December, 2009
Executive Summary
There is an increasing need for the University to engage students with the use of technology and various electronic media. Students are also, increasingly, expecting to have access to extended learning opportunities, many of which are mediated by technology. Twenty-first century students expect to use various electronic media in their learning experience in the same ways that they use electronic media in their day-to-day lives. They will also be expected to use and apply various electronic media in their future careers. While imagining what the University of Saskatchewan could look like in 10 or 20 years, the University needs to understand how well it does or does not meet the needs of learners who expect flexible access to educational opportunities. The use of electronic media and technology in the teaching experience also needs to be examined including how such methods and tools enhance the experience and effectiveness of the teacher.
An environmental scan resulted in the following observations:
e-learning technologies have been widely adopted and are widely used in universities
from a technology perspective, the boundaries between fully online courses and face-to-face teaching are blurring with almost all courses containing an e-learning component
administratively, online courses are still seen as distinct forms of teaching and they need to brought into the instructional mainstream
e-learning has been haphazardly and opportunistically integrated into the core teaching and learning activities of universities
university-based strategic planning exercises in the area of e-learning are only recently commencing in Canada.
effective integration of e-learning technologies in teaching and learning requires a good deal of extra effort on the part of instructors
many faculty tend to resist embracing e-learning technologies in their teaching because incentives and rewards are insufficient
increasing the number of staff instructional designers and developers to support e-learning initiatives seems to be a trend.
a senior academic/administrative position overseeing e-learning activity is being proposed at many institutions – this position is distinct from that of an AVP-ICT or CTO.
Why should the Colleges be interested in e-Learning?
•
E-learning is an expectation of our learners and increasingly of our faculty as well.
•
E-learning offers learners and instructors flexibility and can improve learning quality.
• E-learning provides learners with important technology and literacy skills
• E-learning can facilitate new forms of teaching and learning through virtual collaboration and virtual experiential learning, and it improves access to learning resources.
1

• E-learning can provide opportunities for learners who are unable to participate fully in normal classroom activities because of work or parenting responsibilities or disabilities.
•
E-learning enables distance and distributive education - to reach rural, remote, and international students, and to enter new educational markets.
• E-learning enables the University to leverage its traditional strengths in classroom teaching to bring new learners virtually into classrooms or send classrooms virtually to remote learners.
• E-learning can help market programs to potential students by opening up courses, course information, or course content for access by others
The taskforce arrived at the following recommendations:
1.
That E-Learning be prominent in future college and institutional strategic plans.
2.
That an e-learning planning framework and set of best practices be made available to colleges and departments prior to the next planning cycle.
3.
That more resources be allocated explicitly for e-learning a.
Resources for instructional design b.
Resources to support major college- or department-level programmatic e-learning initiatives c.
Resources to provide appropriate levels of instructor and learner support and adequate incentives for faculty to engage in e-learning d.
Sustained resources for central support for e-learning e.
Targeted resources for research and innovative pilot projects
4.
That coordination of central e-learning services, supports and training be improved. a.
Put in place a mechanism and processes to assure adequate consultation and coordination when new e-learning initiatives, projects, or innovations are about to be introduced. b.
A coordination office for e-learning should be created. c.
To the extent possible, the PAWS portal should become a central access point for all e-learning technologies. d.
An instructional development strategy should be put into place to encourage and support faculty and instructional staff development and training with e-learning. e.
Instructional design services must be routinely available for all e-learning projects
(and for all course, curriculum and program design projects). f.
A communications strategy for e-learning should be developed g.
Collaboration among academic and support units should be maintained to ensure that reorganization or restructuring of the units providing e-learning development, support and training are not required.
5.
That specific projects be advanced to accelerate university-wide e-learning activity a.
Open, online course syllabus for all U of S courses (and opportunity for providing open learning resources) b.
Widespread investment in podcasting and coursecasting
2

*
In the spring of 2009, the Vice Provost, Teaching and Learning created a taskforce to investigate elearning at the University of Saskatchewan. The project charter stated:
This project should provide a perspective on learners’ and instructors’ expectations for e‐ learning at the University of Saskatchewan and elsewhere.  It should assess and examine the  existing supports for e‐learning at the University of Saskatchewan. The resulting analysis should  establish a framework for recommending a strategy and structure for coordinating e‐learning  support and development at the University.
There is an increasing need for the University to engage students with the use of technology and various electronic media. Students are also, increasingly, expecting to have access to extended learning opportunities, many of which are mediated by technology. Twenty-first century students expect to use various electronic media in their learning experience in the same ways that they use electronic media in their day-to-day lives. They will also be expected to use and apply various electronic media in their future careers. While imagining what the University of Saskatchewan could look like in 10 or 20 years, the University needs to understand how well it does or does not meet the needs of learners who expect flexible access to educational opportunities. The use of electronic media and technology in the teaching experience also needs to be examined including how such methods and tools enhance the experience and effectiveness of the teacher.
For the purposes of this report, e‐learning is defined as using computer, media, and internet  technologies for teaching and learning in face‐to‐face, blended/ hybrid/ distributed, and fully online  courses.  This includes the educational use of instructional multi‐media presentation technologies in  classrooms and beyond; clickers, podcasting or coursecasting; email and websites; learning  management systems (eg. Blackboard/ WebCT); PAWS course tools; social networking tools (eg.
Facebook, Twitter); simulations and serious games; immersive environments (eg. Second Life); tutoring  systems/packages; electronic access to library and other learning resources; and support for mobile  devices as they pertain to the teaching and learning context.
A separate taskforce has been formed to look at Off-Campus and Distributive Education, including those forms of distance education that overlap with e-learning, such as online courses, as well as offsite courses taught face-to-face that have little or no e-learning component. Its focus is much more on
* E-Learning Taskforce Members
Jim Greer, University Learning Centre (chair and report author)
John Allison, College of Nursing Glenn Hollinger, Acting Director, ITS
Frank Bulk, TEL Program
Rick Bunt, CIO and AVP ICT
Lorna Butler, Dean of Nursing
Keith Jeffrey, E-Learning Support Services ITS
Elizabeth Lulchak, Acting Director, EMAP
David Mykota, Head, Educational Psychology, Education
Bob Cram, Executive Director, CCDE Ed Pokraka, Director, ITS
Angie Gerrard, Library
Diane Janes, consultant
Richard Schwier, Education
Laura McNaughton, Provost’s Office (support)
3

delivering courses and programs for students at a distance from the university and it will use the lessons learned from the E-Learning Taskforce. The E-Learning Taskforce was formed in May 2009 and met 8 times between May and November, 2009. Taskforce membership included representation from the deans, department heads, unit leaders and senior staff, and faculty involved with e-learning.
The meetings involved working discussions about the terms of reference, reports from various other universities, and areas for data collection and analysis. A plan for recommendations and consultation surrounding the preliminary report was developed.
In order to examine the most recent trends in universities’ approaches to e-learning strategies, Dr.
Diane Janes of Cape Breton University was contracted to conduct an environmental scan. Dr. Janes is a former faculty member of the U of S and co-edited Making the Transition to E-
Learning:Strategies and Issues (2007). While her entire report is attached as Appendix 1, a highlevel summary follows:
e-learning technologies have been widely adopted and are widely used in universities
from a technology perspective, the boundaries between fully online courses and face-to-face teaching are blurring with almost all courses containing an e-learning component
administratively, online courses are still seen as distinct forms of teaching and they need to brought into the instructional mainstream
e-learning has been haphazardly and opportunistically integrated into the core teaching and learning activities of universities
university-based strategic planning exercises in the area of e-learning are only recently commencing in Canada.
effective integration of e-learning technologies in teaching and learning requires a good deal of extra effort on the part of instructors
many faculty tend to resist embracing e-learning technologies in their teaching because incentives and rewards are insufficient
increasing the number of staff instructional designers and developers to support e-learning initiatives seems to be a trend.
a senior academic/administrative position overseeing e-learning activity is being proposed at many institutions – this position is distinct from that of an AVP-ICT or CTO.
Dr. Janes examined in detail recent activities related to strategic planning and reorganization of elearning services and supports at three Canadian universities, UBC, the University of Alberta and the
University of Toronto. These universities were chosen in her analysis because they have recently taken action to re-evaluate the status of their e-learning activities or have recently developed strategic planning documents or e-learning strategies. Both the University of Alberta and the
University of Toronto recently decided to integrate the provision of pedagogical support for elearning technology into their teaching and learning centres; the IT departments remain responsible for the provisioning of this technology as well as for providing technical support regarding its use.
4

This kind of integration already exists in a number of other Canadian universities, including the
University of Regina and the University of Calgary.
The state of e-learning in Canada points to some important considerations for future planning at the
University of Saskatchewan. Strategic investment in e-learning is most effectively made when there is an e-learning strategy in place. An institution-wide e-learning strategy was called for in the
Foundational Document on Teaching and Learning. This taskforce report moves the University forward in this process and recognizes that colleges and departments will want to consider their own e-learning strategies as well.
Central investment in e-learning is common throughout the country, but the levels of central investment vary dramatically from one university to another. The direct government investment in the TEL program at the University of Saskatchewan has built some central core facility for supporting e-learning and some online courses, but the current levels of central investment are not sufficient for a wide scale increase in the use of e-learning technologies. The Classroom
Enhancement Project and the installation of wireless internet has moved the University of
Saskatchewan forward with basic infrastructure. Central investment in our PAWS portal, the
WebCT/Blackboard learning management system, and other technologies has enabled e-learning to begin to be established at the University. Colleges and departments have invested in e-learning as a part of their normal investments in teaching and learning. There are some fully online courses that are flourishing and some entire programs of study that are heavily integrating e-learning. But the
University of Saskatchewan is far from a position of leadership in e-learning adoption or practice.
Use of the more innovative e-learning technologies is not widespread across University courses or academic programs. The e-learning experience for students across the University is uneven and haphazard. And there are too many examples where the efforts in e-learning seem to be uncoordinated and unplanned. Faculty involvement in e-learning is growing but not yet widespread across the university. The majority of courses involving significant amounts of e-learning are led by instructors who are willing to take on a greater personal workload to offer their students some of the beneficial effects of e-learning.
Why Should the University of Saskatchewan Invest in E-Learning?
The use of technologies to support learning have always existed – from textbooks to chalk and overheads, many technologies, however primitive or sophisticated, have been integrated into the teaching and learning process. Computer, multimedia, and communication technologies have offered many more learning and teaching options and the term e-learning attempts to capture these.
But e-learning and its associated technologies are rapidly becoming so much a part of everyday learning practice that “E-Learning” as a distinct kind of learning may fade as a relevant distinction.
Today and in the future, almost any investment in “Teaching and Learning” corresponds to an explicit investment in “E-Learning”.
5

E-learning will be a fundamental component of the learning experience of university students everywhere. We cannot pretend that we can avoid investment in this area. The choice open to the
University of Saskatchewan is in the extent of such investment. The University’s current trajectory indicates that there is no institutional appetite for reaching a level of international pre-eminence in elearning. The decision facing the University is whether to attempt to remain competitive with other similar institutions or whether to fall further behind. Certain colleges, including the College of
Medicine and the College of Nursing have seen the necessity of embracing elements of e-learning in order to meet their real need for distributive learning – to reach learners at multiple sites throughout the province and beyond, and to prepare future professionals for the e-health careers that await them.
Should other Colleges be interested in greater investment in e-learning? There are many compelling reasons:
• E-learning is an expectation of our learners and increasingly of our faculty as well.
•
E-learning offers learners and instructors flexibility and can improve learning quality.
•
E-learning provides learners with important technology and literacy skills
• E-learning can facilitate new forms of teaching and learning through virtual collaboration and virtual experiential learning, and it improves access to learning resources.
• E-learning can provide opportunities for learners who are unable to participate fully in normal classroom activities because of work or parenting responsibilities or disabilities.
•
E-learning enables distance and distributive education - to reach rural, remote, and international students, and to enter new educational markets.
• E-learning enables the University to leverage its traditional strengths in classroom teaching to bring new learners virtually into classrooms or send classrooms virtually to remote learners.
•
E-learning can help market programs to potential students by opening up courses, course information, or course content for access by others
E-Learning initiatives bring to light a number of important and perhaps unexpected issues and considerations. When using e-learning technologies, electronic learning resources and other electronic artefacts are recorded and made available to learners. This raises many issues related to copyright, reproduction, and ownership of intellectual property. Classroom usage of copyrighted materials flies beneath the legalistic radar, but when copyrighted materials are reproduced online for students, more tangible violations can arise. Furthermore, materials developed by instructors, when made available online, become susceptible to copying and are difficult to protect. Moreover, when learning resources are developed by teams, including instructional designers, technology and media specialists, and subject matter experts, the process of identifying precisely who owns the resulting intellectual property may become an issue. Open access learning resources resolve many of these issues. Alternatives to strict copyright, including Creative Commons licensing, can retain moral and attribution rights without unreasonably restricting usage. The issues of intellectual property of learning materials extend well beyond e-learning.
Toward a Framework and Process for Investment in E-Learning at the University of
Saskatchewan
6

