Running head: ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF APPROACHES TO E-LEARNING

Analysis and Comparison of Approaches to E-Learning

Assignment #3 (Option 1)

University of British Columbia, Master of Educational Technology

2017 S1-2- ETEC520-66A: Planning and Managing Learning Technologies in Higher Education

Group 2: JoAnna Cassie, Moumita Chakraborty, Galina Culpechina, Kamille Gyles, Jenny Wong

August 6, 2017

Word Count: 3477

 2

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF APPROACHES TO E-LEARNING

Table of Contents

Overview..........................................................................................................................................3

E-Learning Organization, Support and Delivery at UC and UWO .................................................3

Comparison and Analysis of UC and UWO Strengths....................................................................7

Comparison and Analysis of UC and UWO Weaknesses ..............................................................9

Recommendations..........................................................................................................................10

Summary and Conclusion..............................................................................................................13

References......................................................................................................................................14
 3

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF APPROACHES TO E-LEARNING

Overview

The two e-learning approaches that are analyzed and compared in this paper are the University

of UWO Ontario (UWO) in London, Ontario, Canada and the University of Cincinnati (UC) in

Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. UWO is a public research university with enrollment of 28,386 students. UC is

also a public research institution, with an enrollment of 43,691 students, nearly twice the size of UWO.

Two documents currently inform UWOs approach to and plan for e-learning: Western's E-

Learning Task Force (ELT), and the Western's Network for Digital Education & Research. The first

proposed an e-learning strategy and 3-year action plan based on comprehensive interviews with all

departments and stakeholders, and the second put forward a thoughtful response. UWO is committed to

moving forward the ideas and recommendations proposed in these papers by providing infrastructure

and support for the opportunities identified. For the purpose of our research, these two documents are

presumed to reflect the working plan under which e-learning at Western University is currently

operating. UWO courses offered entirely online account for 10% of all instruction.

The University of Cincinnati e-learning strategic plan captures its approach and strategy for e-

learning. The e-learning Strategic Planning Committee has worked to build a large-scale, community

informedroadmap based on UC community feedback through surveys, focus groups and interviews.

Excelling in e-learning was identified as a UC Third Century goal. The University of Cincinnati claims

to be an e-learning leader with over 90% of all courses using some form of e-learning technology.

E-Learning Organization, Support and Delivery at UC and UWO

E-learning at UC refers to all types of education that leverage technology-based products and

services, including but not limited to face-to-face, flipped, hybrid, blended and fully online courses that

employ technology (University of Cincinnati E-learning Strategic Plan, 2017 - 2020). Similarly,
 4

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF APPROACHES TO E-LEARNING

UWO's plan defines e-learning as all shades of technology-integrated learning, from online

components of face-to-face courses to blended or hybrid courses to fully online distance courses (E-

Learning Task Force Report, 2013). This interpretation illustrates that both universities envision e-

learning the same way as Bates & Sangr (2011) did, as a continuum. UWO uses mostly the term

online learning throughout, and UC uses the term e-learning.

UWOs ELT noted three main themes that emerged from the faculty interviews, which the rest

of the plan is intended to address:

Academic priorities must inform UWOs e-learning strategy.

Pedagogical and technical support and resources are key for faculty engagement.

Policy and planning processes at UWO constrain e-learning and must be revised.

The plan does not address these overtly, however it does provide some solid e-learning

recommendations, which are covered here in the context of organization, support and delivery of e-

learning at UWO.

At UWO, organization of e-learning is done through Office of the Academic Provost. Distance

Studies, under the direction of the Teaching Support Centre, is responsible for the planning and course

development of e-learning centrally. The Teaching Support Centre, UWO Libraries and Information

Technology Services work in collaboration with UWO faculty members to technologically transform

fully face-to-face, large-enrollment foundation courses into blended offerings. Financially, the ELT

found that budgeting with respect to online courses is decentralized and in some cases online

courses represented a direct additional cost to the academic unit (E-Learning Task Force Report,

2013). UWO hopes that increased enrollment will offset these costs. Decentralization of finances

represents the project management approach that is recommended for effective tracking and planning

of e-learning resources (Bates & Sangr, 2011).

