Developing Strategic Approaches to E-learning Rachel Ellaway, Ph.D., Assistant Dean Curriculum and Planning, Northern Ontario School of Medicine Terry Poulton, Ph.D., Associate Dean for eLearning, St. George's University of London MedBiquitous 2012

Conflict of interest We have no involvement with industry and have no conflict of interest to disclose with respect to this workshop

Strategy 101

Technology enabled learning E-learning and e-teaching Educational technology Technology enabled or enhanced learning Now a fundamental part of med-ed but hard for leaders to understand We need a strategy …

What is a strategy? Operations > tactics > strategies A plan of action to realize a broad vision Predicts future needs Identifies goals, values and ideals Plans to be able to meet and/or realize them In a particular context, culture, community

Strategy as activity

Provenance Who’s it for? Who’s it from? Who gets to tell who to do what? Authority, legitimacy Domain authority Expertise authority Representativeness Accountability

Impact What happens if it’s enacted? What happens if it’s not? What do you want it to do? What do you expect it to do?

Components People Services Tools and infrastructure Projects Management Communication

Formal and Informal Formal –Academic programs –Research –CME/CPD –Training & courses Informal –Learning organization –Projects, pilots –Mentors, networks, SIGs –Research

Cultures Clinical vs e-learning Clinical factors –Clinical systems –EHR, PACS –Security, confidentiality Educational vs e-learning Administrative vs e-learning –ERP –Business cultures –Power

Perspectives Instructional designers TeachersManagers

Does e-learning exist? Teaching and learning strategy E-learning strategy Technology strategy teachers learners

Does e-learning exist? Teaching and learning strategy E-learning strategy Technology strategy teachers learners

Does e-learning exist? Teaching and learning strategy E-learning strategy Technology strategy teachers learners

Everything’s connected operations tactics specific strategies operations tactics specific strategies projects innovations replace decommission projects innovations operations strategy organizational contexts

Everything’s connected institutional strategies accreditation Teaching and learning strategy Technology strategy E-learning strategy Finance strategy HR strategy policy funding legal social accountability

Everything’s connected institutional strategic plan accreditation Teaching and learning strategy E-learning strategy Finance strategy HR strategy policy funding legal social accountability Technology strategy

Planning it

It all starts to look like PM Project management: Deliverables Timescales Resources Plus: Vision Major themes Priorities Enablers

Components – all high level Vision Major themes Priorities Enablers Deliverables Timescale Resources Integration Evaluation and QA

Strategy Components Vision Priorities Enablers Deliverables Evaluation Contingencies 1: 2: 3:

Vision and Priorities Vision –Simple clear statements –Cognizant of definition and scope –Cognizant of stakeholders –The way the world should be Priorities –3-8 key discrete themes and concepts –Couched as priorities –Each is itself a clear unambiguous vision

Enablers and deliverables Enablers –For each priority What exists that enables it? What is needed to enable it? Deliverables –For each priority What will be achieved When will it be achieved

Evaluation and Contingency Evaluation –How will you know you’ve succeeded? –How will anyone else know? –What data/process/reporting is required? Contingency –What happens if things don’t work out? –Plans B, C, D etc –Show continuity, impact etc

Where is now?

Interviews: members of university eLearning strategy groups 3/7- ‘Russell group’ 4/7- middle–ranking universities All had very similar over-arching aims: Embed eLearning, as standard ‘pedadogic’ tool Raise staff awareness of eLearning, provide support Foster a culture of innovation and seek out good practice Create appropriate infrastructure Increase student satisfaction Create a sustainable system for guiding investment and deployment of eLearning service and infrastructure

The story so far: Russell group universities:- Clarity in the implementation plan, with an adequate level of detail Implementation plan developed reasonably quickly. The focus has been more on staff (rather than students) but.. in general students are “more satisfied than not”, but “only time will tell” Strategic decisions require staff to comply with the ‘plan’ Already regard themselves as ‘global’ universities, so without the same drive to ‘create’ an international presence Adequate funding Investment in infrastructure The ‘rest’ Less clarity, more confusion between ‘technology’ and ‘eLearning’ Implementation plan developing slowly. Focus on student experience Concern at the challenge of obtaining Faculty ‘buy-in’ Strong remit to increase their international presence A primary aim, to remove ‘all that paper!‘-attachment feedback, sign-offs Budget position unclear Strategy appeared more defensive

Hidden agendas? 4/7 middle–ranking universities, examples Strategic aim: To enable technology to be used effectively, creatively and confidently for the enhancement of the student learning experience Pro-Vice Chancellor strategic aim: We need to increase our National Student Survey scores - urgently Strategic aim: Investing in innovation in teaching to drive xxx’s reputation internationally Pro-Vice Chancellor strategic aim: I want the university to expand its reputation for innovation as soon as possible - before I move to my next, more prestigious university. Pro-Vice Chancellor strategic aim: We need to attract more lucrative overseas students to improve our bottom-line ‘It will remove thousands and thousands of pieces of paper’ ‘It will solve our problems of integration between services’ It will break the stranglehold of IT!’ ‘We don’t seem to need the new/proposed library building’

Common features /agreements ‘ Service’ led programmes concentrated on technology not eLearning, and introduced more technologies that students didn't or couldn’t use. Successful implementations were more frequently home made technologies! The off-the-shelf ‘Learning Management Systems’ /VLE e.g. Blackboard, Moodle were difficult to adapt for medicine. The ‘slickest’ successful implementations tended to be ‘non-generic’, despite the national guidance.

Edinburgh vs NOSM Big fish, small pond: Technocratic, tertiary, traditional Small fish, massive pond: Distributed, innovative, community- engaged

Activity 1: flip

Activity 1 Develop a strategic plan for “Medbiq University” Work in groups of 5 Steps: –Create an institutional profile (HT) –Develop a vision, 3-5 priorities –Identify enablers, deliverables etc –Present vision and one critical priority

Strategy Components Vision – 1 sentence Priorities – 3 to 5 Enablers Deliverables Evaluation Contingencies 1: 2: 3:

Activity 1 Develop a strategic plan for “Medbiq University” Work in groups of 5 Steps: –Create an institutional profile (HT) –Develop a vision, 3-5 priorities –Identify enablers, deliverables etc –Present vision and one critical priority

Activity 2: roll

Activity 2 Change your strategic plan for “Medbiq University” Steps: –Identify disrupters – roll the dice –Redevelop a vision, 3-5 priorities –Identify new enablers, deliverables etc –Present revised vision and one critical priority

Strategy Components Vision – 1 sentence Priorities – 3 to 5 Enablers Deliverables Evaluation Contingencies 1: 2: 3:

Activity 2 Change your strategic plan for “Medbiq University” Steps: –Identify disrupters – roll the dice –Redevelop a vision, 3-5 priorities –Identify new enablers, deliverables etc –Present revised vision and one critical priority

Developing Strategic Approaches to E-learning Rachel Ellaway, Ph.D., Assistant Dean Curriculum and Planning, Northern Ontario School of Medicine Terry Poulton, Ph.D., Associate Dean for eLearning, St. George's University of London MedBiquitous 2012