Investment in e-learning begins with the decision to make a different or a greater investment in teaching and learning. Teaching and learning is a major area for investment in every university and there is a long tradition in how such investments have been made. Investing differently or investing more in teaching and learning involves a reallocation of financial resources, which brings the matter squarely into the institutional and unit planning and budgeting arena.
It is important for the University of Saskatchewan to develop a relatively robust framework through which academic units can appropriately increase e-learning activity. There are two basic approaches to increasing e-learning activity. The first is to encourage academic units to engage directly in university-wide projects that are centrally supported, centrally funded, and have high immediate payoffs. The second is to establish a framework/mechanism and the associated planning and design support to help academic units to develop strategic level, program specific, e-learning plans.
In the realm of immediate payoff initiatives, there are centrally supported initiatives, following from the TEL program, to develop fully online and blended learning courses and programs. There are also some specific centrally-supported technologies, such as podcasting and coursecasting that can be readily incorporated as e-learning augmentations to standard lecture-based courses.
On the other hand, the framework/mechanism for strategic, program specific planning needs to be developed. There is a growing experience base within Colleges including Nursing and Medicine as to how such a planning framework may be realized, but there is work yet to be done.
From the perspective of a university, a college, a department, or an individual faculty instructor, any significant new investment in e-learning requires integration and implementation of new learning technologies into the teaching and learning process. While this sounds simple, the process of integrating and implementing e-learning technologies is neither simple nor cheap. An appropriate process will:
• ensure that faculty and students are prepared to engage in an e-learning initiative
• identify the learning objectives or learning outcomes that require or benefit from the e-learning technology innovation
• plan how the technology will be used by instructors and learners – this should be done in consultation with an instructional designer or design team
• discuss issues of intellectual property and reach an agreement
• identify the learning support needs – often e-learning technologies require additional support staff, either in the form of technical or instructional staff time
• identify the infrastructure (building, hardware, software) requirements and select the particular hardware/software solution, vendor, and version – again in consultation with various specialists.
• identify the training requirements for instructors and students
• purchase, install, train, adjust curriculum, and secure instructional support resources
• pilot the innovation, evaluate the pilot, plan for revisions
7

This process closely resembles the process for course, curriculum or program design/redesign, and in fact, integration of e-learning technologies in a course, curriculum or program should be thought of as a change in design of the instructional process. Of course, small changes brought on by minor technological augmentations to courses may skip by some steps of the above process, but the process ought to be considered in all projects.
Since the integration of e-learning into the teaching and learning process ideally involves re-design, an ideal time for re-thinking the use of e-learning technologies arises when a curriculum is about to change or when a new program is being designed. But smaller changes and revisions to individual courses that routinely occur can also serve as opportunities for the integration of new e-learning technologies.
The most important considerations that senior leadership, deans and other unit leaders need to bear in mind include:
•
Investment in e-learning needs to be planned.
•
There is a small amount of central help available to assist with planning, instructional design, and technology advice, but this resource is stretched thin.
• There are centrally available e-learning technologies, tools, and systems already available for general use in teaching and learning. There are many other technologies, tools, and systems that could be used and consulting with local experts to coordinate new investment is vital.
•
Investment in e-learning involves more than buying some software or hardware. It involves additional training, additional technical support and most importantly, additional instructional support.
• Engaging faculty in e-learning, as with any teaching innovation, may not be easy. Faculty workload often increases when e-learning technology is introduced. While this can be offset if other sources of technical and instructional support are made available, the incentive for faculty to engage in such innovation needs to be considered.
Recommendations from the Janes Report
The recommendations in Dr. Janes’ report are copied below (her full report is presented in Appendix
1). These recommendations are generic recommendations, not specifically formulated for the
University of Saskatchewan context, but for any university considering re-evaluating its strategic investment in e-learning.
1) Develop e-strategies as institutional innovation frameworks which guide the efforts that universities undertake to sustainably integrate ICT into their work processes
2) A well balanced combination of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators will drive faculty participation in institutional e-learning efforts
3) Successful implementation of a technology-driven innovation at a university depends on the capabilities of the leadership to actively involve faculty in organisational change
4) Two essential preconditions determine the active involvement of faculty in e-learning innovation:
8

a. Faculty members need to become aware of technology-driven change and its potential in higher education, and b. Faculty need to develop e-competence to make persistent use of ICT in their personal work routines and teaching practices i. E-competence includes designed learning processes as concrete activities with authentic faculty work contexts – learning interventions are tied to teaching realities
5) Formal e-learning traditions of direct training in staff development need to change. Formal elearning training courses initiate but are not sufficient to sustain the learning process of faculty. a. Make the use of e-learning elements in courses compulsory b. Give junior faculty the option to ‘collect’ additional points for internal tenure when they champion the use of learning technologies c. To answer positively the question ‘what is in it for me’, universities need to consider monetary or reputational rewards to faculty for using e-learning
6) Any strategic framework must recognise that technology-savvy early adopters have other elearning and support needs and expectations than the more critical majority late adopters
7) Support research throughout the Academy that examines the efficacy of e-learning across the disciplines
8) Badly designed e-learning is perhaps worse than having no e-learning at all; Ensure that well trained and experienced instructional designers are placed strategically within the university and readily available to the faculty for design consultation – ideally within the departments and colleges with an understanding of the culture of teaching and learning within that discipline
9) Tie the contracts and tenure-track requirements of new faculty to the training in and adoption of new technologies in their classrooms. Assign them a technology mentor, ideally in their discipline
10) Reorganise the current and future e-learning support systems within the university to collaborate and work together. Remove barriers to collaboration by making these supports
‘line items’ in the budget and not competing for the same funds on a yearly basis
11) Consider an internal R&D fund and other initiatives tied to the innovation of teaching and learning but with a view to discipline based scholarship and research along side of the innovation in the classroom
12) Acknowledge that the university is responsible not only for the ‘on campus’ experiences of its younger learners but has a responsibility to the ‘older’ learner who also wishes to avail of the
Academy but who may not be able to take traditional face-to-face classes because of the competing interests of family, work, and community responsibilities
13) To take on e-learning, the university must be fully engaged and willing to support both its physical campus and learners and its virtual campus and learners, not as separated entities but as one and the same
14) Campus leaders and administrators must be able to “articulate the value of online learning, relate it to campus mission, and seize organizational changes and planning as opportunities to solidify institutional commitment to online learning”.
These recommendations were made by Dr. Janes in reaction to her analysis of the literature and national trends across Canada. Many of these recommendations do seem to fit the local context at the University of Saskatchewan.
Toward an Integrated Strategy for E-Learning at the University of Saskatchewan
9

Student learning opportunities at the University of Saskatchewan should be derived from well designed educational programs of study, should reflect educational best practices in instructional design and pedagogy, and should offer flexible access to courses and programs. Faculty, other instructors and instructional staff who design, deliver, facilitate and support such learning opportunities should be adequately trained, supported, and rewarded. When designing new or revising existing courses or programs, the expertise of both domain experts and instructional designers should be brought to bear. When such designs of courses and programs are undertaken, considerations should be made for incorporating an explicit commitment to e-learning when it can contribute to facilitate flexible access, to reflect disciplinary requirements, and to optimize the learning experience for students.
E-Learning technologies can be used to enable online, blended and technology-enhanced learning opportunities. The quantity and types of technology incorporated into courses should be carefully determined to balance the needs for flexibility and access with the course learning objectives, expected outcomes and optimal pedagogy. Incorporating e-learning technologies into programs and courses should proceed in a planned and measured way and should be compatible with researchbased practice.
Students graduating from the University of Saskatchewan need to have technological skills and experiences appropriate to prepare them for their disciplinary specialties, for life-long learning, and for success in a technologically-rich and knowledge-based workforce. These skills and experiences should be integrated into courses and programs in such a way that all students will have an opportunity to build their technological experience and expertise base. This may mean that the experience of a technology-rich or fully online course might be a reasonable requirement for all students. This also implies that technology-rich learning experiences should be positive learning experience, delivered by instructors who are adequately skilled, supported, and trained with technology.
Deriving from these basic principles of flexible access to courses and programs, technological experience and skill development for students and faculty, as well as soundly designed and well delivered courses and programs, a plan for educational development can result. Program and course design activities need to consider:
• accreditation or disciplinary tradition issues
• instructional design issues
• learning outcomes and student needs
• faculty development issues, and
• e-learning technology issues
An e-learning plan or strategy for the University of Saskatchewan would need to address all of these needs and issues. Some universities seek to become leaders in the implementation and widespread innovative use of e-learning technologies. The University of Saskatchewan does not seem to aspire
10

to reaching international pre-eminence in this area, but does need to remain competitive with comparable universities. To remain competitive involves setting out two goals:
• to provide high quality instructional design and e-learning support to augment the quality of teaching in our current programs and courses
• to extend our reach into educational markets that we do not currently serve
There is little doubt that it is imminently important to provide appropriate levels of e-learning and instructional design support for all of the programs and courses we intend to offer to optimize the learning experience of every student. Some may believe that we at the University of Saskatchewan are already providing appropriate levels of e-learning and instructional design support in our programs and courses; and in some areas perhaps we are; but across the University there is much unevenness in investment in e-learning and a tremendous opportunity exists to improve the student experience through more e-learning investment
There is considerable activity at the University of Saskatchewan related to e-learning. While there are relatively few fully online courses, many courses make some use of e-learning technologies.
There are many support units, teams, and groups who work diligently and effectively to support the e-learning work that goes on. Significant resources are invested by Information Technology Services
(ITS) and Educational Media Access and Production (EMAP) and some Colleges in supporting elearning. The great diversity of needs, preferences, and predilections of faculty, departments and colleges leads to diverse and sometimes conflicting requests and demands placed upon these and other e-learning support groups. The wide diversity of e-learning tools and technologies available to support teaching and learning means that many solutions are proposed and implemented by academic units and individual instructors, often without adequate coordination. Yet the efforts of our academic support units to provide high quality service in the face of sometimes impossibly diverse demands cannot be minimized.
Across the University of Saskatchewan campus there are many tools and technologies in use to support teaching and learning. About half of the 364 campus classrooms are now equipped with a multimedia projector and a user interface panel and virtually all classrooms have wireless internet.
About 75 portable carts with computers and multimedia projectors are available for use in nonequipped classrooms (facilitated by EMAP or through College-specific sources). Powerpoint and web-sourced presentations are possible in about 70% of classrooms. Podcasting services are currently available in 37 campus teaching spaces but only 24 course sections are creating any podcasts in the fall term of 2009. Video lecture recording (coursecasting) could be made available in 16 of these teaching spaces, but only 7 classrooms currently contain all the equipment necessary for coursecasting without bringing in portable equipment, and about 10 courses sections are capturing regular video recordings of their teaching in the fall term of 2009.
11

