1 / 24

Selection of Web-based tools for global e-Universities and implications for WWW research

Selection of Web-based tools for global e-Universities and implications for WWW research. Professor Paul Bacsich Sheffield Hallam University Great Britain. Overview. Introduction to the issues Vendor views Training views Exemplars (large) Standards views Research views Conclusions.

Download Presentation

Selection of Web-based tools for global e-Universities and implications for WWW research

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. Selection of Web-based tools for global e-Universitiesand implications for WWW research Professor Paul BacsichSheffield Hallam UniversityGreat Britain

  2. Overview • Introduction to the issues • Vendor views • Training views • Exemplars (large) • Standards views • Research views • Conclusions Bacsich/SHU/UK

  3. Tools for UK e-Universitywww.hefce.ac.uk • student-orientated • quality • innovation • flexibility • cost-effectiveness Bacsich/SHU/UK

  4. UK e-UniversityStructure 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/UK

  5. 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/UK

  6. 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/UK

  7. 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/UK

  8. 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/UK

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

  10. 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/UK

  11. 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/UK

  12. 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/UK

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

  14. Training • The practice: • Training vendors • The theory: • Hambrecht report Bacsich/SHU/UK

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

  16. 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/UK

  17. 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/UK

  18. 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/UK

  19. 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/UK

  20. 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/UK

  21. 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/UK

  22. 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/UK

  23. 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/UK

  24. Open source issues • Exemplars: • Linux, MIT, Canadian, Finnish, IMS, UK interest • Purpose: • Challenge commercial vendors • Facilitate research by providing flexible system Professor Paul Bacsichp.bacsich@shu.ac.uk Bacsich/SHU/UK

More Related