OUCEL Wiki - User contributions [en-ca]

2009-08-15T03:29:30Z

Dpvukovic:

'''Discussion: Engaging Faculty in Higher Level Use of LMSs (lead by Linda Murphy-Boyer and Aldo Caputo) '''

*-EDUCASE published an article on TL challenges 09

'''Question# 1''': What is experience and culture of your institutions? Do your instructors use technology effectively? How to engage faculty to use tools that are more advanced?
*Richard Pinet: For power users LMS is not enough; at Ottawa U his team touch a fraction of faculty; they are trying to come up with strategies to encourage faculty to come to the Centre
*Teaching with technology day – it seems successful strategy
*Aldo Caputo: The Distance education program at Waterloo is a positive force that contributes to adoption of technology because courses are completely online
*Patrick Lyons: One reason why many instructors are not the advanced users is the lack of the paradigm shift
*Cheryl Dickie: if instructors use LMs mainly to post course material, it does not always mean that they are poor users; maybe they this way can use class time for more face-to-face interaction with students; in a true blended environment you can move everything online and use class time for more interesting issues
*Linda Murphy-Boyer: At the U of Toronto there is a problem because instructors come to introductory workshops, but they do not come or express interest in using advanced tools. How to encourage them?
*There are a few possibilities:
a) approach for a particular instructor

b) explain instructors that this will save time and effort

c) once you start a dialogue – it provides an opportunity for other questions
*Karen Maki: Faculty have invested a large amount of time in PowerPoint and now they only place slides inside LMS
*Brian Campbell: Every time when something new comes, the underlying issue is that professors see themselves as content specialists and this is difficult to change
*Changes cannot be quick
*You need to have a dialogue about what education is
*Faculty members also do not want to waste their time on new tools
*Jeanne Drouillard: At the U of Windsor they moved to Sakai; the group is growing; IT steering committee posted a capture of good courses at LMS site
*Giulia Forsythe: At Brock teaching is not rewarded enough; most innovative people – intersection between teaching and research
*Technology needs to be easy to use and it has to be beneficial
*Wendy Hardman: We need to be realistic and look into different approaches for different type of users

2009-08-15T03:29:00Z

Dpvukovic:

'''Discussion: Engaging Faculty in Higher Level Use of LMSs (lead by Linda Murphy-Boyer and Aldo Caputo) '''

*-EDUCASE published an article on TL challenges 09

'''Question# 1''': What is experience and culture of your institutions? Do your instructors use technology effectively? How to engage faculty to use tools that are more advanced?
*Richard Pinet: For power users LMS is not enough; at Ottawa U his team touch a fraction of faculty; they are trying to come up with strategies to encourage faculty to come to the Centre
*Teaching with technology day – it seems successful strategy
*Aldo Caputo: The Distance education program at Waterloo is a positive force that contributes to adoption of technology because courses are completely online
*Patrick Lyons: One reason why many instructors are not the advanced users is the lack of the paradigm shift
*Cheryl Dickie: if instructors use LMs mainly to post course material, it does not always mean that they are poor users; maybe they this way can use class time for more face-to-face interaction with students; in a true blended environment you can move everything online and use class time for more interesting issues
*Linda Murphy-Boyer: At the U of Toronto there is a problem because instructors come to introductory workshops, but they do not come or express interest in using advanced tools. How to encourage them?
*There are a few possibilities:
a) approach for a particular instructor
b) explain instructors that this will save time and effort
c) once you start a dialogue – it provides an opportunity for other questions
*Karen Maki: Faculty have invested a large amount of time in PowerPoint and now they only place slides inside LMS
*Brian Campbell: Every time when something new comes, the underlying issue is that professors see themselves as content specialists and this is difficult to change
*Changes cannot be quick
*You need to have a dialogue about what education is
*Faculty members also do not want to waste their time on new tools
*Jeanne Drouillard: At the U of Windsor they moved to Sakai; the group is growing; IT steering committee posted a capture of good courses at LMS site
*Giulia Forsythe: At Brock teaching is not rewarded enough; most innovative people – intersection between teaching and research
*Technology needs to be easy to use and it has to be beneficial
*Wendy Hardman: We need to be realistic and look into different approaches for different type of users

2009-08-15T03:28:27Z

Dpvukovic: New page: '''Discussion: Engaging Faculty in Higher Level Use of LMSs (lead by Linda Murphy-Boyer and Aldo Caputo) ''' *-EDUCASE published an article on TL challenges 09 '''Question# 1'''...

'''Discussion: Engaging Faculty in Higher Level Use of LMSs (lead by
Linda Murphy-Boyer and Aldo Caputo) '''

*-EDUCASE published an article on TL challenges 09

'''Question# 1''': What is experience and culture of your institutions? Do your instructors use technology effectively? How to engage faculty to use tools that are more advanced?
*Richard Pinet: For power users LMS is not enough; at Ottawa U his team touch a fraction of faculty; they are trying to come up with strategies to encourage faculty to come to the Centre
*Teaching with technology day – it seems successful strategy
*Aldo Caputo: The Distance education program at Waterloo is a positive force that contributes to adoption of technology because courses are completely online
*Patrick Lyons: One reason why many instructors are not the advanced users is the lack of the paradigm shift
*Cheryl Dickie: if instructors use LMs mainly to post course material, it does not always mean that they are poor users; maybe they this way can use class time for more face-to-face interaction with students; in a true blended environment you can move everything online and use class time for more interesting issues
*Linda Murphy-Boyer: At the U of Toronto there is a problem because instructors come to introductory workshops, but they do not come or express interest in using advanced tools. How to encourage them?
*There are a few possibilities:
*a) approach for a particular instructor
*b) explain instructors that this will save time and effort
*c) once you start a dialogue – it provides an opportunity for other questions
*Karen Maki: Faculty have invested a large amount of time in PowerPoint and now they only place slides inside LMS
*Brian Campbell: Every time when something new comes, the underlying issue is that professors see themselves as content specialists and this is difficult to change
*Changes cannot be quick
*You need to have a dialogue about what education is
*Faculty members also do not want to waste their time on new tools
*Jeanne Drouillard: At the U of Windsor they moved to Sakai; the group is growing; IT steering committee posted a capture of good courses at LMS site
*Giulia Forsythe: At Brock teaching is not rewarded enough; most innovative people – intersection between teaching and research
*Technology needs to be easy to use and it has to be beneficial
*Wendy Hardman: We need to be realistic and look into different approaches for different type of users

Brian Campbell, UOIT: Participatory Technologies

2009-08-15T03:25:38Z

Dpvukovic:

'''10:15-11:00 Brian Campbell – “Participatory Technologies”'''

*Albert and Campbell (2008) provide limited definition of participatory technology: “Communication technology that facilitate interpersonal interaction and communication”
*collaboration should be also included in this definition
*Technology can have a purpose bias – wiki can be used for joined authoring; interpersonal communication technology such as e-mail can be used for content delivery and not only for interaction, etc.
*Participatory technology has common use among young people (Net generation)
*Digital divide
*Digital distraction vs. Digital asset
*What is relationship between ICT use, collaborative behaviour and academic performance?
*There is need to conduct linked research micro/macro

'''Participatory technology as digital distraction'''
*Multi-tasking is overstated
*attention span
*Time block disruption
*Preoccupation
*Total time used

'''Research questions'''
*Is ICT use associated with student success?
*Is collaborative culture associated with student success?

*This study is longitudinal and surveys were conducted in 9 institutions

'''Gaming and ICT variables'''
*Instant messages (IM) (personal) – negative correlation (-) (i.e. A students are more likely to never use IM than C students)
*Instant messages (IM) (for courses) – negative correlation (-)
*Email friends – positive correlation (+)
*Email instructors – positive correlation (+)
*Time spent playing computer/video games – negative correlation (-)

*ICT is a recreational thing for young people (it is extracurricular activity)
*Email – very little difference in performance of A vs. C students
*Heavy gaming (11 hours or more) among C students

'''Background variables'''
*Gender (male) – negative correlation (-)
*Parents’ education – positive correlation (+)
*Survey year - positive correlation (+)
*Institution – negative correlation (-)

'''Collaborative student culture'''
*Many university students learn collaboratively independent of the teacher directed pedagogy
*Unknown interaction pedagogy a) it can conflict with teacher imposed collaboration; b) thrives in traditional lectures/examination settings; c) top students do not like it

'''Some of collaborative variables'''
*Lend lecture to other students – positive correlation (+)
*Borrow lectures from other students – negative correlation (-)
*Lend assignments to other students – positive correlation (+)
*Borrow assignments from other students – negative correlation (-)
*Help other students to do their assignments – positive correlation (+)
*Get help from other students to do the assignment – negative correlation (-)
*Join a student group in relation to a course or subject area
*Use e-mail/conference/WebCT system to share course information

*'''Conclusion''': It is better to give than to receive; face-to-face learning is better than online.

*More research needs to be conducted:
*Social background
*ICT use in a broader culture
*Student culture and learning strategies
*Pedagogy and use of ICT
*Student performance

Brian Campbell, UOIT: Participatory Technologies

2009-08-15T03:25:12Z

Dpvukovic: New page: '''10:15-11:00 Brian Campbell – “Participatory Technologies”''' *Albert and Campbell (2008) provide limited definition of participatory technology: “Communication technology that ...

Andre Seguin, University of Ottawa: E-Portfolio

2009-08-15T03:20:21Z

Dpvukovic:

'''André Seguin – “University of Ottawa Experience with E-Portfolio”''' -Portfolio is not new concept, it was used in business, but it is in infantile stage of using it in education

*E-portfolio is a collection of artifacts online; can be for individuals or institutions (Lorenzo & Ittleson, 2005)
*Main functions of e-portfolios: learning, reflection, documentation, evaluation
*E-portfolios need to be integrated with the course – it needs to be point of the assessment process; otherwise students would not make portfolios

'''Up-to-date educational concepts:'''
*School as information highway
*Teachers as information guides
*Customized online materials
*Customized interactive learning
*Schools are not any more a “warehouses of information”
*There is a shift in learning – from linear to hypermedia learning and from instruction to discovery

*Some examples of e-portfolios: occupational therapy portfolio; co-op programs; e-portfolio for microteaching
*Important question is the ownership of e-portfolio; who owns it;?what happens when group of students make portfolio? What should we do when students want to publish their marked papers with professor’s comments, but professors do not want the same?