Several courses now make use of clicker technology – and a large number of undergraduate students now need to purchase a clicker for at least one course. But only a few students would need a clicker in two or more of their courses in a term. Fortunately the campus has standardized the clicker technology used, so students do not need to buy different brands of clickers for different courses.
All course instructors have access to PAWS Course Tools, but less than 50% of courses make use of them. All course instructors have access to WebCT/Blackboard, but only 10 to 20% of courses make use of this tool. Yet, because many of these are large courses, a vast number of students (more than
80% of U of S undergraduate students) use WebCT/Blackboard at least once in a year.
From the student perspective, this points out a fairly significant problem. Students may have one course delivered with Blackboard, another using PAWS Course Tools and others with any variety of flavours of e-learning tools. One student related that for his five courses in spring 2009, five different online systems were utilized by his various instructors, including a homebrew system developed by an instructor, personally maintained websites hosted on or off campus, PAWS, WebCT, plus one other learning management system. There were four different procedures for handing in assignments and four different mechanisms for intra-class communication.
E-Learning Support Sources
A campus-wide inventory of e-learning support and training service points for faculty and instructors was taken. E-learning support is made available to instructors through many different access points including:
ITS Helpdesk
ITS Training Services
ITS E-Learning Support Services
ITS PAWS Group
CCDE (for off-campus and some online courses)
EMAP o o o o
The Gwenna Moss Centre / University Learning Centre
College-Specific Support Units o o
Nursing E-Learning Centre (ELC)
Teaching and Technology Centre, Medicine (TTC)
Edwards School of Business Technology Support Centre (TSC)
Arts and Science Computer Support Centre (CSC)
Arts and Science Digital Research Centre (DRC)
Peter Nikiforuk Innovative Teaching and Learning Centre, College of Engineering
(ITLC) o College of Education Instructional Support Services (ISS) o Library IT Support, Indigenous Portal, Digital Archive pilot
Department-Specific Support Units
12

o In some larger departments such as Computer Science, Math & Stats, etc.
Some of these units offer instructional design support (CCDE, EMAP, GMCTE, TTC, ELC), most offer technology support on e-learning tools, and some offer training seminars, workshops and courses on either technology or pedagogy associated with e-learning (EMAP, GMCTE, ULC, ITS
Training). It is difficult to communicate to faculty members which services and supports are available from which sources.
These many sources of e-learning technology support and training operate largely independently and with little coordination. Recently a group consisting of technical support and training support personnel from these various units has begun to meet regularly. This group, the Technical Advisory
Collaborative for Better E-Learning (TacoBel) is a forum to support information sharing, advice on best practices and new technologies, and coordination of activity among the technical people.
Participation in this forum has been variable, with some units remaining completely isolated.
Recently the Gwenna Moss Centre has launched an initiative to provide a central place to promote and advertise all e-learning related training opportunities, regardless of the sponsor. Such a clearinghouse of training and learning opportunities is a small step in the right direction.
PAWS survey
In the spring of 2009 a PAWS survey was provided to U of S faculty and staff. While there were about 1100 total respondents to the survey, only 167 faculty members responded. Questions ranged across all of PAWS and other online tool usage, but for the purposes of this report, only those items related to the use of e-learning tools are reported. About 30% of faculty respondents indicated that they were unaware of or had chosen not to use online tools in their teaching (this may not include classroom tools such as Powerpoint).
Of those faculty members who did make use of online e-learning tools, about 25% used
WebCT/Blackboard, about 80% used PAWS course tools (12% used both and 8% used some other course management or resource management tool). Those who used PAWS course tools indicated that they were generally satisfied, although there were many specific requests for improvement.
About 90% of PAWS Course Tools users were satisfied overall, but 30% wanted some additional improvements.
When it came to help and support, only 5% of faculty respondents sometimes or often accessed ITS training courses and even fewer used online tutorials. About 25% sometimes or often accessed the
ITS Helpdesk (but not necessarily for e-learning tool support). The data on training is confirmed by an actual count of faculty enrolments in ITS Training courses related to e-learning technology. In the past year, there were 31 faculty registrations in 30 offerings of 13 courses on topics related to elearning tools. This works out to only 1 faculty registrant per course offering. Support staff and graduate students were also enrolled in these courses, and those who attended were highly satisfied with the courses. The low levels of faculty attendance seem to reflect time pressures faced by faculty.
13

The PAWS survey represents a small sample and may well be biased toward the views of those who are more regular users of campus technologies. About 90% of faculty respondents claimed to use
PAWS daily or weekly. Only 5% of respondents classified themselves as novice users of PAWS and over 25% claimed to be Power Users. But even among these fairly sophisticated users of campus computing technologies, it was surprising to see that nearly one in three were unaware of, or chose not to use e-learning tools (again with the possible exception of Powerpoint).
Teaching Attitudes Survey
In October, 2009 the University surveyed all faculty, instructors and sessional lecturers who had taught at least one undergraduate course in the calendar year of 2009. This survey was intended to uncover attitudes toward teaching and learning. A number of items were included in the survey that pertains to e-learning technologies and supports available to faculty. A total of 460 out of a total of
1270 different instructors completed the survey. Just over 70% of respondents felt that classroom technologies were adequate and only 18% felt that classrooms were inadequately equipped. Only
16% felt that there are not adequate training opportunities available on e-learning technologies, and
17% felt that there is not adequate support for instructors’ use of e-learning technology. About 64% of respondents were aware of ITS Training and 66% were aware of ITS E-Learning Support Services.
Surprisingly only 52% claimed to be aware of support services offered by EMAP (although the recent name change might have influenced this number). Incidentally, 95% of respondents knew about the
Gwenna Moss Centre. And finally nearly 80% of respondents felt that the U of S has already taken adequate steps to enable faculty to effectively use technology in their teaching.
These data indicate an overall satisfaction with the status quo vis-a-vis the technology environment and e-learning support for teaching and learning. Yet about 10% of respondents cited very specific shortcomings with the current technology environment. The responses and comments seem to indicate that a majority of instructors are relatively complacent when it comes to learning technologies and may be unaware of what possibilities technology can offer to enhance and support learning flexibility and an improved student experience.
A story from a student about Powerpoint use in a class offers a powerful counterpoint to faculty complacency. The student felt that Powerpoint hindered learning because the instructor, who admittedly was using slides prepared by somebody else, would simply read verbatim the content of the slides to the students in the classroom and then post the same slides on the web for students to download. Ineffective use of e-learning technology can surely be worse than no use of technology.
Coordinating our efforts to facilitate effective teaching and learning
The use of e-learning technologies is pretty much independent of effective teaching and learning.
Effective teaching in many contexts can proceed without much in the way of e-learning technologies.
Ineffective teaching can occur with or without e-learning technologies. When used inappropriately, elearning technologies can greatly reduce educational effectiveness. When used appropriately, elearning technologies can enhance learning dramatically. It may be better to think about how e-
14

learning technologies may enable or facilitate effective teaching and learning in certain contexts and in which learning contexts e-learning technologies are vital.
A few general lessons must be always be kept at the forefront
-
-
-
-
Pedagogy must drive technology use and not vice versa
Many innovations involve novel technologies and to encourage innovation means encouraging experimentation with e-learning technologies. The side effects of innovation include increasing the number of disparate technologies for students; using often unstable, immature technologies; and requiring much more technological and instructor and student support than established technologies.
Technologies that support remote learners are frequently useful for more traditional face to face learners
Some models of online teaching are promoted as a means of cost saving, but in reality, effective online teaching requires much more one-on-one interaction with learners and hence rarely costs less than classroom instruction (especially if one does not include the full cost of physical classroom infrastructure in the equation)
-
There are many choices for e-learning technologies: various kinds of tools and various suppliers of tools. All are seeking a competitive advantage and there is much competition. The landscape can be bewildering.
E-Learning technology vendors often seek to lock in universities with enterprise level systems and site licences. While this does not necessarily impact pedagogy or effectiveness, it can impact the cost of alternative solutions and the ease with which alternatives can be considered. There is a “cost to change” for any technology. Most of the “cost” is related to managing the change for instructors and students (training and support.)
In selecting and implementing appropriate e-learning tools and supports, consultation and deliberation is a good idea. Far too often enthusiasts (whether faculty or staff) who hear about some cool technology begin the adoption process without adequate consultation. This is how the
University at one point came to own two different (and incompatible) classroom response (clicker) systems. Similarly on the U of S campus at this time we currently have a number of learning management systems: WebCT/Blackboard, One45, iHelp, Moodle, and A-Tutor in use in various places across the campus. In addition, the PAWS portal offers course tools that are widely used as well. It is true that the different tools have different strengths and that some tools are being used either to address specific local needs or in the spirit of technology experimentation. Yet no one office or individual is responsible for coordinating the e-learning technologies used on the campus or ensuring that experiences are appropriately shared across units.
The ITS E-Learning Support Services group works hard to build consensus around selecting and maintaining campus-wide e-learning tools, seeking input from faculty and other stakeholders. But individual departments and colleges will sometimes go their own way with locally preferred tools.
Some services from ITS and EMAP are based on cost recovery models. In particular, specialized
15

applications that involve web-database integration are frequently developed as custom software solutions. These kinds of custom applications are sometimes needed in research applications, but sometime in e-learning applications as well. Learning simulations or serious games would fall into this category. When units compete (such as EMAP and ITS) on the development of such applications, it makes for a more complicated coordination task.
An interesting example of an administrative tool helps to shed light on this coordination challenge.
The CCDE (formerly the Extension Division) has maintained its own registration system for noncredit courses for over 20 years, and the system works well for conference registration. A few years ago EMAP developed a software system for managing conferences – abstract submissions, registration forms, name tags, payments, etc. and around the same time the CCDE purchased a new registration system. Both units offer their systems at a fairly modest fee for use by groups on the campus who are organizing conferences. Recently the Arts Computing Lab developed a new conference management system, based on the rationale that the systems from EMAP and CCDE were too expensive for groups putting on conferences and that developing yet another conference management system was the best course of action. This decision was made in the College, the system was implemented and announced without consultation with either EMAP or CCDE and now we have three locally developed conference management systems with very similar functionality.
Similar situations have occurred with assignment hand-in tools, grade-book systems, and even portal systems. For a number of years the Arts Computer Lab was developing and promoting a portal system called MyUsask, a direct alternative to PAWS. Eventually the systems merged. Podcasting is another area where different units entered the scene in a less-than coordinated way. EMAP and ITS both initiated podcasting programs. Both offered training courses for faculty, both developed delivery options for students. Eventually the efforts were unified but we still offer podcast delivery through iTunesU as well as through PAWS and WebCT/Blackboard. The Department of Computer Science has been involved in the development of a number of e-learning tools as well. These systems, including the iHelp discussion board, chat tool, and content management system, the E-Handin system, an online course evaluation system using SEEQ, and the Recollect coursecasting system, were developed to support research and department specific learning support activity but also resulted in open source tools made available for wider use. Progress in integration of these tools into campuswide deployment has been impeded by worries about long-term software support and the scarcity of sustained funding for e-learning tool innovation. These worries may have been well founded given the recent reductions in support for some of these innovative tools through departmental budget cuts.
Coordination challenges are not limited to the units providing e-learning tools and training. We also have a growing problem with flexible delivery models for blended (partial online and partial face-toface) classes. Our scheduling and timetabling system does not accommodate courses that do not meet regularly – for example a course that meets every-other Saturday for three hours and online the rest of the time, or even a course that meets in person on Monday afternoon and online Wednesday and Friday evenings would be extremely difficult to schedule. Another example arises with examination scheduling. Exams for online courses are frequently scheduled at the beginning of the
16

exam period, prior to the examinations of face-to-face students all in a single time slot. Last year, when a face-to-face class needed to hold a common examination with an online class, both were scheduled in the online time slot – which led to conflicts for students in the face-to-face section who were taking a different online course.
Despite these coordination challenges, there is a good spirit of cooperation and a strong will to cooperate among the many staff and instructional support units involved with e-learning. Sometimes budget shortfalls or cost recovery needs will get in the way, but for the most part willingness to cooperate is not the problem. The processes we have (or do not have) in place to enable coordination and encourage cooperation need improvement. In order to achieve an effective level of coordination, effective information flow and consultation / communication, some additional processes may need to be put in place. This is one place where the University of Saskatchewan falls short. What is needed is a coordinating office through which ideas for new initiatives would flow and information about progress on initiatives would be shared. As previously indicated, the TACOBEL group of e-learning developers and support providers accomplishes part of this role, but there is no incentive for units to persist with their involvement in this group. Nor is there a strong motivation to discuss new ideas and innovations at the idea stage. A formal consultation model (as is required for new course proposals through the “course challenge” process) is not common practice with e-learning technology projects. Yet there would be benefits accrued if such a consultation process were in place. An ad hoc committee, the E-Learning Priorities Committee has been in existence for about three years. The role of this committee has been to adjudicate proposals put forward for the development of online courses through the TEL initiative. This committee could take a broader role in overseeing university-wide coordination of e-learning initiatives, including development of online courses and the development of e-learning tools, support and training programs.
Course, curriculum and program development is a continual activity within every University. Over the years there has been a greater attention to best practices in the design and development process, increasingly focusing attention on the development of learning outcomes for courses and programs, appropriate incorporation of learning technologies, strategies for learner engagement, activities related to experiential learning, etc. At many post-secondary institutions, instructional design specialists are employed to work with subject area experts to design new courses and programs. At the University of Saskatchewan, a tradition has grown up, largely through the TEL program, to assign instructional designers to online course development projects. Instructional designers for TEL projects had been employed in the Extension Division until 2007, but since then have been working within EMAP and CCDE. The instructional designers in EMAP are focused on the online courses being developed with funds from the TEL envelope. Instructional designers in CCDE are paid for by
CCDE but employed through EMAP and are involved in the instructional design of televised and other distance education courses, including many online courses not funded through TEL and some
TEL-funded courses that are slated for delivery through the CCDE. The CCDE tends to focus on
17

those courses where the primary audience is intended to be students who are at a distance from the
University.
Recognizing the need for instructional design support more broadly than in TEL courses, in 2007 the
Gwenna Moss Centre built some capacity and instructional design expertise through the creation of one instructional design specialist position and some consultation/ connections with faculty from the
College of Education familiar with instructional design methodologies. A week-long intensive course for faculty and instructors on course design/redesign was offered in 2008 and again in 2009 as a mechanism to train more faculty and other instructors in some of the methods of instructional design. This intensive course was very successful, reaching near full registrant capacity in both years. The course is very similar to one given at many Canadian universities and will be offered annually through the Gwenna Moss Centre from now on. Colleges, including Medicine and Nursing have brought on staff with instructional design experience, adding more capacity and expertise in instructional design, but leading to increasing challenges with coordination, communication, and community for instructional designers and instructional design projects.
Many units still proceed with curriculum and course development in the traditional way – from a content and topic perspective rather than a learning objective or learning outcome perspective. This increasingly leads to challenges as the Academic Programs Committee of Council scrutinizes curriculum proposals with a stronger requirement for explicit learning outcomes, clear justification for pedagogical decisions, and best-practice plans for learner assessment. Every curriculum or course development project would benefit from some consultation or oversight by an instructional design specialist. Yet we, like many other universities in the country, fall woefully short in capacity.
One should think of instructional design not as one service, but rather as layered services for the university community. There is a clear need for at least two levels of instructional design support on campus. The first would be high-level consultation, where groups (deans, colleges, departments) could request advice on what would be required to take on a large curriculum design or redesign -- or even to shape a few courses in a program. This level of instructional design support could essentially perform triage -- find out what problems/challenges really exist and then assign a team of instructional designers with the task of carrying out the project. This would allow for vetting a larger number of big projects (where there is currently a great need on campus) without the same designer being responsible for getting into the trenches to carry out the myriad tasks necessary to bring a project to completion.
An essential element in instructional design is the concept of Universal Instructional Design (UID), bringing in elements of e-learning technology as well as supports for learners with disabilities. An excellent model for UID implementation has been developed at the University of Guelph (see
Appendix 2). The Guelph model demonstrates how learner needs and technology supports can be integrated through effective design of courses, curricula and programs.
18

As with e-learning, the challenges for providing instructional design support and training follow a parallel route. Many faculty members do not see the necessity for deeper knowledge or professional assistance in the area of instructional design; most are generally satisfied with the status quo when it comes to support and training; and only a few early adopters are eager to change from traditional ways. As with e-learning staff specialists, the instructional design specialists suffer from a lack of coordination of design efforts across the campus and the lack of a campus-wide network for professional development. The same kinds of needs for campus-wide communication, coordination of efforts, expertise sharing, and construction of a community of practice exist for instructional designers as for e-learning support and training specialists.
The federated/distributed model originating with ITS and now employed by University Advancement or University Communications is a model worthy of consideration for both instructional design support/training and e-learning support/training and is one already in use for the instructional design partnership of EMAP and the CCDE. This involves a central coordinating authority, specialists allocated as needed to work within various units across the campus (funded by the host units), and a single community of practice to facilitate professional development and frequent dialogue.
Following from the environmental scan and an investigation and analysis of the current activity in elearning at the University of Saskatchewan, a number of recommendations arise.
Recommendation 1: That E-Learning be prominent in future college and institutional strategic plans.
E-learning ought to be consciously considered in planning and priority setting at the University and its importance should be reflected in resource allocation. The planning process could involve the creation of an e-learning strategy or an e-learning portfolio plan in the next integrated plan. In the integrated planning processes, college and unit plans figure prominently and it makes sense for colleges to explicitly plan for their e-learning needs and activities in their individual college plans. Yet college plans for e-learning also need a wider integration at the level of the campus.
Cross-cutting functional areas, such as e-learning or instructional design (or even information and communications technology for that matter), require integration across units and cannot be fully represented within individual unit plans. E-learning could be woven into an ICT functional area plan or into a more general teaching and learning plan.
Recommendation 2: That an e-learning planning framework and set of best practices be made available to colleges and departments prior to the next planning cycle.
This report offers some direction for colleges and departments wishing to plan new initiatives involving significant forays into e-learning. Central resources and services can be seen as an additional source of assistance to academic units with such planning processes. A planning
19

framework or set of planning templates should be developed to further support the development of e-learning plans.
Recommendation 3: That more resources be allocated explicitly for e-learning
The University and the Province have invested in e-learning and the development of online learning opportunities. The level of investment, primarily fuelled by TEL funding, has been sufficient to develop a relatively small collection of online courses and a handful of completely online programs. The investment to date has also allowed us to build up some central infrastructure and basic resources to enable online learning. The main shortcomings in investment to date fall into three main areas:
1.
Resources for instructional design
2.
Resources to support major college- or department-level programmatic elearning initiatives
3.
Resources to provide appropriate levels of instructor and learner support and adequate incentives for faculty to engage in e-learning
There is not sufficient capacity within our cadre of instructional designers to support the program and course development initiatives the university needs to undertake. If one appreciates the added value an instructional design team can bring when e-learning innovations are added to new course and program designs, it becomes clear that more investment in this area is required.
There is a need to develop more program-level innovative initiatives that integrate e-learning with innovative programs. Colleges and departments need to be encouraged to invest and need to be supported when they decide to invest in innovative programs.
It is vital to recognize that e-learning, while able to enhance learner flexibility and the learner experience, does frequently demand more instructor and instructional support time and energy.
In order to react to these additional demands, the duty assignments of instructors, the levels of technical support, and the quantity of academic learner support need to be carefully adjusted.
Attempting to add substantial e-learning activity without sufficient learning and teaching support is not sustainable.
There are two other areas where greater investment could help move the e-learning agenda forward:
1.
Sustained resources for central support for e-learning
2.
Targeted resources for research and innovative pilot projects
Central support units like ITS, EMAP, and CCDE fund much of their operation with soft funds and recoveries. The lack of reliable sustained resources limits the ability of these units to provide adequate support, and sometimes leads to situations where coordination and
20

cooperation are strained or challenged. Increased activity in e-learning will result in greater pressure on these central support units to provide more services to instructors and students.
The need for predictable and consistent funding is needed. Academic units (Colleges, Schools,
Departments, the Library) are expected to provide considerable added learning supports for elearning initiatives. Recognition of these resource requirements must be included in budget planning.
There are several e-learning enthusiasts and early adopters who see the potential positive effects of e-learning technologies on teaching and learning. Encouraging these individuals to explore, investigate, and report their findings can be beneficial to the entire University. Small amounts of financial support for faculty-led innovations in teaching and learning are available through a recently announced “teaching rewards and recognition” program proposed by the
Teacher-Learner Experience commitment area of the integrated plan and funded by PCIP.
Research into best practices in the use and application of e-learning technologies in the teaching and learning process should be recognized as valuable scholarly contributions.
Assistance with research activities should be made available to assure sound methodologies and credible contributions. This kind of assistance may be found with the community of scholars being nurtured through the new Centre for Discovery in Learning, affiliated with the
Gwenna Moss Centre.
Recommendation 4: That coordination of central e-learning services, supports and training be improved.
Many voices represent e-learning activity on the campus. When faculty or administrators want to seek out information, guidance, or support there is considerable confusion as to where to go.
Many units provide e-learning leadership, support and training and these units tend to operate relatively independently. The pervasive nature of e-learning and the wide diversity of needs across the campus makes it completely impractical to centralize this function. Each unit providing e-learning leadership, support and training makes important contributions and operates at a high level of professional competence. Yet better coordination and deeper communication would be helpful. Thus the following steps are recommended:
•
Put in place a mechanism and processes to assure adequate consultation and coordination when new e-learning initiatives, projects, or innovations are about to be introduced. o Too often in the past, new e-learning initiatives, projects or innovations have suddenly appeared at the University, leaving many to wonder why these particular initiatives, projects or innovations should take priority over other options. This is a common situation when many autonomous units are operating independently without adequate communication and consultation. A parallel example can be found in the academic arena with the creation of new courses within colleges or departments. When a new
21

course is proposed, a consultation process is required and along with that a “course challenge” process provides an avenue for other units to question the new initiative.
Further, academic programs committees at both the college and university level may become involved in resolving challenges. With the introduction of technologies for teaching and learning there is no such process. At the moment any unit may introduce any technology innovation at any time and then try to promote its use with others.
While academic units and individual instructors will wish to have full autonomy in selecting e-learning resources, tools, and systems for their specific needs, too much flexibility in doing so does not always work in the best interest of students or the university. A process and mechanism for introducing and justifying e-learning innovations should be created. This may be something as simple as a notification process within a communal wiki or as complex as a formal consultation process for elearning projects or innovations having a wider potential impact. o This recommendation is not intended to stifle innovation nor to prevent experimentation, exploration and pilot projects. If implemented without sufficient care this recommendation may introduce unreasonable limitations, both on faculty and their teaching practices, and on central units that are required to operate within strict budgets in managing and maintaining their services.
•
A coordination office for e-learning should be created. o Until now the TEL funding from government offered a structure for coordination of major e-learning investments in new online courses. A TEL program manager ensured that some level of coordination and adequate communication and accountability measures were in place to provide for successful deployment of TEL funds. Now with the TEL program funds rolling into base budget, there is an opportunity to transform this TEL program management position into a broader elearning coordination role. Resources associated with the TEL budget line that had been funding the TEL program manager could fund this coordination position, providing a major contribution toward the resources needed to fund a coordinating office for e-learning. If the new E-Learning Coordination Office is to carry weight with respect to institutional coordination of e-learning activity, the office should ideally hold sufficient resources to ensure that coordination efforts are encouraged and rewarded. The existing TEL budget line is only a fraction of the annual institutional investment in e-learning. It currently represents the only identifiable central funding source to support the development of online courses and the continuing production of televised courses. There is only a little flexibility in terms of the fraction of these funds that could be directed to achieve goals of greater cooperation and coordination.
• To the extent possible, the PAWS portal should become a central access point for all elearning technologies.
22

o PAWS has become a vital component of campus life for faculty, staff and students alike. The PAWS course tools offer some functionality to support teaching and learning technologies, but many tools seem to operate outside the scope of PAWS.
Even the WebCT/Blackboard learning management system is viewed by students as a completely separate system from PAWS. Steps should be taken to update the PAWS course tools and PAWS access to all campus e-learning resources so that from the perspective of faculty and students there is one destination for access to all e-learning technologies. This means that PAWS would be a portal through which we offer a wide range of tools and supports for e-learning, including a WebCT/Blackboard tool, a
One45 tool, a podcasting tool, several assignment submission tools, etc. This level of coordination will help to offer faculty and students one entry point to e-learning and at the same time will offer a plentiful palate of components, technologies, and resources from which instructors can select and students can find in one place. However, given that new potential technologies become available literally daily, it is not feasible to force all e-learning technologies to become available through PAWS immediately.
The capacity to provide such integration (and secure access) is limited by available resources.
•
An instructional development strategy should be put into place to encourage and support faculty and instructional staff development and training with e-learning. o As was indicated above, faculty are quite complacent when it comes to training and educational opportunities related to e-learning. There are really no extrinsic incentives to engage in professional development related to e-learning, and only a few are intrinsically motivated to invest much effort into personal development in this area. A combination of incentives and institutional programs need to be put into place to provide encouragement to faculty and their academic units to take more seriously elearning technologies. The Gwenna Moss Centre should take a leadership role in developing this strategy and moving it to action.
•
Instructional design services must be routinely available for all e-learning projects (and for all course, curriculum and program design projects). o The importance and value of instructional design and the expertise of instructional designers has been repeatedly demonstrated (and appreciated by faculty) in the development of online courses through the TEL program. Broadly integrating elearning technology into teaching and learning involves all kinds of courses, and not just online courses. The benefits of bringing instructional design expertise to this work of integrating e-learning technologies into courses may be somewhat underappreciated by faculty, but the benefits have been demonstrated in this arena as well.
Instructional design support in curriculum, course, and program development is still a foreign concept for many faculty members, but is coming to be appreciated by more
23

and more academic units every year. It is time to make a more substantial investment in instructional design expertise and capacity, for e-learning and for learning more generally. Coordination of the instructional design resource at the University has not been an issue to date, but it is rapidly growing to be an urgent matter. It is time to consider how the University can ramp up its capacity to support instructional design and to strategically manage and coordinate the various instructional design resources, including the woefully small cohort of very busy staff instructional design specialists.
•
A communications strategy for e-learning should be developed o While everyone has some conception of e-learning technologies, overall there is a poor understanding among faculty, staff and even students of the potential changes that can exist when e-learning technologies are widely applied. Communication of the potential and promise of e-learning technology integration as well as clarifying the risks of poor implementation of e-learning is an important priority. Each unit engaged in e-learning leadership, support or training needs to become an active participant in this communication program.
• Collaboration among academic and support units should be maintained to ensure that reorganization or restructuring of the units providing e-learning development, support and training are not required. o Even though there are currently several units supporting various aspects of e-learning support for faculty and students, there are distinct areas of expertise in the various units. Some overlap in expertise and capability is necessary – it would be inappropriate to try to eliminate all overlap. While sources of e-learning leadership, support and training at the University are widely distributed at this time, we believe it would not be productive to try to centralize e-learning services at the University of
Saskatchewan. While there are some overlaps in expertise and services offered by different units, and differing funding models currently exist for various units, there is a strong willingness among the providers of e-learning support and training to work together in effective ways.
Recommendation 5: That specific projects be advanced to accelerate university-wide e-learning activity
There are some specific initiatives now underway that could involve a large number of academic units across all colleges in more significant use of e-learning with little investment and little risk.
•
Open, online course syllabus for all U of S courses (and opportunity for providing open learning resources)
24

o In an effort to acquaint all instructors and students with the PAWS course tools and to encourage the preparation and publication of course syllabi, this recommendation serves to take one small step toward widespread use of e-learning technology. As the use of PAWS and other learning management systems has increased, the openness of the University’s courses has actually been restricted. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find a public presentation of the course syllabus for any U of S course being offered. Currently when course syllabi are made available to students in PAWS or WebCT/Blackboard, only authorized individuals have permission to see course resources. A project is underway to permit online information resources stored within
PAWS course tools to be projected publicly through the University website. Simply uploading a syllabus to PAWS and marking it as a publicly readable file would be the only effort required by an instructor. By making syllabi public we can achieve an important recruitment goal through making our courses more visible to both existing and prospective students and at the same time achieve an increased level of public accountability with respect to our course offerings. This fairly simple action, applied universally, would serve to acquaint all instructors with PAWS course tools, would invite all students to begin to make use of such tools, and would be a small step toward widespread increases in use of e-learning technologies. Furthermore, this same facility could be used by instructors to open up other course materials to people outside the U of S community, if desired.
• Widespread investment in podcasting and coursecasting o With a growing number of classroom spaces equipped to support audio and full video recording of classroom presentations, there is an opportunity to offer flexible access to many more of our lecture-style presentations through podcasts and video coursecasts.
Video coursecasting can record and stream out the video captured by cameras, data projectors, and sympodium stations along with an audio track. The technology barrier for instructors is very low and the technology is growing in stability and reliability.
Many academic units could make much greater use of coursecasting. o The potential to involve cohorts of remote learners along side the face to face classroom learners is a very appealing mechanism to leverage the strength of the traditional lecture-based course. Some universities are routinely coursecasting a large number of their lecture-style courses to distance learners. There is, of course a need to support these remote learners with additional communication technologies, with facilities to complete exams and assignments, and with opportunities to communicate with instructors, tutors, and other students, etc. But even without remote learners, coursecasting lectures offers flexibility and an additional learning resource to students registered in traditional courses. Students with disabilities are particularly well served with this kind of additional resource.
25

The University of Saskatchewan must move from an opportunistic approach to e-learning toward a more planned and strategic approach. The purposes and consequences of successful e-learning integration into traditional classroom teaching lead to improving the teaching and learning experience for both instructors and students. E-learning, ranging from a slight technological augmentation to the traditional classroom through to fully online courses, requires quality instructional design, informed instructors, a capable instructional support team, and appropriate institutional infrastructure.
Coordinated effort to develop all of these requisites must proceed simultaneously. With our current levels of institutional investment, we may be able to move forward somewhat by achieving some efficiencies, but in order to move to the next level of e-learning activity, more investment will be required. This report documents our current situation and provides some direction for next steps to better coordinate our efforts in e-learning with a specific call for strategic planning and institutional priority setting in this area.
26

Appendix 1
September 2009
27

The Context
The literature on strategic planning is vast. This vastness demonstrates that the concept of strategic planning is not new and certainly pre-dates the wave of technology based learning that has been utilized by all kinds of institutions and organizations to deliver education.
Over the past decades advancement in technology has enabled institutions to deliver education in more diverse ways. “Technology indeed provides educators and government with the capacity to transform radically our whole education system and nowhere is this truer than in the area of flexible and distance learning” (Bates, 2005, p.2). As a compliment to the technology advancement Universities have been experiencing, “E-learning has moved into the mainstream of educational design and can provide ways to enhance the quality of the learning experience”
(Softi ć & Beki ć , 2008, ¶ 1).
While the increased enrolment in e-learning courses is readily documented and acknowledged
(Bates, 2008; Allen & Seaman 2008) questions about its effectiveness have also been identified
(Zemsky and Massey, 2004; Kanuka and Kelland, 2008). These articles discuss how the promise of e-learning was to bring forth a new model for education that would significantly improve education and why these promises have to a large degree not been met. To some extent, issues of support are “becoming critical in the light of the continued growth and success of e-learning in higher education” (Softi ć & Beki ć , 2008, ¶ 3). Additional issues continue to arise:
• Adequate and reliable technical infrastructure to support learning activities
• Teachers’ and students’ technical skills to use e-learning tools
• Redesign of the courses to incorporate e-learning effectively into their pedagogy (Softi ć &
Beki ć , 2008, ¶ 6)
Both Collis and Van der Wende (2002) and the ODL Liaison Committee paper (2004) state that the integration of e-learning in universities have been so far disappointing both at the macro-level of their strategic options and at the micro-level of their educational work processes. Barrios and
Carstensen (2004) have found that only 5% of the active faculty in German-speaking universities use learning technologies for their courses – a threshold for e-learning integration which a recent
OECD survey (2005) confirms at the international level. Latchem et al. (2007) suggests that elearning integration in Japanese higher education advances at the leisurely speed. Technology development tends to out pace strategic thinking and pedagogical design in universities, and the sustainable integration of e-learning into higher education establishments remains a major challenge.
In the U.S., Zemsky attributes this situation in large part to inflated promises by corporations intent to sell more network infrastructure, the failure of academic administrators to follow through on programs with sufficient resources, and, failure of instructors to fully utilize the potential of elearning.
In the Canadian context, Kanuka and Kelland show that a group of leading academics could not agree upon substantive issues of defining success and therefore that administrators, policy makers and the likes should be wary of the “truism presented about to e-learning technologies
(e.g., best practices)” (Kanuka & Kelland, 2008, p. 60).
What each of these articles concludes is that the application of technology in education based on the expectation that something good happens simply because it exists, is not a productive means
28

of providing education. The application of technology to the university context requires, even demands, effective and efficient planning, a shift in the cultural context under which e-learning and technology is used, and a pedagogical and administrative understanding to the strengths and benefits of e-learning to the Academy.
In recognition of the messy history when adopting e-learning methodologies, Bates (2007) describes five standard stages that an organization will pass through:
1 – Lone Rangers;
2 – Encouragement;
3 – Chaos;
4 – Planning; and
5 – Sustainability.
Within this transition it is not until Stage 4 that the adoption of e-learning technologies can reach a scale that enables it to make a significant contribution to the going concerns of the institution.
Until that point it exists as piece meal projects of instructors and certain administrators but without any concerted institutional backing. It should also be noted that Bates also claims that there are very few institutions that have reached stage 5.
The literature on effective organizational planning for institutions using technology is a small branch of the whole of strategic planning literature; the focus is for the purpose of guiding large public institutions (Bates 2000; Bates and Poole, 2004; Bullen and Janes, 2007; Stockley, 2004).
These institutions can be considered large bureaucracies that have a myriad of issues and interests that in many respects make them unique. Some of these include the relationship between public mandate and delivery method. Another may be the relationship between management and faculty with respect to faculty’s academic freedom in course design and delivery.
The first comprehensive planning tool for making decisions regarding technology was the
ACTIONS model developed by Bates in 1988. This model was developed to guide decisions about choices in technology that would integrate organizational strategic decisions with instructional tactical decisions with regards to delivering distance education. With the growth of blended e-learning delivery models where students do attend campus sessions periodically,
Bates and Poole (2003) revised this model to SECTIONS where:
S - students: What is known about the students?
E -ease of use and reliability: how easy is it for teachers and instructors to use?
C – costs: what is the cost structure of each technology?
T – teaching and learning: what kinds of learning are needed?
I – interactivity: what kind of interaction does this technology enable?
O – organizational issues: What are the organizational requirements and barriers to be removed?
29

N – novelty: how new is this technology?
S – speed: how quickly can course be mounted and materials changed? (p.79)
For Bates and Poole, this acronym based approach of methodical questioning and the documentation of the answers can provide organizational leaders with information to complete a strategic plan in the implementation and support for e-learning. What remains unclear is some of the literature is who is recommended to do the questioning and answering and how this process progresses through the organization.
Berge and Schrum (1998) do not see things too much differently. Their model similarly identifies the two distinct roles of organizational (strategic) and operational (programmatic) decisions.
Central to this model is the vision of the organization as defined by the leadership. As a model more directly related to strategic planning than SECTIONS the classification of categories takes on slightly different names and are some are particularly concerned with the very high level of organizational mission and policy considerations.
Another tool specific to educational planning is that of Stockley (2004) who developed a Schedule of Principles for Strategic Planning for Educational Technology (See Appendix A). This schedule was developed through a thorough review of the literature and encompasses the most important issues raised. It defines four large categories: Strategic Planning, Organizational Management,
Resource Management and Professional Development with a number of issues to address within each.
The schedule as developed by Stockley and the work of Berge and Schrum and Bates, show there is a general consensus in this area; the major components of organization strategic planning for educational institutions for e-learning must at the very least, include as categories for adoption: organizational management, resource management, and staff development. Each category is comprised of a variety of issues which bring into focus details that the institution must address in both the strategic and tactical realms. And that each item set into such a plan should be measureable and available for evaluation and adjustment.
In Educational Technology Planning , Bruce (1999, pp. 8-11) suggested that a strategic plan that focuses on educational technology should be connected to both the institutional mission and vision, and that the plan should fit into the overall institutional information strategy, culture, values, and history. He provided a series of recommendations for institutions involved in the
30

planning process. These recommendations include the need for: (a) communications and advisory processes, (b) professional development and training, (c) technical and instructional support, (d) distributed learning and support for distributed learning students, (e) provision of services at regional centres, (f) technology components such as the acquisition, deployment, utilisation, replacement and disposal of the educational technology components, and (g) policy considerations such as copyright and intellectual property appropriate usage, resource provisioning, and protection of privacy.
Ely (1999) identified conditions which determine the successful implementation of educational innovation. He suggests the combination of personal traits such as dissatisfaction, knowledge, commitment, and leadership; and institutional traits like time, resources, rewards and participation, as interrelated functions that assure the performance of educational institutions and influence their innovative capabilities.
Aaron et.al (2004) notes that “Effective planning combines the advantages of the top-down and bottom up approaches, where leadership provides the mandate, the resources, and the coordination, yet recognizes the importance of local acceptance and empowerment. In one form of this approach, leadership provides the structure of reform, the grassroots work out the details.”
(p.2). In this environment a good strategic planning process can be cathartic to an organization.
Whereby at the end of the process, a consensus is formed based on input from all, tasks are assigned and everyone feels like they have a role in creating the adopted vision. One of the results of the planning process described by Bates (2007) was the scaling up by 500% the number of staff instructional designers and by almost 100% the number of multi-media designers.
This clearly demonstrates the significant reallocation of resources that can occur when institutions plan and administrators commit to an e-learning strategy. Downey (2008) suggests that
Many faculty go unwillingly into the eLearning environment. We need to develop new strategies for motivating champions of change. Motivation through public and professional recognition, challenging and rewarding experiences, successful, satisfied and motivated students. When establishing or growing an eLearning program at an institution one of the biggest challenges is to engage faculty in the design and development phase of eLearning. Developing a strategy that can generate a successful eLearning course can lead to a successfully implemented eLearning program.
In a recent work published by APLU-Sloan (2009a) there are a number of divisions apparent among the Faculty Survey responses. “First, faculty is not uniform in their opinions toward online learning. Faculty with experience developing or teaching online courses have a much more positive view towards online instruction than those without such experience. Faculty with no online experience remains relatively negative about online learning outcomes.” (p. 3)
On the other hand, strategic planning done poorly can isolate, demoralize and harm the relationship with existing management and staff. This tends to happen when the outcome from the planning is not inclusive and considered pre-determined or at the very least, not based on the information presented; this happens as well when the plan is not implemented or followed through. Stockley’s (2004) analysis of the strategic plans of 26 large Canadian universities showed that technology is mostly discussed in a supportive manner but not in a practical manner and that most had not established or implemented many of the recognized elements considered requisite to effective use of technology.
31

So having a plan is not sufficient in and of itself. Rather, it is the follow through upon implementation that matters and enables measurement and evaluation of the objectives set forth.
It should also be noted that the priority of implementation to the plan may be dependent upon the perspective of the person who charged with implementation. Instructors tend to weight issues of program implementation higher than all others. Discussions with colleagues who were instructors consistently placed S – students at the top of the list. That is natural given they are the front-line staff delivering education and have high expectations for a learner-centred experience.
Administrators take an entirely different view. While not denying the need for learner-centred education, their primary concern is with organizational issues such as fiscal sustainability and creating efficient institutional systems. This also is a natural function of their position in the institution.
It appears that the weighting of administrative issues over educational ones is being noticed within the literature written by educational technologists; there is a growing frustration with the lack of commitment to the sound implementation of e-learning within organizations. As early as
2000, Bates was proposing a position of Associate Vice-President within the hierarchy of universities to be responsible for coordinating e-learning initiatives. However, noting the lack of adoption of this title within institutions, Albright and Nworie (2008) have methodically defined a position of Senior Academic Technology Officer (SATO) and related it to not only large but smaller institutions which still have a significant investment in e-learning. The purpose of this position is to direct the implementation of effective e-learning by establishing proper rigour with regard to technology choices, instructional and student support, methodological issues and to act as an advocate in the strategic areas of e-learning development.
What seems to be the heart of the matter in utilizing e-learning technology is the positioning of it within the overall strategic plan of the organization and its effective implementation. A comprehensive planning process is necessary to fully understand the opportunities and to establish priorities, but having a plan itself does not mean success. Rather once the plan is formulated, then the hard work begins. To facilitate monitoring of implementation, Rossner and
Stockley (1997, pp. 334-335) provided a series of requirements that could be used as a template to ensure the successful implementation of the strategic plan for educational technology. These requirements include:
• assurance of support from the senior administrative level;
• commitment to put in place an easily accessible campus-wide technology “backbone” that supports Web-based instruction within and beyond the campus;
• extending current library facilities to include the online library;
• designing a system that allows students to register via the Web;
• designing a system that allows faculty and students to access any campus-based server containing information relative to their work;
• supporting researchers experimenting with hardware, software, and models of instruction that enhance Web-based teaching and learning;
• developing a process for continuous feedback between faculty and administration
32

• technical people with Web expertise;
• developing support systems that provide training in the educational uses of interactive technologies;
• providing on-going technical and pedagogical support for faculty and students working on the Web; and
• committing adequate, long-term base budget financial support for Web-based instruction.
“Online learning is a complex undertaking that holds great potential as a teaching and learning mode that public colleges and universities may strategically employ to achieve broad institutional priorities and contribute to the attainment of national goals.” (APLU-Sloan, 2009, p. 5) The APLU-
Sloan National Commission on Online Learning Benchmarking Study (2009) was designed to illuminate how public institutions develop and implement the key organizational strategies, processes, and procedures that contribute to successful and robust online learning initiatives.
The Online Commission has developed a set of observations about successful strategic online learning initiatives. These observations are based on 231 Institutional Interviews with administrators, faculty, and students at 45 public institutions across the country and close to
11,000 responses from a national Faculty Survey. These observations include the following:
1. Online learning programs may work most effectively as a core component of institutional strategic planning and implementation.
2. Online learning initiatives benefit from ongoing institutional assessment and review due to their evolving and dynamic nature.
3. Online learning activities are strengthened by the centralization of some organizational structures and administrative functions that support and sustain the programs.
4. Online learning programs overseen by academic affairs units may be more readily accepted and may be more easily integrated into the fabric of the institution.
5. Online learning programs need reliable financing mechanisms for sustainability and growth.
6. Online learning programs succeed with consistent and adequate academic, administrative, and technological resources for faculty and students.
7. Online learning programs have the capacity to change campus culture and become fully integrated if presidents, chancellors, chief academic officers, and other senior campus leaders are fully engaged in the delivery of “messages” that tie online education to fundamental institutional missions and priorities. (p. 5)
The data compiled through the Institutional Interviews and Faculty Survey also identify a number of key leadership and policy issues for campus presidents, chancellors and chief academic officers to consider. These issue-specific recommendations include:
1. Campus leaders need to better understand the characteristics of the online teaching populations on their campus and use communication strategies that target and engage all faculty members.
33

2. Campus leaders should maintain consistent communication with all faculty and administrators regarding the role and purpose of online learning programs as they relate to academic mission and academic quality. Further, campus leaders, administrators, and faculty must all work together to improve the quality—or perceived quality—of online learning outcomes.
3. Campus leaders have the potential to expand faculty engagement by better understanding what motivates faculty to teach online.
4. Campus leaders and faculty governing bodies need to regularly re-examine institutional policies regarding faculty incentives, especially in this era of declining financial resources. (APLU-Sloan, 2009a, p. 6)
Perhaps most importantly, campus leaders need to identify strategies to acknowledge and recognize the additional time and effort faculty invest in online as compared to face-to-face teaching and learning. (APLU-Sloan, 2009a, p. 6)
Participants who considered their institutions’ online activities successful often said their campus leaders possessed a number of critical skills that were instrumental to launching and integrating online learning into the academic and administrative fabric on campus.
These skills included the keen ability to recognize and articulate the value of online learning, relate it to campus mission, and seize organizational changes and planning as opportunities to solidify institutional commitment to online learning. (APLU-Sloan, 2009, p. 42)
Messaging from the leadership might be most effective if it can address common faculty perceptions as well as reported faculty rationales for teaching online:
• Online learning will not replace face-to-face learning;
• Online learning will not make faculty irrelevant;
• The institution is committed to maintaining the integrity and quality of its academic offerings regardless of whether they are delivered in person or online; and
Online learning offers faculty and students more access and flexibility. (APLU-Sloan,
2009, p. 42)
In the end, quality in teaching and learning should always prevail. As Ruth, Sammons & Poulin
(2007) note, “A new study of the demographics of online programs found that many future students will be 35–55 years old. As the study's director commented, while online programs are touted as a convenient alternative to traditional instruction, potential students are beginning to judge programs on quality, cost, accreditation, and the technology being used. If colleges don't distinguish themselves, students will look elsewhere.” (p.38)
No institution whether private or public can continue without demonstrating their value to new students, and the best way to do that is to ensure the success of the existing students by delivering a high quality product. To achieve this result a thorough planning process must be addressed but more importantly effective implementation must follow through.
What is happening elsewhere?
34

Although not exhaustive, Dalhousie University has complied a list of Australian,
Canadian, American and International Educational Development Centers, found at: http://learningandteaching.dal.ca/ids.html
This list was used to begin the search of the work of other E-learning and Teaching and
Learning Centers in the area of strategic planning. Here is the Canadian list.
Canada
1.
University Teaching Services, University of Alberta
2.
Centre for Teaching and Academic Growth, University of British Columbia
3.
Learning and Teaching Centre, British Columbia Institute of Technology
4.
Centre for Teaching and Educational Technologies, Royal Roads University
5.
Centre for Teaching, Learning, & Educational Technologies Brock University
6.
Educational Development Centre, Carleton University
7.
Centre for Teaching and Learning Services, Concordia University
8.
Centre for Learning & Teaching, Dalhousie University
9.
University Teaching Services, University of Manitoba
10.
Teaching and Learning Services, McGill University
11.
Instructional Development Office, Memorial University of Newfoundland
12.
Purdy Crawford Teaching Centre, Mount Allison University
13.
Academic Development Center, Mount Royal College
14.
Teaching and Learning Centre, Mount Saint Vincent University
15.
Centre for Enhanced Teaching and Learning, University of New Brunswick
16.
Centre for Mediated Teaching in Learning, University of Ottawa
17.
Centre for University Teaching, University of Ottawa
18.
Webster Centre for Teaching and Learning, University of Prince Edward Island
19.
Centre for Teaching and Learning, Queen's University
20.
The Learning & Teaching Office, Ryerson University
21.
Office of Instructional Development, Saint Mary's University
22.
The Gwenna Moss Teaching and Learning Centre, University of Saskatchewan
23.
Learning and Instructional Development Centre, Simon Fraser University
24.
Learning and Teaching Center, University of Victoria
25.
Teaching Resources and Continuing Education, University of Waterloo
26.
Teaching Support Centre, University of Western Ontario
27.
Instructional Development, Wilfrid Laurier University
28.
Centre for Innovation in Teaching and Learning, University of Winnipeg
29.
Centre for the Support of Teaching, York University
University of British Columbia (2000-2010)
Under the direction of former President Martha Piper, UBC created the Trek2000 document; a strategic plan for the movement of UBC into the 21 st century. Begun in
1995 as a series of focus groups and discussions, the ideas became the central focus for UBCs direction. By 2005, this series of documents became Trek2010. The five pillars of UBC's Trek 2010 vision define specific principles around which the university's goals and strategies will be determined:
• People
• Learning
• Research
•
Community
• Internationalization
35

By promoting excellence at every level, we shall help our students to become leaders in their chosen fields, achieve their personal and career goals, and contribute effectively to the well-being of society. The key is to provide UBC students with the best possible educational experience, founded on the principles outlined in our vision and mission statements. Our students will develop an understanding of their responsibilities as members of a global society, including the need to respect the natural environment and live in harmony with their fellow human beings. They will learn to push boundaries and take risks in search of new knowledge and unconventional ideas. They will acquire strong analytical and communication skills, and continue to develop their ideas beyond graduation through life-long learning.
(http://www.trek2000.ubc.ca/principles/learning.html)
The Learning component goals and strategies are noted here (my emphasis):
Foster a sense of social awareness and global responsibility.
Ensure that all academic programs meet the highest standards of excellence.
Review the methods by which instruction is delivered, including scheduling of courses and the structure of undergraduate programs.
Support innovations and improvements in teaching.
• Through the Faculty-directed creation of new courses, the augmentation of existing courses, modified promotion/graduation requirements, and expanded co-curricular opportunities, ensure that all students develop a greater awareness of their responsibilities as global citizens and of the issues surrounding social, environmental, and economic sustainability.
• Support faculty efforts to integrate global perspectives into curricular planning and teaching practice.
• Encourage students to learn more about Aboriginal issues and perspectives through courses in First Nations culture and history.
• Increase opportunities for student participation in international projects and study abroad programs.
• Encourage students to become involved in community service learning experiences.
• Ensure that in each year of their studies all students are exposed in lab or classroom to senior faculty members and researchers in their preferred discipline.
• Renew our commitment to help students in all disciplines develop good analytic and communication skills.
• Recognize interdisciplinarity as an important principle in academic planning for undergraduate and graduate programs.
• Explore new avenues in professional and interprofessional education.
• Create new programs for both full-time and part-time students that address the life-long learning needs of citizens in a knowledgebased society.
• Continue improvements to all aspects of the learning environment, including upgrades to laboratories and classrooms, and re-examine the configuration of instructional space in the context of changing expectations about teaching and learning.
• Encourage Faculties to continue developing innovative approaches that expose undergraduates to research-based and experiential learning, including co-operative education and problem-based learning.
• Make the big small wherever appropriate: provide individualized services and experiences to students within Faculty-based or program-based communities.
• Examine the issue of class sizes, with a view to enhancing students’ engagement in their learning.
• Continually strive to improve the digital environment at all UBC sites.
• Enhance service and support for distance learners.
• In partnership with the teaching hospitals and health authorities, establish clinical educational opportunities in the health professions to accommodate increasing numbers of students.
• Institute regular Faculty-based reviews of learning methodologies and learning outcomes in all disciplines to ensure maintenance of the highest standards.
• Develop programs to assist new faculty and graduate students in all disciplines to develop strong instructional skills.
• Support innovative teaching and create new learning experiences through the application of leading-edge technology.
36

LEAD @ UBC
In 2008, UBC began a transformative process in the area of teaching and learning which they have called LEAD (Lasting Education, Achieved and Demonstrated).
A central goal to the UBC LEAD initiative is to enable faculty members to create and maintain a rewarding teaching and learning experience. Through a series of LEAD
Meetings involving more than 300 UBC faculty members, we seek to learn from our experienced educators the building blocks of a lasting education, and how the university community could further empower and enrich these experiences.
(http://www.lead.ubc.ca/meetings/index.html)
LEAD’s goal is a transformative advance in educational effectiveness . It seeks to provide both encouragement and new targeted resources that enable leading departments to apply discipline-specific proven best practices in pedagogy, making teaching more effective and rewarding without compromising continued growth in research excellence. Although not specifically targeted at technology and e-learning, it has strategic implications for the use of these technologies within the teaching and learning scope of UBC. In November and December 2008,
LEAD-commissioned Angus Reid Strategies to conduct a confidential, anonymous survey to better understand faculty members' views and opinions about teaching and learning. The survey results are online at: http://www.lead.ubc.ca/angusreidreport/index.html
Core Concepts of the UBC LEAD Initiative
These are concepts which UBD hopes all professors will come to understand deeply, and which may be useful in review and in designing attitudinal surveys.
By “understand deeply” they mean that professors will:
•
•
•
•
• understand their meaning, remember them, believe they are relevant to them personally, want to apply them to their own teaching, and have the ability to do so.
There are 41 listed core concepts, in eight categories:
• Responsibility of Instructors
• Challenge of Communication
• Challenge of Assessment
• Don’t Re-invent the Wheel!
• Things that don’t work well; things that do.
• Sensible Curriculum Design
• Understanding Our Students
• Making Better Teaching Practical
Although the 41 principles are key to any teaching and learning situation, technology enhanced or not, only one principle mentioned technology overtly: “New technology makes a much wider range of educational activities practical and effective, and some of these can be extremely valuable”.
(http://www.lead.ubc.ca/assets/pdf/UBC-
LEAD_Core_Concepts_of_CWSEI_and_LEAD1.pdf)
37

University of Alberta (2005-2006)
The Committee on the Learning Environment (CLE) established the Subcommittee on Teaching,
Learning and Technology (TLT) Leadership and Innovation in October, 2005. The Terms of
Reference for this Subcommittee identified the following as its main activities:
• Discuss and make recommendations on a strategy to support and encourage an integrated approach for leadership and innovation in teaching. Learning and technology on campus.
• Address and expand on the formulation and implementation of recommendations #14 and #15 in the E-Learning Report, version 3.0
• Review and assess the impact on the other recommendations in the E-Learning Report that are affected by implementing recommendations #14 and #15.
• Report the results of the Subcommittee’s deliberation to CLE.
Strategy 1 Develop a fully functioning, integrateddistributed system of support and services
Strategy 2
Strategy 3
Strategy 4
Each Faculty is encouraged to establish and/or maintain a teaching, learning and technology committee.
Institute the TLT Council to develop policy, plan long-term strategies and promote best practices
Establish the Centre for Teaching and Learning
(CLT)
University of Toronto (2009)
The Resource Centre for Academic Technology (RCAT) was established in 2001 as an initiative to facilitate access to effective teaching, learning and research strategies using computer technologies. The mandate of RCAT is to provide innovative services which support faculty in the utilization of information technology for teaching and learning. RCAT is the primary University service in this area, responsible for bringing about effective collaboration among divisional units involved in related activities. The unit resides within the University of Toronto Library and the
Director reports to the Chief Librarian. More information about the Resource Centre for Academic
Technology can be found on its website: http://content.library.utoronto.ca/rcat/.
RCAT has not been formally reviewed since it was established. An administrative review is being commissioned to review RCAT’s mandate and operations. The terms of reference are listed below:
1. Is the mandate of RCAT appropriate for the University? How can RCAT be of best use to the
University?
38

2. What structural improvements should be made to RCAT's organization and administration that would enable it to better fulfill its purpose? How should RCAT be governed?
3. What relationship should RCAT have with other units at the University?
The report was submitted June, 2009 with 10 recommendations (See Appendix C).
Where to go from here
Bates (2000) as well as Collis and Van der Wende (2002) argue in their respective works that elearning can only find its way into the mainstream of the university culture if it is rethought as part of wider strategic concepts for educational innovation. The specific role of e-learning within these strategic concepts needs to be based on the analysis of crucial integration factors for the deployment of learning technologies. University management has to identify the main target groups for e-learning with in the student population and to think about the added value that leaning technologies offer these target groups.
Vision
E-learning cannot any longer be perceived as a separate area of innovation and as a means in and of itself; it must instead be applied as a technology-based toolset that enhances the portfolio of educational services within a university.
Recommendations
• Develop e-strategies as institutional innovation frameworks which guide the efforts that universities undertake to sustainably integrate ICT into their work processes
• A well balanced combination of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators will drive faculty participation in institutional e-learning efforts
• Successful implementation of a technology-driven innovation at a university depends on the capabilities of the leadership management to actively involve faculty in organisational change
• Two essential preconditions determine the active involvement of faculty in e-learning innovation: o Faculty members need to become aware of technology-driven change and its potential in higher education, and o Faculty need to develop e-competence to make persistent use of ICT in their personal work routines and teaching practices o E-competence include designed learning processes as concrete activities with authentic faculty work contexts – learning interventions are tied to teaching realities
• Formal e-learning traditions of direct training in staff development need to change.
Formal e-learning training courses initiate but are not sufficient to sustain the learning process of faculty. o Make the use of e-learning elements in courses compulsory o Give junior faculty the option to ‘collect’ additional points for internal tenure when they champion the use of learning technologies
39

o To answer positively the question ‘what is in it for me’, universities need to consider monetary or reputational rewards to faculty for using e-learning
• Any strategic framework must recognise that technology-savvy early adopters have other e-learning and support needs and expectations then the more critical late majority adopters
• Support research throughout the Academy that examines the efficacy of e-learning across the disciplines
• Badly designed e-learning is perhaps worse than having no e-learning at all; Ensure that well trained and experienced instructional designers are placed strategically within the university and readily available to the faculty for design consultation – ideally within the departments and colleges with an understanding of the culture of teaching and learning within that discipline
•
Tie the contracts and tenure-track requirements of new faculty to the training in and adoption of, new technologies in their classrooms. Assign them a technology mentor, ideally in their discipline
• Reorganise the current and future e-learning support systems within the university to collaborate and work together. Remove barriers to collaboration by making these supports ‘line items’ in the budget and not competing for the same funds on a yearly basis
• Consider an internal R&D fund and other initiatives tied to the innovation of teaching and learning but with a view to discipline based scholarship and research along side of the innovation in the classroom
• Acknowledge that the university is responsible not only for the ‘on campus’ experiences of its younger learners but has a responsibility to the ‘older’ learner who also wishes to avail of the Academy but who may not be able to take traditional face-2-face classes because of the competing interests of family, work, and community responsibilities
• To take on in e-learning, the university must be fully engaged and willing to support both its physical campus and learners and its virtual campus and learners, not as separated entities but as one and the same
• Campus leaders and administrators must be able to “articulate the value of online learning, relate it to campus mission, and seize organizational changes and planning as opportunities to solidify institutional commitment to online learning” (APLU-Sloan, 2009, p. 42)
40

Appendix A
Institutional Strategic Plans by Region (as of 2004).
41
Taken from Stockley, D. (2004).

Appendix B
Schedule of Principles for Strategic Planning for Educational Technology
42
Taken from Stockley, D. (2004).

Appendix C
University of Toronto Recommendations
Recommendation #1:
Recommendation #2:
Recommendation #3:
Recommendation #4:
RCAT and OTA 1  in order to integrate RCAT  activities into OTA to form one combined unit.
The enhanced OTA  will incorporate instructional technology in  pedagogy within its broader teaching  advancement mandate. The mandate of the  combined unit should encompasses technology  in teaching developments and opportunities,  coordination of information and resources, as  well as referrals of expertise within the
University and its divisional support units.
The CTSI, integrating the activities of OTA and
RCAT, should report to the Office of the Vice‐
President and Provost, through the appropriate
Vice Provost.
The Director of the CTSI engage in discussions  with the CIO to investigate the optimal networks  of communication in order to seamlessly deliver  the integrated services related to CTSI’s mandate  to teaching staff and graduate student teaching  assistants.
The Office of the Vice‐President and Provost  engage in discussion with the Chief Librarian and  the CTSI Director regarding space allocation and  the use of Library space.
Facilities and Services evaluate the OTA and
RCAT physical layout within Robarts
Library to produce a plan that reorganizes the  space to serve the needs of the CTSI and its  mandate.
Recommendation #5:   The Vice‐President and Provost, in consultation  with Principals and Deans and the CTSI Director,  review the composition of TLTAC to ensure that  its membership allows the committee to  appropriately advise CTSI in fulfilling its
1   Resource Centre for Academic Technology (RCAT); Office of Teaching Advancement (OTA).
43

Recommendation #6:
Recommendation #7:
Recommendation #8:
44  integrated mandate. The advisory committee  should include divisional representatives, and  include teaching staff that are innovative in their  use of pedagogy and technologies. TLTAC should  continue to include members from the Office of  the CIO.
The mandate of CTSI should encompass the  advancement of teaching and instructional  technology and include:
1. Providing university‐wide leadership in  pedagogy and pedagogy‐driven  instructional technology;
2. Supporting teaching staff and graduate student  teaching assistants in a timely and proactive  manner;
3. Serving as the central point for leadership in  the development and coordination of  instructional materials, documentation and best  practices in collaboration with divisional support  staff. This leadership and coordinating role  should be manifested across all the university’s  campuses and divisions.
4. Serving as the University’s “instructional  technology observatory” by developing expertise  in leading and innovative instructional  technologies that reflect sound pedagogical  practices from both within and beyond the
University;
5. Evaluating new technologies that support  teaching and learning; and,
6. Serving as the “face” and “voice” for
Blackboard and other instructional technology  tools at the University.
CTSI should develop effective communication  strategies, including focus groups and  workshops, to engage the University community  with respect to new learning and teaching  approaches.
CTSI should advance the recognition of  excellence and innovative uses of technology in

Recommendation #9:
Recommendation #10:   teaching through promoting the nomination of  awards and encouraging applications for funds  to support instructional technology initiatives.
CTSI should have a critical role in providing  service to the university’s academic divisions in  developing and supporting university‐wide  initiatives in teaching advancement and  instructional technology. It should work  strategically with divisional units to provide  leadership and assistance so that they can meet  their specific pedagogical needs. CTSI should  ensure there is cohesion of services without  service duplication.
CTSI should continue to work with divisions that  do not have local support staff in order to assist  them with their divisional needs in relation to  the CTSI mandate. CTSI should assist divisions in  establishing local units and supports as  appropriate.
CTSI should engage in discussion with divisional  units to communicate its services and delineate  divisional responsibilities and local oversight.
There should be an easy structural mechanism to  share knowledge across the various local units at  the university. The practice of holding regular  meetings with divisional support staff and  teaching staff in order to plan and prioritize CTSI  activities should continue. CTSI should take the  initiative in communicating approaches to  pedagogy and instructional technology and co‐ ordinate and align university‐wide and divisional  priorities, programs and services.
CTSI should review in a holistic manner, with  input from academic divisions, its courses,  workshops and seminars.
References
Aaron, M., Dicks, D., Ives, C., & Montgomery, B. (2004) Planning for integrating teaching technologies.
Canadian Journal of Learning Technologies. 30(2). Retrieved July 12, 2009 from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/124
45

Albright, M. & Nworie, J. (2008). Rethinking academic technology leadership in an era of change. Educause
Quarterly 31(1), 15-23. Retrieved July 29 from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EQVolume312008/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazin eVolum/162507
Allen, E. & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: On-line education in the United States. Needham, MA:
Sloan Consortium
A•P•L•U-Sloan (2009) National Commission on Online Learning: Final Chapter - Benchmarking Study
Findings and Recommendations. Online Learning as a Strategic Asset. Volume I: A Resource for
Campus Leaders. . Retrieved online September 22, 2009 from http://www.ednak.com/forum/topics/sufficient-support-for-online
A•P•L•U-Sloan (2009a) National Commission on Online Learning: Final Chapter - Benchmarking Study
Findings and Recommendations. Online Learning as a Strategic Asset. Volume II: The Paradox of
Faculty Voices: Views and Experiences with Online Learning. Retrieved online September 22, 2009 from http://www.ednak.com/forum/topics/sufficient-support-for-online
Bagley, C. (2003). Developing an Organizational e-Learning Strategic Plan. In G. Richards (Ed.),
Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and
Higher Education 2003 (pp. 382-385). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved July 30, 2009 from http://www.editlib.org/p/14957.
Barrios, B. & Carstensen, D. (Eds) (2004). Capmus 2004 – Kommen die digitalen Medien an den
Hochschulen in die Jahre? Munster: Waxmann.
Bates, A.W.(2000). Managing technological change: Strategies for college and university leaders. San
Francisco, CA :Jossey-Bass
Bates, A.W. (2007) Strategic Planning for e-learning in a Polytechnic. In: M. Bullen & D. Janes (eds.)
Making the Transition to E-learning: Strategies and Issues. (p.47 – 65). Hershey, PA.: Idea Group
Bates, A. W., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education: Foundations for success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Berge, Z. L. & Schrum, L. (1998). Linking strategic planning with program implementation for distance education. CAUSE/EFFECT Journal 21 (3). Retrieved August 1, 2009 from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/html/cem/cem98/cem9836.html
Boezerooij, P. (2006). E-learning strategies of Higher Education institutions. Thesis (PhD), University of
Twente.
Bruce, R. (1999). Educational technology planning . Victoria, BC: Centre for Curriculum, Transfer and
Technology.
Bullen, M. & Janes, D. (2007). (eds.). Making the Transition to E-learning: Strategies and Issues. Hershey,
PA.: Idea Group
Canadian Council on Learning. (2009). State of E-Learning in Canada. Retrieved on May 20, 2009 from http://www.ccl-cca.ca
CLE Subcommittee on Teaching, Learning and Technology Innovation and Leadership (2006). Report to the
Committee on the Learning Environment, University of Alberta.
Collis, B. & Van der Wende, M. (2002). Models of technology and change in higher education. University of
Twente.
46

Cook, R. G., Ley, K., Crawford, C. & Warner, A. (2009). Motivators and inhibitors for university faculty in distance and e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 149-163.
Downey, T. (2008). Acceptance in Development of eLearning is not sufficient, we need champions. In G.
Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government,
Healthcare, and Higher Education 2008 (p. 767). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved August 11,
2009 from http://www.editlib.org/p/29698.
Duderstadt, J., Atkins, D., & Van Houweling, D. (2003). The development of institutional strategies.
Educause Review, 38(3), 48-58.
Ely, D.P. (1999). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovation.
Educational Technology, 39(6), 23-27.
Heap, J. (2005). Beyond the Enthusiasts: 20 Lessons for Creating an Institutional e-Learning Strategy. In G.
Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government,
Healthcare, and Higher Education 2005 (pp. 1836-1854). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved
August 11, 2009 from http://www.editlib.org/p/21465.
Kanuka, H. & Kelland, J. (2008). Has e-learning delivered in Canada: An expert opinion on the impact of elearning in higher education? Canadian Journal of Higher Education 38(1), 45-65.
Latchem, C., Jung, I., Aoki, K. & Ozkul, A.E. (2007) The tortoise and the hare enigma in e-transformation in
Japanese and Korean higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology. (39)4, 610-
630.
ODL Liaison Committee (2004). Distance Learning and eLearning in European Policy and Practice: The
Vision and the Reality. Retrieved on September 14, 2009 from http://www.odlliaison.org/pages.php?PN=policy-paper_2004
OECD (2005). E-learning in tertiary education: Where do we stand? Paris: OECD.
Rossner, V., & Stockley, D. (1997). Institutional perspectives on organizing and delivering web based instruction. In B. Kahn (Ed.), Web-Based Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology
Publications: 333-336.
Russell, C. & Koppi, T. (2007). Organizing e-learning in a campus-based university: communities, cultures and complementarities. EDUCAUSE, Australasia.
Ruth, S. R., Sammons, M. & Poulin, C. (2007). E-learning at a cross-roads – What price quality? Educause
Quarterly, 30(2), 32-37. Retrieved on July 22, 2009 from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EQVolume302007/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazin eVolum/157459
Schneckenberg, D. (2008). Educating tomorrow’s knowledge workers. Delft: Eburon Academic Publishers.
Softi ć , S. K. & Beki ć , Z. (2008). Organizational aspects of supporting e-learning at university level. In
International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, June 2008.
Stockley, D. (2004). Strategic Planning for technological innovation in Canadian post secondary education.
Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. 30(2). Retrieved July 30, 2009 from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/131/125
Stockley, D. (2005). Guidelines to the edge: Integrating information communication technologies in education. Encounters on Education. Fall 107 - 118
47

White, S. (2007). Organizational Management of e-Learning in Universities. In Second European
Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, September 2007, Crete, Greece.
Zemsky, R. & Massy, W. F. (2004). Thwarted Innovation: What happened to e-learning and why. Final
Report of the Weatherstation Project. The Learning Alliance at University of Pennsylvania.
48

(copied from UoG website with permission)
This reference sheet is for instructors wishing to apply Universal Instructional Design principles to the following four domains:
1.
the design of learning (courses, activities, assignments, assessment)
2.
the planning of delivery strategies
3.
the design of materials or tools (manuals, CDs, learning objects, handouts), and
4.
the design of environments (websites, classrooms, learning spaces)
The first column describes the principle, the second examples from the four domains, and the final, how
UID principles can help instructors achieve the University's Learning Objectives and Strategic Plan fulfill the widely recognized Seven Principles for Good Practice in
Undergraduate Education meet its obligations under the Ontarians with Disabilities Act (ODA) and other emerging Canadian legislation concerning accessibility.
Principle Examples
1.
Accessible and fair Design of Learning
(equitable) use
All students should ideally use the same means to fulfill course requirements - identical if possible,
• using web-based course with online resources so students can access materials in electronic formats as needed equivalent when not. Design of Environments
Instruction should be designed to be useful and accessible by people with different abilities, respectful
• using accessibility checkers on websites: http://www.contentquality.com/ http://bobby.watchfire.com/ http://validator.w3.org/ of diversity, and to communicate high expectations for all.
Goals learner-centredness open learning internationalism global understanding engage in active learning facilitate time on task accommodate various learning styles
ODA
49

2. Flexibility in use, Design of Learning participation and presentation • designing resources so they can be reused in a number of ways (e.g., in
Learning is most effective when it is multimodal students have multiple
- when material is presented in multiple forms, and when class, online)
• providing choice in assignment topics, formats, and due dates when possible
• using online discussion and group work to foster peer-to-peer learning.
• posting exercises and quizzes on a means of accessing and interacting with material website that students use outside of class to learn on their own and demonstrating their knowledge (being
Delivery Strategies evaluated).
Instruction is designed to meet the needs of a broad range of learner preferences.
• presenting information using a variety of media: text, graphics, audio and video
• using a variety of strategies during lecture such as discussion or problemsolving
Students can interact regularly with the instructor and their peers.
3. Straightforward and Design of Learning consistent
Instruction is designed in a clear and straightforward manner, consistent with user expectations. Tools are intuitive.
Unnecessary complexity or
• ensuring course content, assessment, and learning objectives are all consistent
• designing activities or assignments to minimize non-critical tasks (e.g., avoiding the need to learn non-essential software so that students can begin learning immediately
• applying grading standards consistently across students and assignments distractions that may detract from the learning material Delivery Strategies or tasks are reduced or eliminated. • structuring class time in a consistent manner
• differentiating between essential and supplementary information
Design of Materials or Tools
• organizing information on a web page or manual to make it easy to navigate
• structuring and formatting material for easy readability
• testing new technology resources for usability learner-centredness literacy numeracy internationalism allow collaboration among students engage in active learning provide prompt feedback acilitate time on task accommodate various learning styles
ODA learner-centredness facilitate time on task communicate high expectations
ODA
50

4. Information is explicitly Design of Learning presented and readily perceived
Course expectations are transparent. Instructions are easy to understand.
Communication is clear.
Any barriers to receiving or understanding are removed.
• providing SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timely) learning objectives
• making expectations and instructions about assignments explicit
• providing a grading scheme or rubric along with examples
• providing policies, procedures, and expectations in the course outline
Information may be presented in multiple forms. Delivery Strategies
• facing the class and making eye contact when speaking
• using tools such as a microphone,
PowerPoint, etc. in class to ensure that information is communicated effectively
Design of Materials or Tools
• providing lecture outlines online that students can annotate during class
• creating digital forms of hard-copy materials
• using ALT (alternate text) tags for any images on web pages so that these may be identified by screen reading programs used by text-only browsers or students with disabilities encourage contact between students and faculty facilitate time on task communicate high expectations accommodate various learning styles
ODA
5.
Supportive learning environment
Design of Learning
Instruction anticipates that students will make mistakes. While instruction recognizes that errors are necessary, and if handled properly, present powerful learning opportunities, it tries to minimize hazards that can lead to irreversible errors and failures.
• breaking large assignments into components so that students can receive formative feedback to minimize or correct errors
• providing frequent opportunities for assessment and feedback during a semester
• providing a list of frequently asked questions about an assignment.
• using online quizzes or tutorials that provide a safe environment to identify weaknesses
• providing students with ample time for online work in case of system failure
Instruction also recognizes that systems will fail and things can go wrong - thus, a tolerance for error and preparation by way of
Design of Materials or Tools
• ensuring that software provides feedback when a user makes an inappropriate selection
51  learning will not be interrupted. Design of Environment learner-centredness encourage contact between students and faculty provide prompt feedback accommodate various learning styles
ODA
• implementing safety procedures in labs so that unintended actions do not have catastrophic effects (e.g., injury)

preparation by way of backup are important so that learning will not be interrupted. feedback when a user makes an inappropriate selection
Design of Environment
• implementing safety procedures in labs so that unintended actions do not have catastrophic effects (e.g., injury)
6. Minimize or eliminate unnecessary physical effort or requirements
Design of Learning
Instruction is designed to minimize non-essential physical effort (i.e., not related to a learning outcome) in order to allow maximum attention to learning.
7. Learning space accommodates both students and methods
• allow the use a word processor whenever possible for submissions
• Delivery Strategies
• placing reserve materials online so students do not need to physically travel to a library
• allowing assignments to be submitted electronically
Design of Environments
• in small classes, using circular seating arrangements during discussion to allow students to see one another's faces
• providing enough left-handed seats
The learning space is accessible and the environment supports multiple instruction strategies. facilitate time on task
ODA allow collaboration among students engage in active learning communicate high standard facilitate learning styles
ODA
References
Bowe, F. G. (2000) Universal Design in Education . CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Burgstahler, S (ND) Universal Design of Instruction. Accessed April 13, 2005 from http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Academics/instruction.html
Chickering, A.W., Gamson, Z.F. (1991). “Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate
Education.” Accessed April 7, 2006 from http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/7princip.htm.
Government of Ontario. (ND). “2005-2006 Accessibility Plan.” Accessed April 20, 2006 from http://www.citizenship.gov.on.ca/english/accessibility/index.htm.
Scott, S., Shaw, S. & McGuire, J. (in press). “Applying Universal Design to College Instruction.”
University of Connecticut. Accessed April 7, 2006 from http://www.facultyware.uconn.edu/files/UDI_principles.pdf
Learning Objectives http://www.uoguelph.ca/undergrad_calendar/c02/c02-learningobjectives.shtml
Teaching Support Services • Day Hall, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1 • 519 824-4120 x52973 • Fax 821-8530
52