1. Exploring whether e-Learning has lived up to the early promise e-learning: A Reality Check Durham University, January 2009
Andy Ramsden
Head of e-Learning
University of Bath
andyramsden
eatbath-present
Link: download the presentation

2. expectations
Keep to the conference themes – reality check & practitioner focus
No excessive quoting of verse & scripture, JISC, HEA or HEFCE publications
More a reflective piece, a winding road that you will help shape (that should be interesting)
By the end of this honest appraisal will be the message that we are agents of change, and have a very important role to play to ensure over the next few years we re-align our aspirations for elearning and then meet these.

3. my aims & your role
I’ve three broad aims, and adopted a very traditional approach to answering the broad question, “has e-learning lived up to its early promise”
Identify what the pattern is
Try to understand the underlying causes
Based on these causes identify appropriate interventions
This will be addressed through a number of approaches – the what is will involve looking at two different contexts (out of a possible three), the explanation will lean heavily on the use of the Collis and Moonen 4E’s model, and the this will be applied to how we might more effectively implement some emerging technologies with the University of Bath context.
Your role, is to participate :-)

4. How long have you been involved in some capacity within e-learning?
less than a year
one to three years
four to five years
six to eight years
nine years and above
I’m not

5. What would you like me to talk about next?
Departmental use of the VLE
Uses of technology in face to face teaching

6. The reality: vle use One that is close to our hearts
Going to look at from the perspective of Moodle use by departments at the University of Bath
Data is part of a longitudinal project on evaluating how departments use the VLE

7. A framework for analysing VLE use
Category 1: Content & Support Model
Category 2: Wrap around Model
Category 3: Integrated Model
Where content is delivered in print or online and support is provided online. Content and support are not integral to one another. Online support is an optional extra
Where there is a mixture of prepared content and online learning activities. The learning activities involve online discussion and collaborative activities.
Where most of the learning takes place via collaborative online activities and content is largely determined by the learners, either individually or as a group.
Unit Handbook
Lecture material
Reading lists
Problem sets
Timetable
Web links
RSS infeeds
Forums (admin, T&L)
Moodle Lesson
Moodle Quiz
Moodle Survey
Text Chat
Wiki
Journal/blog
Group Tools
Many will recognise the Mason (1998) framework. Which suggests there are three ways of modelling / categorising the use of a VLE
Onto this I’ve grafted the Julian Cook’s (2002) work on simple and complex ways to use a VLE. This associates common tasks mapped to the broad categories.
This is a very simple framework to make a comparison, and is relatively robust and quick way of taking a snapshot a use across a large number of courses (or so I told the person who crunched all the data).

8. VLE use at University of Bath
Dept / School
Category 1 (Content & Support)
Category 2 (Wrap around)
Category 3 (integrated)
No of courses (as a percent of available units) A 61 27 12
40 (31) B 82 15 3
82 (64) C 79 19 2
185 (54) D 70 25 5
54 (26) E 73 24
70 (59) F 84 1
30 (26)
Group Average 75 21 4
Before unpicking the results, a little context about the University of Bath (yippee goes Malcolm)
Medium sized institution, research intensive, teaching model is very traditional, face to face, large group teaching, strong emphasis on industrial placements, strength in science and engineering, some strength in distance learning
Been using a VLE (or equivalent) for many many years
No of courses … relatively low Moodle participation – no three line whip
Overall pattern … group average indicates a content and support model
Dept A bucks trend – School of Health who run significant number of CPD / Distance learning courses.
This would suggest, that technology (investment in e-learning) haven’t changed the way our academics teach – the result is e-admin

9. So across to you
To what extent do you agree with the following statement.
“I’d confidently predict a similar pattern of VLE use at my institution”
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

10. The reality: face to face teaching
Before unpicking the results, a little context about the University of Bath (yippee goes Malcolm)
Medium sized institution, research intensive, teaching model is very traditional, face to face, large group teaching, strong emphasis on industrial placements, strength in science and engineering, some strength in distance learning

