eLearning Strategic Plan ELA by Yun Mei Ling

e‐Learning Strategic Plan

Year 2011 – 2015

©Taylor’s University Lakeside Campus 2011 All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the permission of the copyright owner.

Project Advisors: Dato’ Loy Teik Ngan Professor Dato’ Dr. Hassan Said Project Sponsor: Mr. Pradeep Nair Project Leader: Ms. Tarana G. Ramchand Project Team: Mr. Adrian Yao Dr. Logendra S. Ponniah Mr. Michael Ngeow Mr. Jonathan Chong Ms. Khoo Guat Mei Dr. Angelo C. Maduli Project Consultants: Associate Professor Dr. Daniel Tan Mr. Karl Engkvist Report Coordinators: Dr. Ayusni Bahajjaj Dr. Minni Ang Page 1 of 91

…the next round of innovation in school reform will involve learning software. While schools have resisted integrating technology for instruction, today’s students are embracing technology in their everyday lives. The question is whether the next innovation, truly individualized instruction, will occur inside or outside public education. Kathleen McCartney, Dean, Harvard Graduate School of Education

...Disruptive technologies will personalize and, as a result, revolutionize learning… and every education leader should figure out how they can be part of the improvement wave to come. Tom Vander Ark , President, X PRIZE Foundation in Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation will Change the Way the World Learns Clayton M Christensen, Michael B Horn, Curtis W Johnson

Page 2 of 91

CONTENTS Chapter 1 2 3 4 5 6

Title EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION 1.1 Problem Statement 1.2 Definition of e‐Learning 1.3 Proposed Definition of e‐Learning at Taylor’s University 1.4 Current Trends of e‐Learning in Malaysia WHY E‐LEARNING? 2.1 Learning Philosophy at Taylor’s University Today 2.2 Current Adoption Level of Technology By Faculty 2.3 Current Learning Spaces 2.4 Business Drivers For The Use of Technology in Learning and Teaching 2.5 Benefits of the e‐Learning Experience 2.6 Future Learning Philosophy at Taylor’s University THE E‐LEARNING STRATEGIC PLAN 3.1 The e‐Learning Mission and Guiding Principles 3.2 Learning Goals and Strategies 3.3 Approach to Implementing e‐Learning at Taylor’s University 3.4 Success Measures 3.5 TaylorED: The Beacon to the Future THE E‐LEARNING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2011 ‐ 2015 4.1 The Four (4) Stage Transformation 4.2 e‐Learning Delivery Modes 4.3 e‐Learning Development and Tools 4.4 Staff Development and E‐Learning 4.5 Facilitating the Change Process 4.6 Governance Structure for e‐Learning 4.7 e‐Learning Academy (eLA) Implementation Plan 4.8 Infrastructure 4.9 Maintenance and Support Environment 4.10 Learning Spaces Re‐Design FINANCIAL IMPACT RISK MANAGEMENT Page 3 of 91

Page 8 13 14 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 21 22 24 25 26 29 30 31 33 34 37 38 43 46 49 56 57 62 65 69 75

Chapter 7 8 9 10

Title CONSULTATION PROCESS CONCLUSION REFERENCES APPENDICES

77 79 81 82

Page 4 of 91

Page

LIST OF TABLES No. 2.0 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.0 5.1 5.2

Table Types of e‐Learning According to Content Delivered Online The Three Waves of Adopters and Estimated Percentage of Staff at Taylor’s University A Snapshot of Adoption Rates at Particular Time Frames Estimated Effort for e‐Learning Support Activities Plan for Action from eLA e‐Learning Support Models Projected Capital Expenditure Projected Operating Expenditure Projected Student Numbers and Turnover

Page 5 of 91

Page 19 43 43 55 56 62 70 72 74

LIST OF FIGURES No. 2.0 2.1 3.0 3.1 3.2 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 7.0

Title Taylor’s University Academics’ Use of Technology Future Learning Philosophy in Taylor’s University

Focus on Quantity over Quality Developmental Phases of TaylorED Working Model of TaylorED The Four Stage Transformation Starfish Retention System Proposed e‐Learning Tools at Taylor’s University Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) Academic Staff Development on Learning Technology Driving the e‐Learning Change Facilitating the Change Process in e‐Learning at Taylor’s University Supply Chain of e‐Learning Proposed Governance Structure for e‐Learning Development & Initiatives, Taylor’s University Lakeside Campus Proposed Functional Organisational Structure for e‐Learning Academy (eLA), Taylor’s University, Lakeside Campus Proposed Organisational Structure for e‐Learning Implementation Groups (e‐LIGs), Taylor’s University Lakeside Campus Proposed e‐Learning model for Taylor’s University based on Student‐Centred Perspective e‐Learning Infrastructure Roadmap (2011‐2015) Learning Spaces Design Framework Three (3) Phases of Development Consultation Process Flow for e‐Learning Implementation

Page 6 of 91

Page 19 22 30 31 32 36 41 42 44 45 45 48 49 52 53 54 57 64 65 67 78

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AD, T&L CAA CAPEX CIO DVC EAI eLA eLIG(s) eLM EMAS HKPolyU HKU HR ICT InTeLLeCT ISP LAN LAS LDT LMS NAC NTU OPEX OUM PDP PVC, T&L QAD SAN SOE TCSJ TDG TED TEF TeX TGC TLF TRI VLE VPN WAN WAPs

Associate Deans, Teaching & Learning Computer Assisted Assessment Capital Expenditure Chief Information Officer Deputy Vice Chancellor Enterprise Applications Integration e‐Learning Academy e‐Learning Implementation Group(s) e‐Learning Mapping Resource Teaching and Learning Innovation Award Hong Kong Polytechnic University Hong Kong University Human Resource Information and Communications Technology Integrated Teaching and Lifelong Learning Centre @ Taylor’s Internet Service Providers Local Area Networks Learning and Academic Skills Learning Design Templates Learning Management System Network Access Control Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Operating Expenditure Open University Malaysia Personal Development Plan Pro Vice Chancellor, Teaching and Learning Quality Advancement Department Storage Area Networks Standard Operating Environment Taylor’s College Subang Jaya Teaching Development Grant Teaching and Educational Development Teaching Excellence Framework Taylor’s Extended Classroom Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities Teaching Learning Framework Technology, Research and Innovation Virtual Learning Environment Virtual Private Network Wide Area Networks Wireless Access Points Page 7 of 91

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 8 of 91

Taylor’s University’s need for a Strategic Plan for the full‐scale implementation of e‐Learning throughout the entire fabric of the institution has never been more pressing given the lifestyle norms of generation‐ Y and widespread implementation of e‐Learning by universities worldwide. Our status as a new university gives us an opportunity to redefine the learning experience of our students. Through this initiative, the University will gain stronger competitive advantage. This will further enhance our reputation, and will give our graduates the edge to shine. The e‐Learning Strategic Plan is inspired by and aligned with Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities (TGC) and its Teaching and Learning Philosophy and Framework, being very much student‐centred and focused on intentional‐learning. ‘Blended learning’, which adopts a strategic and systematic implementation of technology combined with the best features of face‐to‐face interaction to integrate different modes of delivery, models of teaching and styles of learning within teaching and learning environments, is proposed for adoption as Taylor’s principal means of facilitating university‐wide integration of e‐ Learning. The defining characteristic of blended learning approaches is that technology is used to enrich the quality of the student learning experience through interactive learning activities beyond those attainable through face‐to‐face classroom interactions. This e‐Learning experience will be branded as TaylorEd: in essence, ‘At Taylor’s, your education is tailored to your needs’. The current type of electronic course delivery adopted at Taylor’s University is Web Facilitated using the Blackboard Learning Management System. This approach delivers between 1 ‐ 29% of its content through e‐Learning, using web‐based teaching to facilitate essentially face‐to‐face courses. Taylor’s University’s usage at this point is at the very low percentage of 10 and below. In contrast, blended learning delivers between 30% through up to 79% of its material through online means, with the remainder being communicated through face‐to‐face delivery. Adoption of this new approach requires some restructuring of current learning environments and methodologies. The proposed e‐Learning mission statement is: By 2015, every student at Taylor’s University will learn in a collaborative, self‐directed and personalised manner anytime and anywhere. This mission is guided by the principles summarized below: 1. e‐Learning is to be driven by pedagogical considerations and not the demands or availability of the technologies themselves;

Page 9 of 91

2. Clear understanding of the benefits of new learning technologies in diverse teaching practices and learning styles will drive increased and more sophisticated use of e‐Learning tools by staff and students; 3. InTeLLeCT will provide e‐Learning pedagogic support services; 4. e‐Learning as an integral teaching and learning approach will be linked with learning outcomes, module delivery and assessment aims; 5. e‐Learning will be used to create more interactive autonomous learning environments and strengthen teaching and research links; 6. A quality management system will ensure that technology resources are used optimally. The goals for e‐Learning at Taylor’s University, as outlined in this Plan, are summarized below: 1. Technology integration linked to curricular goals and consistent with learning outcomes. 2. The extension of staff capabilities in the use of blended learning. 3. The establishment of effective governance that drives and sustains e‐Learning. 4. The extension of the University’s quality assurance framework to support blended learning. 5. The establishment of reliable infrastructure and timely support services. 6. The provision of optimal learning spaces. Future key indicators of the success of the Strategic Plan include the following: 1. Blended learning as an integral part of all curricula by 2015. 2. Academic staff confidence in adopting e‐Learning. 3. Student confidence in own use of technology to enhance lifelong learning. 4. Student demand for high‐tech enhanced learning experience at Taylor’s University. 5. Links with diverse communities optimal and dependent on effective use of blended learning. 6. Emergence of innovative approaches to teaching‐research linkages through blended learning. 7. Taylor’s becomes well known and recognized for adoption of technology in teaching & learning. Under the Strategic Plan, by 2015 all students will experience blended learning – with an ability to access a significant portion of learning content via e‐Learning. Students will autonomously shift between platforms according to their preferred learning styles. Synchronous (time‐dependent) and asynchronous (time‐independent) modes of e‐Learning will be adopted depending on specific learning outcomes.

Page 10 of 91

The willingness and ability of current faculty to adopt e‐Learning will be the critical factor determining the success or failure of the Strategic Plan. Through a corollary Teaching Enhancement Plan, this will operationalize the University’s commitment to improve faculty competencies through professional development and training. University‐wide redevelopment of learning spaces to better support and complement the e‐Learning initiative is proposed, subject to a more thorough study and considering stakeholder perspectives and current research. The strategic plan will be rolled out in four (4) phases. During the Foundational Phase (H1 2011), e‐ Learning becomes one of the university’s strategic priorities with appropriate structures and personnel in place. The Emergent Phase (H2 2011 – 2012) focuses on ensuring that e‐Learning infrastructure meets the needs of the initiative, and involves upgrading and / or building where necessary. During the Innovative Phase (2013 – 2014), the e‐Learning needs of the University is expected to change and grow rapidly in tandem with development efforts. The Transformative Phase (2015 and beyond) will see the implementation of increasingly advanced and complex e‐Learning applications and their corresponding infrastructure upgrades as required. The projected capital expenditure over five (5) years is RM 51.4 million while operating expenditure over the same period is estimated at RM 44.2 million. As the investment outlay from our annual operating budget is significant, the Management of Taylor’s University will need to conduct a careful evaluation of existing ICT and other resource allocations to ensure sufficient financial support for this project. The investment costs can be partially recovered through the imposition of a technology fee from 2012 onwards. The e‐learning budget will also be subjected to project progress review and close monitoring process. The e‐Learning Taskforce estimates that approximately RM 54 million will need to be invested before the impact on student turnover is seen from 2014 onwards, when the e‐Learning initiative reaches its full three year cycle and gains become increasingly apparent. There will be a significant increase in turnover (student numbers and fee increase) attributed to the outcomes of the e‐Learning strategic plans from 2014 onwards. The Academic Services Department also estimates a minimum 15% savings in space attributed to 1/3 of tutorial sessions being delivered online. In addition, research obtained from

Page 11 of 91

other universities that have successfully implemented blended learning, suggests that the biggest impact factor would be in the quality of the students’ brand experience. Although the initial investment may appear high and impact our cash flow and financial performance in the short run, the potential long‐term benefits outweigh the risks. Certainly, failure to move forward in terms of integrating e‐learning throughout the entire fabric of the University will mean likely long‐term failure to grow as a competitive institution of higher learning. In conclusion, the e‐Learning Taskforce unreservedly recommends the wholesale adoption of the proposed e‐Learning Strategic Plan 2011 – 2015, for immediate implementation.