 5

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF APPROACHES TO E-LEARNING

The ELT suggests several support systems be put in place to ensure academic quality, enhance

student experience and engage faculty in e-learning. Some of the recommendations include a faculty

development and training certificate, online pedagogical resources, instructor and teaching assistant

training, and robust technological support availability. Two annual e-learning forums are proposed to

allow faculty to come together and share ideas and challenges. Bandwidth assurance, improved

functionality of UWOs LMS (Sakai) and mobile app resources are all noted necessities for the success

of e-learning. The ELT also stresses the importance of advocating for an increase in ancillary fees for

faculty who work on e-learning, as it can take up considerable time, and hopes to facilitate discussion

between the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities and UWOFA Collective

Agreement to protect instructors time. Smart classrooms, appointing instructional designers to work

with faculty, and an intent to focus on evaluation are also ELT priorities.

The delivery of e-learning at UWO is mainly through their primary LMS platform, Sakai. The

Faculty of Medicine is the only faculty so far with the capabilities for synchronous learning. However,

UWOs plan is to develop more of these smart classrooms, equipped with cameras and technology that

facilitate high quality learning. Instructors are encouraged to experiment with other systems and

devices that are pedagogically useful such as Edmodo, Skype, Google apps and smartphones.

UCs approach to e-learning is all-encompassing and takes into consideration the entire

university community. The universitys vision of e-learning takes into consideration any learning that

incorporates technology in some way. This wide concept of e-learning is important because it directs

the university in recognizing the other support systems e-learning impacts (Bates, 2007). Taking this

into account, the university has decided to structure its strategic plan around four key areas:

1. Improving the student and faculty experience

2. Improving the use of e-learning strategies and tools

 6

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF APPROACHES TO E-LEARNING

3. Engaging the community through e-learning

4. Creating awareness of the technology systems and support available

The strategic plan presents a centralized approach to e-learning with activities being directed

through the Office of Provost by the Assistant Vice President for E-Learning and a specially created

committee consisting of faculty, students and members of the wider university community. This

represents a top-down model for strategic planning which helps to provide the university with a shared

vision for e-learning which is critical for the success of e-learning initiatives (Bates & Sangr, 2011).

Financial support for e-learning is not outlined in the e-learning strategic plan, but is outlined in UC

Current Funds Budget Plan 2016-2017. The plan does not indicate how e-learning will be organized on

a departmental level and therefore how emerging strategies will be incorporated into the centralized

plan.

UC has developed several support systems to ensure that the e-learning needs of students,

faculty and the wider university community are met. They have recognized that flexibility and

accessibility are crucial components to e-learning. Therefore, a 24/7 comprehensive knowledge base

and technology support desk have been implemented to be used on any device at all times.

UC provides centralized learning technology support to the faculties and departments. Faculty

support with regards to training is directed through the universitys Center for the Enhancement of

Teaching and Learning (CET&L). The CET&L provides faculty with assistance in improving their

pedagogy as well as developing best practices. The university has created a Center for Excellence in E-

Learning which provides faculty with access to instructional and media designers and other technical

staff to assist in course development. The Creative, Design and Technology teams work together to

help faculty and staff create visually rich and engaging learning modules, videos, and graphic elements,

including storyboarding, script writing, graphic design, 3D animation, and professional videography.
 7

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF APPROACHES TO E-LEARNING

The university aims to provide all its e-learning resources through a central system known as

Canopy. The purpose of this fully integrated platform is to provide e-learning resources that are

accessible, convenient and of a high quality, which students expect in todays higher education

environment (Bullen, 2015). Canopy provides students and faculty with access to resources which are

not only directly related to their classes but other support features such as e-mail, library or any other

technology-related service.

The structure of both UC and UWO ensures that the right decisions are made by the right

people at the right level. As Bates & Sangr recommend (2011, p. 20), at both universities the senior

executive put in place a comprehensive committee structure to support technology integration, and

have given them power to establish priorities and policies for technology integration. Both pans also

suggest that the institutions have created a unit combining faculty development, learning technology

support, and distance education management. UC is staffed with instructional designers and course

developers with both educational and technical expertise, as well as media production staff.

Professionally qualified instructional designers with expertise in educational design are still to be

employed by UWO. By doing so, UWO will offer a more supportive framework for course redesign

and alleviate the pressure of the process by helping instructors to navigate curricular and technical

concerns (Brown, 2016).