*E-portfolio at Ottawa University came as part of strategic plan – ‘focus on learning driven by excellence”
*It started in 2006 with the Occupational Therapy program
*The tool chosen was iwebfolio for several reasons: it was cheap, hosting was provided, and there was support for students and professors

'''Challenges for e-portfolios at Ottawa University:'''
*hosting aspect – everything hosted in the States, which was questionable because of FIPPA regulations;
*It was difficult to find products that support both English and French (Ottawa U is bilingual institution)

'''Other e-portfolio projects at Ottawa U:'''
*Co-op program (iwebfolio)
*Experiential learning (Sakai)
*Second language program (Blackboard)
*Nutrition program
*Individual professors and courses (iwebfolio, Blackboard)

'''Challenges'''
*creating a culture (reflective, student-centered) that will support e-portfolios
*official stamping (how much value/certification can be provided to e-portfolio; is it the same as official transcript)
*ownership
*post graduation – Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia want to use e-portfolios for K-12, which means that the prospective students may want to submit e-portfolios for the admission; how can institutions adjust to that? What if their high schools use different e-portfolio technologies, which are not supported by universities?

'''Technical challenges'''
*bilingual applications are difficult to find
*compatibility
*Personal preferences
*Funding for servers, hosting, training

A survey asked professors why they do not use e-portfolios:
*93% not informed about the tool
*14% tool is not valuable
*13% time constraints
*12% costs

'''Main obstacles'''
*information overload
*FIPPA copyright issues
*adoption factors
*Lack of standards – frequent changes in professional associations/industry

'''What tools other institutions use for e-portfolios?'''U of Toronto – through Blackboard; Carleton – Wordpress, Western – *Desire2Learn and 2 homegrown portfolios;

Andre Seguin, University of Ottawa: E-Portfolio

2009-08-15T03:19:54Z

Dpvukovic:

'''André Seguin – “University of Ottawa Experience with E-Portfolio”''' -Portfolio is not new concept, it was used in business, but it is in infantile stage of using it in education

*E-portfolio is a collection of artifacts online; can be for individuals or institutions (Lorenzo & Ittleson, 2005)
*Main functions of e-portfolios: learning, reflection, documentation, evaluation
*E-portfolios need to be integrated with the course – it needs to be point of the assessment process; otherwise students would not make portfolios

'''Up-to-date educational concepts:'''
*School as information highway
*Teachers as information guides
*Customized online materials
*Customized interactive learning
*Schools are not any more a “warehouses of information”
*There is a shift in learning – from linear to hypermedia learning and from instruction to discovery

*Some examples of e-portfolios: occupational therapy portfolio; co-op programs; e-portfolio for microteaching
*Important question is the ownership of e-portfolio; who owns it;?what happens when group of students make portfolio? What should we do when students want to publish their marked papers with professor’s comments, but professors do not want the same?

*E-portfolio at Ottawa University came as part of strategic plan – ‘focus on learning driven by excellence”
*It started in 2006 with the Occupational Therapy program
*The tool chosen was iwebfolio for several reasons: it was cheap, hosting was provided, and there was support for students and professors

'''Challenges for e-portfolios at Ottawa University:'''
*hosting aspect – everything hosted in the States, which was questionable because of FIPPA regulations;
*It was difficult to find products that support both English and French (Ottawa U is bilingual institution)

'''Other e-portfolio projects at Ottawa U:'''
*Co-op program (iwebfolio)
*Experiential learning (Sakai)
*Second language program (Blackboard)
*Nutrition program
*Individual professors and courses (iwebfolio, Blackboard)

'''Challenges'''
*creating a culture (reflective, student-centered) that will support e-portfolios
*official stamping (how much value/certification can be provided to e-portfolio; is it the same as official transcript)
*ownership
*post graduation – Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia want to use e-portfolios for K-12, which means that the prospective students may want to submit e-portfolios for the admission; how can institutions adjust to that? What if their high schools use different e-portfolio technologies, which are not supported by universities?

'''Technical challenges'''
*bilingual applications are difficult to find
*compatibility
*Personal preferences
*Funding for servers, hosting, training

A survey asked professors why they do not use e-portfolios:
*93% not informed about the tool
*14% tool is not valuable
*13% time constraints
*12% costs

'''Main obstacles'''-information overload
*FIPPA copyright issues
*adoption factors
*Lack of standards – frequent changes in professional associations/industry

'''What tools other institutions use for e-portfolios?'''U of Toronto – through Blackboard; Carleton – Wordpress, Western – *Desire2Learn and 2 homegrown portfolios;

Andre Seguin, University of Ottawa: E-Portfolio

2009-08-15T03:18:59Z

Dpvukovic: New page: '''André Seguin – “University of Ottawa Experience with E-Portfolio”''' -Portfolio is not new concept, it was used in business, but it is in infantile stage of using it in education...

'''André Seguin – “University of Ottawa Experience with E-Portfolio”''' -Portfolio is not new concept, it was used in business, but it is in infantile stage of using it in education

*E-portfolio is a collection of artifacts online; can be for individuals or institutions (Lorenzo & Ittleson, 2005)
*Main functions of e-portfolios: learning, reflection, documentation, evaluation
*E-portfolios need to be integrated with the course – it needs to be point of the assessment process; otherwise students would not make portfolios

'''Up-to-date educational concepts:'''
*School as information highway
*Teachers as information guides
*Customized online materials
*Customized interactive learning
*Schools are not any more a “warehouses of information”
*There is a shift in learning – from linear to hypermedia learning and from instruction to discovery
*Some examples of e-portfolios: occupational therapy portfolio; co-op programs; e-portfolio for microteaching
*Important question is the ownership of e-portfolio; who owns it;?what happens when group of students make portfolio? What should we do when students want to publish their marked papers with professor’s comments, but professors do not want the same?

*E-portfolio at Ottawa University came as part of strategic plan – ‘focus on learning driven by excellence”
*It started in 2006 with the Occupational Therapy program
*The tool chosen was iwebfolio for several reasons: it was cheap, hosting was provided, and there was support for students and professors

'''Challenges for e-portfolios at Ottawa University:'''
*hosting aspect – everything hosted in the States, which was questionable because of FIPPA regulations;
*It was difficult to find products that support both English and French (Ottawa U is bilingual institution)

'''Other e-portfolio projects at Ottawa U:'''
*Co-op program (iwebfolio)
*Experiential learning (Sakai)
*Second language program (Blackboard)
*Nutrition program
*Individual professors and courses (iwebfolio, Blackboard)

'''Challenges'''
*creating a culture (reflective, student-centered) that will support e-portfolios
*official stamping (how much value/certification can be provided to e-portfolio; is it the same as official transcript)
*ownership
*post graduation – Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia want to use e-portfolios for K-12, which means that the prospective students may want to submit e-portfolios for the admission; how can institutions adjust to that? What if their high schools use different e-portfolio technologies, which are not supported by universities?

'''Technical challenges'''
*bilingual applications are difficult to find
*compatibility
*Personal preferences
*Funding for servers, hosting, training

A survey asked professors why they do not use e-portfolios:
*93% not informed about the tool
*14% tool is not valuable
*13% time constraints
*12% costs

'''Main obstacles'''-information overload
*FIPPA copyright issues
*adoption factors
*Lack of standards – frequent changes in professional associations/industry

'''What tools other institutions use for e-portfolios?'''U of Toronto – through Blackboard; Carleton – Wordpress, Western – *Desire2Learn and 2 homegrown portfolios;

Day 2 - August 11, 2009

2009-08-15T03:14:55Z

Dpvukovic:

Tuesday Aug 11

*Continental Breakfast
*[[Andre Seguin, University of Ottawa: E-Portfolio]]
*[[Brian Campbell, UOIT: Participatory Technologies]]
*[[Discussion: Engaging faculty in higher level use of LMS’s (lead by Linda Murphy-Boyer and Aldo Caputo)]]
*Lunch (provided)
*Birds of a Feather (see topics below)
*[[State of e-Learning in Canada]]
**Erin Mills, CCL & Dr. Philip Abrami, Concordia University
**Respondents : Giulia Forsythe, Cheryl Dickie
*[[Bill Muirhead, UOIT: Budget Cutbacks-Friend or Foe?]]
*[[Birds of a Feather Reports]]
*Wrap-up
*[[Group Dinner (PLAY: Food and Wine, York St.]]

[[Category:Summer Institute 2009]]

University of Waterloo 2009 Update

2009-08-14T20:24:28Z

Dpvukovic: New page: '''University of Waterloo Distance Education (DE) & Centre for Teaching Excellence (CTE) Joint Report''' '''Triumphs''' CTE •has a new website with an area on Teaching with Technol...

'''University of Waterloo

Distance Education (DE) & Centre for Teaching Excellence (CTE) Joint Report'''

'''Triumphs'''

CTE

•has a new website with an area on Teaching with Technology [http://cte.uwaterloo.ca/teaching_with_technology/index.html] that includes blended
learning

•developed a questionnaire to specifically target students’ feedback on the online and face to face portions of their blended courses.

•got an official definition of “blended learning” OK’d by Associate VP academic

DE

•name change from Distance and Continuing Education to Centre for Extended Learning and from Distance Education to Waterloo Online.

•developed a set of quality guidelines for DE courses

•began reorganization process

•began two new online masters degrees

•designed and began implementing a new online course template that governs look and feel and standard components of all our online courses

•beginning mobile learning investigation

'''Challenges'''

•Angel has been purchased by Blackboard; must reassess LMS choice

CTE

•Getting recognition that developing a blended course deserves some kind of support (e.g., teaching release)

DE

•supporting instructors who wish to use Turnitin, recently adopted on campus

•dealing with increasing numbers of courses

•managing workloads and meeting deadlines in situations where instructors don’t meet project milestones

Day 2 - August 11, 2009

2009-08-14T19:56:48Z

Dpvukovic:

Tuesday Aug 11

Continental Breakfast

2009 Day 2 9:15-10:15 Andre Seguin, University of Ottawa: E-Portfolio
2009 Day 2 10:15-11 Brian Campbell, UOIT: Participatory Technologies
2009 Day 2 Discussion: Engaging faculty in higher level use of LMS’s (lead by Linda Murphy-Boyer and Aldo Caputo)
*Lunch (provided)
==Birds of a Feather (see topics below)==
[[State of e-Learning in Canada]]
**Erin Mills, CCL & Dr. Philip Abrami, Concordia University
**Respondents : Giulia Forsythe, Cheryl Dickie
*[[Bill Muirhead, UOIT: Budget Cutbacks-Friend or Foe?]]
*[[Birds of a Feather Reports]]
*Wrap-up
*[[Group Dinner (PLAY: Food and Wine, York St.]]