Page 12 of 91

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Page 13 of 91

This strategy paper is geared towards embedding e‐Learning institutionally, to ensure that the development of e‐Learning is aligned with the strategic mission of the University to be renowned for its teaching excellence and the distinctive qualities of its graduates. The paper will also serve as a key communication tool with internal and external stakeholders of the University. 1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT Despite the increasing use of e‐Learning by universities around the world and the lifestyle norms of generation‐Y, Taylor’s University has yet to establish a strategy for the development and implementation of e‐Learning. By effectively employing technology in teaching and learning, Taylor’s University can maintain its leadership position in teaching excellence, and capture new market segments. 1.2 DEFINITION OF E‐LEARNING e‐Learning technology has the potential to facilitate instruction in ways that formerly were unimaginable, with learners being able to experience simulations of environments and events that they never could within regular classrooms, receiving instruction and communicating with others freely regardless of geographical distances, and interacting with large knowledge bases and expert tutoring systems (Schunk, 2009). e‐Learning, as defined by the European Union (EU) is: “ …the European programme in the field of ICT for education and training which promotes the inclusion of ICT in all learning systems and environments (formal, non‐ formal, informal – school, higher and adult education and training).” (Fee, 2009:14) In 2001 the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) redefined e‐Learning, by amending its definition in 1998 to: “e‐Learning refers to anything delivered, enabled, or mediated by electronic technology for the explicit purpose of learning. This definition excludes things that might fit under … ‘distance learning, but are non‐electronic (such as books and paper‐based correspondence). It is broader than, but includes, online learning, Web‐based learning, and computer‐based training. e‐Learning includes both one‐way and two‐way learning exchanges, as well as learner‐to‐learner interaction (as occurs in learning communities). For simplicity, assume that if you use a computer in some fashion to affect learning, then it is e‐Learning’.” (Fee, 2009:15) Page 14 of 91

Clark and Mayer (2008) defined e‐Learning encompassing the following characteristics: “… e‐Learning as instruction delivered on a computer by way of CD‐ROM, Internet, or intranet with the following features:  Includes content relevant to the learning objective;  Uses instructional methods such as examples and practice to help learning;  Uses media elements such as words and pictures to deliver the content and methods;  May be instructor‐led (synchronous e‐Learning) or designed for self–paced individual study (asynchronous e‐Learning);  Builds new knowledge and skills linked to individual learning goals or improved organisational performance.” Other definitions of e‐Learning include: “A learning system that is supported by electronic hardware and software either online (synchronous) or offline (asynchronous). The learning is carried out either individually or on a small or large group basis and can be used as a hybrid to the face‐to‐face format, or exclusively in open and distance learning (ODL). As such, e‐Learning is not confined to the boundaries of the online format but also includes the offline format using any form of electronic media to facilitate the teaching and learning processes.” 1.3 PROPOSED DEFINITION OF E‐LEARNING AT TAYLOR’S UNIVERSITY It is proposed that Taylor’s adopt the term ‘blended learning’ as a principal means of addressing the use of information and communication technologies to enhance its learning and teaching activities. In the Taylor’s context, the following definition will be used to inform policy and practice in relation to blended learning: Blended learning is realised in teaching and learning environments where there is an effective integration of different modes of delivery, models of teaching and styles of learning as a result of adopting a strategic and systematic approach to the use of technology combined with the best features of face to face interaction. (Krause, 2007) This definition encompasses many of the pedagogical approaches and practices already in place at Taylor’s and provides a mandate for supporting academic staff as they seek to achieve best practice in the integration of information and communication technologies in the curriculum. The facilitation of blended learning approaches is the main goal of this strategic plan. Blended learning approaches will vary according to the particular learning and teaching context and according to the pedagogical principles informing curriculum development. The defining characteristic of blended learning approaches is that technology will be used to enrich the quality of the student learning experience through interactive learning activities beyond those attainable through face‐to‐face classroom interactions. Page 15 of 91

1.4 CURRENT TRENDS IN E‐LEARNING IN MALAYSIA In Malaysia, the learning environment is traditionally associated with physical classrooms, textbooks, pen and paper examinations and teachers. e‐Learning centres have been introduced in public universities since 1996. However, most of these centres provide rudimentary management of their learning management systems with little support for content and faculty development. Taylor’s University e‐Learning initiatives will therefore make us the forerunner in holistic use of technology in learning.

Page 16 of 91

CHAPTER 2 WHY E‐LEARNING? Page 17 of 91

2.1 LEARNING PHILOSOPHY AT TAYLOR’S UNIVERSITY TODAY At Taylor’s University, our teaching and learning philosophy is based on student‐centred learning and intentional learning. The goal of developing the TGC in all Taylor’s University students aligns itself naturally with the concept of student‐centred learning, which focuses on the student's needs, abilities, interests and learning styles with the teacher as a facilitator of learning. The student‐centred intentional learning based teaching and learning approach is characterized by: 

Authentic learning environments that are purposefully designed to simulate situations in which students may ultimately be employed, linking experience, previous understandings, and new knowledge in a way that is readily apparent to the learner.



A constructivist view of learning that encourages students to use active techniques (experimentation as well as real world problem solving) to create more knowledge and to constantly assess how the activity is helping them gain understanding. This continuous reflection helps the student’s ideas to gain complexity and power, and develops increasingly strong abilities to integrate new information, with the primary goal being to help students to learn how to learn.



Variety in learning opportunities that allows students to experiment with integrating and applying skills and knowledge and then to reflect in a structured manner on the relative success of similar solutions in different situations.



Consideration of different student learning styles when planning varied learning opportunities as well as methods of student evaluation / assessment.



One of the teacher's main roles becomes to encourage this learning and reflection process, so that the teacher helps the student to construct knowledge rather than to reproduce a series of facts. The constructivist teacher provides tools such as problem solving and inquiry based learning activities with which students formulate and test their ideas, draw conclusions and inferences, and pool and convey their knowledge in a collaborative learning environment.

The current type of electronic course delivery adopted at Taylor’s University is Web Facilitated, at the very low percentage of 10 and below. This is done using a learning management system (LMS), Blackboard. LMS is a software package that allows the management and delivery of learning content to learners. It is a web‐based system that allows the management of instructor led courses, virtual classrooms, online courses and much more. It also tracks the learners’ progress and performance of all the activities they are involved in. Taylor’s University is currently using Blackboard version 7.3.

Page 18 of 91

A detailed explanation on the types of course delivery currently practiced at Taylor’s University is provided below: Table 2.0: Types of e‐Learning according to Content Delivered Online PROPORTION OF TYPE OF COURSE TYPICAL DESCRIPTION CONTENT DELIVERED (%) Course with no online technology enabled content. 0 Traditional Course is delivered in writing or orally. Course which uses web‐based teaching to facilitate 1 – 29 Web Facilitated what is essentially a face‐to‐face course. Uses a LMS or web pages to post its syllabus and assignments. Course that blends online and face‐to‐face delivery. Substantial proportion of the content is delivered 30 – 79 Blended / Hybrid online. Typically uses online discussions and with some face‐to‐face meetings. A course where most or all of the content is delivered 80+ Online online. Typically with no face‐to‐face meetings. 2.2 CURRENT ADOPTION LEVEL OF TECHNOLOGY BY FACULTY Taylor’s University, then still Taylor’s College, introduced e‐Learning technology around ten years ago. However, the current status of technology utilization within the University is still at an ambivalent level. The effort to move learning facilitation to ‘high‐tech mode’ produced numerous reactions from existing staff, including ambivalence, apathy and hostility, resulting in a very slow adoption rate. A year ago, a survey was conducted to find out how faculty members are utilizing web platforms to complement their teaching and the result was the confirmation of what was earlier perceived. Figure 2.0 shows the huge chunk of academics who still need much encouragement to utilize technology in engaging their students.

Lecturer's Use of Technology 6.90% 17.20% Seldom 75.90%

Moderate Extensive

Figure 2.0: Taylor’s University Academics Use of Technology Page 19 of 91

Surveys conducted by the Teaching and Educational Development (TED) department in December 2010, revealed that academic staff received limited technical support to enhance their capability to use technology whilst students lamented on the slow internet connection at the University. Further analysis indicated the following reasons for low adoption levels of technology: 

Lack of experienced leadership and know‐how in the area of e‐Learning;



Absence of a technical support team for faculty members;



Faculty were not adequately prepared to succeed in this area;



Lack of infrastructure to support adoption of technology;



Absence of comprehensive strategy to implement e‐Learning.

2.3 CURRENT LEARNING SPACES There is evidence of information technology injection into learning space design. Some e‐Learning tools are made available including computers, data projectors, our learning management system (Blackboard), a limited number audio and video equipment, video conferencing equipment and electronic counters. However they are located primarily in selected classrooms and lecture halls. The focus is on delivering teaching instead of delivering learning. Thus, the student’s e‐Learning experiences at Taylor’s University are limited so that little or no e‐ Learning occurs outside the classroom and lecture hall, which falls far behind that of K‐12 international school learners. Classrooms are designed as rectangular learning spaces with theatre style seating, which may discourage attempts to apply collaborative principles. There are also limited conducive alternative learning spaces apart from those within the library. 2.4 BUSINESS DRIVERS FOR THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN LEARNING AND TEACHING The principal business drivers for making effective use of technology in Taylor’s University context include:



Enhancing the quality of the student learning experience



Facilitating leading practice and innovative approaches to learning and teaching;



Providing flexibility of provision to support a diverse student population;



Enriching the campus experience for students;



Optimizing opportunities to attract and retain top quality students; Page 20 of 91



Increasing competitiveness in building new student markets enabled by flexible and innovative program delivery, particularly in transnational education programmes; and



Providing cost effective learning and teaching solutions.

2.5 BENEFITS OF THE E‐LEARNING EXPERIENCE Adoption of blended learning approaches has the following benefits:



Best fits the current learning and teaching environment and aspirations at Taylor’s;



Builds on and consolidates existing best practice at Taylor’s;



Enriches the student experience and learning outcomes through effective knowledge acquisition skills;



Enhances formal and informal learning opportunities;



Supports the important goal of accommodating student diversity;



Reflects international theorizing and leading practice in this area;



Avoids the ‘all‐or‐nothing’ assumptions inherent in current e‐Learning and online learning approaches;



Optimizes the opportunity to secure widespread ownership and acceptance among academic colleagues;



Provides flexibility in terms of implementation at the course and program level;



Supports current institutional strategic directions in learning and teaching, including opportunities for promoting interdisciplinary study and research, internationalizing the curriculum, enhancement of research‐teaching linkages and of work‐integrated learning;



Complements the existing views of flexible learning while at the same time emphasizing the unique pedagogical qualities characterizing the blending of face‐to‐face and technology‐ enhanced learning and teaching;



Makes optimal use of physical and virtual resources.



Allows the university to provide alternative modes of delivery of courses during times of crises which may require closure of campus facilities.

Page 21 of 91

2.6 FUTURE LEARNING PHILOSOPHY AT TAYLOR’S UNIVERSITY Technological advances within the past decade and the subsequent emergence of a technological savvy generation of learners have laid the foundation for a learning revolution that will clearly take place within most higher education institutions in Malaysia in the years ahead. The e‐Learning initiative will be based on both the following keywords; student‐centred and intentional learning. In this context, e‐ Learning at Taylor’s University is aligned to the TGC and TLF, which is student‐centred and develops and cultivates intentional learning among students. e‐Learning at Taylor’s should be the primary driving force behind a new Taylor’s University learning experience. This will give Taylor’s an advantage and competitive edge over other local higher learning institutions, almost all of which have yet to consciously embark on this path. Taylor’s University has recognized and embraced the transformational potential of e‐Learning in the years ahead. e‐Learning will play a vitally important role in equipping graduates with the skills they need to succeed in the 21st century digital economy. e‐Learning has the potential to revolutionize the basic tenets of learning by making it individual rather than institution‐based, eliminating clock‐hour measures in favour of performance and outcome measures, and emphasizing customized learning solutions over generic, one‐size‐fits‐all approaches.