Comparison and Analysis of UC and UWO Strengths

Both strategic plans include clear vision for e-learning. The most successful strategies are

visions, not plans (H. Mintzberg, 1994). Bates and Sangr (2011) state that successful planning requires

the development of compelling visions and goals for the use of technology within institutions (p.73).

UC is striving for inclusive, flexible, engaging and trans formative learning for everyone (UC e-

learning Strategic Plan 2017-2020, p. 5), while UWO focuses on the student academic experience,

using student-centered pedagogical practices, deep and active learning, and its commitment to quality
 8

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF APPROACHES TO E-LEARNING

and outstanding academic standards (E-learning Task Force Report, p.2).

Both institutions seem to have identified leaders who help engage people for functioning more

effectively. Bates and Sangr (2011, p.73) support the model of leaders that help to engage people to

function more effectively, rather than the model of the charismatic leader developing a vision and

driving the organization toward the implementation of the vision. This model where leaders engage

with people than where one leaders vision prompts organizational change towards implementation. At

UC, the E-learning Strategic Planning Committee has worked to build a large-scale, community

informed strategic plan. The team reached out to UC community to provide feedback through 1300

surveys of students, faculty and staff, five focus groups and in-person interviews and discussions (UC

E-learning Strategic Plan 2017-2020, p. 4-5). The key observations were used to develop strategies that

resulted in a strategic map for e-learning. Western's Network for Digital Education and Research

(WNDER) is comprised of researchers, staff, graduate students, instructors, post-doctoral students,

archivists, and librarians work together to better understand the impacts of new technologies upon

education and share thoughts, concerns, and ideas. They are exploring new ways to deliver education to

increasingly diverse communities of learners and in measuring the impact and outcomes of such

technologies (WNDER, p.1).

UC's approach has evolved beyond that of UWO. UC has clearly developed strategies outlined

in a strategic map. Their strategic map focuses on 4 key areas: Student & Faculty Experience,

Foundations of e-learning, Building Community, and e-learning Ecosystem. Each key area has six

strategies outlined that vary enormously in scope and emphasis and provide guidance and direction

(UC e-learning Strategic Plan 2017 2020, p. 7). These strategies can easily be put in action for

broader e-learning implementation, encourage innovation in teaching and ensure the transferability and

sustainability of innovative practices across the institution (Bates and Sangr, 2011, p.84). The strategic

plan presents analysis of the current state, future state and what is on horizon for each key area of the
 9

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF APPROACHES TO E-LEARNING

strategic map. In addition, it highlights champions and provides examples of how some strategies are

being implemented at UC. example of focused faculty development can be found on p. 9 (UC e-

learning Strategic Plan 2017-2020). E-learning integration at UC is at Stage 5 sustainability, as e-

learning has been fully integrated, and they are even ready to benchmark some of their processes,

which is an exercise only undertaken when prepared to compare oneself to the best.

Comparison and Analysis of UC and UWO Weaknesses

Although the thoughts on UWO Strategic Plan and e-learning Task Force report discuss ideas

on Faculty Engagement, Student and Faculty Support, they seem to be in the phase of evaluating

existing resources, asking questions and conducting research, but clear roadmaps are not yet in place. It

is not clear how the ELT recommendations address the themes discovered in their interviews.

UWOs current phase of their e-learning strategy is based on the reports of UWOs Task Force

on E-Learning and UWOs Network for Digital Education & Research response to this report (p. 12).

These two documents are presently what inform UWOs approach to building on current alternative,

hybrid, and blended teaching practices. However, the strategies on providing infrastructure, technical,

pedagogical and student support for e-learning and innovative modes of pedagogy are still to be

developed. This state of affairs reflects how UWO is at the planning (Stage 4) level of -e-learning

implementation (Bates, 2007). Conversely, UC has a well-developed e-learning strategic plan with

clearly defined strategies.

UWO strategic plan has no clarity on budgeting process and financial management. Bates and

Sangr (2011) state that the plans that are not connected directly to the budget process could become a

disjointed effort with minimal success and no long-term gains (p. 81). Management, planning, and

budgeting are grouped together in the e-learning strategy document, and there is no vision of how to

make it sustainable and support growth.

UC's Current Funds Budget Plan 2016-2017 shows that $700k was invested to enhance the
 10

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF APPROACHES TO E-LEARNING

universitys e-learning enterprise, and $1M in 504/508 compliance. They also purchased new digital

tools, added new staff, instructional designers, equipment and software. An amount of $75k was

awarded to support the second cohort of the e-learning Backpack Project, which provides faculty a

backpack of technologies to complement tools and resources available in the Canopy e-learning

ecosystem. Also, the FY 2017 budgeted transfers include one-time funds to support university-wide e-

learning tools and resources in the Canopy e-learning ecosystem (Current Funds Budget Plan 2016-

2017, p.38).

As Bates & Sangr point out, It is very difficult if not impossible for instructors to innovate or

teach differently from the historical or mythical model if they have no understanding of possible

alternative ways to teach, based on theory and research (p. 190). UWO has identified faculty concerns

(WNDER, p.5 ), and Bullen states that understanding the perspective of faculty is critical as it means

ensuring that faculty members feel involved (Bullen, 2017). In the Thoughts On UWOs Strategic Plan,

UWO discusses faculty engagement, however no clear faculty development strategies have been

developed yet. UC has clearly identified and ready to implement faculty support strategies to ensure

faculty readiness.

Neither of the institutions have a formal evaluation plan for measuring the overall impact or

effectiveness of their use of technology, or the success of their strategic directions. According to Bates

and Sangr (2011), evaluation and research provide a means to check on the actual quality ( p.108)

Recommendations

Bates and Sangr (2011) state that in order for technology integration to be successful, there

needs to be engagement from a number of key players, all working together and developing and

sharing a common vision or set of goals for the use of technology (pp. 84). The e-learning strategic

plans of UC and UWO demonstrates this kind of engagement and thus show strong intent towards the

development of e-learning at their institutions. However, there are some areas in which both plans can
 11

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF APPROACHES TO E-LEARNING

be strengthened.

As mentioned in UWOs e-Learning Task Force document, there appears to be a variation in

terms of e-learning engagement across programs where some are keen to see the University mount a

coherent, well-supported strategic effort to support e-learning, [while] others are yet to be persuaded

(UWO, 2013, pp. 1). We suggest that UWO should work towards improving this aspect by encouraging

the different programs in aligning their strategies with the Universitys e-learning vision. One way to

approach this would be to invite the innovative faculty or the lone rangers to showcase their use of

technology and share their experiences and perspectives of e-learning. Not only does this demonstrate

the possibilities of e-learning to other instructors, it can create considerable interschool

communication around e-learning (Bullen, 2017) and spark interest in those who are reluctant to adopt

technological practices.

In addition, it is not clear who the ELT consulted when examining the levels of engagement

with e-learning across the various Faculties on campus. We recommend UWO to use a similar strategy

as UC by holding community consultation sessions (Bullen, 2017), allowing faculty, students, and

staff to share their thoughts on e-learning and what they hope to see happen in the institution. Although

the ELT emphasizes that UWO is known for its student-centered pedagogical practices, we found

minimal references made in terms of gathering feedback from students as well as staff. The institution

needs to include staff such as the teaching and learning technology professionals as well as students

opinions in the technology innovation and management process (Bates & Sangr, 2011). A truly

effective e-learning strategy must comprehend and support digital pedagogies for on-campus students

as well as for distance learners (Bates & Sangr, 2011, pp. 3).

UC faces a similar issue with regards to engagement on a departmental level. This issue arises

because of the universitys top-down approach to its strategic plan. While it is critical that the

university has a general consensus of their vision of e-learning and how it will be achieved,
 12

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF APPROACHES TO E-LEARNING

engagement from a departmental perspective must be incorporated into the strategic plan. Bates and

Sangr (2011) highlight that for a strategic plan to be successful it must provide mechanisms that allow

for bottom-up and emerging strategies to become a part of the plan on an ongoing basis. We

therefore suggest that the university creates as a part of its strategic plan, an ongoing review process

that gives departments an opportunity to share best practices and to implement that strategies that

represent innovation in how technology is used in the teaching and learning process.

Although UWOs definition of e-learning includes all elements of technology-integrated

learning from online components to blended or hybrid courses to fully online distance courses, the ELT

report focused mainly on online learning and distance learning and did not encompass hybrid learning

or blended learning approaches (WNDER, pp. 1). UWOs strategic plan is similar to the findings of

Bates and Sangr (2011)s study of various institutions in that there is a lack of recognition of hybrid

learning where courses are redesigned to exploit the benefits of both face-to-face and online teaching

and learning, rather than merely adding technology to the classroom model (pp. 90). We suggest that

UWO places more emphasis on communicating their strategies and processes in place that outlines how

their plan(s) will be executed to align with their definition of e-learning.