[[Category:Summer Institute 2009]]

2009 Day 3 Tony Bates: Is E-Learning Failing Higher Education?

2009-08-14T19:54:59Z

Dpvukovic:

[[Media:UOttawa failing.ppt|Presentation PPT]]

-CCL Report on the state of e-learning in Canada suggested that there is no progress on e-learning in last 10 years. This presentation is a result of the author unhappiness with that report.

-Questions that need to be asked: What are the indicators of failure (or success) in e-learning? What are expectations and goals for e-learning? What would innovation looks like? What are barriers to innovation? What can be done to encourage innovation?

-Lack of return on IT investment; costs of HE continue to rise (EU, U.S.)

-Lack of innovation/transformation of education (WEF, Sagra, CCL, Anderson)

-Technology ‘absorbed’ into traditional model (Tirney & Heinkel)

-There are lots of individual innovations, but there is no significant change in the system; one study examined policies for IT in five EU universities and concluded that most institutions do not have strategies, objectives, performance measures for IT;

-All this negativity needs to be addressed; one study in the USA noticed that there is more innovation in private universities than in public ones;

-All negativity is more perception than reality;

-There is lack of both quantitative and qualitative data on technological innovation in HE; lots of ‘little stuff’ is happening but it is not always recorded, reported and measured;

-Goals and expectations are not clear

-So, what are we trying to achieve by using IT in teaching and learning?

-How would we know whether we have met our goals?

-Different stakeholders have different goals (administration, policy makers, instructors, educational developers, students, etc.)

-What is opinion of this group on these issues?

'''Comments from the group members:'''

-Linda Murphy-Boyer: Last transformation in teaching was in the 1970s; there was no much transformation since then; technology cannot change much without greater social change;

-Richard Pinet: We talked during last three days about lack of measurement tools, lack of data, etc. Do you work on set of procedures that would help us to change things?

-Tony Bates: It is difficult to measure ‘increased learning performance’. However, we can measure costs of IT – for example, if we move from Blackboard to Moodle, what would be costs. -We should be able to measure single things but very often we do not do that; this has to do with management, not lack of tools for measuring.

-Possible goals for e-learning:

1) increase access/flexibility

2) enhance quality of teaching

3) develop skills needed in the 21st century

4) improve cost-effectiveness

5) meet learning style of ‘millennials’

-Linda Murphy-Boyer: We should also add –increase students’ engagement – as one of the goals;

-Tony Bates: There are number of goals for using technology and we will talk about them;

'''Goal: Increase Access'''

-Distance education – 14% increase per annum for 7 years for online courses, 2% p.a. overall (Data: Sloan, ITC, UBC)

-Blended learning – we don’t know, there are no data;

-This is most successful e-learning goal

-US Department of education published the report with the conclusion that online learning has more success than face-to-face learning (link to the report)

'''Goal: Enhance Quality of Teaching'''

-Use of clickers, multiple screens, PowerPoint slides, etc.

-This is most common goal among instructors

-Note the terminology: ‘enhance’ NOT ‘improve’ – i.e. teaching is already ‘good’;

-We know have ‘mass’ higher education; we did not radically change our institutions to deal with larger number of students;

-Current model does NOT work;

-While some things still work well, but, for example, large lecture classes are not working well;

-Some research indicates that if you have class of 200 students, you are getting questions and answers from only 10-20 students during the term;

-We need to think about how people learn in general. To learn, they need to be engaged, active and contribute to the learning process;

'''Goal: Develop Skills for 21st Century'''

-Ensure students have intellectual and digital skills needed in their profession/occupation

-Skills for knowledge-based society (communication, independent learning, problem-solving, collaborative, digital literacy, entrepreneurial)

-Use of ICT in teaching essential

-Skills embedded in discipline

-Implications for assessment – need to assess ability to ‘know’ AND ‘do’

-Enable students to use digital media to demonstrate competence

-Thus, needs change in curriculum + teaching + methods + technology

-NOT doing well with this goal

'''Comments from the group members:'''

-Patrick Lyons: In large part agree, but there are also examples where technology is incorporated in discipline;

-Aldo Caputo: In number of programs at the University of Waterloo the curriculum review is ongoing and during this process people are becoming more aware of blended learning options. Also some disciplines are incorporating technology, especially professional programs; they look in tools such as e-portfolio and others;

-Wendy Hardman: faculty members often do not see the need to change anything in their teaching;

-Richard Pinet: Institutions are designed in such way that teaching and technologies are separate units;

'''Goal: Increase Cost-Effectiveness'''

-Can we do more or less?

-Reduce overheads; 53% of non-teaching costs at UBC (e.g. more buildings or more distributed learning?); for example – Alberta wants to enroll more students – how you want to do that; it must be strategic decision;

-Students services: better, quicker, cheaper with IT

-More students, less instructors?

'''Goal: Serve ‘Millennial’ Students'''

-Millennial students (digital native) (technology savvy, socially dependant, multitasking, short attention span, sense of entitlement = ‘it’s all about me”)

-Danger of stereotyping and false assumptions

-Research suggests digital divide is NOT necessary age-related;

'''What Would Innovation Look Like?'''

-Need new vision for teaching and learning in HE which should combine:

-Skills development embedded in content;

-Flexibility and access;

-Learner empowerment and differentiation;

-Integration of digital technology;

-Measures;

-Abolition of semester system requirements for full time attendance on campus;

-Courses/programs designed to accommodate face-to-face, blended and distance learning students

-Collaborative international online programs with foreign universities;

-Assessments by challenge, e-portfolios, peer assessment, project work

-Work study programs between industry and universities

-Full cost recovery model for lifelong learners; use this to hire new faculty;

-Team teaching;

'''Barriers to Change'''

-No incentives to change

-Faculty untrained in modern teaching methods

-Research more important than teaching

-Poor IT governance, poor management

-No vision for future

'''What Can Be Done to Encourage Innovation in E-Learning?'''

1) Federal level

-Link e-learning to national development/knowledge-based society

-Collect statistics/performance measures for use of ICTs in HE

-Earmarked funding for research into ICTs in HE, linked to productivity national standards for teaching in HE

2) Provincial level (in collaboration with institutions)

-Funding linked to innovation in teaching through annual plans

-Province-wide accreditation for teaching in HE (tenure requirements)

-Leadership in setting goals for ICTs

-Training programs for senior administrators

3) Institutional level

-Develop vision, strategies and performance measures for the integration of ICTs in teaching and learning (annual plan)

4) Individual level

-Get trained in teaching with technology

-Lobby

'''Question from the group''': Does Tony Bates has some advice for the group?

-Tony Bates: A broad cross institutional groups are good, but core place to make decisions n technology and teaching are individual departments; inside one department faculty members need to come together and make decisions n curriculum, teaching and technology. If we can link our group with academic departments, that would be really good.

2009 Day 3 Group Status

2009-08-14T19:52:58Z

Dpvukovic:

'''Discussion on Group Status'''

-Richard Pinet: Our options are to have overlap of representatives with Trevor’s team (COED – Council of Ontario Educational Developers); invitation to become a member of OCULL (Ontario Council for University Lifelong Learning); to stay independent, or to find some other way to constitute ourselves.

-Cheryl Dickie: There are two questions: a) whether to affiliate or not? b) with whom to affiliate?

-Aldo Caputo: There is no cost for us if we affiliate; there is no downside in exploring how the relationship works; suggest pursuing that;

-Sandy Hughes: The important question is where we will be more recognized; maybe we should have discussion on where will we be ‘bigger’ players;

-Richard Pinet: OCULL is framed around continuing education, is OCULL ‘envelope’ big enough for our group;

-Giulia Forsythe: Many presentations during the Summer Institute mentioned the importance of lifelong learning; e-learning is implicit in lifelong learning; it is not specifically mentioned, but it is there;

-Sandy Hughes: If this group wants to pursue this path, I would be surprised if OCULL would not embrace that; this might present opportunity to express ourselves;

-Aldo Caputo: I am concerned if we are not on COED group that they can give input without consulting our group;

-Richard Pinet: Could we do both (COED and OCULL)?

-Linda Murphy-Boyer: There is concern that our institutions will not allow our meetings if we are informal group; we can make a case for membership in both COED and OCULL;

-Cheryl Dickie: Aldo is right – we need to have some relationship with COED group;

-Linda Murphy-Boyer: If we request formal representations does this give us status?

-Richard Pinet: Yes; we are already OCULL members, so now we will just establish formal relationship;

-Giulia Forsythe: Do we need to have some executives or just representatives?

-Richard Pinet: We constitute ourselves in relationship to these groups; this way we will be formally seated on these two groups;

-Cheryl Dickie: By requesting formal relationship with these groups, these groups will need to ensure and recognize us; if we can achieve formal affiliation; we can work on justification and providing rationale for our institutions;

2009 Day 3 Group Status

2009-08-14T19:52:02Z

Dpvukovic:

'''Discussion on Group Status'''

Richard Pinet: Our options are to have overlap of representatives with Trevor’s team (COED – Council of Ontario Educational Developers); invitation to become a member of OCULL (Ontario Council for University Lifelong Learning); to stay independent, or to find some other way to constitute ourselves.

Cheryl Dickie: There are two questions: a) whether to affiliate or not? b) with whom to affiliate?

Aldo Caputo: There is no cost for us if we affiliate; there is no downside in exploring how the relationship works; suggest pursuing that;

Sandy Hughes: The important question is where we will be more recognized; maybe we should have discussion on where will we be ‘bigger’ players;

Richard Pinet: OCULL is framed around continuing education, is OCULL ‘envelope’ big enough for our group;

Giulia Forsythe: Many presentations during the Summer Institute mentioned the importance of lifelong learning; e-learning is implicit in lifelong learning; it is not specifically mentioned, but it is there;

Sandy Hughes: If this group wants to pursue this path, I would be surprised if OCULL would not embrace that; this might present opportunity to express ourselves;

Aldo Caputo: I am concerned if we are not on COED group that they can give input without consulting our group;

Richard Pinet: Could we do both (COED and OCULL)?

Linda Murphy-Boyer: There is concern that our institutions will not allow our meetings if we are informal group; we can make a case for membership in both COED and OCULL;

Cheryl Dickie: Aldo is right – we need to have some relationship with COED group;

Linda Murphy-Boyer: If we request formal representations does this give us status?

Richard Pinet: Yes; we are already OCULL members, so now we will just establish formal relationship;

Giulia Forsythe: Do we need to have some executives or just representatives?

Richard Pinet: We constitute ourselves in relationship to these groups; this way we will be formally seated on these two groups;

Cheryl Dickie: By requesting formal relationship with these groups, these groups will need to ensure and recognize us; if we can achieve formal affiliation; we can work on justification and providing rationale for our institutions;

2009 Day 3 Group Status

2009-08-14T19:49:53Z

Dpvukovic: New page: -Richard Pinet: Our options are: to have overlap of representatives with Trevor’s team (COED – Council of Ontario Educational Developers); invitation to become a member of OCULL (Ontar...

-Richard Pinet: Our options are: to have overlap of representatives with Trevor’s team (COED – Council of Ontario Educational Developers); invitation to become a member of OCULL (Ontario Council for University Lifelong Learning); to stay independent, or to find some other way to constitute ourselves.
-Cheryl Dickie: There are two questions: a) whether to affiliate or not? b) with whom to affiliate?
-Aldo Caputo: There is no cost for us if we affiliate; there is no downside in exploring how the relationship works; suggest pursuing that;
-Sandy Hughes: The important question is where we will be more recognized; maybe we should have discussion on where will we be ‘bigger’ players;
'''Discussion on Group Status'''

-Richard Pinet: OCULL is framed around continuing education, is OCULL ‘envelope’ big enough for our group;

- Giulia Forsythe: Many presentations during the Summer Institute mentioned the importance of lifelong learning; e-learning is implicit in lifelong learning; it is not specifically mentioned, but it is there;

-Sandy Hughes: If this group wants to pursue this path, I would be surprised if OCULL would not embrace that; this might present opportunity to express ourselves;

-Aldo Caputo: I am concerned if we are not on COED group that they can give input without consulting our group;

-Richard Pinet: Could we do both (COED and OCULL)?

-Linda Murphy-Boyer: There is concern that our institutions will not allow our meetings if we are informal group; we can make a case for membership in both COED and OCULL;

-Cheryl Dickie: Aldo is right – we need to have some relationship with COED group;

-Linda Murphy-Boyer: If we request formal representations does this give us status?

-Richard Pinet: Yes; we are already OCULL members, so now we will just establish formal relationship;

- Giulia Forsythe: Do we need to have some executives or just representatives?

-Richard Pinet: We constitute ourselves in relationship to these groups; this way we will be formally seated on these two groups;

-Cheryl Dickie: By requesting formal relationship with these groups, these groups will need to ensure and recognize us; if we can achieve formal affiliation; we can work on justification and providing rationale for our institutions;

There's help to be found at http://kumu.brocku.ca/help/Editing -->

2009 Day 3 Institute Highlights

2009-08-14T19:48:10Z

Dpvukovic:

'''Highlights'''

-Patrick Lyons: Affirmation that we are on the same boat, that we deal with similar challenges; it is also always good to learn what other institutions are doing.

-Dinner at 'Play'

2009 Day 3 Next Steps

2009-08-14T19:47:32Z

Dpvukovic:

Aldo Caputo - '''Motion:'''

The motion is to place formal representation on both OCULL and COED groups. This representatives are authorized to speak on behalf of OUCEL and responsible to report back to.

'''Carried unanimously by''':

1 - University of Waterloo

2 – University of Toronto

3 - Carleton University

4 - University of Guelph

5 - Wilfred Laurier University

6 – Laurentian University

7 - University of Western Ontario

8 - Lakehead University

9 - Brock University

10 –York University

11 -University of Ottawa

12 -UOIT

2009 Day 3 Next Steps

2009-08-14T19:47:01Z

Dpvukovic:

Aldo Caputo

'''Motion:'''

The motion is to place formal representation on both OCULL and COED groups. This representatives are authorized to speak on behalf of OUCEL and responsible to report back to.

'''Carried unanimously by''':

1 - University of Waterloo

2 – University of Toronto

3 - Carleton University

4 - University of Guelph

5 - Wilfred Laurier University

6 – Laurentian University

7 - University of Western Ontario

8 - Lakehead University

9 - Brock University

10 –York University

11 -University of Ottawa

12 -UOIT

2009 Day 3 Next Steps

2009-08-14T19:46:20Z

Dpvukovic: New page: Aldo Caputo '''Motion:''' The motion is to place formal representation on both OCULL and COED groups. This representatives are authorized to speak on behalf of OUCEL and responsible to ...

Aldo Caputo

'''Motion:'''

The motion is to place formal representation on both OCULL and COED groups. This representatives are authorized to speak on behalf of OUCEL and responsible to report back to.

'''Carried unanimously by''':

1 - University of Waterloo
2 – University of Toronto
3 - Carleton University
4 - University of Guelph
5 - Wilfred Laurier University
6 – Laurentian University
7 - University of Western Ontario
8 - Lakehead University
9 - Brock University
10 –York University
11 -University of Ottawa
12 -UOIT

Day 3 - August 12, 2009

2009-08-14T19:44:11Z

Dpvukovic:

*Continental Breakfast
*Overview
*[[2009 Day 3 9:15-10:00 Wendy Hardman, UOIT: Supporting First Generation Students with Online Resources]]
*[[2009 Day 3 10:00 Linda Murphy-Boyer, U of T: Engaging Faculty]]
*Break
*[[2009 Day 3 Tony Bates: Is E-Learning Failing Higher Education?]]
*Lunch (provided)
*[[2009 Day 3 Institute Highlights & Possible Projects]]
*[[2009 Day 3 Group Status]]
*[[2009 Day 3 Next Steps]]

[[Category:Summer Institute 2009]]

2009 Day 3 Group Status and Next Steps

2009-08-14T19:42:56Z

-Richard Pinet: Our options are: to have overlap of representatives with Trevor’s team (COED – Council of Ontario Educational Developers); invitation to become a member of OCULL (Ontario Council for University Lifelong Learning); to stay independent, or to find some other way to constitute ourselves.

-Cheryl Dickie: There are two questions: a) whether to affiliate or not? b) with whom to affiliate?

-Aldo Caputo: There is no cost for us if we affiliate; there is no downside in exploring how the relationship works; suggest pursuing that;

-Sandy Hughes: The important question is where we will be more recognized; maybe we should have discussion on where will we be ‘bigger’ players;

-Richard Pinet: OCULL is framed around continuing education, is OCULL ‘envelope’ big enough for our group;

- Giulia Forsythe: Many presentations during the Summer Institute mentioned the importance of lifelong learning; e-learning is implicit in lifelong learning; it is not specifically mentioned, but it is there;

-Sandy Hughes: If this group wants to pursue this path, I would be surprised if OCULL would not embrace that; this might present opportunity to express ourselves;

-Aldo Caputo: I am concerned if we are not on COED group that they can give input without consulting our group;

-Richard Pinet: Could we do both (COED and OCULL)?

-Linda Murphy-Boyer: There is concern that our institutions will not allow our meetings if we are informal group; we can make a case for membership in both COED and OCULL;

-Cheryl Dickie: Aldo is right – we need to have some relationship with COED group;

-Linda Murphy-Boyer: If we request formal representations does this give us status?

-Richard Pinet: Yes; we are already OCULL members, so now we will just establish formal relationship;

- Giulia Forsythe: Do we need to have some executives or just representatives?

-Richard Pinet: We constitute ourselves in relationship to these groups; this way we will be formally seated on these two groups;

-Cheryl Dickie: By requesting formal relationship with these groups, these groups will need to ensure and recognize us; if we can achieve formal affiliation; we can work on justification and providing rationale for our institutions;

Day 3 - August 12, 2009

2009-08-14T19:41:57Z

Dpvukovic:

*Continental Breakfast
*Overview
*[[2009 Day 3 9:15-10:00 Wendy Hardman, UOIT: Supporting First Generation Students with Online Resources]]
*[[2009 Day 3 10:00 Linda Murphy-Boyer, U of T: Engaging Faculty]]
*Break
*[[2009 Day 3 Tony Bates: Is E-Learning Failing Higher Education?]]
*Lunch (provided)
*[[2009 Day 3 Institute Highlights & Possible Projects]]
*[[2009 Day 3 Group Status and Next Steps ]]

[[Category:Summer Institute 2009]]

2009 Day 3 Institute Highlights

2009-08-14T19:41:19Z

Dpvukovic: New page: -Patrick Lyons: Affirmation that we are on the same boat, that we deal with similar challenges; it is also always good to learn what other institutions are doing. -Dinner at 'Play'

-Patrick Lyons: Affirmation that we are on the same boat, that we deal with similar challenges; it is also always good to learn what other institutions are doing.

-Dinner at 'Play'

2009 Day 3 Institute Highlights & Possible Projects

2009-08-14T19:40:54Z

-Patrick Lyons: Affirmation that we are on the same boat, that we deal with similar challenges; it is also always good to learn what other institutions are doing.

-Dinner at 'Play'

2009 Day 3 10:00 Linda Murphy-Boyer, U of T: Engaging Faculty

2009-08-14T19:39:41Z

Dpvukovic:

'''Discussion Continued: Engaging Faculty in Higher Level Use of LMSs '''(lead by
Linda Murphy-Boyer and Aldo Caputo)''' '''

'''Question # 1''': How to decide which technology to support?

-Aldo Caputo: The approach of the Distance Education at the University of Waterloo is that a starting point is LMS; everything that can be accomplished by using LMS is done through LMS; if an instructor needs some other tools (for example, wiki), the team works with instructor in implementing a particular technology; the team also helps with students; usually every new technology is tested through pilot projects, and depending on the pilot projects recommendations are made to the University;

-Richard Pinet: At University of Ottawa, the decision on which technology to support cannot be made by the Centre for e-Learning; this can be frustrating because sometime instructors come with requests but Richard’s team cannot support them;

-Linda Murphy-Boyer: It is sometimes very difficult to decide because there are so many tools; University of Toronto does not support centrally wikis and blogs; the lack of support is sometimes a reason why instructors use only basic tools in their teaching;

-Cheryl Dickie: it is also not good when the tech team supports too many tools, because sometimes that can cause problems with other issues and ‘normal’ work, such as security, updates, etc. At York University the tech support group help and support everyone who approach them;

-André Seguin: There are two issues here – a) how to choose the appropriate technology which goes with course requirements and professor’s abilities, and b) how to support professors with already developed courses, when they approach and ask for modifications, updates, changes; For how long should we support courses – one year or more?

-Cheryl Dickie: At York University that’s one of the reasons why not too many people decide to go with the advanced use of different tools; many courses have been taught by part time faculty and they often need to create a course in a short period of time – in such situations they often use only basic tools;

'''Question# 2''': What are the challenges that different institutions face with faculty members in adapting higher use of technology?

-Linda Murphy-Boyer: At the University of Toronto the survey had been contacted in order to explore how to encourage faculty members; the main problem at the University of Toronto is a limited storage space; because of that instructors cannot place online film clips, podcasts, animation and other materials, even though the survey results showed that there is interest among instructors to use them; also wiki and blogs are not centrally supported;

-Wendy Hardman: How Linda’s group handles copyright issues?

-Linda Murphy-Boyer: Copyright issues are handled by Media Services at the University of Toronto;

-Patrick Lyons asked if other institutions have limited storage space inside LMS for instructors; only Brock University has limits – 1 GB, other institutions do not have storage limits;

-Aldo Caputo: A huge issue is the future legislature on accessibility for persons and students with disabilities; they are looking into challenges and advantages that this legislature will pose for distance education; everyone will need to provide all information in different formats;

-André Seguin: This legislature can be disadvantage because we will need to re-visit and re-design the existing curses and make sure that every single course has accessible PDF files and similar;

-Cheryl Dickie: There are good resources on accessibility at [http://www.yorku.ca/webaccess/]

'''Question# 3''': Successes?

-Wendy Hardman: Developed/ built a learning object with one instructor at UOIT; can be seen at

2009 Day 3 10:00 Linda Murphy-Boyer, U of T: Engaging Faculty

2009-08-14T19:39:07Z

Dpvukovic: New page: '''Discussion Continued: Engaging Faculty in Higher Level Use of LMSs (lead by Linda Murphy-Boyer and Aldo Caputo) ''' '''Question # 1''': How to decide which technology to support?...

'''Discussion Continued: Engaging Faculty in Higher Level Use of LMSs (lead by
Linda Murphy-Boyer and Aldo Caputo) '''

'''Question # 1''': How to decide which technology to support?

-Aldo Caputo: The approach of the Distance Education at the University of Waterloo is that a starting point is LMS; everything that can be accomplished by using LMS is done through LMS; if an instructor needs some other tools (for example, wiki), the team works with instructor in implementing a particular technology; the team also helps with students; usually every new technology is tested through pilot projects, and depending on the pilot projects recommendations are made to the University;

-Richard Pinet: At University of Ottawa, the decision on which technology to support cannot be made by the Centre for e-Learning; this can be frustrating because sometime instructors come with requests but Richard’s team cannot support them;

-Linda Murphy-Boyer: It is sometimes very difficult to decide because there are so many tools; University of Toronto does not support centrally wikis and blogs; the lack of support is sometimes a reason why instructors use only basic tools in their teaching;

-Cheryl Dickie: it is also not good when the tech team supports too many tools, because sometimes that can cause problems with other issues and ‘normal’ work, such as security, updates, etc. At York University the tech support group help and support everyone who approach them;

-André Seguin: There are two issues here – a) how to choose the appropriate technology which goes with course requirements and professor’s abilities, and b) how to support professors with already developed courses, when they approach and ask for modifications, updates, changes; For how long should we support courses – one year or more?

-Cheryl Dickie: At York University that’s one of the reasons why not too many people decide to go with the advanced use of different tools; many courses have been taught by part time faculty and they often need to create a course in a short period of time – in such situations they often use only basic tools;

'''Question# 2''': What are the challenges that different institutions face with faculty members in adapting higher use of technology?

-Linda Murphy-Boyer: At the University of Toronto the survey had been contacted in order to explore how to encourage faculty members; the main problem at the University of Toronto is a limited storage space; because of that instructors cannot place online film clips, podcasts, animation and other materials, even though the survey results showed that there is interest among instructors to use them; also wiki and blogs are not centrally supported;

-Wendy Hardman: How Linda’s group handles copyright issues?

-Linda Murphy-Boyer: Copyright issues are handled by Media Services at the University of Toronto;

-Patrick Lyons asked if other institutions have limited storage space inside LMS for instructors; only Brock University has limits – 1 GB, other institutions do not have storage limits;

-Aldo Caputo: A huge issue is the future legislature on accessibility for persons and students with disabilities; they are looking into challenges and advantages that this legislature will pose for distance education; everyone will need to provide all information in different formats;

-André Seguin: This legislature can be disadvantage because we will need to re-visit and re-design the existing curses and make sure that every single course has accessible PDF files and similar;

-Cheryl Dickie: There are good resources on accessibility at [http://www.yorku.ca/webaccess/]

'''Question# 3''': Successes?

-Wendy Hardman: Developed/ built a learning object with one instructor at UOIT; can be seen at

2009 Day 3 9:15-10:00 Wendy Hardman, UOIT: Supporting First Generation Students with Online Resources

2009-08-14T19:36:06Z

Dpvukovic:

'''Wendy Hardman, UOIT – “Supporting First generation Students with Online
'''Resources”''' '''

-We define first generation students as those whose parents did not attend post-secondary education in Canada

- First generation students are less likely to enroll, can be discouraged easily and have higher dropout rate at four-year programs (they drop out in first two years)

- First generation students less likely take a rigorous high school programs

-As first generation students often have difficulties with writing and Math, it is important to provide them with support resources in those areas

-It is very important for first generation students to understand both explicit and implicit expectations of university requirements

-Possible influences significant to first generation students:

a) Distance from institution – there is no literature which explores this factor, so we don’t know;

b) Being female – literature suggest that female students (first generation) are less likely to persist in their programs;

Brian Campbell disagrees with this, his own research shows that male students are less successful in HE because male working culture (e.g. ‘does not pay to have a degree’) doesn’t support their success in university settings;

c) Number of siblings – There is no data and/or literature exploring this factor;

d) Income – yes;

e) Math background – yes;

f) Size of university – First generation students tend to choose larger universities

g) More mature (22+) – Yes, they tend to be older (24+)

-There is also no literature on background culture and first generation students

-What is important for first generation students to succeed?

a) doing academically well and b) having social connections

-There is an interesting article on how students’ perception on whether they will be successful or not influence their academic performance;

-UOIT approach: provide online resources for first generation students + provide information in a variety of ways

-Topics vs. Faculty

- Additional resources added throughout the term

- Social aspect (optional)

- Site designed influenced by web sites that students like to visit (Facebook, Wikipedia)

- Students’ input was very important while building the site (focus groups, surveys)

- Accessibility was also important factor in building the site

- There are five ways to access important information on this site; website is expandable, usage tracking is conducted by
Google analytics

'''Discussion'''

-Some moving object on the site (a car, birds, a person) may be distracting

-These objects have a purpose – it grabs students’ attention so they can click on other objects (faculty buildings,
classrooms, etc.) to further explore the site; students were heavily involved in making the site and they are not distracted by moving objects;

-Marketing plan: posters, new students’ orientation

-Even though this website was built for students already attending UOIT, it will be publicly available on the web for everyone
interested;

-Social networking side is also included; students are encouraged to submit their pieces; the website also has lots of learning objects, games, chat, etc.

2009 Day 3 Tony Bates: Is E-Learning Failing Higher Education?

2009-08-14T17:46:02Z

Dpvukovic:

[[Media:UOttawa failing.ppt|Presentation PPT]]

-CCL Report on the state of e-learning in Canada suggested that there is no progress on e-learning in last 10 years. This presentation is a result of the author unhappiness with that report.

-Questions that need to be asked: What are the indicators of failure (or success) in e-learning? What are expectations and goals for e-learning? What would innovation looks like? What are barriers to innovation? What can be done to encourage innovation?

-Lack of return on IT investment; costs of HE continue to rise (EU, U.S.)

-Lack of innovation/transformation of education (WEF, Sagra, CCL, Anderson)

-Technology ‘absorbed’ into traditional model (Tirney & Heinkel)

-There are lots of individual innovations, but there is no significant change in the system; one study examined policies for IT in five EU universities and concluded that most institutions do not have strategies, objectives, performance measures for IT;

-All this negativity needs to be addressed; one study in the USA noticed that there is more innovation in private universities than in public ones;

-All negativity is more perception than reality;

-There is lack of both quantitative and qualitative data on technological innovation in HE; lots of ‘little stuff’ is happening but it is not always recorded, reported and measured;

-Goals and expectations are not clear

-So, what are we trying to achieve by using IT in teaching and learning?

-How would we know whether we have met our goals?

-Different stakeholders have different goals (administration, policy makers, instructors, educational developers, students, etc.)

-What is opinion of this group on these issues?

'''Comments from the group members:'''

-Linda Murphy-Boyer: Last transformation in teaching was in the 1970s; there was no much transformation since then; technology cannot change much without greater social change;

-Richard Pinet: We talked during last three days about lack of measurement tools, lack of data, etc. Do you work on set of procedures that would help us to change things?

-Tony Bates: It is difficult to measure ‘increased learning performance’. However, we can measure costs of IT – for example, if we move from Blackboard to Moodle, what would be costs. -We should be able to measure single things but very often we do not do that; this has to do with management, not lack of tools for measuring.

-Possible goals for e-learning:

1) increase access/flexibility

2) enhance quality of teaching

3) develop skills needed in the 21st century

4) improve cost-effectiveness

5) meet learning style of ‘millennials’

-Linda Murphy-Boyer: We should also add –increase students’ engagement – as one of the goals;

-Tony Bates: There are number of goals for using technology and we will talk about them;

'''Goal: Increase Access'''

-Distance education – 14% increase per annum for 7 years for online courses, 2% p.a. overall (Data: Sloan, ITC, UBC)

-Blended learning – we don’t know, there are no data;

-This is most successful e-learning goal

-US Department of education published the report with the conclusion that online learning has more success than face-to-face learning (link to the report)

'''Goal: Enhance Quality of Teaching'''

-Use of clickers, multiple screens, PowerPoint slides, etc.

-This is most common goal among instructors

-Note the terminology: ‘enhance’ NOT ‘improve’ – i.e. teaching is already ‘good’;

-We know have ‘mass’ higher education; we did not radically change our institutions to deal with larger number of students;

-Current model does NOT work;

-While some things still work well, but, for example, large lecture classes are not working well;

-Some research indicates that if you have class of 200 students, you are getting questions and answers from only 10-20 students during the term;

-We need to think about how people learn in general. To learn, they need to be engaged, active and contribute to the learning process;

'''Goal: Develop Skills for 21st Century'''

-Ensure students have intellectual and digital skills needed in their profession/occupation

-Skills for knowledge-based society (communication, independent learning, problem-solving, collaborative, digital literacy, entrepreneurial)

-Use of ICT in teaching essential

-Skills embedded in discipline

-Implications for assessment – need to assess ability to ‘know’ AND ‘do’

-Enable students to use digital media to demonstrate competence

-Thus, needs change in curriculum + teaching + methods + technology

-NOT doing well with this goal

'''Comments from the group members:'''

-Patrick Lyons: In large part agree, but there are also examples where technology is incorporated in discipline;

-Aldo Caputo: In number of programs at the University of Waterloo the curriculum review is ongoing and during this process people are becoming more aware of blended learning options. Also some disciplines are incorporating technology, especially professional programs; they look in tools such as e-portfolio and others;

-Wendy Hardman: faculty members often do not see the need to change anything in their teaching;

-Richard Pinet: Institutions are designed in such way that teaching and technologies are separate units;

'''Goal: Increase Cost-Effectiveness'''

-Can we do more or less?

-Reduce overheads; 53% of non-teaching costs at UBC (e.g. more buildings or more distributed learning?); for example – Alberta wants to enroll more students – how you want to do that; it must be strategic decision;

-Students services: better, quicker, cheaper with IT

-More students, less instructors?

'''Goal: Serve ‘Millennial’ Students'''

-Millennial students (digital native) (technology savvy, socially dependant, multitasking, short attention span, sense of entitlement = ‘it’s all about me”)

-Danger of stereotyping and false assumptions

-Research suggests digital divide is NOT necessary age-related;

'''What Would Innovation Look Like?'''

-Need new vision for teaching and learning in HE which should combine:

-Skills development embedded in content;

-Flexibility and access;

-Learner empowerment and differentiation;

-Integration of digital technology;

-Measures;

-Abolition of semester system requirements for full time attendance on campus;

-Courses/programs designed to accommodate face-to-face, blended and distance learning students

-Collaborative international online programs with foreign universities;

-Assessments by challenge, e-portfolios, peer assessment, project work

-Work study programs between industry and universities

-Full cost recovery model for lifelong learners; use this to hire new faculty;

-Team teaching;

'''Barriers to Change'''

-No incentives to change

-Faculty untrained in modern teaching methods

-Research more important than teaching

-Poor IT governance, poor management

-No vision for future

'''What Can Be Done to Encourage Innovation in E-Learning?'''

1) Federal level

-Link e-learning to national development/knowledge-based society

-Collect statistics/performance measures for use of ICTs in HE

-Earmarked funding for research into ICTs in HE, linked to productivity national standards for teaching in HE

2) Provincial level (in collaboration with institutions)

-Funding linked to innovation in teaching through annual plans

-Province-wide accreditation for teaching in HE (tenure requirements)

-Leadership in setting goals for ICTs

-Training programs for senior administrators

3) Institutional level

-Develop vision, strategies and performance measures for the integration of ICTs in teaching and learning (annual plan)

4) Individual level

-Get trained in teaching with technology

-Lobby

-Question from the group: Does Tony Bates has some advice for the group?

-Tony Bates: A broad cross institutional groups are good, but core place to make decisions n technology and teaching are individual departments; inside one department faculty members need to come together and make decisions n curriculum, teaching and technology. If we can link our group with academic departments, that would be really good.

2009 Day 3 Tony Bates: Is E-Learning Failing Higher Education?

2009-08-14T17:40:01Z

Dpvukovic:

[[Media:UOttawa failing.ppt|Presentation PPT]]

State of e-Learning in Canada

2009-08-14T17:38:58Z

Dpvukovic:

Complete Report *http://www.ccl-cca.ca/

[[Media:Day_2.pdf|Presentation PDF]]

'''Erin Mills, CCL and Philip Abrami, Concordia University – “State of E-Learning in Canada” (presentation and discussion)'''

-Motivation for the study, which was funded by the Government, was to understand challenges and benefits of e-learning

-E-learning can offer advantages, flexibility, access and delivery potential

-There is insufficient planning or vision for the future

-The research about the impact of technology on student learning is contradictory

-There is lack of evidence based empirical longitudinal studies

-There is need to articulate a shared vision for the development and implementation of joint action plan

-There is need to fill gap in the research

-Data on access, quality, cost, and outcomes needed

-There are no benchmarks for e-learning

-Data gaps: enrolment (participation, barriers), outcomes (impact, motivation, effectiveness), return on investment (cost), quality (provisions, expenditures, labour market, outcomes)

-Even data we have are limited and they are not pan-Canadian (such as internet usage, employee training, computers available, etc.)

-Philip Abrami: My review included articles from scholarly journals but also from newspapers, professional organizations, etc.
The amount of empirical research is low; was surprised how few studies of this type are out thee

-We lack strong pan-Canadian evidence on effectiveness of e-learning

-CCL report got lots of responses from different stakeholders; there is a call for more reports; there are lots of positive reviews;

-Some criticism, but it is good that so many academics responded to the report so a dialogue started

-It is not a bad thing that some of conclusions from the previous report are echoed in this one

-We need to be concerned – a federal document “Knowledge matters” has been removed from the government’s site and archived – this says something about directions of the government

-Statistics Canada says that if we raise a literacy level by 1%, this would lead to economic benefits of 18.4 billion per year; this is important;

-There are no large initiatives in research on e-learning, it is impossible to do pan-Canadian research study

-In contrast, the US just announced that each successful grant for developing a new technique which would contribute to new reading comprehension strategies in schools will be awarded $ 20 million; compare this with Canada’s $20,000

-Karen Maki: Statistics Canada does not have participation data on continuous and distance education

-There is complexity in collecting data

-The CCL report emphasizes the importance of pan-Canadian collaboration

-Academics and researchers need to work together with practitioners and policy makers

-Philip Abrami: We know some things – a successful use of technology needs to be supported; teachers need to integrate it into teaching and not just add it; teachers need to believe in student centered learning: motivation for adult learners

-What we need is to synthesize all this and use data collectively

- We need to a) identify needs; b) build a tool that supports those needs and teachers and learners; c) show that the tool accomplished (or not) this goal

-If we collaborate, we can accomplish this

-Brian Campbell: We can collaborate between institutions and establish a network of researchers

-Philip Abrami: Students efforts need to be linked to their outcomes

-There are excellent motivational designers out there

-Evidence based design principles are necessary

-Brian Campbell: Our group can develop partnership with researchers and apply for funding to do studies – HEQCO, etc.

File:Day 2.pdf

2009-08-14T17:37:41Z

Dpvukovic:

2009 Day 1 3:15-4:15 Tim Willett : Total Pain Project

2009-08-14T17:35:35Z

Dpvukovic:

[[Media:Day_1.pdf|PDF of Presentation]]

-This project received an award;

-The idea of collaboration is about sharing, knowledge building, and interactions, of coming to consensus and about respect among different roles;

-Different persons come with different levels of knowledge, different point of views, and from different backgrounds, and they need to work together toward the common goal;

-Activity theory – (‘knot working”) – a worldview that each person brings to the table sometimes produce tensions; tensions force us to reconsider our points of view;

-Learning occurs when this tension exists and reconsideration takes place;

-In order to enable collaborative learning, we need to create a knot – some problem that will create tension; the ‘knot’ is always very deliberately designed;

-Collaborative learning involves: participants (it can be a homogeneous group or not); a knot (a central issue), environment where learning will take place; structure;

-The ‘Total pain project’ was designed for medical students; in medicine – it is important that different professionals collaborate;

-How do we present a patient? It was decided to use a narrative from the patient’s perspective; this patient (Neil) has multiple problems, he is also politically hot patient (gay patient who is suffering from cancer);

-A tool that was built has different modules and is written in Java; students can visit Neil; they can have synchronous discussion, there is an electronic medical record, resources and progress notes (similar to wiki; different people can add new information);

-At the end – students need to produce a comprehensive case plan – this is done synchronously in the last session, which is face-to-face and it is 3 hours long;

-Knot in this exercise is Neil, the patient

-Students cannot go through all places in a time limit; they need to prioritize but also to understand how their different roles (a doctor, a nurse, a social worker) intersect;

2009 Day 1 3:15-4:15 Tim Willett : Total Pain Project

2009-08-14T17:34:55Z

Dpvukovic:

[[Day_1.pdf|PDF of Presentation]]

-This project received an award;

-The idea of collaboration is about sharing, knowledge building, and interactions, of coming to consensus and about respect among different roles;

-Different persons come with different levels of knowledge, different point of views, and from different backgrounds, and they need to work together toward the common goal;

-Activity theory – (‘knot working”) – a worldview that each person brings to the table sometimes produce tensions; tensions force us to reconsider our points of view;

-Learning occurs when this tension exists and reconsideration takes place;

-In order to enable collaborative learning, we need to create a knot – some problem that will create tension; the ‘knot’ is always very deliberately designed;

-Collaborative learning involves: participants (it can be a homogeneous group or not); a knot (a central issue), environment where learning will take place; structure;

-The ‘Total pain project’ was designed for medical students; in medicine – it is important that different professionals collaborate;

-How do we present a patient? It was decided to use a narrative from the patient’s perspective; this patient (Neil) has multiple problems, he is also politically hot patient (gay patient who is suffering from cancer);

-A tool that was built has different modules and is written in Java; students can visit Neil; they can have synchronous discussion, there is an electronic medical record, resources and progress notes (similar to wiki; different people can add new information);

-At the end – students need to produce a comprehensive case plan – this is done synchronously in the last session, which is face-to-face and it is 3 hours long;

-Knot in this exercise is Neil, the patient

-Students cannot go through all places in a time limit; they need to prioritize but also to understand how their different roles (a doctor, a nurse, a social worker) intersect;

File:Day 1.pdf

2009-08-14T17:33:10Z

Dpvukovic:

2009 Day 3 Tony Bates: Is E-Learning Failing Higher Education?

2009-08-14T17:31:32Z

Dpvukovic: New page:  Media:UOttawa failing.ppt

[[Media:UOttawa failing.ppt]]

File:UOttawa failing.ppt

2009-08-14T17:30:37Z

Dpvukovic:

2009 Day 1 1:30-1:45 Welcome & Overview

2009-08-14T17:00:13Z

Dpvukovic: New page: Welcome and overview of the Institute by Richard Pinet and Patrick Lyons

Welcome and overview of the Institute by Richard Pinet and Patrick Lyons

State of e-Learning in Canada

2009-08-14T16:57:04Z

Dpvukovic:

*http://www.ccl-cca.ca/

'''Erin Mills, CCL and Philip Abrami, Concordia University – “State of E-Learning in Canada” (presentation and discussion)'''

-Motivation for the study, which was funded by the Government, was to understand challenges and benefits of e-learning

-E-learning can offer advantages, flexibility, access and delivery potential

-There is insufficient planning or vision for the future

-The research about the impact of technology on student learning is contradictory

-There is lack of evidence based empirical longitudinal studies

-There is need to articulate a shared vision for the development and implementation of joint action plan

-There is need to fill gap in the research

-Data on access, quality, cost, and outcomes needed

-There are no benchmarks for e-learning

-Data gaps: enrolment (participation, barriers), outcomes (impact, motivation, effectiveness), return on investment (cost), quality (provisions, expenditures, labour market, outcomes)

-Even data we have are limited and they are not pan-Canadian (such as internet usage, employee training, computers available, etc.)

-Philip Abrami: My review included articles from scholarly journals but also from newspapers, professional organizations, etc.
The amount of empirical research is low; was surprised how few studies of this type are out thee

-We lack strong pan-Canadian evidence on effectiveness of e-learning

-CCL report got lots of responses from different stakeholders; there is a call for more reports; there are lots of positive reviews;

-Some criticism, but it is good that so many academics responded to the report so a dialogue started

-It is not a bad thing that some of conclusions from the previous report are echoed in this one

-We need to be concerned – a federal document “Knowledge matters” has been removed from the government’s site and archived – this says something about directions of the government

-Statistics Canada says that if we raise a literacy level by 1%, this would lead to economic benefits of 18.4 billion per year; this is important;

-There are no large initiatives in research on e-learning, it is impossible to do pan-Canadian research study

-In contrast, the US just announced that each successful grant for developing a new technique which would contribute to new reading comprehension strategies in schools will be awarded $ 20 million; compare this with Canada’s $20,000

-Karen Maki: Statistics Canada does not have participation data on continuous and distance education

-There is complexity in collecting data

-The CCL report emphasizes the importance of pan-Canadian collaboration

-Academics and researchers need to work together with practitioners and policy makers

-Philip Abrami: We know some things – a successful use of technology needs to be supported; teachers need to integrate it into teaching and not just add it; teachers need to believe in student centered learning: motivation for adult learners

-What we need is to synthesize all this and use data collectively

- We need to a) identify needs; b) build a tool that supports those needs and teachers and learners; c) show that the tool accomplished (or not) this goal

-If we collaborate, we can accomplish this

-Brian Campbell: We can collaborate between institutions and establish a network of researchers

-Philip Abrami: Students efforts need to be linked to their outcomes

-There are excellent motivational designers out there

-Evidence based design principles are necessary

-Brian Campbell: Our group can develop partnership with researchers and apply for funding to do studies – HEQCO, etc.

Day 2 - August 11, 2009

2009-08-14T16:56:21Z

Dpvukovic:

Tuesday Aug 11

Continental Breakfast

2009 Day2 9:15-10:15 Andre Seguin, University of Ottawa: E-Portfolio
2009 Day2 10:15-11 Brian Campbell, UOIT: Participatory Technologies
2009 Day2 Discussion: Engaging faculty in higher level use of LMS’s (lead by Linda Murphy-Boyer and Aldo Caputo)
*Lunch (provided)
==Birds of a Feather (see topics below)==
[[State of e-Learning in Canada]]
**Erin Mills, CCL & Dr. Philip Abrami, Concordia University
**Respondents : Giulia Forsythe, Cheryl Dickie
*[[Bill Muirhead, UOIT: Budget Cutbacks-Friend or Foe?]]
*[[Birds of a Feather Reports]]
*Wrap-up
*[[Group Dinner (PLAY: Food and Wine, York St.]]

[[Category:Summer Institute 2009]]

Dispelling Myths of the Net Generation

2009-08-14T16:55:08Z

Dpvukovic: New page: Linda Murphy-Boyer: The group talked about the Net generation and myths about it; there was a report from Australia which argues that students do not know how to use different tools in edu...

Linda Murphy-Boyer: The group talked about the Net generation and myths about it; there was a report from Australia which argues that students do not know how to use different tools in educational settings even though they use them in social settings;

-There is no digital divide in terms of age;

-Students do not always want professors to visit social media;

-There are overlaps – some instructors use Twitter for teaching very successfully

-It is always about how you use a tool;

Brian Campbell: It is true that today’s university students are different; but it is also something else – today we have shift to mass higher education, and that’s a problem.

LMS/CMS: a) supporting b) investigating/changing: Patrick Lyons

2009-08-14T16:54:16Z

Dpvukovic: New page: The group has been talking about Carleton experience with LMS committee and the process of evaluating LMS products; we talked about setting expectations both at the committee but also at t...

The group has been talking about Carleton experience with LMS committee and the process of evaluating LMS products; we talked about setting expectations both at the committee but also at the University by inviting users of different LMS at other universities to talk directly about strengths and weaknesses of LMS to the committee; it was much better than starting with vendors because the discussion was more open about each of the LMS.

Birds of a Feather Reports

2009-08-14T16:53:55Z

Dpvukovic:

*[[LMS/CMS: a) supporting b) investigating/changing: Patrick Lyons]]
*[[Dispelling Myths of the Net Generation]]

Bill Muirhead, UOIT: Budget Cutbacks-Friend or Foe?

2009-08-14T16:53:05Z

Dpvukovic:

-Currently it is difficult in respect to budget, but historically when there were economic problems, education was more important

-E-learning – there is an opportunity to think differently

-We can think about e-learning as efficiency model

-Majority of institutions have already invested in some infrastructure

-How we might make e-learning more efficient?

-We can centralize services – to use as a group resources hosted by one of the institutions instead to invest in the same service at our own institution

-The idea is that different institutions host different applications, which then can be used by the entire group

-This will be a series of organizations that are loosely affiliated but funded from the central source (the Government)

-We need to get over the issue of territoriality

-We can invest in cloud computing

-We can share course content and place content in repository

-We need to find a mechanism to collaborate and share; for examples we can look into Campus BS, Alberta and a little bit U of Manitoba

-This group needs to ask: what are 3 things that we can do together, things that need to be accomplished despite budget cuts

-We need to see where are those areas that we want to collaborate

-Part of solution should be what we can do together, can we put such structure in place

-Aldo Caputo: One example of collaboration – co-developing a distance education course for the Department of Slavonic languages between U of Waterloo and U of BC, which will be taught by 2 professors at 2 institutions

-Brian Campbell: We can present some ideas to the government, but should we become more formalized group; this group is unique because more widely can seek solutions for economic and generational changes

-Wendy Hardman: Another example of collaboration – UOIT built a learning object for community help; now other institutions are interested and can share this learning object

-Linda Murphy-Boyer: Intellectual property concerns can be barrier for sharing content

-Bill Muirhead: What we as a group can do to involve our provosts, VPs, etc.? We can start a discussion on different issues, including the idea that the content developed by public money should be publicly shared

-We can also offer money for developing content, but oblige a content developer to license it through Creative commons so it is available to other people

-Can we use digital economy, which is strategy of the government as a leverage point to make Campus Ontario?

-Because sometimes content is very specific to a particular course and it is difficult to re-use it, one of the criteria for content developers can be that content is general enough, + the requirement that at least 2 institutions collaborate in developing it;

-Our role is not to fill the infrastructure but to start a dialogue and lobbying

-University of Western Ontario event on October 22, 2009 – there will be presentation on e-learning as industrial model; this may be of interest to members of our group

Bill Muirhead, UOIT: Budget Cutbacks-Friend or Foe?

2009-08-14T16:52:41Z

Dpvukovic:

''''''Bill Muirhead, UOIT – “Budget Cutbacks – Friend or Foe”''' '''

-Currently it is difficult in respect to budget, but historically when there were economic problems, education was more important

-E-learning – there is an opportunity to think differently

-We can think about e-learning as efficiency model

-Majority of institutions have already invested in some infrastructure

-How we might make e-learning more efficient?

-We can centralize services – to use as a group resources hosted by one of the institutions instead to invest in the same service at our own institution

-The idea is that different institutions host different applications, which then can be used by the entire group

-This will be a series of organizations that are loosely affiliated but funded from the central source (the Government)

-We need to get over the issue of territoriality

-We can invest in cloud computing

-We can share course content and place content in repository

-We need to find a mechanism to collaborate and share; for examples we can look into Campus BS, Alberta and a little bit U of Manitoba

-This group needs to ask: what are 3 things that we can do together, things that need to be accomplished despite budget cuts

-We need to see where are those areas that we want to collaborate

-Part of solution should be what we can do together, can we put such structure in place

-Aldo Caputo: One example of collaboration – co-developing a distance education course for the Department of Slavonic languages between U of Waterloo and U of BC, which will be taught by 2 professors at 2 institutions

-Brian Campbell: We can present some ideas to the government, but should we become more formalized group; this group is unique because more widely can seek solutions for economic and generational changes

-Wendy Hardman: Another example of collaboration – UOIT built a learning object for community help; now other institutions are interested and can share this learning object

-Linda Murphy-Boyer: Intellectual property concerns can be barrier for sharing content

-Bill Muirhead: What we as a group can do to involve our provosts, VPs, etc.? We can start a discussion on different issues, including the idea that the content developed by public money should be publicly shared

-We can also offer money for developing content, but oblige a content developer to license it through Creative commons so it is available to other people

-Can we use digital economy, which is strategy of the government as a leverage point to make Campus Ontario?