11. The respondents Number of respondents: 69 Average Mode
Largest Class Size (students)
115
150
Smallest Class Size (students) 29 15
Time in teaching (years) 14 30
Note – low response rate, so don’t bet your house on what I’m saying
Selection of data that I need to collect very quickly for a JISC TechDis interim report that I’m writing
I assume there is a definition of what a large group is, but I’d suggest that over a 100 is a large group. Also note, the demographic is very expereinced, on average 14 years of teaching, with a mode of 30 years.
Over that period there has been huge investment in classroom / lecture theatre technologies, and in staff development on these technologies.
Number of respondents: 69

12. What do they do with lecture notes?
Do you consistently make your material (slides, links, multimedia) available on Moodle (or online) before the lecture?
Yes: 48.3%
No: 51.7%
If no to above, do you consistently make your material (slides, links, multimedia) available on Moodle (or online) after the lecture?
Yes: 78.1%
No: 21.9%
Harmless question, VLE use highlight the primary use of the VLE was to store supporting lecture material. It is a 7 people who don’t. Surprising given that many people do and have for years, the technology is available to capture chalked material, plus the S.S.L.Cs (at Bath) regularly raise it.

13. What technologies do they use?
Which of the following electronic resources have you used in your lecture this term (you can select more than one)
Number of responses
Powerpoint 50
Audio recording 16
Video or animation 35
Accessing a web site 38
A graphic (still image) 34
Other 18
OHPs
Web surveys
Twitter
Video conferencing
Simulations
Spreadsheets
A few interesting observations, as you’d expect … all using powerpoint, web, but also lots of video / animation, simulations and spreadsheets going on.
Plus OHPs are still there, and probably re-born through the emergence of the visualisor
Also, some potentially interesting applications of twitter and video conferencing in teaching.
As an aside, I like this type of survey as it indicates that we haven’t really a clue what is going on :-)
N=69

14. What is their lecture style?
Could you summarise how you lecture, in particular, the style you adopt and the technologies that you use.
This is a word cloud generated from the free text responses to the question concerning style.
As you’d expect USE – POWERPOINT jumps out at you.
However, also, see technology light activities – blackboard, talk, chalk, ask traditional, questions, and discussion.
This would suggest, that technology (investment in e-learning) haven’t changed the way our academics lecture.

15. The reality: sharing stuff
Enough about me wingeing on about Bath, lets re-set the focus on you 

16. Within your team (s) do you regularly share web resources?
Yes No

17. How do you share these resources?
how do you share these resources? For instance, , shared word document, wiki, blog, social bookmark software (diigo, delicious) or other

18. Word cloud

19. In your view, has e-learning lived up to it’s early promise?
1 – oh, yes 2
3 – no view 4
5 – oh, no
Previous evidence suggested that, if e-learning was about administration than at the institutional level, yes, otherwise no.
I’d probably say 2 … I’d want to factor in the point that it was all over hyped, and not based on realistic time frames … then at the individual level there it has lived upto it’s early promise … see JISC reports.

20. What might explain this reality?
Lots of caveats on the following, very complex situation, no silver bullet,
So what to look at it from the perspective of the individual – what determines their effective use of a technology.
Take the idea that a martian has landed at the University of Bath, just taken up a lecturing post, and is thinking about enhancing their teaching through using the VLE.
The question is, what would they use in the VLE and why?

21. Collis & Moonen 4 E’s Model
I am very familiar with it
I’m familiar with it
I’ve heard of it
I’ve no idea
I don’t care

22. Collis and Moonen 4 E’s Model
Organisational influences
environmental (institutional) factors
Social-cultural influences
Technological influences
threshold
“an individual’s likelihood of making use of a technological innovation for a learning related purpose is a function of for groups of factors”
Educational effectiveness (perceived or actual)
ease of use
(personal) engagement

23. Back to Bath … use of VLE for specific tasks
Dept / School
Include a copy of the course handbook (%)
Include an online formative or summative quiz (%)
No of courses A 70 8 40 B 84 4 82 C 79 3
185 D 28 2 54 E 21 F 80 30

24. Pattern makes sense if you put yourself in the academics shoes
Putting lecture notes online
Running an objective test
Actual level of use in the organisation
Medium (2)
Low (1)
Level of day to day support
High (3)
Adequacy of technical infrastructure
Previous experiences
Environment: Total Score 10 4
Likely to solve a learning related problem
Help me do routine tasks more quickly
Result in new learning experiences in institution
Better grades for students
Effectiveness: Total Score 5

25. Putting lecture notes online Running an objective test
Network is adequate in speed and reliability
High (3)
Low (1)
Software is easy to learn
Lets me do what I want / need for the task
Ease of use: Total Score 9 3
Encourage others to follow
Self confident at using the software
Improve my career prospects
My prior experiences of this task have been +ve
Engagement: Total Score 10 6

26. The outcome (black: notes)
environmental factors
The new lecturing martian will put up his lecture notes, and not start to engage into developing online objective testing
Educ effectiveness
ease of use
Personal engagement

27. How might we change the situation?
Small cog … work within the constraints of our institutions,
Staff development programme … if I was the martian, i’m being channelled down the e-leaning is e-administration route.

28. Implementing a new technology
A QR Code is a matrix code (or two-dimensional bar code) created by Japanese corporation Denso-Wave in The "QR" is derived from "Quick Response", as the creator intended the code to allow its contents to be decoded at high speed. QR Codes are common in Japan where they are currently the most popular type of two dimensional codes.
Common tasks that can be achieved using a qr code, include,
Link to web site
Send an sms to a phone
Transfer a phone number
Provide more text

29. Generating lots of different uses
QR Codes only
QR Codes with other tools
e-Admin
Student (campus) induction
Sign up for news alerts using QR codes
Library catalogue
Classroom evaluation
Append to Moodle printouts
e-Learning
Access to further guidance
Augmented Reality Gaming

30. Students know about them …
Do you know what a QR Code is?
Yes: 13.8%
with 95% confidence interval, then 12.34% % of total student population are aware of QR codes.
N = 1800
17% of our FTE (Hesa returns)

31. Some students have accessed a QR Code
Have you accessed a QR Code?
Yes: 2.2%
with 95% confidence interval, then 1.58% % of total student population have accessed a QR code.
The most common action was
Web site – 33 responses
Read more text – 28 responses
Phone a number – 19 responses
Send a pre-written SMS – 12 responses

32. They have the technology in their pockets
QR Code Readers: Kaywa, Quickmark, i-Nigma & SnapMaze

33. Back to Collis and Moonen 4 E’s Model
environmental (institution) factors
threshold
Down with ….
Central workshops, a large case study which takes a year to publish, one single specialist within the team
down
Central workshops, no large case studies, no single specialist in the team
INSTEAD
Educ effectiveness
ease of use
Personal engagement

34. Back to Collis and Moonen 4 E’s Model
environmental (institution) factors
threshold
Up with ….
Dedicated project blog, attending uses and co-writing session reports, a project lead but all the team deliver, prioritise profiling at meetings (DoS, LTC, Innovations Week, eLPF), implement with other teams, focus regular deliverables on lit reviews, encourage academics to submit journal and conference papers, assist with evaluation and resource, ring fence LT development time, organise publicity events with external speakers, commit to the long term (3 year plan).
down
Central workshops, no large case studies, no single specialist in the team
INSTEAD
Educ effectiveness
ease of use
Personal engagement

35. Back to Collis and Moonen 4 E’s Model
environmental (institution) factors
threshold
down
Central workshops, no large case studies, no single specialist in the team
INSTEAD
Educ effectiveness
ease of use
Personal engagement

36. Why do you think e-learning has not lived up to it’s early promise?

37. What would others say?
“Much of the potential is only now becoming apparent as technological and pedagogical expertise builds up”
– Kukulska-Hulme and Traxler (2007) in “Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age”

38. In response …
The pedagogical expertise is taking a very long time to develop, and it is still a very narrow base …
back to themes of the conference - why it matters that
we practice what we preach,
why we need to disseminate this effectively and efficiently
roll these findings into our staff development programmes

39. thank you & questions Andy Ramsden a.ramsden@bath.ac.uk andyramsden
eatbath-present