Figure 2.1: Future Learning Philosophy in Taylor’s University

Such a transformation of our teaching and learning process requires restructuring of our learning environments and methodologies to maximize student learning and productivity. Taylor’s University Page 22 of 91

believes that the infusion and integration of technology into teaching and learning is a key strategy to ensuring that it remains an outstanding learning institution or lest be left behind. It acknowledges the potential of e‐Learning to impact learning outcomes of her students and the work habits of all staff. e‐Learning encourages students and staff to assume greater responsibility for their own learning, in forums that develop their: 

Skills to become active and independent leaders.



Abilities to communicate, collaborate, plan, analyze and solve problems.



Skills to use new technologies, particularly ICT.

Page 23 of 91

CHAPTER 3 THE E‐LEARNING STRATEGIC PLAN Page 24 of 91

3.1 THE E‐LEARNING MISSION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES By 2015, every student at Taylor’s University will learn in a collaborative, self‐directed and personalized manner anytime and anywhere. Operational definitions: 

Collaborative: o

Collaborative learning is an educational approach that involves groups of learners working together to solve a problem, complete a task or create a product. It is based on the idea that learning is a naturally social act in which participant converse with peers and be actively engaged.



Self‐directed: o

Self‐directed learning is a process in which the learner rather than the institution controls both the learning objectives and the means of learning. The process includes diagnosing once own learning needs, setting personal goals, making decisions on resources and learning strategies and assessing the value of the outcome.



Personalized: o

Personalized learning is about tailoring education to individual need, interest and aptitude so as to ensure that every learner achieves and reaches the highest standards possible, not withstanding their background or circumstances.



Anytime and anywhere: o

This mode of learning essentially makes use of mobile devices and technologies that are interconnected offering learners complete independence of both location and time and choice to learn in a synchronous or asynchronous manner.

This mission will be guided by the following principles: 

e‐Learning is primarily driven by pedagogical considerations, not the demands and availability of the technologies themselves.



We recognize and appreciate the diversity of teaching practice and learning styles, and believe that a clear understanding of the benefits offered by new learning technologies will drive increased and more sophisticated use of e‐Learning tools by staff and students.



InTeLLeCT will provide an advisory service, staff development and support to schools to help develop and redesign curricula to make effective pedagogic use of e‐Learning in all aspects of student learning and support.

Page 25 of 91



e‐Learning will be considered and developed as an integral part of teaching in the same way as other methods are (e.g. lectures, labs and seminars) and therefore linked with learning outcomes, module delivery and assessment aims.



We will use e‐Learning technologies to produce a more interactive and independent environment for learners and to help strengthen the links between teaching and research.



We will ensure that a quality management system is in place so that our technological applications and resources are put to optimum use and that our students receive a high quality learning experience.

3.2 E‐LEARNING GOALS AND STRATEGIES The e‐Learning goals are largely inspired by the Taylor’s Teaching and Learning Framework which states the following: “The Taylor’s University (then TUC) teaching and learning philosophy is student‐centred as well as intentional learning based. The goal of developing the Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities (TGC) in all Taylor’s University (then TUC) students aligns itself naturally with the concept of student‐centred learning, which focuses on the student's needs, abilities, interests and learning styles with the teacher as a facilitator of learning. Students also need to develop an explicit understanding of their own approach to learning as well as confidence in their discipline‐specific knowledge base in order to confidently address generic skills as well as meta‐cognitive functions – this is what is meant by ‘intentional learning’ ‐ (Hart et al, 1999 p.302; AACU, 2002 p.21).” (Ang, 2007:1) Hence, the e‐Learning goals are as follows: Goal 1: The integration of technology will be linked to curricular goals providing best‐in‐class content and consistent with the learning outcomes. No. Strategy 1. Faculty and relevant support staff to have an informed understanding of the conceptual and pedagogical implications of the application of blended learning in curricula.

Led By eLA

Academic staff to be competent in documenting and explaining the rationale and applications of blended learning in course and program design, including expectations for, and impact on, the student learning experience and outcomes.

AD, T&L

Curricula documents make explicit statements on the means by which the strategic priorities of teaching‐research linkages, work integrated learning and internationalization of the student experience are enhanced by blended learning approaches. Page 26 of 91

Deans

Program profile plans to have clearly articulated statements on strategies for embedding blended learning approaches.

Associate Deans, T&L

Goal 2: To nurture and extend staff capabilities in the use of blended learning. No. Strategy 1. Design and implement a comprehensive academic staff development programme in order to support e‐Learning initiatives.

Led By TED

Develop communities of practice to promote the discussion and scholarly exchange of innovative strategies and to provide feedback on best practice in the use of blended learning approaches.

e‐Learning Advocates

Further develop an institution‐wide system for rewarding innovation and good practice in the use of blended learning.

PVC, T&L

Develop and embed opportunities at all levels in the university for research into student‐focused blended learning.

TRI

Ensure optimal support from ICT and eLA for academic staff enabling the incorporation of blended learning approaches into curriculum design, development, delivery and evaluation. This includes development and dissemination of professional development resources on pedagogical and technical implications of blended learning approaches.

PVC, T&L

Foster collaboration with other universities and organisations in order to extend the knowledge and understanding of good practice in blended learning approaches.

TED

Goal 3

Establish strong leadership and well‐designed support structures for governance in order to drive and sustain e‐Learning initiatives. No. Strategy 1. Ensure the cohesion and effectiveness of all organisational units supporting the academic community in developing e‐Learning approaches. 2.

Institute a university wide governance structure to support e‐Learning, including an e‐Learning Academy (eLA) to provide structured and real‐time support services to academic staff.

Led By e‐Learning Taskforce e‐Learning Taskforce

Ensure that budget reviews and provisions are aligned to enable sustainable e‐Learning approaches.

e‐Learning Taskforce

Ensure alignment between the University’s institutional e‐Learning strategy and the strategic plans of the University and the Divisions within it.

Senate

Ensure the effective integration of e‐Learning activities with administrative services to ensure a cohesive outlook. Page 27 of 91

e‐Learning Taskforce

Goal 4: Extend the University’s quality assurance framework to support blended learning approaches. No. Strategy 1. Develop a series of indicators and measures for institutional success in terms of embedding blended learning in the student learning experience across programs at undergraduate and postgraduate level.

Led By eLA

Develop and incorporate quality assurance mechanisms and measures related to blended learning as an integral part of the University’s learning and teaching quality assurance framework.

Quality Assurance Department

Revise the student evaluation of teaching and course instruments to include questions on the impact of blended learning activities.

TED

Goal 5: A technology rich environment and reliable technical infrastructure will be established, and adequate support services will be put in place in order to provide timely resolution to technical problems. No. Strategy 1. Provide both physical and virtual environments for collaborative and individual blended learning activities. 2.

Ensure that access to a rich array of learning and information resources is seamlessly integrated within the learning and teaching environment.

ICT

Ensure that all students have access to skills training in information handling and the use of technologies within their disciplinary and programme contexts.

LAS

Provide cost effective technical infrastructures to support blended learning approaches.

ICT

Further develop and maintain a flexible and responsive learning management system.

eLA

Create the potential for the local production and reuse of learning resources.

eLA

Further develop and maintain high quality blended learning tools and services.

eLA

Assess all current and upcoming technologies and incorporate appropriate ones into the blended learning environment on timely basis.

TRI

Page 28 of 91

Led By PVC, T&L

Goal 6: Provide learning spaces designed to allow collaborative learning in a technology‐rich environment based on the following principles. No. Strategy 1. Engagement:  Spaces should support a range of learners and learning activities.  Spaces should provide quality experience for users.

Led By PVC, T&L

Empowerment:  Spaces should help foster a sense of emotional and cultural safety.  Spaces should enable easy access by everyone.

PVC, T&L

Ease of use:  Spaces should emphasize simplicity of design.  Spaces should integrate seamlessly with other physical and virtual spaces.

PVC, T&L

Confidence:  Space should be fit for purpose, now and into the future.  Spaces should embed appropriate, reliable and effective technologies.

PVC, T&L

3.3 APPROACH TO IMPLEMENTING E‐LEARNING AT TAYLOR’S UNIVERSITY Arising from the above, an effective blended learning environment at Taylor’s will be informed by the Taylor’s TLF and the TGC. Approach to the Taylor’s e‐Learning experience will include: 

High priority attached to student learning and pedagogical needs when considering and applying blended learning approaches;



Strategic and systematic use of technology in association with a quality face‐to‐face environment to support student learning;



Enhancement and ultimate transformation of existing learning and teaching processes;



Flexibility in terms of implementation at the program and course levels;



Accommodation of diversity in student learning experiences;



Encouragement and nurturing of innovation among students and staff;



Enhanced interaction between students, staff, peers and the community;



Increased capacity for student‐managed learning;



Learning that takes place at students’ discretion in terms of time and place;



Creation of collaborative distributed learning environments; Page 29 of 91



A professional team approach to course design, delivery and evaluation;



Targeted professional development, including resources to support blended learning curriculum design and requisite technical skills acquisition;



A mechanism to track the quality of the student’s learning experience and academic progress will be put in place as e‐Learning adoption increases.



An initial focus on quantity of adoption over quality of learning experience.

Quantity • No. of course sites • Adoption rates • Page view rates, etc.

Quality • Learning experience • Interactive • Media rich Source: NTU

Figure 3.0: Focus on Quantity over Quality 3.4 SUCCESS MEASURES There are several ways in which Taylor’s University will know that it has succeeded in fulfilling its strategic goals for blended learning, including: 

Blended learning becomes an integral part of all curricula by year 2015;



Academic staff confidently integrates technologies into curricula in a manner consistent with course and program learning outcomes at undergraduate and postgraduate levels;



Students performance improve and they graduate with confidence in their capabilities to use technology for enhancing lifelong learning;



Students are attracted to Taylor’s because of its reputation for providing a ‘high‐tech’ enhanced learning experience;



Links with local, national and international communities are optimized and dependent on the effective use of blended learning approaches;



Innovative approaches to developing teaching‐research linkages emerge through the application of blended learning including cross border research collaboration, eg. sharing of data, joint supervision, other type of partnership; and



Taylor’s becomes well known and recognized throughout the region as a forerunner in adoption of technology in teaching & learning. Page 30 of 91

3.5 TaylorEd: THE BEACON TO THE FUTURE Taylor’s University will brand its e‐Learning experience as TaylorEd. TaylorEd, is derived from the term Taylor’s (Taylor) and education (Ed). In essence, at Taylor’s, your education is tailored to your needs. Hence, e‐Learning should not be just functional to a particular group of learning styles or strategies, but instead be tailored to various learning styles and strategies. TaylorEd shall consist of the following phases:

Year 2012

Formation of e‐Learning Taskforce to define e‐ Minimum 30% of learning in Taylor's. modules at Taylor's Current course pro‐ University has 100% of forma amended to e‐learning. incorporate elements of e‐learning.

Year 2015 More than 80% of modules at Taylor's University incorporates 100% e‐learning.

e‐Learning

Year 2011

Figure 3.1: Developmental Phases of TaylorEd Beyond year 2015, it is hoped that 100% of the modules offered by Taylor’s University will fully incorporate e‐Learning. The TaylorEd model works on a collaborative model of a 70:30 ratio; meaning that 70% of learning should take place in a physical or face‐to‐face mode while the remaining 30% of learning should take place in a virtual environment. Referring to Figure 3.1, the virtual learning experience for each module should consist of the following: 

Communication: learning is communicated via threaded discussions, forums, blogs etc.