UCs strategic plan does not directly outline funding for e-learning, however a review of its

Current Funds Budget Plan Fiscal Year 2016-2017 indicates that the university has invested

considerably in improving and developing infrastructure as well as providing resources related to its e-

learning vision. The review of the budget also points to the centralized nature of the funding. This will

be useful in helping to put vital support systems and structures in place but it is not sustainable in the

long run. The method that is likely to have the greatest measure of success is a project management

approach (Bullen, 2015). The university should therefore assist departments in determining the real

cost of e-learning and then creating the mechanism to fund it over the long term.
 13

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF APPROACHES TO E-LEARNING

Summary and Conclusion

UC s strategy is very strong and united in its approach. In the executive summary, UC

mentions that their e-learning community was able to really develop a cohesive voice through the

process of strategic planning and this is evidenced by the coherence of their plan. UCs advanced

e-learning state is mainly due to the fact that UC has more experience with e-learning, which is used in

90% of all courses in some form, whereas UWOs online content accounts for 10% of all instruction.

Additionally, UCs e-learning strategy is for 2017-2020 and UWO task force document represents the

state of the university in 2013. E-learning integration at UC is at Stage 5 sustainability, as e-learning

has been fully integrated. UWO is not far behind but still in Stage 4, the planning stage of e-learning

implementation.

UCs strategy appears as a detailed case study of the current situation and provides a definite

roadmap for where they envision their e-learning to be; they present a cohesive, top-down, centrally

supported approach. UWO has a solid e-learning vision but there are gaps between their vision and

their implementation plan in certain areas such as student engagement. They currently have a

decentralized approach which, although may work quite well, still requires the strength of cohesive

implementation across faculties.

Both institutions consider e-learning an important part of the future of their universities and as

such are taking steps to plan and implement strategies to achieve their visions of e-learning. The

approaches taken are somewhat different, with UWO adopting a more decentralized strategy and UC

favoring the centralized model. Overall both the universities have different vision, definition, and

approach towards e-learning. If they can sustain their vision with proper funding, they are both slated

for success in their own ways.

 14

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF APPROACHES TO E-LEARNING

References

Bates, A.W. (2007). Strategic Planning for E-learning in a Polytechnic. In Making the transition to

e-learning: Strategies and issues. Retrieved from ttps://www.dropbox.com/s/5h22hdu7od5wtuv

/bullen-and-janes.pdf?dl=0

Bates, A.W., & Sangr, A. (2011). Managing technology in higher education: Strategies for

transforming teaching and learning. John Wiley & Sons.

Bullen, M. (2017). ETEC520 Planning and managing technologies in higher education: Unit 4.

Retrieved from http://blogs.ubc.ca/etec5202015

Bullen, M. (2015). Revisiting the need for strategic planning for e-learning in higher education. In M.

Ally & B. Khan (eds.). The international handbook of e-learning, Volume 1, (pp.139-152).

London: Routledge.

Brown, M. G. (2016). Blended instructional practice: A review of the empirical literature on

instructors adoption and use of online tools in face-to-face teaching. Internet and Higher Education,

31, 1- 10. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.001

University of Cincinnati. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved June 1, 2017. Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Cincinnati

University of Cincinnati, Current Funds Budget Plan Fiscal Year 2016-2017. Retrieved from

http://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/af/budgetfinsvcs/Budget/FY17%20Budget%20Book

%20FINAL%20DRAFT.pdf

University of Cincinnati eLearning Strategic Plan 2017-2020. Retrieved from

https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/provost/docs/priorities/elearning/eL-Strategic

-Plan-FINAL-1.25.17.pdf

Western University (2013). E-Learning Task Force Report to the Provost May 2013. Retrieved
 15

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF APPROACHES TO E-LEARNING

from http://provost.uwo.ca/pdf/INSIDE_E-Learning_REPORT-may2013-v4.pdf

Western Network for Digital Education and Research (WNDER): Thoughts On Westerns

Strategic Plan and The Report Of The E-Learning Task Force. (n.d.) Retrieved from

http://president.uwo.ca/pdf/strategic-plan/NetworkforDigitalEducationResearch.pdf