-Because sometimes content is very specific to a particular course and it is difficult to re-use it, one of the criteria for content developers can be that content is general enough, + the requirement that at least 2 institutions collaborate in developing it;

-Our role is not to fill the infrastructure but to start a dialogue and lobbying

-University of Western Ontario event on October 22, 2009 – there will be presentation on e-learning as industrial model; this may be of interest to members of our group

Bill Muirhead, UOIT: Budget Cutbacks-Friend or Foe?

2009-08-14T16:51:15Z

Dpvukovic: New page: '''Bill Muirhead, UOIT – “Budget Cutbacks – Friend or Foe”''' -Currently it is difficult in respect to budget, but historically when there were economic problems, education...

'''Bill Muirhead, UOIT – “Budget Cutbacks – Friend or Foe”'''

-Currently it is difficult in respect to budget, but historically when there were economic problems, education was more important
-E-learning – there is an opportunity to think differently
-We can think about e-learning as efficiency model
-Majority of institutions have already invested in some infrastructure
-How we might make e-learning more efficient?
-We can centralize services – to use as a group resources hosted by one of the institutions instead to invest in the same service at our own institution
-The idea is that different institutions host different applications, which then can be used by the entire group
-This will be a series of organizations that are loosely affiliated but funded from the central source (the Government)
-We need to get over the issue of territoriality
-We can invest in cloud computing
-We can share course content and place content in repository
-we need to find a mechanism to collaborate and share; for examples we can look into Campus BS, Alberta and a little bit U of Manitoba
-This group needs to ask: what are 3 things that we can do together, things that need to be accomplished despite budget cuts
-We need to see where are those areas that we want to collaborate
-Part of solution should be what we can do together, can we put such structure in place
-Aldo Caputo: One example of collaboration – co-developing a distance education course for the Department of Slavonic languages between U of Waterloo and U of BC, which will be taught by 2 professors at 2 institutions
-Brian Campbell: We can present some ideas to the government, but should we become more formalized group; this group is unique because more widely can seek solutions for economic and generational changes
-Wendy Hardman: Another example of collaboration – UOIT built a learning object for community help; now other institutions are interested and can share this learning object
-Linda Murphy-Boyer: Intellectual property concerns can be barrier for sharing content
-Bill Muirhead: What we as a group can do to involve our provosts, VPs, etc.? We can start a discussion on different issues, including the idea that the content developed by public money should be publicly shared
-We can also offer money for developing content, but oblige a content developer to license it through Creative commons so it is available to other people
-Can we use digital economy, which is strategy of the government as a leverage point to make Campus Ontario?
-Because sometimes content is very specific to a particular course and it is difficult to re-use it, one of the criteria for content developers can be that content is general enough, + the requirement that at least 2 institutions collaborate in developing it;
-Our role is not to fill the infrastructure but to start a dialogue and lobbying
-University of Western Ontario event on October 22, 2009 – there will be presentation on e-learning as industrial model; this may be of interest to members of our group

State of e-Learning in Canada

2009-08-14T16:49:06Z

Dpvukovic:

*http://www.ccl-cca.ca/

'''Erin Mills, CCL and Philip Abrami, Concordia University – “State of E-Learning in Canada”'''

-Motivation for the study, which was funded by the Government, was to understand challenges and benefits of e-learning

-E-learning can offer advantages, flexibility, access and delivery potential

-There is insufficient planning or vision for the future

-The research about the impact of technology on student learning is contradictory

-There is lack of evidence based empirical longitudinal studies

-There is need to articulate a shared vision for the development and implementation of joint action plan

-There is need to fill gap in the research

-Data on access, quality, cost, and outcomes needed

-There are no benchmarks for e-learning

-Data gaps: enrolment (participation, barriers), outcomes (impact, motivation, effectiveness), return on investment (cost), quality (provisions, expenditures, labour market, outcomes)

-Even data we have are limited and they are not pan-Canadian (such as internet usage, employee training, computers available, etc.)

-Philip Abrami: My review included articles from scholarly journals but also from newspapers, professional organizations, etc.
The amount of empirical research is low; was surprised how few studies of this type are out thee

-We lack strong pan-Canadian evidence on effectiveness of e-learning

-CCL report got lots of responses from different stakeholders; there is a call for more reports; there are lots of positive reviews;

-Some criticism, but it is good that so many academics responded to the report so a dialogue started

-It is not a bad thing that some of conclusions from the previous report are echoed in this one

-We need to be concerned – a federal document “Knowledge matters” has been removed from the government’s site and archived – this says something about directions of the government

-Statistics Canada says that if we raise a literacy level by 1%, this would lead to economic benefits of 18.4 billion per year; this is important;

-There are no large initiatives in research on e-learning, it is impossible to do pan-Canadian research study

-In contrast, the US just announced that each successful grant for developing a new technique which would contribute to new reading comprehension strategies in schools will be awarded $ 20 million; compare this with Canada’s $20,000

-Karen Maki: Statistics Canada does not have participation data on continuous and distance education

-There is complexity in collecting data

-The CCL report emphasizes the importance of pan-Canadian collaboration

-Academics and researchers need to work together with practitioners and policy makers

-Philip Abrami: We know some things – a successful use of technology needs to be supported; teachers need to integrate it into teaching and not just add it; teachers need to believe in student centered learning: motivation for adult learners

-What we need is to synthesize all this and use data collectively

- We need to a) identify needs; b) build a tool that supports those needs and teachers and learners; c) show that the tool accomplished (or not) this goal

-If we collaborate, we can accomplish this

-Brian Campbell: We can collaborate between institutions and establish a network of researchers

-Philip Abrami: Students efforts need to be linked to their outcomes

-There are excellent motivational designers out there

-Evidence based design principles are necessary

-Brian Campbell: Our group can develop partnership with researchers and apply for funding to do studies – HEQCO, etc.

University of Western Ontario 2009 Update

2009-08-14T16:45:28Z

Dpvukovic:

E-learning activity is distributed across campus with activity in multiple places. In Distance Studies we currently offer 100 -125 courses per term with all being offered online.

DS no longer offers course in any other mode. We develop / redevelop about 20 courses per year with budget constraints limiting this number. The demand is growing, from instructors and department, for more; however, dollars and staff resources are limits.

The ITRC ( Instructional Technology Resource Centre) has created short manualettes of the key tools in our LMS [http://www.uwo.ca/its/itrc/resources.html] and instructional videos [http://webct.uwo.ca/videos/instructionalVideos.html] Check them out. I think they are very good, and perhaps you might do something similar at your institution.

We have a Wimba service that is accessed through Webct so we can construct course instructional material that is truly synchronous. This service was originally setup, in part, to assist with the satellite campus of Schulich School of Medicine at the University of Windsor.

I think the biggest challenge will be related to finding the needed resources ($) to grow e-learning across campus. As Bill Muirhead has suggested this problem can also focus on many of the benefits the e-learning can provide in these financially difficult times.

University of Western Ontario 2009 Update

2009-08-14T16:45:06Z

Dpvukovic:

<E-learning activity is distributed across campus with activity in multiple places. In Distance Studies we currently offer 100 -125 courses per term with all being offered online.

DS no longer offers course in any other mode. We develop / redevelop about 20 courses per year with budget constraints limiting this number. The demand is growing, from instructors and department, for more; however, dollars and staff resources are limits.

The ITRC ( Instructional Technology Resource Centre) has created short manualettes of the key tools in our LMS [http://www.uwo.ca/its/itrc/resources.html] and instructional videos [http://webct.uwo.ca/videos/instructionalVideos.html] Check them out. I think they are very good, and perhaps you might do something similar at your institution.

We have a Wimba service that is accessed through Webct so we can construct course instructional material that is truly synchronous. This service was originally setup, in part, to assist with the satellite campus of Schulich School of Medicine at the University of Windsor.

I think the biggest challenge will be related to finding the needed resources ($) to grow e-learning across campus. As Bill Muirhead has suggested this problem can also focus on many of the benefits the e-learning can provide in these financially difficult times.

2009 Day 1 4:15-4:30 Synopsis: e-Learning Group affiliation

2009-08-14T16:43:35Z

Dpvukovic:

'''Discussion on E-learning Group Status and Affiliation (lead by Richard Pinet)'''

-OUCEL needs to decide about our status and where to go from here

-Essentially we need to make a decision whether to stay informal group or to become more formal

-We are invited to become members of OCULL and COED; the poll conducted was split

-Value of formalizing the status or joining partnership with some other formalized groups – for example, some people could not come to this year’s summer institute because the group is informal

-Another question is what can we produce together; maybe we can do some research together

-There is lack of information on certain topics and OUCEL can illustrate many things in relation to educational technology

-There is a problem with ed. tech. longitudinal research

-Maybe e-learning should be part of COU group

-Concern about research – can we really do it? Research is typically not part of our mandates; we should be careful not to set up our expectations too high

-We need a vehicle to support ed. tech research; it is not our mandate to do the research, but we can ask researchers to do it on topics and issues that are of interest for our group

-The question of visibility is also important; if we want to be recognizable, formalization would help with that

-We need to think of all these issues and make a decision at the end of the Institute

2009 Day 1 4:15-4:30 Synopsis: e-Learning Group affiliation

2009-08-14T16:43:23Z

Dpvukovic:

'''Discussion on E-learning Group Status and Affiliation (lead by Richard Pinet)'''
-OUCEL needs to decide about our status and where to go from here

-Essentially we need to make a decision whether to stay informal group or to become more formal

-We are invited to become members of OCULL and COED; the poll conducted was split

-Value of formalizing the status or joining partnership with some other formalized groups – for example, some people could not come to this year’s summer institute because the group is informal

-Another question is what can we produce together; maybe we can do some research together

-There is lack of information on certain topics and OUCEL can illustrate many things in relation to educational technology

-There is a problem with ed. tech. longitudinal research

-Maybe e-learning should be part of COU group

-Concern about research – can we really do it? Research is typically not part of our mandates; we should be careful not to set up our expectations too high

-We need a vehicle to support ed. tech research; it is not our mandate to do the research, but we can ask researchers to do it on topics and issues that are of interest for our group

-The question of visibility is also important; if we want to be recognizable, formalization would help with that

-We need to think of all these issues and make a decision at the end of the Institute