Delivery: delivery of learning is presented through various media; video, audio, podcasts, external links, course materials, updates and announcements, etc.



Assessment: formative and summative learning can be assessed virtually.



Project Management: learners can track their individual / collaborative projects in a virtual learning environment.

Page 31 of 91

At Taylor's, every student's learning experience should encompass the following: Face‐to‐ Face 70%

Purpose: Maintain real‐life connections

Virtual (e‐Learning) 30%

Communication (Threaded discussion, forum, blogs, emails)

Delivery (Videos, audios, podcasts, external links, course documents, updates from industry etc.)

Figure 3.2: Working Model of TaylorEd Page 32 of 91

Assessment (Formative & summative)

Project Management* (particularly for postgraduate students)

CHAPTER 4 THE E‐LEARNING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2011‐2015 Page 33 of 91

Learner‐centric pedagogy will be the key to this transformation. Today’s students think, learn and live in an increasingly online world. New technologies and virtual environments allow important parts of their personal and social life to be digitized, shared and linked to global communities. A transformative university recognizes and further develops these capabilities. It revises its curriculum and learning experiences to include opportunities for students to work autonomously and concurrently in a dynamic and challenging environment. Students have access to more information and communication tools than ever before in human history. Such access calls for a new literacy and paradigm in teaching. Academics must systemically transform their role from delivering content to guiding and mediating students to meaningful material. This transformation at Taylor’s University will take place over the next five years. By 2015 all students will experience blended learning – with an ability to access a significant portion of learning content via e‐ Learning. Students will autonomously shift between platforms according to their preferred learning styles. Synchronous (time‐dependent) and asynchronous (time‐independent) modes of e‐Learning will be adopted depending on specific learning outcomes. From the students’ perspective, this experience will transform their learning behaviour from being teacher dependent to becoming learner dependent. In most cases this will be a major shift on their part. 4.1 FOUR (4) STAGE TRANSFORMATION Integrating technology into any curriculum is equal to adding salt to cooking; just the right amount at the right time can make all the difference. Technology cannot be adopted overnight and it is not a process that happens just once. It is a long journey and one is required to adapt ever so often to cope with changes in technology. When moving into e‐Learning, the unique learning style of cohorts of students and the nature of the content must be considered. Therefore, the implementation of e‐Learning at Taylor’s University is proposed to be divided into four phases, namely Foundational, Emergent, Innovative and Transformative. As with most plans, the timelines for each phase should be reviewed at least twice during the five year period to ensure agility and adaptability to context. At the same time, it must take into account the different pace of adoption in different schools. Page 34 of 91

a. Foundational Phase (H1 2011) This is the phase when the University consciously declares e‐Learning to be one of its top strategic priorities. Efforts are made to bring related expertise into the university and increase awareness on e‐ Learning amongst key leadership team members. After benchmarking visits to universities in the region which have successfully adopted similar strategies, a university wide e‐Learning Strategic Plan is developed and approved by the Senior Management team of the institution. The organisational structure and key personnel required as well as workspaces and resources are put in place. b. Emergent Phase (H2 2011‐2012) The Emergent Phase for implementation of the Plan (2011‐2012) focuses on ensuring that e‐Learning infrastructure meets the needs of the initiative, and involves upgrading and / or building where necessary. This includes the access network (wireless, wired), core network, wide‐area networks, Internet accessibility, security systems, data storage and backup systems, disaster recovery site and LMS server infrastructure. During this phase, there will be exponential increase in the number of staffs who are willing and able to adopt technology into their teaching and learning activities. c. Innovative Phase (2013‐2014) During the Innovative Phase, the e‐Learning needs of the University will be expected to change and grow rapidly as the community of academic staff and students become increasingly familiar and comfortable with e‐Learning. New e‐Learning applications will be tried and tested. While some of these will be successfully adopted and retained, others will be discontinued and removed. d. Transformative Phase (2015 and beyond) This final phase in the development of the university’s e‐Learning infrastructure is when academic staff have grown to become experienced and mature practitioners of e‐Learning and a whole generation of students would have had the opportunity to experience e‐Learning at Taylor’s University. During this phase, it is expected that the more advanced and complex e‐Learning applications will be implemented and correspondingly the e‐Learning infrastructure would need to keep pace with these new applications.

Page 35 of 91

Review

Transformative Phase (2015 and beyond) Innovative Phase (2013 ‐ 2014) e‐Learning transforms learning & teaching and is evident, through wider school change.

Emergent Phase (H2 2011 ‐ 2012)

e‐Learning innovation is embedded within the School's culture.

Foundational Phase (H1 2011) e‐Learning becomes strategic priority. Acquire expertise. Raise awareness,

>80% of modules incorporate e‐learning.

>60% of modules incorporate e‐learning.

Establish practices and resources to support e‐ learning implementations. >30% of modules incorporate e‐learning.

  

Benchmarking e‐Learning Strategic Plan.

Accessibility Bandwidth Storage

Organisational structure & key personnel hired.

Figure 4.0: The Four Stage Transformation Page 36 of 91

4.2 E‐LEARNING DELIVERY MODES In e‐Learning there are two different modes of delivery, one is synchronous and the other is asynchronous. The choice needs to be made keeping in mind the scheduled learning outcomes. a. Synchronous Learning Synchronous delivery is similar to face‐to‐face delivery. It is used when the lecturer wants to control the learning opportunity. Some of the tools that are used for this purpose are: 

Skype / Elluminate;



Instant messaging;



Video conferencing;



Live‐threaded discussions;



Shared platforms such as Google Wave / Google Docs.

One of the benefits identified for this teaching method is that students can stay focused during a fixed time frame, with tutors having significant control in the conversation/discussion content and participation. b. Asynchronous Learning In asynchronous learning, the mode of delivery has little or no time element. The lecturer / tutor will post content and students will have a degree of flexibility in retrieving the material. Some of the popular ways of engaging students in this manner are: 

Posting captured video clips;



Posting relevant course documents;



Providing supplementary online material;



Providing complementary lecture notes from other sources;



Reflective threaded discussions (this is not done instantly as for synchronous delivery).

Among the advantages of asynchronous learning are: a. Students can access and re‐visit the content as much as they want b. It gives the students some flexibility on when they can participate c. It provides an opportunity for students to be reflective On the other hand, students who lack discipline or interest may find difficulty in coping with this approach. There is a need therefore, to ensure that the progress of such students is closely monitored. Page 37 of 91

4.3 E‐LEARNING DEVELOPMENT AND TOOLS InTeLLeCT will work closely with schools and services to determine how e‐Learning tools and methodologies can facilitate the resolution of various challenges and needs faced by students and staff in individual units. Within InTeLLeCT, TRI and eLA will spearhead the process of selecting and recommending e‐Learning technologies based on their pedagogical soundness, appropriateness for the task, user‐friendliness, usability, accessibility and cost effectiveness. There are various tools on the market that can facilitate development of materials suitable for e‐Learning both quickly and inexpensively. We will explore, set criteria for selection and recommend tools for alternative development of module content suitable for both blended and distance learning. e‐Learning tools and resources outlined below are by no means an exhaustive list of possible technologies. a. Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) Tools By the end of December 2011, the Blackboard Learning System Version 9.1 will become the main LMS in use at Taylor’s University. The migration will be completed according to individual School plans monitored by the Associate Deans, Teaching and Learning and the proposed e‐Learning Implementation Group (eLIG) within each school and facilitated by the e‐Learning team at InTeLLeCT and ICT. Regular centralized staff development activities will precede any LMS innovations and introduction of new tools. Additionally, online staff resources will be made available to colleagues to support their extensive adaptation of Blackboard. Staff development topics will vary from basic introduction to more advanced usage of selected features and LMS tools. Systematic and regular bi‐annual research activities on studying perceptions of students and academics using Blackboard will be conducted. We will also develop quality assurance standards and mechanisms for LMS module sites that can be used for self‐ assessment, peer observation and other purposes. b. Web 2.0 Technologies We will explore various Web 2.0 technologies (web‐based communities and hosted services such as social‐networking sites, virtual worlds, blogs and wikis) and promote and embed their usage to encourage collaborative and innovative forms of learning and teaching, social networking, communication, sharing and dissemination of information. c. e‐Learning Laboratories The e‐Learning Laboratories are proposed futuristic classrooms, which will be a vehicle for promoting e‐ Learning usage and research‐informed teaching at Taylor’s University. Staff will have access to new Page 38 of 91

learning technologies and will have an opportunity to test them in a safe and supported environment before widely adopting them in their teaching. d. X‐Space: The Future Smart Classroom in Taylor’s These are purposefully designed and flexible formal learning spaces to facilitate a diverse learning experience in a highly collaborative and engaging manner. The room can be configured differently with tools to facilitate communication and collaboration. e. TeX: Taylor’s Extended Classrooms These classrooms allow us to link up multiple, physically disparate classrooms into one logical class or session, in which students and faculty can interact with one another across boundaries. These are fitted with full video conferencing facilities with redundant links as back up. f.

Learning Pods

Learning pods are spaces designed to support and enhance group learning where students can work together using computers, LCD monitors and smart boards for group discussions and mock presentations. g. e‐Stage This is a learning area which provides students with a small enclosed space to engage in small scale audio and video recording to enable them to review and improve on their presentation skills and styles. h. e‐Quarium These are enclosed yet visible learning spaces built to encourage collaborative and informal learning around the campus amongst students, equipped with configurable tables and chairs, wifi access and laptop hot plug area, among others. i.

e‐Learning Resources

We will conduct a scoping study of resources available to staff in a variety of areas and subjects, and facilitate their access to electronic resources in various formats. We hope that a virtual library of text, audio and video materials will be embedded into the curriculum design and development and provide an enriched learning experience for our students. We will actively contribute to the creation of a stronger digital repository at Taylor’s University and to sharing with other external repositories. Page 39 of 91

Video and Audio Recording and Streaming

The e‐Learning Strategy envisages the provision of facilities and infrastructures for conducting video and audio recording. Additionally, we will explore the acquisition of commercial packages for the recording and dissemination of lectures and supporting materials for students. k. Web Conferencing (Audio and Video) We will use audio and / or video‐conferencing and other tools to enhance communication on‐ and off‐ campus; to facilitate collaborative research activities with colleagues; to provide opportunities for guest‐ lecturers, experts, or remote tutors; to facilitate other kinds of cross‐campus or off‐campus interaction that might accompany teaching and learning, including access by and to external examiners. l.

Simulations and Virtual Reality

We foresee an increased level of interest in computer‐based simulations, virtual reality systems, or parts of such systems at Taylor’s University. It is foreseen that the demand for such systems will increase over the next few years. We will organise resources and facilitate access to certain tools (e.g. Second Life) for our staff and students. The virtual campus for HKPolyU, CoreSL is used by several faculties to simulate learning in the Second Life. m. Programme Specific e‐Learning Tools In recognizing the diversity of teaching practice and learning styles within each School and programme, we propose to set up the Taylor’s University Teaching Development Grant (TDG) Scheme for research into student‐focused blended learning that will develop and embed new technological tools at all levels in the university and drive increased and more sophisticated (and meaningful) use of e‐Learning tools by staff and students. In our visit to HKPolyU, tools such as Good Point (an online resource to help language, law and humanities students think critically) and RAPIDS (a rapid authoring platform for instructional design scenarios) have been developed through TDGs. n. Computer Assisted Assessment (CAA) and Anti‐Plagiarism Software The pedagogical implications and possibilities of new forms of assessment, and of the need for steps to ensure that these are appropriately designed and implemented will be looked into. Blackboard 9.1 provides a comprehensive set of assessment types ranging from multiple choice and simple tests to more advanced methods. Where pedagogically appropriate, automatic marking will be considered. We will use plagiarism detection software, to its full potential. Though varying from school to school, the adoption of

Page 40 of 91

this system will be guided by academic requirements and University wide policies governing academic integrity, reporting mechanisms, dealing with offenders and other issues. o. e‐Portfolios and e‐Personal Development Plan (PDP) e‐Portfolio and e‐PDP initiatives are driven in part by national policies (My3S) and lifelong and personalised learning aspirations as contained in the Taylor’s Graduate Capabilities Framework. We will proactively develop an effective practice and tools to facilitate the effective implementation of portfolios towards the attainment of the TGC. p. New Kinds of Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum Development The adoption of e‐Learning practices and emerging technologies will lead to the emergence of new types of module design and development and new methods of arrangement for contact‐time between staff and students without compromising the quality of learning and teaching. q. Computing Devices as Learning Tools As e‐Learning adoption level attains critical mass, it is envisaged that by 2013, arrangements to assist students to procure their own computing device (laptop, tablets, PDAs, etc.) would be in place, thus enabling schools to mandate the use of such devices to enhance the learning experience within classroom. r.

