E-Learning in Higher Education

This chapter examines the nature of change in Higher Education with respect to the introduction and growth of e-learning. While the ostensible aim is to use e-learning to improve the quality of the learning experience for students, the drivers of change are numerous, and learning quality ranks poorly in relation to most of them. Those of us working to improve student learning, and seeking to exploit e-learning to do so, have to ride each new wave of technological innovation in an attempt to divert it from its more natural course of techno-hype, and drive it towards the quality agenda. We have to build the means for e-learning to evolve and mature as part of the educational change process, so that it achieves its promise of an improved system of higher education. Why is e-learning important for HE? A student who is learning in a way that uses information and communication technologies (ICTs) is using e-learning. These interactive technologies support many different types of capability: internet access to digital versions of materials unavailable locally internet access to search, and transactional services interactive diagnostic or adaptive tutorials interactive educational games remote control access to local physical devices personalised information and guidance for learning support simulations or models of scientific systems communications tools for collaboration with other students and teachers tools for creativity and design virtual reality environments for development and manipulation data analysis, modelling or organisation tools and applications electronic devices to assist disabled learners For each of these, there is a learning application that could be exploited within HE. Each one encompasses a wide range of different types of interaction – internet access to services, for example, includes news services, blogs, online auctions, self-testing sites, etc. Moreover, the list above could be extended further by considering combinations of applications. Imagine, for example, a remotely controlled observatory webcam embedded in an online conference environment for astronomy students; or a computer-aided design device embedded in a role-play environment for students of urban planning. From Changing Higher Education, Edited by Paul Ashwin (RoutledgeFalmer, forthcoming) E-Learning_in_Higher_Education.doc 2 16 June 2004 The range and scale of possible applications of new technologies in HE is almost beyond imagining because, while we try to cope with what is possible now, another technological application is becoming available that will extend those possibilities even further. Everything in this chapter will need updating again when 3G mobile phones begin to have an impact on our behaviour. Never mind; we keep the focus on principles and try to maintain our equanimity in the face of these potentially seismic changes. E-learning is defined for our purpose here as the use of any of the new technologies or applications in the service of learning or learner support. It is important because e-learning can make a significant difference: to how learners learn, how quickly they master a skill, how easy it is to study; and, equally important, how much they enjoy learning. Such a complex set of technologies will make different kinds of impact on the experience of learning: cultural – students are comfortable with e-learning methods, as they are similar to the forms of information search and communications methods they use in other parts of their lives intellectual – interactive technology offers a new mode of engagement with ideas via both material and social interactivity online social the reduction in social difference afforded by online networking fits with the idea that students should take greater responsibility for their own learning practical – e-learning offers the ability to manage quality at scale, and share resources across networks; its greater flexibility of provision in time and place makes it good for widening participation There is also a financial impact. Networks and access to online materials offer an alternative to place-based education which reduces the requirement for expensive buildings, and the costs of delivery of distance learning materials. However, learners still need people support, so the expected financial gains are usually overwhelmed by the investment costs of a new system and the cost of learning how to do it. We cannot yet build the case for e-learning on cost reduction arguments – we are better placed to argue for investment to improve value than to save costs. Changing HE towards the use of e-learning E-learning could be a highly disruptive technology for education if we allow it to be. We should do, because it serves the very paradigm shift that educators have been arguing for throughout the last century. Whatever their original discipline, the most eminent writers on learning have emphasised the importance of active learning. The choice of language may vary ~ Dewey’s inquiry-based education, Piaget’s constructivism, Vygotsky’s social constructivism, Bruner’s discovery learning, Pask’s conversation theory, From Changing Higher Education, Edited by Paul Ashwin (RoutledgeFalmer, forthcoming) E-Learning_in_Higher_Education.doc 3 16 June 2004 Schank’s problem-based learning, Marton’s deep learning, Lave’s socio-cultural learning ~ but the shared essence is the recognition that learning concerns what the learner is doing, rather than what the teacher is doing, and the promotion of active learning in a social context should be the focus of our design of the teaching-learning process. It is especially the social situatedness of learning, in the Vygotskyan tradition, that is the focus of David McConnell’s chapter in this book. If the organisation of teaching and learning in HE were driven by the