Selection of Web-based tools for global e-Universities and implications for WWW research Professor Paul Bacsich Sheffield Hallam University Great Britain

Bacsich/SHU/UK2 Overview – –Introduction to the issues – –Vendor views – –Training views – –Exemplars (large) – –Standards views – –Research views – –Conclusions

Bacsich/SHU/UK3 Tools for UK e-University student-orientated quality innovation flexibility cost-effectiveness

Bacsich/SHU/UK4 UK e-University Structure and market Holding company collectively owned by HEIs Joint venture with corporate world (PPP) Market of 100,000 students: – –UK postgraduates and CPD – –corporate universities and businesses – –selected overseas markets – individuals, companies or governments

Bacsich/SHU/UK5 e-Universities - other players OU: Open (Corporate) (e-)University (e-)University for Industry “EU VU”: Scottish Knowledge, Finnish VU “EU OU”: UNED, FernU, Dutch Ou OLA, Athabasca (Canada) Cardean/Unext, GUA/NextEd (global) MIT ??

Bacsich/SHU/UK6 The task was to… Determine what “e-tools” are suitable for the e-University And what exemplars are relevant Look at related areas (training etc) Look at Standards Look at Research

Bacsich/SHU/UK7 Vendor views Survey of 76 leading vendors for UK e-University; 40 responses Vendor orientation to universities, not training or schools Generalised criteria Vendors included Blackboard, Centrinity, Cisco, Fretwell-Downing, IBM/Lotus, Luvit, Microsoft, SmartForce, WebCT,...

Bacsich/SHU/UK8 New Procurement Paradigm “conversation” between customer and supplier business models, iterating to BAFO Generalised features: – –system information (such as architecture, scalability, standards) – –user information (such as “industrial- strength” reference sites) – – “futures” on pedagogy and technology

Bacsich/SHU/UK9 Features 1 thru 6 Architecture Standards & interoperability Costs over life cycle Scalability User interface & compatibility Reference sites - relevant, big

Bacsich/SHU/UK10 Features 7 thru 12 Reliability - 5 9’s and global User empowerment Company size and stability Ease of support and training Ability to embed new technology Ability to embed new pedagogy

Bacsich/SHU/UK11 Vendors - conclusions Co-operative learning in most of the products But little grasp of new technologies eg wireless and ITV Even less grasp of new pedagogies (with some exceptions) IMS and standards making an impact But very few oriented to scalability

Bacsich/SHU/UK12 Australian work - A’Herran For Administrators – –Scalability, Value for money, Integration   For Technicians   Robustness, User base, Tech Support, Maintenance   For Course Developers or Teachers   Customisability, Flexibility, Integration of materials   For Learners   Consistency, Accessibility, Quality of design

Bacsich/SHU/UK13 Similar thoughts on procurement TMG Corporation report – –gap analysis – –“off-the-shelf (with modifications)” approach eArmyU – –Two-stage procurement process

Bacsich/SHU/UK14 Training The practice: – –Training vendors The theory: – –Hambrecht report

Bacsich/SHU/UK15 Hambrecht criteria Leveraging on standards Scalable to any size enterprise Flexible technology Easy integration with client systems “Media rich”

Bacsich/SHU/UK16 Hambrecht views on e-training Higher retention of content through personalised learning Improved collaboration and interactivity among students Live (synch) Web-based course delivery expected to surge Online training is less intimidating than instructor-led courses Trend toward IT certification growing rapidly

Bacsich/SHU/UK17 Training - conclusions Practice: – –Training vendors following along ever more closely behind university-oriented vendors in co-operative learning – –but in advance in other areas, eg personalisation and assessment Theory: – –Hambrecht report validates group communication!

Bacsich/SHU/UK18 Exemplars Open University: process and co-operation dominates over e-content Ufi less clear – –older paradigm Scottish Knowledge - yes Cardean - yes UK e-University - yes – –theoretical arguments - system does not exist

Bacsich/SHU/UK19 Standards - views and conclusions IMS - good work; but major untouched challenge is co-operative learning EU PROMETEUS work - early days? EML (Dutch Open universiteit) - interesting?

Bacsich/SHU/UK20 Research This may be too much of a personal view as conf. organiser, evaluator, reviewer,... Look at impact from EU research work Look at impact of work elsewhere – –UK – –TL-NCE – –Australia, Singapore, New Zealand, Hong Kong….

Bacsich/SHU/UK21 Research - conclusions European research: FP3 set the scene; FP4 added little, FP5 too early to judge Canadian work more integrated, but lacks evidence of scalable approaches Too much gap between computing theorists and industrial-strength pedagogic practice – –theorists usually in universities not seriously active in e-learning services US too synchronous and transmissive

Bacsich/SHU/UK22 Conclusions from input Vendor views confirm co-operative learning in universities is important Gaining ground in e-training too Many exemplars confirm this Standards: little to say yet about co- operative learning Research: new paradigms not clear

Bacsich/SHU/UK23 Conclusions for research Focus on co-operative learning – –Start with basic asynch “BBS” model – –Allow new models to be supported, especially those with business potential Develop scalable approaches – –more focus on assessment? Support multiple media and devices

Bacsich/SHU/UK24 Open source issues Exemplars: – –Linux, MIT, Canadian, Finnish, IMS, UK interest Purpose: – –Challenge commercial vendors – –Facilitate research by providing flexible system Professor Paul Bacsich