“Starfish” Retention Solutions

As e‐Learning adoption level attains critical mass by 2013 and in order to mitigate the existence of large number of students who may lack the discipline / interest to cope with e‐Learning, we propose the implementation of ‘Starfish Retention Solution’ to identify at‐risk students in real‐time. Faculty members and academic advisors can communicate any concerns they have about a student’s performance and connect students to the appropriate support resources designed to help that.

Figure 4.1: Starfish Retention System Page 41 of 91

X‐Space

TeX

e‐Quarium

e‐Stage

Learning Pods

Web 2.0

Simulations and Virtual Reality

Video and Audio Recording & Streaming

Web Conferecing

Starfish Retention Solutions

e‐Portfolio & e‐ PDP

Virtual Learning Environment

Programme Specific Learning Tools

Figure 4.2: Proposed e‐Learning Tools at Taylor’s University Page 42 of 91

Teaching Development Grants

4.4 STAFF DEVELOPMENT AND E‐LEARNING The Taylor’s University’s Five‐Year Strategic Plan has made teaching and learning a major priority. Under the said document, technology is identified as one of the drivers that will shape the future direction of Taylor’s learning experience. The critical success factor for the implementation of e‐Learning at Taylor’s University is the willingness and ability of existing faculty members to adopt it into their teaching and learning activities. Research reveals that there are three waves of adopters who would be recognized in any effort to achieve blended learning in teaching and learning activities. Table 4.0: The Three Waves of Adopters and Estimated Percentage of Staff at Taylor’s University Categories Explanatory Percentage (%) Individuals who are excited about technology. Explorers 10.00 Eager to experiment new approaches to T&L. Early Adopters Individuals who are willing to try if told what to do 60.00 Late Adopters Individuals who will only do it if they have to 30.00 The e‐Learning programme must consider giving the explorers the opportunity and recognition for stretching the boundaries. It is this group that will set the pace of transformation. Schools must have a certain policy in place to bring the conformers up to speed.

Table 4.1: A Snapshot of Adoption Rates at Particular Time Frames Foundational Emergent Innovative Transformative

Explorers  Exploring new ways  Sharing experiences with the rest Early Adopters  Picking up ideas  Willing to try new things Late Adopters  Conforming  Needing support Corollary to the Five‐Year Strategic Plan, the new Teaching Enhancement Plan was launched to operationalize the University’s commitment to improving academic staff learning technology aptitude through training and development interventions. Figure 4.1 shows the three developmental platforms that will define the University’s teaching excellence. Page 43 of 91

Certification

Continuing Assessment

Classification

Teaching Excellence

Figure 4.3: Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) The framework is envisioned to establish the desired academic culture unique to Taylor’s, ensuring among other things teaching capability, highly contextualized academic staff development initiatives, and sustainable academic productivity. According to the framework, developmental classification of academic staff will set baseline information, which will be the basis for identifying the most appropriate and relevant developmental interventions for each lecturer. Initially, under classification, the level of teaching capability and learning technology aptitude are considered to be significant. The developmental classification will also be the input to the various institutional certifications being considered by the University. Continuing assessment, through the use of constructed assessment tools, shall provide the basis for monitoring and best practices and in identifying areas for improvement. The implementation plan is to ensure that academics as front liners are the ones driving and advocating technology. Ensuring sustainable buy‐in from the academic staff can only be possible when strong structural and technical support are set in place. To guarantee success in implementation, there must be significant reliance on sound planning and on the provision of appropriate developmental interventions. Figure 4.4 displays the various activities to be undertaken to ensure learning technology shall become a natural and essential part of the learning process both for Taylor’s University students as well as for Page 44 of 91

academic staff. Identifying a learning technology aptitude profile shall precede determining the appropriate intervention necessary to address the need for development. Guided by the same teaching excellence framework (Figure 4.3), the attempt to create awareness and enhance technology utilization will become more manageable.

Profiling of Learning Technology Aptitude (LTA)

Attendance to LTA Modules

LTA Certification

Classification of LTA needs

LTA Registration

Learning Technology Utilization

Design of LTA Intervention

LTA Course Offering

Evaluation

Figure 4.4: Academic Staff Development on Learning Technology

In the initial phase, the main advocate of the change, in this case the eLA, should carry out an institutional climate survey on e‐Learning environment adoption among the stakeholders. The climate survey shall give the eLA the strategic view point with regards as to how to launch the change. It is also necessary to mitigate the pervading mistrust and existing ambiguities by embarking on a campus‐wide awareness campaign on the pending transition. This campaign should be in a non‐threatening and non‐ coercive manner in order to create new communities of change converts. The main advocates of the project should exert more influence to sustain and support change converts. The flow of initiatives on how to effectively drive the transition is illustrated in Figure 4.5.

Analysis of the institutional climate & attitude on e‐ Learning

e‐Learning awareness campaign

Bringing in small group of e‐Learning advocates on board

Figure 4.5: Driving the e‐Learning Change 4.5 FACILITATING THE CHANGE PROCESS Page 45 of 91

Support and sustain the 'converts'

An effective, timely and user‐friendly communication process will be established to bring e‐ Learning closer to each academic staff member. The key to this strategy is the building of an effective and comprehensive website to promote e‐Learning, with services provided to support e‐Learning as well as self‐help information to bring e‐Learning into effect.

ii. A proven way within the Taylor’s University context of initiating change is to utilize internationally renowned experts and consultants in e‐Learning, to collaborate with Taylor’s University staff. We propose that these experts will collaborate within Schools, with the e‐ Learning advocates and with the wider community through various professional development activities as well as through dissemination events, such as an annual Teaching and Learning Symposium. iii. An e‐Learning Mapping Resource (eLM); will be developed to assist staff in engaging with and implementing e‐Learning. This involves creating alignment between learning activities (e.g. reading and reflection, quizzes, discussion, problem solving, peer support, guided writing, etc.), content type (e.g. theories and concepts, case studies, tips, rich descriptors etc.) content delivery (e.g. print media, video and audio, on‐line environments etc.) and learning outcomes (as determined by the course and unit outlines). iv. Learning Design Templates (LDT) will be developed in order to assist staff in implementing e‐ Learning in a timely and pedagogically‐effective way. Initially the ones proposed are content neutral allowing staff to customize and adapt them to their context. The design of the templates and the areas they encompass will be adapted after reviewing the needs analysis and will also seek to look for common practices across currently funded e‐Learning projects (such as Video Case‐Based Learning) v. The role of e‐Learning Advocates will be developed as an integral part of implementing e‐ Learning at Taylor’s University. The initial goal will be to support staff with a demonstrated interest in e‐Learning (as advocates) to develop useful e‐Learning tools and activities for their own students, which can then be shared more widely with faculty members at Taylor’s University. We propose that all Deans and Directors nominate at least two e‐Learning Advocates from each School (total 24 staff). We propose that the role comes with grant of RM 6,000 annually that each advocate can use towards his or her own work, equipment, software or professional development related to e‐Learning. Page 46 of 91

vi. A Teaching and Learning Innovation Symposium and a Blended Learning Showcase will be held at Taylor’s University annually to promote e‐Learning practices as well as opportunities to showcase local and international efforts in the area of e‐Learning and blended learning. vii. The Teaching and Learning Innovation Award (EMAS) will be expanded and is to be presented in recognition of excellence and innovation in teaching and learning using a blended learning approach at Taylor’s University. This award will be presented again twice yearly with a prize and certificate for 1st (RM 3,000.00), 2nd (RM 1,000.00), 3rd (RM 500.00) places and one Honourable mention for team and / or individual categories. viii. e‐Learning @ Taylor’s University shall be a comprehensive resource kit on Blended Learning Tips and Tricks, which any faculty member can use to adopt suitable e‐Learning tools into their teaching and learning. ix. There will be a comprehensive list of Professional Development programmes in the area of e‐ Learning, which will be provided to all Taylor’s University academic staff. In order to effectively measure the effectiveness of the change management plans, the Taskforce recommends the following indicators to measure adoption rate of e‐Learning by students at Taylor’s University: i.

Qualitative: to assess students’ e‐Learning experience through the evaluation forms for each module every semester.

ii. Quantitative: Percentage of courses online, number of users (students), number of pages viewed daily.

Page 47 of 91

Experts & Consultants

e‐Learning at Taylor's (Resource Kit)

e‐Learning Mapping

Learning Design Templates

Teaching & Learning Innovation Award

Professional Development

School‐based Teh Tarik Workshop

e‐Learning Implementation Team (eLITE)

Teaching & Learning Innovation Symposium

Blended Learning Showcase

Figure 4.6: Facilitating the Change Process in e‐Learning at Taylor’s University Page 48 of 91

4.6 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE FOR E‐LEARNING Neumann and Schütte (2007) highlighted that a supply chain is required to develop, produce, evaluate, use and sell e‐Learning content at universities and for further education as shown in Figure 4.5. Based on this supply chain which acts in developing, producing and delivering e‐Learning content, a number of universities have established e‐Learning organisational models to manage e‐Learning initiatives.

(Source: Neumann and Schütte, 2007)

Figure 4.7: Supply Chain of e‐Learning Studies from a number of universities across the globe have established an e‐Learning organisational model based on the following segments: a. Educational content development b. Curriculum and pedagogical development c. Systems and support management d. Policy making management Based on the research on other similar structures in various universities, the Taskforce proposes the following Governance Structure as shown in Figure 4.8. Key highlights of the governance structure are: a. Once the University Council approves the e‐Learning Strategic Plan, the Senate shall have oversight of the implementation of e‐Learning at Taylor’s University and ensure that it is aligns with the strategic goals of the University. b. The Senate will receive quarterly progress reports from the University Teaching and Learning Committee on the implementation of e‐Learning. c. The main body tasked with ensuring that the e‐Learning Strategic Plan is carried out shall be the e‐Learning Taskforce, composed of: 

Deputy Vice‐Chancellor (Chair);



Pro‐Vice Chancellor, Teaching & Learning (Alternate Chair); Page 49 of 91



Chief Information Officer (CIO);



Financial Controller;



Head of TRI;



Head of TED; and



AD, T&L of each Division.

d. Given that e‐Learning is one of the cornerstones of the Taylor’s University Strategic Plan, this initiative requires ample and extensive support – as stated by McNaught et al (2006) through a study conducted by McNaught et al (2000) in 25 Australian universities. The e‐Learning Taskforce will therefore focus on the following and advise the University Teaching and Learning Committee and the Senate accordingly: 

Coherence of policy across all levels of institutional operations and clear specific policies which impact on e‐Learning within the University;



Clear intellectual property policy, particularly with respect to the role of copyright in emerging online environments;



Strong leadership and institutional culture;



Support for staff issues and attitudes: namely, professional development;



Training, staff recognition and rewards, and motivation for individuals to use e‐Learning;



Specific resourcing issues related to funding for maintenance or updating of e‐Learning materials and approaches, staff time release, and support staff.

e. At Divisional Level, it is proposed that each Division form its own Teaching & Learning Committee consisting of the AD T&L, Divisional Representatives for TRI, TED and LAS. f.