insights of these scholars, then e-learning would have been embraced rapidly as the means to deliver active learning. But change in HE requires a subtler understanding of the forces at work, and here Lewis Elton is a valuable guide. In his analysis of strategies for innovation and change in higher education (Elton 1999), he draws a distinction between hierarchical and cybernetic models of governance, which have contrasting approaches to change, the former being top-down, the latter relying on a network structure that allows the opportunity for bottom-up as well. Achieving the right balance between the two enables innovation to be embraced within a model of change management: “New ways of learning ... require new forms of institutional management” [Ibid, p219] so if universities are to rethink their methods of teaching, they need a management structure that is capable of supporting innovation: “The process of change must be initiated from both ‘bottom up’ and ‘top down’, with the bottom having the knowledge and the top the power... The top must use its power, not overtly and directly, but to facilitate the work from the bottom and to provide conditions under which it can prosper” [Ibid, p215] A top down management structure is inimical to successful innovation precisely because management does not have the knowledge necessary. A similar point is made in a collection of articles in a recent Demos publication on the process of reform in the public services in general. Here the ‘mechanistic state’ is contrasted with the ‘adaptive state’ [Demos, 2004]. Again, the point is made that if we try to innovate through command and control methods, the innovative idea weakens as it travels down the hierarchy and confronts the local system knowledge it is failing to use in its process of reform. In an adaptive, or cybernetic structure, the model is not a unidirectional graph, but a network, with multiple two-way links between all nodes, even if there is a hierarchical organisational structure. These local dialogues allow localised versions of the innovation to spread downwards, customised versions to spread sideways to peer groups, and generalised versions to travel upwards to managers and leaders. We need systems capable of continuously reconfiguring themselves to create new sources of public value. This means interactively linking the different layer and functions of governance, not searching for a static From Changing Higher Education, Edited by Paul Ashwin (RoutledgeFalmer, forthcoming) E-Learning_in_Higher_Education.doc 4 16 June 2004 blueprint that predefines their relative weight. (Bentley and Wilsdon, 2003:16) Another source for this kind of analysis is the literature on knowledge management, which draws our attention to the importance of continual innovation, if an organisation is to remain competitive. Senge’s analysis derives from a systems approach, and concludes that the organisation must be ‘continually expanding its capacity to create its future ... “adaptive learning” must be joined by “generative learning” learning that enhances our capacity to create’ (Senge, 1993: 14). The quote captures the twin tasks of both generating new knowledge, and monitoring existing activities, to ensure adaptive change in response to the external environment. Similarly, Nonaka made the link between knowledge creation and competition in his seminal paper on organisational knowledge, and his model draws attention to the relationship between individual learning and organisational learning (Nonaka 1994). Organisational knowledge creation is seen as a continual dynamic process of conversion between tacit (experiential) and explicit (articulated) knowledge, iterating between the different levels of the individual, the group and the organisation. Again, the network, rather than the directed graph, is the optimal model for innovation, and the dialogic process between individuals and groups at different levels of description of the organisation, is very similar to the principles embodied within the Conversational Framework for learning (Laurillard, 2002, 215ff). Interestingly, Higher Education already fosters an excellent model for innovation and progression through a cybernetic/adaptive model of change. The academic research community has perfected a process that fosters the creation and development of knowledge, and that is so effective that its basic characteristics are common to all disciplines. I think it is fair to say that all academic disciplines share a fundamental set of requirements for high quality and rigorous research. The academic professional as researcher is: 1. fully trained through an apprenticeship program, giving them access to competence and personal engagement with the skills of scholarship in their field; 2. highly knowledgeable in some specialist area; 3. licensed to practice as both practitioner and mentor to others in the field; 4. building on the work of others in their field whenever they begin new work; 5. conducting practical work using the agreed-upon protocols and standards of evidence of their field; 6. working in collaborative teams of respected peers; 7. seeking new insights and ways of rethinking their field; and 8. disseminating findings for peer review and use by others. In the context of research, academics measure up well to the idea of ‘the reflective practitioner’ (Schön, 1983) working within a ‘community of practice’ (Wenger, 1999). The progress of innovation is rapid and effective. From Changing Higher Education, Edited by Paul Ashwin (RoutledgeFalmer, forthcoming) E-Learning_in_Higher_Education.doc 5 16 June 2004 Now run through the above list again and consider whether the academic professional as teacher possesses those characteristics in relation to the field of the pedagogy of their subject. None of them, typically, apply. Not even number 2, since academics are rarely specialists in the pedagogy of the subject, beyond a simple reliance on expert knowledge. If there is to be innovation and change in university teaching—as the new technology requires, as the knowledge economy requires, and as students demand—someone has to take responsibility for it. Who should that be, other than the university academic community? Private providers are ready to try – despite the near-universal failure of ‘e-university’ organisations since the dot.com boom, the private sector is innovative and inventive and will eventually discover how to turn degree-level education into a profitable business. The demand can only increase. The knowledge economy needs employees who are intellectually confident, capable of taking the initiative in information-acquisition, -handling and -generation, and able to take responsibility for their personal development of knowledge and skills. The generation and acquisition of new knowledge is widespread and rapid in a maturing knowledge economy. Students being educated to cope with it must not be sheltered from the processes of knowledge development. We are in danger of doing that if we allow universities to separate research from teaching as a way of coping with the crises of funding and the professionalism of academics. Knowledge creation is not confined to universities, and graduates will be taking part in the generation and communication of both expert and practitioner knowledge as an inevitable part of their professional life. A university education capable of equipping students for the 21 century must pay close attention to the skills of scholarship keeping abreast of existing knowledge, rigorous argument, and evaluation of evidence no matter what the discipline. All academics, therefore, need to cover the full range of professional skills of both research and teaching. They will differ in proportion, of course, but there is no easy exit from the responsibility of every university to offer its students access to expert teaching informed by current research, to give them the capabilities they need for their own professional lives. University teaching must aspire to a realignment of research and teaching and to teaching methods that support students in the generic skills of scholarship, not the mere acquisition of knowledge. Forward to the past: universities have to manage on the large scale the same values, aspirations and modus operandi they used for a privileged elite. We might expect to conclude, from the previous discussion, that the most productive form of system redesign for innovation in pedagogic style in HE would be to return to the undirected collegial networks of earlier decades, before top-down management took hold. The technology itself serves that shift because it creates the means by which multiple networks can co-exist, inter-operate, and self-generate. But technology does not yet adapt to major change in a seamless, incremental way. The technological changes we exploit on the grand scale demand giant upheavals in the physical and organisational infrastructure. The motorcar prompted incremental changes from lanes and carriageways to tarmac roads, but it also demanded the From Changing Higher Education, Edited by Paul Ashwin (RoutledgeFalmer, forthcoming) E-Learning_in_Higher_Education.doc 6 16 June 2004 complex centralised infrastructure of motorways and licensing laws. ICT is making many incremental changes to local ways of working, but it also requires the pooling of resources to create shared networks, and agreed technical standards to enable those networks to interoperate. These changes do not happen without planning and coordination. The change towards elearning creates the peculiar challenge that it needs both the network-style ‘cybernetic systems’ approach to innovation, and the top-down, ‘command and control’ approach to shared infrastructure and standardisation. We could position e-learning, therefore, as the means by which universities and academics manage the difficult trick of making the learner’s interaction with the academic feel like a personalised learning experience, focused on their needs and aspirations, developing their skills and knowledge to the high level universities always aspired to, while doing this on the large scale. Elearning enables academics and students to communicate through networks of communities of practice in the cybernetic approach that makes change and innovation an inherent property of the system. At the same time, we need a way of creating the common infrastructure of agreed standards of interoperability that enable, and do not frustrate innovation. Technological change and the learning experience The information revolution is sometimes compared with the Gutenberg revolution, when the printing press harnessed a mass delivery system to the medium of the written word. It is a good parallel to draw for the impact of the Internet, but it undervalues the other key feature of the interactive computer its ability to adapt. The simple fact that it can adapt its behaviour according to a person’s input means that we can engage with knowledge through this medium in a radically different way. A better analogy than the printing press, to give a sense of the power of this revolution, is the invention of writing. When our society had to represent its accumulated wisdom through oral communication alone, the process of accretion of communal knowledge was necessarily slow. Writing gave us the means to record our knowledge, reflect on it, re-articulate it, and hence critique it. The means by which the individual was able to engage with the ideas of the society became radically different as we developed a written culture. When a text is available in written form, it becomes easier to cope with more information, to compare one part with another, to re-read, reanalyse, reorganise and retrieve. All these aspects of ‘knowledge management’ became feasible in a way that had not been possible when knowledge could only be remembered. The earliest surviving text the Rosetta Stone shows that ‘information management’ was an important benefit of the medium, recording the resources available, allowing a tally to be kept, enabling better management of the way the society operated. The nature of the medium has a critical impact on the way we engage with the knowledge being mediated. The oral medium has the strength of having a greater emotional impact on us which enables action through motivation; the written medium has the strength of enabling a more analytical approach to action. As we create and generate knowledge and information we naturally use different media, depending on the nature of the content and the objective From Changing Higher Education, Edited by Paul Ashwin (RoutledgeFalmer, forthcoming) E-Learning_in_Higher_Education.doc 7 16 June 2004 we want to achieve. It is impossible, for example, to use a verbatim transcript of a lively lecture for a print version. The spoken word written down usually reads badly. Medium and message are interdependent; there is an internal relation between them. What does the new medium of the interactive computer do that is so significantly different from the earlier media? The written medium had a transformational effect on an oral culture because it enabled the representation, analysis and reworking of information and ideas. These are clues we can use. The interactive computer provides a means for representing information and ideas not simply as words and pictures, but as structured systems. A program is an information processing system, which embodies a working model with which the user can interact – not just analysing and reworking, but testing and challenging. This is true even of the familiar word processing program. It does not just record the words, as a typewriter does; it also has information about the words how many there are, how they are arranged, what shape the letters are. Because of that it can offer options which enable the user to input changes to the system and see the resulting output. We can experiment with layout, font, structure, in ways that are not possible with a typewriter, and are excessively time-consuming with pen and paper. So the adaptive nature of an interactive computer enables enhanced action because it holds a working model with which we can interact to produce an improved output. Graphics programs, and presentation authoring tools, all work on the same principle. A spreadsheet holds a different kind of working model. It holds not just data but also ways of calculating with the data to represent different behaviours of a system. A common application is for modelling cash flow for a business. The user can determine the initial data about costs and pricing, for example, and the spreadsheet calculates the profit. By changing the prices, the user can experiment with the effects on profits. The cash flow model embodies an assumption about the effect of prices on sales for example, that they will fall if the price goes above a certain limit. But the user can also change that assumption, by changing the formulae the spreadsheet uses for calculating profits. So there are two ways in which the user can engage with this model of the cash flow system: by changing the inputs to the model, and by changing the model. The adaptive nature of the medium offers a creative environment in which the user can inspect, critique, re-version, customise, re-create, design, create, and articulate a model of the world, wholly different from the kind of model that can be created through the written word. These two examples illustrate the power of the interactive computer to do a lot more than simply provide access to information. It makes the processing of that information possible, so that the interaction becomes a knowledgebuilding exercise. Yet the excitement about information technology has been focused much more on the access than on the processing it offers. And the technology developments so far have reflected that. The focus has been on the presentation of information to the user, not on tools for the user to manipulate information. The sequence of technological change in interactive technologies has been a historical accident, driven by curiosity, the market, luck, politics – never by From Changing Higher Education, Edited by Paul Ashwin (RoutledgeFalmer, forthcoming) E-Learning_in_Higher_Education.doc 8 16 June 2004 the needs of learners. Learning technologies have been developing haphazardly, and a little too rapidly for those of us who wish to turn them to advantage in learning. This becomes apparent if we compare these technological developments with the historical development of other key technologies for education. Table 1 shows some of the main developments in information, communication, and delivery technologies over the last three decades, and against each one proposes a functional equivalent from the historic media and delivery technologies. The story begins with interactive computers because the move away from batch processing brought computing to non-programmers. The user had access to a new medium which responded immediately to the information they put in. As a medium for information processing, it was radically different from the much more attenuated relationship between reading and writing, thus creating a new kind of medium for engaging with ideas. Date New technology Old technology equivalent Learning support function 1970’s Interactive computers Writing New medium for articulating and engaging with ideas Local hard drives and floppy discs Paper Local storage with the user 1980’s WIMP interfaces