001; Twigg, 2004). …. The relative strength of the positive relationships between academic uses of information technology and engagement, particularly academic challenge, student–faculty interaction, and active and collaborative learning, suggest that, at the very least, engagement in one area often goes hand-in-hand with engagement in other areas. (p.230)
Successful provision of online learning opportunities that will enhance student engagement will involve:
Online teaching is a fundamental component of the concept of flexible learning (Nunan, 2000). The online teaching and learning environment is one component of a broader learning environment which requires the comprehensive provision of physical spaces and resources; tools and software; and a support environment available to students and staff. Going forward, the online teaching and learning environment must:
The development of disciplinary knowledge, understandings and skills is the product of higher education. However the nature of that knowledge, as well as the methods by which it can best be acquired and disseminated, are both transformed by online technologies. For example the availability of online journals, blogs and wikis which act as key sources for disciplinary knowledge must of necessity transform teaching practices. Online teaching and learning environments must hence:
Universities teach and research. The development of the nexus between these two activities is becoming increasingly important (Jenkins, 2003). If the teaching-research nexus suggests approaches to teaching that value problem-solving, inquiry methods and discovery-based learning, then the online teaching and learning environment must support these activities. In order to do so an online teaching and learning environment should:
Many universities are committed to undergraduate students having some element of practice-based learning during their program. Practice-based learning is particularly important in degree programs that lead to professional accreditation, such as Engineering, Nursing, Teaching, etc. The online environment can contribute to the provision of practice based learning in two main ways. First it can assist in the management of the transition of students into and out of practice based learning settings such as through:
Secondly, since it is unlikely that a university could find sufficient ‘real world’ placements for all students requiring them, the online environment allows the creation of simulated environments, that can be suitably controlled and managed, in order to expand the access of students to practice based learning.
Service learning is a practice that has become widely valued in higher education, particularly in the US (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Florida International University, 2008). In service learning, students use their developing professional knowledge in practical settings that are directed to the support of other people, whether as individuals or in groups. The online environment can assist in service learning through:
In summary, the main emphases required in the future development of online learning environments include:
If a university is to make the most of the web for learning, it must address these issues. Having considered the new educational imperatives for online learning tools, I now turn to the technological means to address them. As mentioned above, the UniSAnet approach to a common institution-wide approach has been broadly successful. While it is generally accepted that a university-wide approach is the most efficient and scalable (Nunan, George, & McCausland, 2000), the combination of open source software and Web 2.0 tools make the means of achieving a common approach more complex, and the possible educational outcomes that can be achieved more rich (Franklin, 2007; Weller, 2007). The possible options which present themselves at this juncture are now described.
The global explosion of unmediated web based services has substantially changed what is possible in online learning. Many services that previously had to be bought in are now freely available on the web. Universities that have invested in ‘black box’ approaches by purchasing a proprietary Learner Management System (LMS) as the primary solution to online learning provision now realise that they have seriously limited the options available to students and staff (Weller, 2007). Whilst a self-contained LMS has a role to play in a university’s future, it cannot be the sole solution.
A wider range of online offerings than that made possible by a single product is necessary for two reasons. First, any single LMS always has to be modified and added to if it is to meet the specific needs of teachers in realising their teaching and learning goals. Second, the engaging power of online learning can only be met when learners and teachers are a part of the wider web, external to the university network, including such services as FaceBook, MySpace, Google Scholar, Flickr, del.icio.us, and a host of new services yet to be invented.
Any future strategy must encompass these sorts of freely available web services. Indeed, most commercial providers are beginning to engage in the Web 2.0 realm by providing open web services from their products. RSS feeds from citation databases are but one example already in use in universities. Online strategies now need to address how LMSs will facilitate the interaction and/or integration with the public web in addition to providing a reliable, integrated and engaging experience within the university.
The availability of viable open source software and Web 2.0 tools causes university strategies to be radically reconsidered. A number of new options are possible. I now outline three possible ways forward for universities, which address these new possibilities.
This option involves developing tools in-house through the input of institutional resources and developing additional features in the standard platform. This involves having a significant group of staff who are experienced with web technologies. It is possible to develop functionality in a home-grown LMS using these technologies if sufficient resources were provided. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of developing in-house are described below.
| Advantages | Disadvantages |
|
|
This option involves purchasing a commercial Learner Management System (LMS) product, such as BlackBoard™, or an Open Source product, such as Sakai or Moodle. Each option will be discussed separately below. Before doing so it is worth noting that there is considerable data available on feature comparisons of such products at the edutools site [HREF4]. Feature comparisons is an important activity if a product is to be selected, but are not canvassed in this paper. All products have different strengths and weaknesses as well as licensing and maintenance costs.
In Australian Universities, as elsewhere, two LMS products have dominated the market, WebCT™ and BlackBoard™. BlackBoard™ has recently bought WebCT™ making it virtually a monopoly provider, although both products still exist as separate entities. BlackBoard™ has a harmonisation strategy for the two products going forward. Outside Australia other commercial products are also prominent. Angel™, Desire2Learn™ and Saba™ are substantial competitors to BlackBoard™ in those markets. BlackBoard™ has also been engaged in patent litigation with Desire2Learn™ based on claims which has caused unease in the higher education community. There is also a high level of dissatisfaction with the single product strategy amongst academic staff at Australian Universities, as reflected by discussions with member institutions of the Australasian Council on Open, Distance and E-Learning (ACODE, 2007). Notwithstanding these reservations about the BlackBoard™ product, it would have to be a lead consideration within any strategy. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of purchasing a commercial LMS are described below.
| Advantages | Disadvantages |
|
|
Open Source software has developed over time into a technically viable option to commercial, purchased tools (Pan & Bonk, 2007). While the software is usually free to install, there is considerable commitment required to manage the software. This involves engaging with the software ‘community’ who share a common interest in developing the tools. If a university used an open source product, resources that would have been committed to license fees would need to be redirected to engagement with the community associated with the chosen product. For this reason, there is general consensus that open source software is not cheaper than commercially available products. Rather, they are popular because they afford a systematic means by which new tools can be developed by a global community of software developers in response to academic demand rather than commercial objectives.
In the area of online teaching and learning, Sakai and Moodle are the lead open source products (Cheung, 2007), although many others do exist, notably ATutor, which is designed specifically for online accessibility. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of using an open source product are described below.
| Advantages | Disadvantages |
|
|
This option involves a mixture of option 2 and the use of external web-based services, such as Web 2.0 tools. In the comprehensive strategy, services that are bought or freely available are hosted within the university network and are combined with services that are freely available outside the university, such as the Web2.0 tools described above, to produce a comprehensive platform for students and staff. This involves making available a wide range of choices for staff and students so they can tailor their online learning experiences to particular curricular needs. For example in-house content delivery would be combined with engagement with public blog and wiki spaces that related to course requirements. This approach has particular benefits for fostering the teaching / research nexus and experiential learning as it fosters student engagement with research and professional activity occurring external to the university, as discussed above. It also allows disciplinary differences to be expressed rather than subscribing to a ‘one size fits all’ approach.
Such an approach can be innovative and distinctive and keep a university at the forefront of the use of technologies for learning. The comprehensive strategy has an inherent capacity to be customised for different contexts which affords further advantages. Whilst such an approach is innovative, models for implementing such an approach do exist, whereby individual learners are able to tailor a personal learning environment from the range of services both hosted within the institution and those available on the open web (Feldstein & Masson, 2006; Severance, 2008). This strategy is future-focused, not based on the limited approaches of the past. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of the comprehensive strategy are described below.
| Advantages | Disadvantages |
|
|
How universities address these advantages and disadvantages is of course determined by the particular context in which they find themselves. A range of institutional, competitive and technical factors will impinge on the decisions they make in this regard. They are decisions, however, that they will be unable to avoid.
Over the past ten years we have seen a huge change in the use of the web in universities. From tentative beginnings, we have seen the rise (and perhaps fall) of the LMS, brave forecasts for virtual universities and the demise of many. Whereas in 1998 the main problematic was one of finding a way of dealing with the affordances of the technology, we now see a focus on how the web can empower particular pedagogical strategies. This surely is a good thing. Whilst we should not accept uncritically the place of Web2.0 or of open source software in the future of online teaching technologies, I do not believe, that they can be ignored.
ACODE. (2007). email distribution list, Available online [HREF5]
Bringle, R., & Hatcher, J. (1996). Implementing Service Learning in Higher Education. Journal of Higher Education, 67(2).
Cheung, K. S. (2007). A comparison of WebCT, Blackboard and Moodle for the teaching and learning of continuing education courses. In P. Tsang, R. Kwan & R. Fox (Eds.), Enhancing Learning Through Technology. Singapore: World Scientific.
Eyler, J., & Giles, D. (1999). Where's the learning in service-learning? : Jossey-Bass San Francisco.
Feldstein, M., & Masson, P. (2006). Unbolting the chairs: making learning management systems more flexible. eLearn, 2006(1).
Florida International University. (2008). The Big Dummy's Guide to Service-Learning. Retrieved 5 February, 2008, [HREF6]
Franklin, T. (2007). Web 2.0 for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. In The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education - Reports. Available online [HREF7]
Jenkins, A. (2003). Reshaping Teaching in Higher Education: Linking Teaching With Research. London: Kogan Page.
Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National Survey of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10–17.
Laird, T., & Kuh, G. (2005). Student Experiences With Information Technology And Their Relationship To Other Aspects Of Student Engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 211-233.
Nunan, T. (2000). Exploring the concept of flexibility. In V. Jakupec & J. Garrick (Eds.), Flexible Learning, Human Resource and Organisational Development: Putting theory to work. (pp. 47-66). London: Routledge.
Nunan, T. (2002). Institutional policy development in the service of improving teaching and learning - implementing graduate qualities at the University of South Australia. Paper presented at the International Council for Educational Development - Spheres of Influence: Ventures and Visions in Educational development, University of Western Australia, Perth.
Nunan, T., George, R., & McCausland, H. (2000). Rethinking the Ways in which Teaching and Learning are Supported: the Flexible Learning Centre at the University of South Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 22(1), 85-98.
Nunan, T., Reid, I. C., & McCausland, H. (2002). Global Perspectives: The University of South Australia (UniSA) Case Study. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2(2).
Pan, G., & Bonk, C. (2007). The Emergence of Open-Source Software in North America. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(3).
Reid, I. C. (1999, 17-20 April). Online Strategy in Higher Education. Paper presented at the AusWeb99, The Fifth Australian World Wide Web Conference, Ballina, NSW, Australia. Available online [HREF3]
Severance, C. (2008). The coming functionality mash-up in Personal Learning Environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 16(1), 47-62.
University of South Australia (2007). Teaching and Learning framework.
Weller, M. (2007). Virtual learning environments : using, choosing and developing your VLE. London ; New York: Routledge.