The Divisional Representatives of TRI shall head the eLIG which will be set up to promote the use of e‐Learning within each School within the Division.

g. As e‐Learning initiatives in any university can become a very capital‐intensive affair, it is imperative that the Quality Advancement Department (QAD) conducts periodic audits to assess the utilization levels of software, hardware, equipment and spaces expended to advance e‐ Learning. An audit report from QAD is submitted to the Senate and the University Council annually.

Page 50 of 91

h. We also propose that Taylor’s University set up an eLA in 2011. The functions of eLA shall include:



Interfacing with academics to facilitate the integration of knowledge into teaching and learning by developing and conducting training classes on application software products;



Maintaining training facility resources and equipment; providing input and recommendations regarding software purchases and both site and district technology plans; and;



Providing input / insight on ways to increase teachers’ use of technology as it positively impacts student performance in the classroom.

The Taskforce also proposes that Taylor’s University adopts an organisation structure for eLA as shown in Figure 4.6 and Figure 4.7. This model is adapted from Kumimamoto University and Nanyang Technological University (NTU) (Refer to Appendix 2). The tasks carried out by eLA will include:



To consult on design of teaching and learning activities and teacher’s e‐Learning strategies;



To support e‐Learning needs such as multimedia and technical development through a technical team;



To support, administer and manage for various e‐Learning projects;



To consult and assist in the evaluation of e‐Learning innovations;



To organise professional development opportunities related to e‐Learning, as well as workshops that are open to all or customized for various schools and divisions;



To consult and conduct presentations on e‐Learning targeted at internal faculty / departments and external visitors.

Page 51 of 91

University Council

Senate

University Teaching & Learning Committee

e‐Learning Taskforce

DVC Advisor / Consultant PVC, T&L TRI eLA

TED eLIGs

STRATEGY

COORDINATION

IMPLEMENTATION

Figure 4.8: Proposed Governance Structure for e‐Learning Development & Initiatives, Taylor’s University Lakeside Campus Page 52 of 91

LAS

Technology, Research & Innovation (TRI)

e‐Learning Academy (eLA)

Educational Content Development

Courseware & Content Development

Learning Space Environment

Knowledge Technology & Services

Design & Media

Enabling Technology for Teaching & Learning

Faculty Development

Videographers

e‐LEarning Systems & Appliocations

Technical Application

Multimedia Designers

Systems Technologists

Multimedia Developers

Photographers

Programmers

Technologists

Audio Specialists

Media Developers

Figure 4.9: Proposed Functional Organisational Structure for e‐Learning Academy (eLA), Taylor’s University, Lakeside Campus Page 53 of 91

Page 54 of 91

Medicine, Pharmacy & Health Sciences

Law

Language & Compulsory Subjects

Hospitality, Tourism & Culinary Arts

Engineering

Education

Communication

Computing

Business

Architecture, Building & Design

InTeLLeCT TRI

Figure 4.10: Proposed Organisational Structure for e‐Learning Implementation Groups (e‐LIGs), Taylor’s University Lakeside Campus

Arabasz, Boggs and Baker (2003) recommended that e‐Learning requires a holistic support structure such as (1) technical infrastructure, (2) training, (3) course / curriculum development, and, (4) support / help. A survey was carried out that the effort identified below is required to support e‐Learning activities: Table 4.2: Estimated Effort for e‐Learning Support Activities Support Activities Estimated Effort (%) Assisting with hardware, network or technology 25.00 Infrastructure training for instructors 20.00 Assisting with pedagogy issues 12.00 Assisting with technology tools and resource selection 11.00 Managing network and capabilities 10.00 Creating e‐Learning content elements 8.00 Troubleshooting network outrages 7.00 Performing materials online or copyright research 3.00 Managing intellectual property 2.00 Others 2.00 TOTAL 100.00 (Source: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0309.pdf) Based on the data listed in Table 4.2, eLA and ICT should also offer the support services as above. An excellent network and administrative support team is required to support the entire population of the campus. Page 55 of 91

4.7 e‐LEARNING ACADEMY (eLA) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Table 4.3: Plan for Action from eLA Time period Deliverable Action by Task Head, TRI Identify staff within Taylor’s to fulfil positions; eLA teams in place eLA Manager Recruit new staff or vendors for remaining HR Manager positions. Conduct staff feedback on e‐Learning September implementation; eLA Manager 2011 Conduct student survey on e‐Learning Results of feedback Head, TED implementation; and survey Deans of Schools, Determine incentives schemes for staff and students to engage in e‐Learning. Training completed Identify training needs and schedules; Head, TED for 120 number of Conduct training sessions on content Deans of Schools faculty members, development and management. December being early adopters ALL schools and admin services have policy in 2011 Prototypes and eLA Manager place and implementation plan in action to evaluation studies Faculty from every exploit the potential benefits of e‐Learning completed School and technology by June 2015. Review of professional standards and All Programmes and development of new e‐Learning and curricula contain technology elements; these must support the Head, TRI 30% e‐Learning skills needed by practitioners, managers and Deans, elements (content, leaders in the effective use of technology both Management December assessment and for teaching and learning and efficient project) 2012 business processes. Design and Conduct survey; Results of feedback Inform respective schools, ICT and admin eLA Manager, from student and services on feedback results; Head, TRI staff Update training needs and related targets. All Programmes and Determine the workflow processes and other curricula contain Head, TRI operations; 50% e‐Learning Deans, Consult ICT on integration of processes and elements (content, Management December operations with current IT admin services. assessment and 2013 project) Results of feedback eLA Manager, Update training needs and related targets. from student and Head, TRI staff Programmes and Head, TRI, curricula contain Establish quality standards and best practice eLA Manager 70% e‐Learning for e‐Learning resources and professional Deans, elements (content, tools. December Management assessments and 2014 projects) Results feedback eLA Manager, Determine improvement programmes for staff from students and Head, TRI and students. staff Page 56 of 91

Time period

June 2015

Deliverable Results of costs and benefits analysis Programmes and curricula contain >80% e‐Learning elements (content, assessments and projects) Growth areas and next wave technologies identified

Action by CIO, Head, TRI

Task Review of efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery chain for technology investment.

Head, TRI Deans of schools, Management

Establish a co‐ordinated research strategy across schools to identify and disseminate evidence of benefits and impact of technology investment.

Management

Confirm next 5‐year plan for technology investment at Taylor’s University.

4.8 INFRASTRUCTURE In accordance with Taylor’s Teaching and Learning Philosophy, the e‐Learning framework should be aligned with TGC and its TLF. Figure 4.11 is a hybrid e‐Learning model from a student‐centred perspective that aims to develop and to cultivate intentional learning among student. The implications for an e‐Learning infrastructure can be derived from the specific requirements arising from this hybrid e‐Learning model. The infrastructure needed to support this model must include the following features and characteristics: a. Learning should be personalised and self‐paced. The required infrastructure should facilitate the provision of e‐Learning to students on an “anytime, anywhere” basis. The e‐Learning infrastructure must always be available on a 24 x 7 basis. The underlying network and server infrastructure needs to be robust (self‐healing, if possible) with the requisite built‐in contingencies to ensure high availability. i.

Access to e‐Learning should be easy to facilitate intentional learning amongst students. On campus, this would mean pervasive wireless access to both the Internet as well as the campus intranet. To facilitate e‐Learning “anytime, anywhere”, students should also have easy access to on‐site on‐line resources (storage, applications, databases) from off‐ campus locations via secure SSL Virtual Private Network (VPN) access.

ii. To accommodate the high traffic volume generated by the online campus community, sufficient network capacity is absolutely critical with local area networks (LANs) and wide area networks (WANs) suitably sized to accommodate the traffic (at least 1 Gbps sizing to begin with). Page 57 of 91

e-Learning Model

e-Learning Academy

• Staff Portal • Notebooks

24x7 Pervasive Network Infra

Librarians

ICT Technical Support

Academics

ePortfolio & eRepository

Faculty Office Hours

Online Storage

Tutors & Technicians

Web conferencing

Coursework & Assignments

Library

Facilities Management

Laboratories

Learning Management System

e-Books, e-Journals, Online databases Self-Learning

Simulation software

Self-paced, Managed Learning

Peer Assisted Learning

Managed Learning

Projects & Events

Web chat & Collaborative Platforms

Lectures Lecture capture & Virtual whiteboards

Project management tools & Collaborative platforms

Communication

Student email & Social Networking Tools

Projects & Coursework Questions

Download & Listen

Tutorials Feedback & Response

Web conferencing

Learning Participate

Lending & Reservations

Students

• Student Portal • Notebooks / Smartphones / PDAs

Figure 4.11: Proposed e‐Learning Model for Taylor’s University based on Student‐Centred Perspective Page 58 of 91

iii. e‐Learning will not be complete without the Internet, hence the supporting infrastructure should come with adequate accessibility to the Internet. The e‐Learning infrastructure should have a means of managing the demand‐side of the Internet supply equation, typically through the use of a bandwidth quota management system or simply through the use of network routers. iv. Online storage is another critical component of the e‐Learning infrastructure that should be provisioned in sufficient supply with ease‐of‐access. Due to the large amounts of data that need to be stored, the supporting infrastructure should include an efficient storage management system or equivalent. This resource (online storage) will need to be secure (for protection against unauthorized access) and regularly backed‐up (for protection against loss or damage). Hence, an e‐Learning infrastructure would typically have a reliable data back‐up system governed by an effective data back‐up policy and procedures. v. As the total number of students grows each year and as the usage of e‐Learning increases accordingly, the e‐Learning infrastructure will need to be both scalable and easily upgradeable to cater for the growth in demand, particularly for network (LAN & WAN) capacity, online storage and Internet bandwidth. The intentional learner needs to be able to communicate, collaborate and interact with peers, faculty members, tutors and others. It also involves online interaction with the various applications, systems and tools to facilitate the self‐paced process of intentional learning. The e‐Learning infrastructure should provide the platform and the tools to facilitate easy collaboration, communication and interaction amongst the various members of the campus community. This platform should allow for the formation of online communities of interests and come equipped with micro‐sites, portals, messaging systems, forums, and other collaborative tools. vi. The e‐Learning infrastructure should be able to facilitate online assessment of students and hence should be both secure and protected to allow the online submission of coursework, term tests and possibly even examinations. vii. The delivery methods and the content of e‐Learning itself need to be such that the students are sufficiently engaged and their interests retained long enough for the learning process to take place. This means that the supporting infrastructure would need to be flexible enough to be able to effectively transmit and handle multimedia content of various forms and formats.

Page 59 of 91

viii. The e‐Learning infrastructure should facilitate both forms of communication or interaction between different parties or entities, namely synchronous (real‐time or live) and asynchronous (delayed or pre‐recorded). This means that the infrastructure needs to support multiple delivery channels for e‐Learning. ix. As e‐Learning is expected to involve many different applications systems and technology in various formats and standards, it is reasonable to expect the e‐Learning infrastructure to include an Enterprise Applications Integration (EAI) system to effectively manage the complex task of integrating multiple applications systems. The need for an EAI system will grow as the size and complexity of the e‐Learning multi‐system environment grows. x. The e‐Learning infrastructure within the teaching spaces (classrooms, lecture theatres, laboratories, discussion rooms) should be sufficiently flexible to allow for different configurations of physical set‐up. Just as furniture in the classroom would typically be on castors / wheels so as to be easily moved around, the network connections to devices (projectors, notebooks) within the classroom should be wireless. This flexibility should also be extended to cater for different types of end‐user devices, namely PCs, notebooks, tablet PCs, iPads, iPods, smartphones & PDAs. xi. The proposed e‐Learning model here implies that the supporting infrastructure should include video conferencing links so as to facilitate the practice of the “extended” (TeX) or ‘smart classroom’ (X‐Space) in which students from classes located in two or more physically disparate locations can participate in the same class synchronously (in real‐ time) with the same lecturer(s). This facilitates the arrangement in which Taylor’s students can interact ‘live’ with students and / or faculty members from universities in other countries, thereby giving them a wider and richer learning experience. Desktop conferencing, web conferencing and online meetings should be possible on the e‐ Learning infrastructure to facilitate effective collaboration and communication between students, faculty members and support staff. b. The components of an e‐Learning Infrastructure comprise the following: i.

Network  The components that can be listed under this category include: 

High speed campus local area networks (LANs);



High speed inter‐campus wide area networks (WANs);



Wireless access points (APs); and



IP‐based video conferencing. Page 60 of 91

ii. Applications Integration  The major component under this category would be an Enterprise Applications Integration (EAI) or a Middleware system;  Plug‐in components and adapters to accommodate compatibility issues of all computing devices offered by various leading manufacturers employing different standards (Apple, Unix / Linux, WinTel). iii. Internet Accessibility  Network bandwidth for access to the Internet;  Dual Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to ensure high availability of access to the Internet;  Annual growth rate of Internet bandwidth requirements is projected to be approximately 30% ‐ 35%. iv. Security  Network access control and end‐point protection (including authentication, standard operating environment compliance monitoring, data loss protection);  Firewall protection, intrusion detection, data encryption and anti‐malware systems;  SSL Virtual Private Network (VPN) for off‐campus remote access to e‐Learning applications and on‐line resources. v. Data Back‐up  Centralised back‐up system with proxies in each location in accordance with the University’s data protection policy for all teaching & learning needs;  Off‐site storage of back‐up media (tape cartridges);  Archiving system to cater for requirements of the University’s data retention policy for teaching & learning;  Infrastructure to allow for regular testing of data recovery (restoration of backed‐up data & testing of integrity of data stored on back‐up media). vi. Storage  Storage area networks (SAN) for effective storage organisation & management;  Storage virtualization for cost savings in storage requirements;  Storage requirements are projected to grow at a rate of 25% per annum. vii. Data Centre  Disaster recovery site with full redundancy (cold or warm back‐up servers) for all core e‐Learning applications; Page 61 of 91

 High‐availability configuration (server virtualization or clustering) for all core e‐ Learning applications. viii. Learning Space Infrastructure  Wireless connections within classrooms between devices (notebooks, projectors, interactive whiteboards, printers, etc) and the network to facilitate full flexibility in accommodating multiple configurations of the physical set‐up of a classroom;  Fixed locations for ‘Extended’ or ‘Smart Classrooms’ fitted with full video conferencing facilities complete with redundancy provided via dial‐up ISDN data links and IDD audio links;  Appliances and devices of various types to perform the different tasks or roles required in the classroom, including lecture capture, online voting, online collaboration, and so forth. 4.9 MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT ENVIRONMENT The respective roles of the eLA and ICT Department in the on‐going support and maintenance of Taylor’s e‐Learning Infrastructure is expected to evolve as e‐Learning matures and the adoption of e‐Learning within the University grows. The support to be provided to Taylor’s University by the new eLA can be categorised as follows: a. Strategic Level: The eLA would be expected to make recommendations to the Senate for new directives for Taylor’s e‐Learning initiatives that are aligned to the University’s e‐Learning strategy. b. Operational Level: In addition to providing general and technical advice and consultancy to the faculties on courseware development and instructional design, the eLA would be responsible for providing helpdesk support (phone‐in, walk‐in, on‐line / email enquiries) to academic staff / faculty members on all matters pertaining to e‐Learning, particularly e‐Learning course development (course site design and creation, course enrolment, courseware development) and instructional design. The support for e‐Learning that is expected from the other support teams / departments within the University, namely the Library, ICT, Facilities Management and Administration will be secondary to the support provided by the eLA , i.e. in support and following the lead of eLA’s support initiatives. The table below (Table 4.4) illustrates the various support models and the corresponding areas of responsibility of the eLA and ICT Department respectively. Page 62 of 91

Type of Support Model A

Model B

Model C

Table 4.4: e‐Learning Support Models Area of Responsibility by eLA Area of Responsibility by ICT e‐Learning Applications Administration Networking None Hosting Server Administration Networking e‐Learning Applications Hosting Administration Server Administration Networking e‐Learning Applications Hosting Administration Server Administration Server Administration

Model D

e‐Learning Applications Administration Hosting Server Administration

Networking

It is proposed that Taylor’s adopt Model B as the University embarks on its journey down the e‐Learning path. As Taylor’s University gains more experience in e‐Learning and as the adoption of e‐Learning amongst the academic staff is given sufficient time to grow to achieve a critical mass, the University can progress on to Model C and subsequent models in the table below. 4.9.1 Planning for Growth & Expansion While the roadmap for the e‐Learning infrastructure has been proposed for the next 5 years, the on‐ going monitoring and planning for the infrastructure to accommodate and support the evolving and expanding needs of e‐Learning must be carried out in close consultation with the eLA. Under Model B, the ICT Department will be responsible for monitoring and planning for the growth and expansion of the e‐Learning infrastructure, particularly in the areas of: i.

Internet bandwidth

ii.

Storage

iii.

Network capacity & performance

iv.

Learning space infrastructure

Page 63 of 91

Figure 4.12: e‐Learning Infrastructure Roadmap (2011‐2015) Page 64 of 91

4.10

LEARNING SPACES RE‐DESIGN

Space, whether physical or virtual, can have a significant impact on learning. Learning spaces focus on how such spaces influence learner expectations, the principles and activities that facilitate learning, and the role of technology from the perspective of those who create learning environments: faculty, learning technologists, librarians, and administrators. Information technology has brought unique capabilities to learning spaces, whether stimulating greater interaction through the use of collaborative tools, videoconferencing with international experts, or opening virtual worlds for exploration.

Source: Mitchell et al 2010:p11

Figure 4.13: Learning Spaces Design Framework Using the above framework, we can identify the basic design principles for learning spaces, principles identified through the lens of various key stakeholder groups associated with the use and management of learning spaces: students, academics, and professional and support staff. This filtering process supports the production of a condensed set of principles that is consistent with academic and student ambitions in terms of learning outcomes, while remaining coherent to those responsible for the design, development and ongoing management of learning spaces. a. Analysis of student perceptions of learning spaces in three universities in Australia (QUT, CDU and ECU) revealed a number of common themes: i.

Spaces should have a positive ambience with physical characteristics of light, sound, temperature, colour and furniture carefully considered.

ii. Spaces should be accessible and available for a range of learning activities. iii. Spaces should be easy to use and adapt, with appropriate technology available. Page 65 of 91

b. Analysis of academic perspectives in those same universities reveals five basic themes: i.

Spaces must first and foremost help engage students and support a range of different learning activities.

ii. Spaces should help ensure a quality learning experience. iii. Spaces must be accessible and safe, both physically and psychologically. iv. Spaces should be easy to use and integrate well with related spaces. v. Spaces should be supported by appropriate technology. c. Finally, analysis of professional and support staff views revealed six major themes: i.

Spaces need to be flexible enough to respond to diverse groups of users and new and emerging approaches to learning.

ii. Spaces need to be of sufficient quality that they actively attract students and academics to use them. iii. Spaces need to be simple to use and easily learned. iv. Spaces need to relate well to the connecting spaces around them. v. Spaces need to be affordable, sustainable and maintainable both now and in the longer term. vi. Spaces need to be supported by appropriate levels of useful technology. When these themes are amalgamated, a number of common perspectives tend to stand out including supporting student engagement and interactivity, providing a high‐quality environment, empowering users to achieve their learning goals and ensuring ease of use – all balanced against necessary technical and maintenance needs. The Taskforce recommends that a more thorough study be conducted before embarking on a university wide re‐development of learning spaces that will support and complement the e‐Learning initiative. It is also recommended that the University formally recognize the role of InTeLLeCT as the key department that provides advice and guidance for learning space design and specifications. It is recommended that the methodology to review and redevelop existing learning spaces be carried out in three phases:

Page 66 of 91

Redevelopment of selected sites at each School within the University, based on the principles above. This phase also includes the development of online repositories to store project results and resources for effective sharing

Phase 3

Phase 2

Phase 1

Development of design principles based on a review of the literature and consideration of stakeholder perspectives

Redevelopment of all learning sites at the University based on tested and agreed upon principles

Figure 4.14: Three (3) Phases of Development It is important to note that these phases are not intended to be sequential or independent of each other. Design principles, for example, can continually be refined based on the outcomes and analysis of stakeholder perceptions and post occupancy evaluations. Notwithstanding the above, the Taskforce proposes that the learning space re‐development in Taylor’s University begin with the following facilities: a. Lecture Halls Current lecture sessions can be captured by a fully automated lecture capture system. Lecture recordings can be viewed online after the actual sessions via an e‐lecture system:  Lecture Capture Appliances can be installed at all lecture halls connecting to computer, projector, document camera, video camera and microphone.  Whole lecture capturing is automated by synchronising recording schedules with lecture timetables via Blackboard.  No extra burden for faculty members as they continue their normal teaching duties.  System will automatically upload lecture session to the student Blackboard page.  Students can then view the captured lecture session in multiple dimensions – live footage, voice, and presentation projection. b. Classrooms X‐Space: The Future Smart Classroom in Taylor’s will be purposefully designed and will be flexible formal learning spaces to facilitate a diverse learning experience in a highly collaborative and engaging manner. The room can be configured differently with tools to facilitate communication and collaboration. These classrooms at Taylor’s will be considered as formal learning spaces and systematically retro‐fitted according to the stages of transformation: 

Emergent Phase (2011 – 2012): 40 classrooms will be retro‐fitted.



Innovative Phase (2013 – 2014): Up to 60 classrooms will be retro‐fitted.



Transformative Phase (2015 and beyond): All 130 classrooms will be retro‐fitted. Page 67 of 91

c. Common Areas To promote e‐Learning amongst student peers, informal learning spaces, other than computer labs, are furnished with tables and chairs. It is recommended these e‐Learning hot‐spots be equipped with interactive white boards, projectors and even desktop or laptop computers. These spaces can be hosted in library meeting rooms, student central and food outlets. Installation of managed Information Displays to further promote information broadcasts in common areas like corridors, library, food outlets, Student Central. Display content can be customized to include public announcements, tweets, news, gallery items, etc. Students can gain easier access to real‐time information in their learning spaces. The Taskforce has proposed the developments of 10 learning pods in the library, one e‐stage at InTeLLeCT and three e‐Quariuams to facilitate self‐directed and collaborative learning among students. d. Taylor’s Extended Classroom (TeX) In view of rapid technology changes, it is proposed that a future concept of extended classroom be set up modeled after the NTU’s smart classroom concept. These classrooms allow us to link up multiple, physically disparate classrooms into one logical class or session, in which students and faculty can interact with one another across boundaries. These are fitted with full video conferencing facilities with redundant links as back up. e. e‐Learning Laboratories The e‐Learning Laboratories are proposed futuristic classrooms, which will be a vehicle for promoting e‐Learning usage and research‐informed teaching at Taylor’s University. Staff will have access to new learning technologies and will have an opportunity to test them in a safe and supported environment before widely adopting them in their teaching. f.

Power Sockets Laptops and mobile computing devices are indispensible to e‐Learning. These devices normally run on batteries which require frequent recharging. Thus, power points must be available at all formal and informal learning spaces. Currently power socket availability is very limited.

Page 68 of 91

CHAPTER 5 FINANCIAL IMPACT

Page 69 of 91

CHAPTER 6 RISK MANAGEMENT Page 75 of 91

Implementation of the e‐Learning strategic plan is dependent on: a. Successful collaboration with all schools and administrative departments; b. Effective change management of e‐Learning culture; c. Highly effective and efficient infrastructure; d. Acquiring the right expertise; e. Professional development of faculty; f.

Commitment in ensuring the robustness and utilization of technologies;

g. Governance Structure and Regular Audits; h. Commitment from Senior Management, Deans and HODs. The Taskforce strongly recommends that each strategy and subsequent investments is determined by the following indicators: a. Quality of the student learning experience; b. Quality of students admitted; c. Number of training hours; d. The prevailing e‐Learning trends; e. User (staff and student) satisfaction level; f.

Adoption level of e‐Learning in the curriculum delivery process in each school.

The following steps are proposed: a. That a strong governance structure for the implementation of e‐Learning is established; b. At the university and school level clear annual goals and targets are set and periodically evaluated; c. Effective evaluation mechanism for each investment is carefully made; d. Periodic reporting of key performing indicators and corrective actions if any to be taken; e. An annual review of this Strategic Plan is made. Each e‐Learning initiative should be formally documented for future reference. f.

Each initiative to adopt e‐Learning is in itself an innovation and as with all innovative practices, we should allow for new mistakes and be prepared to ‘bite the bullet’ (discontinue the initiative) if a mistake is made.

Page 76 of 91

CHAPTER 7 CONSULTATION PROCESS Page 77 of 91

Prior to presentation to the EXCO, this e‐Learning Strategic Plan was circulated amongst members of the Teaching and Learning Committee of the University and the Senate as part of the consultation process for approval. Additional steps in the consultation process included visits to Open University Malaysia (OUM), NTU, HKPolyU, HKU, meetings with Associate Professor Dr. Daniel Tan, Mr. Karl Enqkvist (former Head of Blackboard, China), Associate Deans of Teaching and Learning, selected Deans of Schools, Directors of Centres and academic staff members. Further consultations, as appropriate, will be carried out as the project progresses to ensure wide ownership of the principles and goals outlined in this document.

Site Visits and Consultation • • • • • •

Internal Feedback and Review

OUM NTU HKU HKPolyU Associate Professor Dr Daniel Tan Mr Karl Engkvist

• •

Senate University Teaching & Learning Committee

e‐Learning Taskforce

Executive Management Figure 7.0: Consultation Process Flow for e‐Learning Taskforce Page 78 of 91

CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Page 79 of 91

Taylor’s University is set to move forward in terms of e‐Learning through the strategies outlined in this document. Although the initial investment may appear high, the potential long‐term benefits outweigh the risks. Certainly, failure to move forward in terms of integrating e‐Learning throughout the entire fabric of the University will mean likely long‐term failure to grow as a competitive institution of higher learning, in step with the changes that are happening at lightning pace ubiquitously throughout all strata of our global society and without doubt throughout the entire realm of education at all levels. In conclusion, the e‐Learning Taskforce unreservedly recommends the wholesale adoption of the proposed e‐Learning Strategic Plan 2011‐2015, for immediate implementation.

If the rate of change outside your organisation is greater than the rate of change inside your organisation, the end is in sight. Jack Welch

Page 80 of 91

REFERENCES Ambursley, F. (2002). Winning the people wars in government: an assessment of the human capital policies pursued in the South African public service since 1994. In S. Buthtlezi and E. le Roux (Eds), South Africa since 1994: Lessons and Prospects. Pretoria: Africa Institute of South Africa Arabasz P., Boggs R., Baker, M. B. (2003). Highlights of e‐Learning Support Practices. Vol 2003, 9. Retrieved March 4, 2011 from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf /ERB0309.pdf Clark, C. C. and Mayer R. E. (2008). e‐Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning (2nd Ed). San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Clark R. E. (1985). Confounding in Educational Computing Research, Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 1, no. 2 Clark R. E. (1983). Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media, Review of Educational Research, vol. 53, no. 4 Davidson, C. and Goldberg, D. (2009). The Future of Learning Institutions in a Digital Age. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. USA Fee, K. (2009). Delivering e‐learning: a complete strategy for design, application and assessment. Kogan Page: London. Kotter, J.P. & Schlesinger, L.A. (2008). Choosing Strategies for Change. Harvard Business Review. July‐ August 2008. Krause, K‐L. (2008). Griffith University Blended Learning Stratgey. Retrieved February 20, 2011 from http://www.griffith.edu.au/about‐griffith/plans‐publications/pdf/blended‐learning‐strategy‐january‐ 2008‐april‐edit.pdf McNaught, C., Lam, P., Keing, C. and Kin, F.C. (2006). Improving e‐Learning Support and Infrastructure: An Evidence‐Based Approach. Retrieved February 25, 2011 from http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/clear/download/paper/o%27donoghue_mcnaught.pdf Michael, D. (2010). In Search of the Missing Elephant: Selected Essays. International Futures Forum. Triarchy Press. UK Mitchell, G., White, B., Pospisil, R. (2010). Retrofitting University Learning Spaces. Australian Learning & Teaching Council. Muhammad Rais Abdul Karim & Yusup Hashim (2004). The Experience of the E‐Learning Implementation at the Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Malaysia. Retrieve March 5, 2011 from http://pppjj.usm.my/mojit/articles/pdf/0804/The%20Experience%20of%20the%20E‐ Learning%20Implementation%20at%20UPSI.pdf Neumann, J., and Schütte, T. (2006). Organizational Model for e‐Learning at Universities. Retrieved January 23, 2011 from www.ebrc.fi/kuvat/1064.pdf Oblinger, D.G. (2006). Learning Spaces. Educause e‐book; retrieved March 8, 2011 from http://www.educause.edu/LearningSpaces Page 81 of 91

Schunk, D. H. (2009). Learning theories: An educational perspective (5th Ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Page 82 of 91

APPENDICES i.

Sample of Organisational Structures of eLA: Imperial College, London

(Source: http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/elearning/elearningstructure) Key: ELC : ELAP: ELIG: FTC: FoNS:

e‐Learning Strategy Committee e‐Learning Advisory Panel e‐Learning Implementation Group Faculty Teaching Committee Faculty of Natural Sciences

ICBS: FoE: FoM/UG: FoM/PG:

Imperial College Business School Faculty of Engineering Faculty of Medicine (Undergraduate) Faculty of Medicine (Postgraduate

Figure A.1: e‐Learning Organisational Structure in Imperial College, London Page 83 of 91

ii.

Sample of Organisational Structures of eLA: Kumamoto University, Japan

(Source: http://ewww.kumamoto‐u.ac.jp/dept/e_learning/organization/)

Figure A.2: An Organisational Structure for Institute for e‐Learning Development at Kumamoto University, Japan Page 84 of 91

iii.

Sample of Organisational Structures of eLA: NTU

(Source: http://www.ntu.edu.sg/Bak_ced/Pages/orgchart.aspx)

Figure A.3: An Organisational Structure for Centre of Excellence for Teaching & Learning at NTU, Singapore Page 85 of 91

iv.

Principles of Learning Design

If Taylor’s assumes from the pedagogical premise that learning space design should be based on learning principles, the following would apply: b. Table A.1: Learning Space Design Principles Derived from Learning Principles No. Learning Principles Derived Learning Space Principles Learning spaces should make it easy for students to access relevant Learning is about making resources and learning materials 1. and maintaining Learning spaces should support easy interaction between students connections and with academics Learning is enhanced by Learning spaces should help create a sense of stimulation and 2. taking place in the context excitement of a compelling situation Learning spaces should reflect the values of the institution Learning spaces should support student construction of knowledge Learning is an active search Learning spaces should support active engagement rather than 3. for meaning by the learner passive receipt of knowledge. Learning is developmental, Learning spaces should make it easy for students to build upon previous knowledge a cumulative process, 4. Learning spaces should make it easy for students to share integrating new with the knowledge old Learning spaces should support high degrees of movement, activity Learning is done by and interaction individuals who are 5. intrinsically tied to others as Learning spaces should be flexible enough to support both individual and group activities social beings Learning spaces should be safe, comfortable and free from external Learning is strongly affected by the educational distractions 6. Learning spaces should assist learners to be an active part of the climate in which it takes university community place Learning requires frequent Learning spaces should facilitate academics in monitoring and feedback if it is to be sustained, practice if it is to engaging students in their learning 7. Learning spaces should facilitate academics providing feedback on be nourished, and opportunities to use what student activities has been learned Learning spaces should cluster formal and informal spaces to Much learning takes place support easy transition 8. informally and incidentally Learning spaces should support opportunities for accidental or serendipitous interaction between students and academics Learning spaces should be cognisant of cultural requirements and Learning is grounded in celebrate diversity 9. particular contexts and Learning spaces should assist the connection of the university as a individual experiences broader community of learners Learning involves the ability Learning spaces should allow students to capture learning 10. of learners to monitor their outcomes for later review own learning Learning spaces should help draw out reticent students c.

(Source: Mitchell, Geoffrey; White, Barbara; Pospisil, Romana: Retrofitting University Learning Spaces, d. Australian Learning and Teaching Council, 2010)

A similar exercise has been undertaken using common space principles found in the field of architecture and design (American Society of Interior Designers 2001) to derive a set of principles for the design of learning spaces. No. 1.

Table A.2: Learning Space Design Principles Derived from Space Design Principles Learning Principles Derived Learning Space Principles Space should be useful, Learning spaces should be robust and fit for ongoing use built to last and easy to Learning spaces should be designed giving due consideration to ongoing maintenance of the space maintain

Spaces should facilitate Learning spaces should be a healthy working and learning environment quality of life for the Learning spaces should minimize any consequences and risks associated users with accidental or unintended actions

Spaces should be easy Learning spaces should be easy to access and navigate for all users to move around in and Learning spaces should encourage the notion of simplicity in exercising to allow users to find control over events in the room and its systems their way

Spaces should relate well to other spaces

Learning spaces should be (re) designed in conjunction with planning for adjacent spaces Learning spaces should allow for a flow of pedagogical activities in and around them rather than an unconnected set of learning events Learning spaces should support a range of different learning activities without the need for excessive reconfiguration

Spaces should be flexible and respond to changing use over time Learning spaces should be easily reconfigured to support new and emerging learning requirements

Spaces are environmentally efficient

Spaces should help their users to work more effectively

Spaces should prompt users to express pride or delight in their use e.

Learning spaces should be designed to utilise resources and technologies that are environmentally sustainable Learning spaces should support users to learn about and be environmentally conscious in their learning activities Learning spaces should facilitate easy movement of learners around the space Learning spaces should create minimal cognitive dissonance for their users Learning spaces should convey a sense of engagement and excitement Learning spaces should encourage a sense of ownership by both staff and students

(Source: Mitchell, Geoffrey; White, Barbara; Pospisil, Romana: Retrofitting University Learning Spaces, f. Australian Learning and Teaching Council, 2010)

In the technology arena, well‐accepted principles for technology design have been developed over the last 20 years (Schneiderman 1992). These principles have influenced aspects of technology design ranging from hardware design through to software design.

Table A.3: Learning Space Design Principles Derived from Technology Design Principles (Mitchell, Geoffrey; White, Barbara; Pospisil, Romana: Retrofitting University Learning Spaces, Australian Learning and Teaching Council, 2010)

No.

Learning Principles A system or solution should be easy for a novice user to learn and an experienced user to use its advanced functionality A system or solution should deliver the function necessary for its users to achieve their desired objectives A system or solution should withstand the rigours of constant operation as well have some ability to adapt to changing circumstances A system or solution should be dependable and provide the user with the necessary confidence that it will be available when required A system or solution should be able to respond to relevant peak demands and be available in a cost effective manner to support its broadest possible use

Derived Learning Space Principles Learning spaces should include elements that assist the learning efficiency and efficacy of its users. Learning spaces should allow the user to focus on the learning activities to be conducted and not on the learning activities required to use the space. Learning spaces should be designed based on a clear vision and understanding of user’s needs. Learning spaces should be designed using robust design, test and implement procedures. Learning spaces should be designed giving due consideration to on‐going maintenance of the space. Learning spaces should be constructed with flexible elements that do not constrain its ability to adapt to changing needs. Learning spaces should utilize technology to proactively monitor that state of the space and its systems. Learning spaces should be easily identified allowing users to find suitable spaces. Learning spaces should have sufficient resources for all users of the space irrespective of the configuration. Learning spaces should be adequately supported by services that allow additional learning resources to be easily allocated.

Given that many of these derived principles are closely related, an amalgamation reveals a collection of some 25 design principles for new learning spaces. While providing useful guidance for the redevelopment of learning spaces, feedback suggested that these principles were perhaps more like guidelines or protocols than fundamental principles.

TAYLOR’S UNIVERSITY LAKESIDE CAMPUS No. 1, Jalan Taylor’s 47500 Subang Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia