Online Learning Strategy Working Party
Report to Senate
September 3 2003
The Online Learning Strategy Working Party was endorsed by Senate at its December 2002
meeting. After a substantial period of consultation and deliberation, the Working Party presents
this report to Senate’s September meeting.
Membership
The Working Party consists of J Reid (Presiding Officer), L Burr (Student Services), D Cameron
(Arts), E Chopping (Science and Agriculture), D Clatworthy (Health), B Dengate (Education), D
Dorman (CSUSA), N Drengenberg (Executive Officer), J Kent (Commerce), K Klapdor (LMC),
K McMahon (CSUSA), L Moon (CSUSA), N Muldoon (CELT), S Oakley (Library Services), M
Rebbechi (DIT), A Smith (CELT).
Terms of reference
The Academic Senate directed the Working Party to consider and recommend on:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
the paper "An Online Strategy for CSU Revisited";
the uses of the online environment for the enhancement of learning and teaching at CSU;
including the development of a list of recommended online teaching and learning strategies;
continuous publishing and online learning and teaching;
the allocation of responsibility for authorising the use of online strategies and requiring
students to have online access for learning and teaching;
6. the adoption by the University of a policy which presumes online access for learning and
teaching for all internal students and for all distance students other than those who have
deregistered from CSU online; and
7. alternative access to learning opportunities and support for students without online access
where online learning and teaching becomes integral to a subject.
Background: The operation of the Working Party
The Working Party met several times by video link between members located on the Bathurst,
Wagga Wagga, Albury and Dubbo campuses, and considered the issues brought before it as its
terms of reference. We very quickly decided that because our focus was on learning and teaching
in an online environment, there was a need to broaden the rhetoric of ‘online learning’ to allow for
pedagogical considerations to be addressed. We felt that the terminology ‘Flexible learning in an
e-environment’ was a more appropriate formulation. It highlights the basic pedagogical premise of
our discussions – that effective pedagogy is always situated. Pedagogical decisions must be based
on the teacher’s purpose and knowledge of her/his students, the nature of the material to be
learned, and the cultural, historical and situational context in which it is to be taught (Schwab
1969). ‘Online’ pedagogies may not always be the most appropriate. The Working Party takes this
as its starting point – and stresses the importance of pedagogical decision-making needing to be
both flexible and multi-modal if successful learning is to result.
OLS Working Party Report
12/02/16
1 of 20
Given this emphasis on pedagogy addresses the core business of the University as a whole, the
Working Party saw a need to ensure that our report to Senate would be informed by wide
consultation across staff and students of the University. A range of strategies was employed to
achieve this.
First, a website was set up within the DVC (Academic) site:
http://www.csu.edu.au/division/deputyvc/acad/online_learning
and made available to all staff and students through postings to What’s New and News. This
website contained information about the Working Party, its composition and brief, background
papers, links to policy documents from other universities, and a set of discussion questions, framed
by the terms of reference of the Working Party.
Second, information about the website, highlighting these questions, was communicated to all
Heads of School, with the request that they be discussed fully in the ‘privacy’ of individual School
settings. One staff member was to be nominated to relay the outcomes of each School discussion
back to the Working Party and the University community through the Reference Group area of the
website. Similar ‘private’ meetings were organised by the Student Associations across the
campuses. In June, concerned by the small numbers of non-academic staff who were posting to the
forum, Heads of some Divisions and Sections were also invited to encourage the same discussion
with support staff who are also stakeholders in the decisions made by the Working Party.
Third, all minutes and agendas of the Working Party were placed on the website, along with links
to the supporting documentation and research literature that was informing our on-going
discussion. A draft of this report to Senate was also placed on the website for open response and
consultation. The site has remained open for more than three months (from mid-May) and has
been regularly maintained by a member of the Working Party, Ms Nona Muldoon. A lively and
informed discussion has taken place on the forum, with contributions from academics, general
staff and students. Regular reminders were sent to Schools after each Working Party meeting, with
the result that ten formal reference reports were received, from Schools ranging across all five
Faculties.
Fourth, members of the Working Party located on each campus advertised and hosted an Open
Campus meeting. Students, academic and general staff were invited to comment and advise on the
consultation draft. Discussion questions were distributed prior to each meeting via What’s New
and News, and time allocated to each of these questions at each meeting. The same set of
questions, slightly modified, was also brought to an open meeting of the CSU Students’
Association for deliberation and feedback.
On the basis of this iterative process, the Working Party provides the following report and
accompanying recommendations to Senate.
OLS Working Party Report
12/02/16
2 of 20
Quality choices for learning and teaching
Report on deliberations of the Online Learning Strategy Working Party
in consultation with CSU community
Charles Sturt University is committed to and accountable for the provision of “a student centred
educational environment” that will “develop highly employable graduates … able to contribute to
the economic, social and cultural life of the University and wider communities, and have the
capacity for, and commitment to, continued personal and professional development” (CSU
Strategic Plan 2002-2007, p.3). At the start of the 21st century, such personal, social, professional,
economic and cultural practice is likely to be mediated in and through electronic and online
environments, as well as in interpersonal exchange and print communications. It is with this sense
of a changing communications environment and the increasing use of multi-modal technologies
and forms of communication, learning and bureaucratic practice that the Online Learning Strategy
presents its report.
As human beings our histories, communication and pedagogy are no longer, predominantly,
‘shaped by the book’ (Boyce 2003). Radio, film, television, computer and laser technologies have
been increasingly available as alternatives to print for over a century now. As a teaching and
learning community, staff and students at CSU have utilised all of these alternative technologies
for pedagogical purposes, both in Distance Education and on campus. We have not legislated any
one mode as more effective or more desirable than any other, although our reliance on print
materials has reflected the dominance of this mode in wider social practice. At this point in time,
the Online Learning Strategy Working Party seeks to add online pedagogies to the repertoire of
teaching strategies available to staff in planning the learning environment for CSU students. We do
not seek to replace existing pedagogical practices, or legislate one form of pedagogy as more
effective or more desirable than any other – we want to ensure that all members of the CSU
community have the full range of pedagogical tools available to them to enhance their learning.
With this as our base premise, we address each of our terms of reference in turn, providing one or
more recommendations on each of them for the consideration of Senate.
1.
“An Online Strategy for CSU Revisited”
CSU has a considerable history and investment in online communication, and the paper “An
Online Strategy for CSU Revisited" (Rebbechi 2002) provides a significant account of the
historical background to the growth and development of online support services at CSU over
the past decade and a half. The paper makes it clear that the IT structures presently in place,
though designed with the potential to accommodate learning and teaching needs, have
developed to provide administrative and academic support rather than learning and teaching. It
is now time to refine and extend the pedagogical use of the online environment within CSU
according to the purposes and needs of both teachers and learners. For instance, the first
Principle ‘For the University’ states that: ‘The e-Environment should be based on the original
underlying concept of online support rather than online learning’ (p.5). This is no longer an
adequate position, and the principles outlined in this paper need review in order to
accommodate the incorporation of online content and pedagogical structures into the eenvironment at CSU.
The infrastructure that has been developed to date is able to accommodate and enhance
moves towards expanded pedagogical uses of information and communication technology
(ICT) in terms of teacher-learner, learner-learner, learner-teacher and inter-staff interaction. It
has the ability to resource communications, materials dissemination and learning activity. It
thus constitutes one of a range of multi-modal teaching tools available to staff across all
courses offered by the University. Several comments in the consultation period indicate that
OLS Working Party Report
12/02/16
3 of 20
while this is the perception of the providers of the CSU e-environment, it is not the perception
of the users of the environment at the present time. The Reference Group report indicates that
some members of staff have concerns about reliability and “the stability of the technology”.
Just as in the physical world, the e-environment can experience accidents, failures and
system breakdowns. Idealised notions that the e-environment will be trouble free (somehow
different from ‘real life’) are – while understandable given the promise of new technologies –
ultimately unrealistic.
For these reasons we believe that the principles outlined in the paper “An Online Strategy for
CSU Revisited” should be revised in order to inform and underpin the development of a
Flexible Learning Strategy for CSU. (A suggested revision has been drafted by AssociateProfessor Andrew Smith, in Appendix 1).
Recommendation 1.1
That the principles outlined in the paper "An Online Strategy for CSU Revisited" should
be extended and revised, in line with Appendix 1, for the ongoing development of an
Online Learning Strategy for CSU.
Recommendation 1.2
That these revised principles inform planning and development decisions related to
continuous upgrade and maintenance of the CSU e-environment as a University priority.
Several important resourcing issues are raised by this recommendation. First, the University
Budget Committee will need to provide for the continued upgrade and enhancement of the
CSU e-environment in order to allow the development of innovative, leading-edge pedagogy
and practice. Second, the Centre for Research and Graduate Training, CELT, Student
Services, and the Indigenous Education Centre will all need to provide resources, support and
encouragement for staff and student access to and engagement with and expanded range of
pedagogical practices that allow e-learning and e-communications as a real alternative
alongside existing research, pedagogy and student support. Third, if academics are to use the
e-environment, the support they will need includes having appropriate IT hardware and
software as well as the support from CELT, Library etc. This would involve having a
replacement program to ensure that staff have the IT equipment to be able to keep up-to-date
with the technology required and introduced further on in the e-environment. Finally, the
University, in accepting the rapidity of change and development in social communications
practices, will need to remain open to innovation and flexibility in all its communications
practices. The degree of evolution and change that can be recognised in the resources, roles
and responsibilities of the Library, in particular, can provide a lead for other structures to
accommodate and adapt to the changing communications environment.
2.
Uses of the online environment for enhancing learning and teaching at CSU
On this basis, the Working Party sees as imperative the need for a coordinated and coherent
approach to questions of strategy and policy regarding learning and teaching in the eenvironment. At present many staff are actively and creatively using the online environment
to develop new pedagogical practices to suit particular teaching purposes. As the Reference
Group reports indicate:
Staff would like to be able to use interactive CDs for scenario work; to strengthen
what is done in terms of on-line discussion, using the forum
OLS Working Party Report
12/02/16
4 of 20
Those academics who make extensive use of the current system appreciate the
flexibility it allows. Rather than being locked into material prepared months in
advance it is possible to respond to current events, to make use of new resources and
so on.
There is also a wide range of skill among academics and students, a variety of attitudes and a
range of degrees of comfort with the sorts of changes that formal encouragement to utilise
online learning tools implies. Many staff are already ‘pushing the boundaries’ of online
publishing, student learning tasks and assessments in the e-environment, but many are also
concerned by perceived threats that requirements for them to conform to an ‘online learning
policy’ will result in an increase in both workload and workplace stress.
Staff who have moved into building forums into subjects, and those who use emails
extensively, have found that forums demand as much time of staff as tutorials and
contact hours. This is particularly the case when dealing with complex questions, or
when synthesising students’ understandings and providing constructive feedback.
While there are enormous benefits from this process on the forum (because it is
public, and allows for self-monitoring and fostering the use of deep learning
strategies amongst those who might otherwise skim the surface), it is also very time
consuming. Because […] this is related to practice, and to the specific situations in
which students find themselves, each of these ‘tutorials’ is unique, with only some of
the work likely to come up in subsequent deliveries of the subject. Moreover,
accessing 20 students postings on the forum is far more time-consuming (and
sometimes resource-consuming) than dealing with the same set of queries face to
face. Thus it not only increases staff workloads short-term, it increases them in the
longer-term.
Another concern was that:
There was considerable concern among these people that this flexibility not be lost in
another set of production deadlines.
To this end the Working Party stresses the need for, and as noted above, has moved to include
in its own discourse, the word and the assumption of ‘flexible’ learning and teaching in the eenvironment. Thus, ‘flexible learning’ has been used in both our website, and our process of
structured University-wide consultation. One Reference Group Report noted that “Flexible
delivery” may be a more acceptable term given that “technological mediation does not lead to
a student’s learning being flexible.” And as Palaskas and Muldoon (2003 p.2) note, ‘In
general, flexible learning and flexible delivery are terms that denote the shaping of an
educational experience so that it more closely matches the needs of the learner, in contrast to
traditional approaches that often align less closely with a learner’s needs.’
Learning and teaching at CSU should be flexible in this sense, which by definition encourages
staff and students to make choices about working with print, audio-visual, kinaesthetic, and
artefact material within the traditional learning environment as well as the e-environment.
The choice of pedagogical tool must always be made according to the needs and purposes
of the teachers, students and learning tasks.
Pedagogical decisions should remain a matter of judgement for the academic. The
online/flexible learning strategy should not dictate to academic staff how they use
the online environment.
There was much debate over pedagogical models being more important than
arguing over basic access. Tertiary curriculum developers should consider online
learning as just part of a range of flexible learning strategies. This would prevent
CSU Online becoming just a repository of DE packages placed online.
OLS Working Party Report
12/02/16
5 of 20
Recommendation 2.1
That the University adopts a policy of flexible learning and teaching which includes the
online environment as one of a range of existing and emerging pedagogical modes that
merit continuous development.
Recommendation 2.2
That Deans and Heads of School encourage staff and students to utilise the online
environment for the enhancement of learning and teaching at CSU where this is
pedagogically desirable.
There were many comments made in the Reference Group Reports about the need for staff
and student development in relation to more flexible pedagogical practices for the eenvironment:
Training in flexible publishing; Training in online teaching/moderation; Support for
students not comfortable with a web-based environment.
In terms of what support [we] would require to develop existing flexible learning and
teaching it was suggested that ongoing sessions be provided that could support
creative and effective teaching and learning strategies
Other staff took the view that the move to use the web as a new medium will
necessarily mean changes to many aspects of the workplace and that commensurate
staff development (and possible student development) will be needed. There was a
comment that the Tertiary Teaching Colloquium might need to be extended for such
purposes? This applies to use of the web for on-campus, as well as distance,
education.
Student concerns in relation to such an expansion in our pedagogical repertoire
simultaneously reflect the need for flexibility:
Students want choice.
Flexible publishing should mean choice of all options, not the either/or
scenario.
The following posting to the Forum from a DE student underlines the value of the eenvironment for enhancing her learning experience:
I think that most people learn a lot more through interaction with people
rather than just books. Even if that interaction is still in black and white!
I, for one, am finding that I am learning less and less from my subjects as
I have less interactions on the forum - to the extent of wondering if it is
worth continuing. This is the bain (sic) of DE studies, but for most people
that is the only option available for them
At the same time, some student concerns related to a perception that opening access to the eenvironment for teaching and learning will mean closing access to print-based resources:
The concept of studying by distance is anywhere, not near a computer.
Students would feel disadvantaged if they hate/can’t work with
computers.
OLS Working Party Report
12/02/16
6 of 20
One issue of concern has arisen in Working Party discussions, in relation to the effective
dissemination and communication of policy across the University community.
Encouragement of staff to take up the opportunities, meet the challenges and create the
possibilities inherent in this move to work with new technologies for pedagogical purposes
requires a policy environment that will facilitate such endeavour. At present, however, many
staff feel that they are left out of, or missing out on the policy communications process. For
instance, there are currently several working parties, interest groups and committees and
research projects working independently within this area, within the University. They are
working towards what is ultimately a shared aim of improved facilities for students and staff
engaged in learning and teaching activities in the e-environment of CSU, and in some cases
membership of these groups is common. But while coordination of these various groups lies
predominantly with the ILSC, there has to date been little explicit connection or demonstrated
relationship between endeavours of separate groups made clear to the University community.
The Working Party has attempted, through its website linkages, to make explicit the
connections and correlations between as many of these as possible, but we do not feel there is
a clear sense of coherence or explicit cross-communication amongst these groups.
We believe that the University may have underestimated the extent of change management
involved in the move to online learning and teaching, and is concerned that there is a need to
reduce staff and student confusion in this regard. Where many staff and students claim they
are not aware of the ‘big picture’, we consider that the ILSC needs to be proactive in regular
communication (and restatement) of the University’s policies and strategic plan. Confusion
often occurs where working parties with similar or overlapping briefs and even membership
are operating independently of each other but are not coordinated. Reports, information and
decisions made by such groups appear to lack strategic connection and oversight.
Relationships between such groups formed to support academic policy need to be made
explicit in initial briefs and reports. For these reasons we also make the following
recommendation to Senate:
Recommendation 2.3
That the ILSC is asked to consider a much broader communication responsibility as a key
part of its role in the support of academic policy.
3.
The development of recommended online teaching and learning strategies
The Working Party has been informed of several instances of exemplary uses of the online
environment for the enhancement of learning and teaching within existing subjects and
courses at CSU. We feel it is essential that we build on the range of expertise and experience
already in place to further develop our pedagogical knowledge of and capabilities for online
learning. A list of recommended online learning and teaching strategies developed both from
accounts of best practice within CSU and from research literature on online/flexible learning
and teaching is an auxiliary outcome from this Working Party. It will contain exemplars of
innovative and emergent practices across faculties and discipline areas.
Further dissemination should take two forms. First, an online resource should be developed,
by CELT, which provides reflective accounts of innovation and pedagogical change by
novice and by highly experienced practitioners. Second, the Discussion Paper prepared by
CELT, Learning and teaching at CSU: Moving towards increased flexibility (Palaskas and
Muldoon 2003), that has examined the implications of adopting the online learning
environment for curriculum development should be widely disseminated across the
University. The Online Learning Strategy Working Party endorses this discussion paper, and
supports its recommendations for staff development in this area. We acknowledge that
acquisition of an online learning environment should be seen as a mid-term goal that builds
OLS Working Party Report
12/02/16
7 of 20
on use of the existing CSU online environment by staff to refine and expand the incidence of
more flexible learning and teaching within the current structures. In stressing the notion of
flexibility, we repeat that the online environment should not be understood as replacing or
making obsolete developments in other teaching tools currently in use and in development.
We see this as a sound basis upon which to support decisions regarding future development
of the e-environment within CSU. This will occur as the numbers of staff incorporating
online pedagogical tools into their individual repertoires of practice increase, as the flexibility
of modes for student learning activity increases, and as the corporate repertoire of available
online pedagogical practice expands and diversifies.
Recommendation 3.1
That CELT coordinates the collection and dissemination of accounts of recommended
online learning and teaching practices as a means of encouraging and supporting the
pedagogical use of online learning and teaching as an effective teaching tools in a flexible
learning environment.
Recommendation 3.2
That the University should continue to develop and improve the functionality of the current
on-line environment, to facilitate staff and student use of its potential to enhance learning
and teaching.
Three modes of online course definition seem appropriate as the basis for development and
planning (based on DETYA 2001 and Chopping 2003). These are:
Mode A - Web Supplemented (participation on-line is optional for the student)
Enrolled students can access information on and resources for units of study that is additional
to that available in the University’s calendar or handbook. The information may include
course descriptions and study guides, examination information, assessment overview, reading
lists and other online learning resources. The information is used to supplement traditional
forms of Distance Education and on-campus delivery.
This mode also enables all students to supplement their use of the e-environment for
administrative and support purposes, with access to basic learning materials.
Mode B – Web Dependent (participation on-line for each activity described below is a
compulsory requirement of participation although some face-to-face, print-based, audiovisual or other conventional forms of Distance Education communication are retained). The
University would normally expect that students would:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
use the web to interact with the education content necessary for study
use the web to communicate with staff and/or other students
use the web both to interact with content and to communicate with staff and/or other
students
use the web to access new materials in an ongoing way during a session.
The Working Party considers this Mode will be the one that academic staff find most
attractive to work with at the present time.
Mode C – Fully online
All interactions with staff and students, education content, learning activities, assessment and
support services are normally integrated and delivered online. This mode goes beyond
delivery of course content materials online, and may be the site for innovation and
OLS Working Party Report
12/02/16
8 of 20
pedagogical leadership as social patterns of interaction are increasingly moderated through
electronic communications tools and processes. This does not preclude student involvement
in Residential Schools and conferences as part of the curriculum offered.
Based on this continuum, Palaskas and Muldoon (2003, pp. 8-10) provide sound pedagogical
advice about what flexible learning in an online environment might look like at CSU. The
following pages are taken in full from their paper, and reiterate the levels outlined above.
CSU Online Learning Continuum
There is an increasing body of research confirming that a hybrid of face-to-face delivery
with online delivery is often more effective than either mode on its own. For example,
research conducted at the University of Central Florida’s Centre for Distributed Learning 1
has compared results of hybrid courses with traditional, face-to-face and fully online
courses. The results indicate that students learning through a distributed learning model
which blends technology mediated approaches with face-to-face, do better than either the
traditional or the fully online options (Brown, 2001).
We see academics using Web-based learning and teaching approaches where such an
approach increases and promotes more active student engagement and interaction, and/or
provides easier or more equitable access by students to learning materials. There are three
ways in which academics can identify the level of “onlineness” for the delivery of any
given subjects2:
Web supplemented - some learning resources are accessible online but online
participation is optional for students.
Web dependent – online participation is required for the subject, which may include
students using subject materials containing major educational content and/or interacting
and communicating with lecturers or fellow students.
Fully online – all subject content, activities, interactions, communications, assessment and
support services are integrated and delivered online.
Using the elements of a learning experience presented in Figure 2, we have selected
particular elements of a learning experience and blended them to form five configurations
that sit along a CSU Online Learning Continuum. Four of the configurations are hybrid
models that mix face-to face with online delivery, while the fifth one represents fully
online delivery at one extreme of the continuum. The five models of configurations
include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Web supplemented plus face-to-face (including interactive video teaching)
Web supplemented plus print
Web supplemented plus mixed media
Web dependent plus mixed media
Fully online
We acknowledge that the specific blend for each configuration will need to be adjusted to
suit individual program delivery needs and other variables, and as such, we do not favour
one over another.
1 Study available at: http://distrib.ucf. edu/dlucf/present.htm
2
This is based on the distinctions provided by the Department of Education, Science and Training for the purposes of
reporting about online courses (cited in O’Donnell 2001)
OLS Working Party Report
12/02/16
9 of 20
CSU ONLINE LEARNING CONTINUUM
Web supplemented
plus face-to-face/IVT
Web supplemented
plus print
Configuration 1
Configuration 2
Web supplemented
plus mixed media
Web dependent
plus mixed media
Configuration 3
Configuration 4
Fully online
Configuration 5
Online
Online
Online
Online
Online
Resources
 Subject Outline & Folio (Core)
 Learning resources (Core & non-core,
in-session published)
 Links to Library resources
 WWW links
Resources
 Subject Outline & Folio (Core)
 Learning resources (Core & non-core,
in-session published)
 Links to Library resources
 WWW links
Resources
 Subject Outline & Folio (Core)
 Learning resources (Core & non-core,
in-session published)
 Links to Library resources
 WWW links
Learning support*
Learning support*
Learning support*
L & T Strategies & Assessment
 Self monitoring of learning (progress
quiz, forums)
 Collaborative & cooperative learning
 Online assessment (formative &
summative)
L & T Strategies & Assessment
 Self monitoring of learning (progress
quiz, forums)
 Collaborative & cooperative learning
 Resource-based learning
 Online assessment (formative &
summative)
L & T Strategies & Assessment
 Self monitoring of learning (progress
quiz, forums)
 Resource-based
 Online assessment (formative &
summative)
 Inquiry based learning or other
activities / tasks
 Collaborative & cooperative learning
 Support for practical experience
Resources
 Subject Outline & Folio (Core)
 Study Guide and Readings (Core)
 Multimedia resources -streaming
Video + audio, simulations,
animations, CBT, PowerPoint slides
(Core and non-core)
 Learning resources (Core & noncore, in-session published)
 Links to Library resources
 WWW links
Resources
 Subject Outline & Folio (Core)
 Learning resources (Core and noncore, in-session published)
 Links to Library resources
 WWW links
 Links to Library databases
 Multimedia resources -streaming of
video & audio, simulations,
animations, CBT, PowerPoint slides
(Core and non core)
 Readings (Core and non core)
Offline
Resources
 Subject Outline & Folio
 Readings (in print)
 Learning resources (Core & non-core,
in print)
L & T Strategies and Assessment
 Lectures and tutorials
 Inquiry based learning or other
activities / tasks
 Collaborative + Cooperative learning
 Lab work/internship/field experience
 Support for Practical Experience
 Self monitoring of learning
 Assessment (formative & summative)
Offline
Resources
 Subject Outline & Folio; Study Guide;
Readings (Core, in print)
 Learning resources (Core & non-core,
in print)
L & T Strategies & Assessment
 Inquiry based learning or other
activities / tasks
 Collaborative + Cooperative learning
 Lab work/internship/field experience
 Lecture & Tutorials (Res School)
 Support for Practical Experience
 Self monitoring of learning
 Assessment (formative & summative)
12/02/16
L & T Strategies & Assessment
 Self monitoring of learning (progress
quiz, forums)
 Resource-based learning
 Online assessment (formative &
summative)
 Inquiry based learning or other
activities / tasks
 Collaborative & cooperative learning
 Support for practical experience
Offline
Resources
 Study Guide and Readings (Core, in
print or on CD)
 Multimedia resources - video, audio,
simulations, animations, CBT,
PowerPoint slides (Core and non-core,
on CD)
L & T Strategies & Assessment
 Lab work/internship/field experience
 Lecture & Tutorials (Res School)
 Assessment (formative and summative)
*A range of learning support services can be made available to available to students online (see Figure 1).
OLS Working Party Report
Learning support*
10 of 20
Offline
Resources
 Study Guide and Readings (Core,
maybe online in print or on CD)
 Multimedia resources (Core and noncore on CD)
L & T Strategies & Assessment
 Lab work/internship/field experience
 Assessment (formative & summative)
Learning support*
L & T Strategies & Assessment
 Self monitoring of learning (progress
quiz, forums)
 Resource-based learning
 Inquiry based learning or other
activities / tasks
 Collaborative & cooperative learning
 Practical experience (eg simulated
Lab work)
 Online tutorials
 Webcast (Lecture)
 Online assessment (formative &
summative)
The models of configurations of online learning placed along the CSU Online Learning
Continuum in Figure 3 blend traditional forms of delivery with online delivery and are
well suited to CSU’s online learning and teaching environment. We do not suggest that
the five configurations along the continuum are fully representative of hybrid models.
On the contrary, we expect that a number of variables unique to courses, subjects,
students and other factors will dictate the specific configuration required, drawing upon
selected elements from the elements of a CSU learning experience (Palaskas and
Muldoon 2003, pp.8-10).
4.
Continuous publishing and online learning and teaching
Given the flexibility outlined above, the Working Party expresses support for the development,
refinement and strategic research into practices of continuous publishing associated with online
learning and teaching. It acknowledges that this is the focus of the Flexible Publishing Project,
operating simultaneously with the present Working Party. It acknowledges too that continuous
publishing is also a factor considered in the CELT discussion paper (Palaskas and Muldoon
2003), and that regulations concerning its conduct are delineated in the Charles Sturt University
Web Policy (CSU 2002). It seems clear that in order for academic staff to ensure the currency
and flexibility of resource material best suited to their teaching purposes over the duration of a
subject, ‘just in time’ publishing should be encouraged and supported. As several of the
Reference Group Reports noted:
In subjects where online access is required, academics have developed websites to
provide resources to students and/or use the forum in a more interactive way for
teaching purposes, for example by posting weekly learning activities on the forum
instead of including them in a printed study guide.
The role of the lecturer in online/flexible learning in an e-environment can be varied.
Ideally the academic author should support the learning environment but that depends
on the size of the cohort, the learning resources, learning activities and the learning
expected to be facilitated. Online/flexible/blended learning should at least offer the
same flexibility as is currently enjoyed in face-to-face teaching at both undergraduate
and postgraduate levels. While the physical fabric of the teaching/learning space is
determined by the institution what actually happens within a lecture or tutorial room
is dependent on the academic. An academic may chose to use video, visual or
auditory presentations in lectures and tutorials - and a range of additional resources
and learning activities can be sourced. The e-environment should be similar - the
fundamental should allow for interaction, the extent and intensity to be determined
within a framework that all parties (student and academic) are aware of at the
commencement of the session. The benefits of flexible publishing for DE and internal
subjects include allowing progressive up-dates and addition of new resources as
required. The trial of flexible publishing suggests this is a relatively straight-forward
exercise using the publishing wizard and has advantages over posting attachments to
forums.
Issues of copyright, plagiarism and intellectual property rights are closely linked to the
discussion of flexible publishing and quality assurance. While recommendation on
these issues is outside of the scope of the Online Learning Strategy Working Party, we
do suggest the continued involvement of Library Services, CELT and Student
Services (Learning Skills) in discussions of staff and student development related to
continuous and flexible publishing.
Recommendation 4.1
That continuous publishing be supported and developed as an online teaching tool within
CSU.
OLS Working Party Report
12/02/16
11 of 20
At the same time, as recognised by the Flexible Publishing Project and in developments
elsewhere across the Higher Education Sector, the Working Party recognises the potential for
(and need for vigilance with regard to) cost-shifting at the expense of students. As one
participant in the Student Open Forum noted:
Decreases options/flexibility ie. need to print information off to transport it
around otherwise stuck to a computer
At the same time, however, we also note the changing nature of everyday discourse around
online interaction, including Snyder’s (1997) notion of the ‘soft copy/hard copy’ binary, which is
already speaking a general move away from a major reliance on ‘hard’ text materials. Another
student comment notes the benefits of moving beyond print for some learning:
Visual tools are very important as they make sites easy to read – not just text based.
As the ephemeral nature of the Mode of Information (Poster) and rapidity of change that
characterises the postmodern economy is increasingly lived as everyday experience amongst first
citizens of first world countries, the need for policy regarding flexibility becomes almost
anachronistic. This change can not be ‘policed’. It is ‘out there’, growing, and it is also ‘in here’,
developing inexorably as a result of rapidly-changing knowledge, experience and practice bases
of the wider community with regard to online information and ICT. Reference Group Reports
spoke of the importance of Quality Assurance practices:
The quality assurance process becomes more like the process with respect to face-toface teaching, eg. Peer review, student evaluations and using techniques like the
Harvard 1-minute paper within a flexible publishing environment.
5
Allocation of responsibility for authorising the use of online strategies and requiring
students to have online access for learning and teaching
Online access for all internal CSU students has been mandatory from the beginning of 2003. The
Working Party has taken account of research and reference material from within CSU (Rebbechi
2002, Burr 2003, and Ross 2003), from related external sources (Dengate 2003, Oakley 2003) as
well as from elsewhere. This work clearly indicates that the decision to require students at CSU
to have online access for learning and teaching (as well as for administrative purposes) is both
appropriate and well overdue, given awareness of the range of debates about access and equity
that need to be taken into account. The Working Party strongly recommends to Senate that
online access becomes mandatory for all enrolling students from 2005, and urges Senate to
recommend to University Council that from the start of 2005, all students enrolling in all courses
at CSU must have access as a condition of enrolment.
Recommendation 5.1
That the transition to mandatory access to my.CSU for all enrolling students begin from 2005
The Working Party sees the adoption of a policy of mandated online access for CSU students
and the development and utilisation of more flexible pedagogies utilising the e-environment as
an opportunity for review - and in some cases reform - of traditional pedagogical approaches
where appropriate. It should not be seen as an imperative to institute an obligatory or a preferred
teaching style across the University. This is both pedagogically unsupportable, and practically
inadvisable, given the range of existing skills and interest among academic staff in online
communications with students. The suggested policy does not seek to change or devalue
successful learning and teaching practices that currently exist in traditional forms of delivery.
OLS Working Party Report
12/02/16
12 of 20
Rather, it seeks to enable the incorporation of strategies useful in the e-environment as additional
items in the repertoires of practice available to all academic staff within the University.
Chopping (2003) recommends the strategy of layering online access in terms of student use.
Each layer, corresponding to the modes defined above (O’Donnell 2001), would entail different
levels of access, expectations and rights of students, and cater for different cohorts, modes and
locations, as detailed in Figure 1, below. This strategy will allow the University to accommodate
different degrees of access for different cohorts of students, including those being taught by our
Partner institutions. We feel that it may also assist in ensuring Quality Assurance provision in
relation to plagiarism, and cohort specific provision and differentiation.
Figure 1 Layers of online access (adapted from Chopping 2003)
Layer 1Admin access and support
Available to all students - Web supplemented
learning and teaching
 Includes current static online, paper,
audiovisual, CD and face-to face provision of
learning activities
Layer 2 –
Online support for learning
Available to all students enrolled in courses where
teaching supports flexible learning in the eenvironment – web dependent learning and teaching



Layer 3 –
Online learning
Includes current static online, paper,
audiovisual, CD or face-to face provision of
learning activities and some dynamic content
Subject access Password protected - probable
access by students of CSU Partner organisations
Licensed Library e-resources probably not
accessible to students of CSU partner
organisations
Available to students enrolled in courses dependent
on the e-environment for all delivery and interaction
- fully online learning and teaching



Requires high level access, dynamic content
provision
Includes interactive content and assessment
Subject access and licensed Library e-resources
Password protected - only to students enrolled at
CSU direct, not through Partners
Issues related to contractual relationships with Partner Institutions will need to be considered
carefully in the light of these Recommendations and suggestions. While this is not the
responsibility of the Working Party, we do suggest that the implications of this Report should
be considered in all review of existing agreements in order to re-negotiate issues of online
access for students enrolled at CSU through Partnership agreements.
In this way such a policy should be understood as an enabling move towards a change of
cultural norms about learning and teaching within the University community. In other words, it
will not bring about an immediate change in pedagogical practices across the board – but it will
enable and encourage innovation, experimentation and research into teaching, learning and
communication among staff and students, to varying degrees. As one Reference Group Report
noted, reiterating our earlier emphasis on the importance of pedagogical purpose ensuring
flexibility in the type of learning technologies employed:
OLS Working Party Report
12/02/16
13 of 20
There was concern about the assumption that online learning could and would be as
effective as in class teaching and learning. The peer group was highlighted as a
powerful learning tool and there were questions about the absence of social dynamics
in the online environment compared to the immediacy of personal interactions.
The Working Party recognises, for example, the complexity of the current situation where there
is both propensity for student-led change to pedagogical practice in some instances, and need for
student training in the operational dimensions of the online environment in others.
Therefore, to use the web as more than an information distribution channel will
require significant efforts in academic staff development so that they are fully
informed and equipped to see how the medium can affect education. Following the
same line of argument, it might also be expected that students be given access to
developmental activities so that they are able to learn via the medium - to presume
that this happens automatically could be dangerous.
Ultimately, however, as another Reference Group Report noted, “pedagogical decisions should
remain a matter of judgement for the academic. The online/flexible learning strategy should not
dictate to academic staff how they use the online environment”.
The role of the lecturer in online/flexible learning in an e-environment can be varied.
Ideally the academic author should support the learning environment but that depends
on the size of the cohort, the learning resources, learning activities and the learning
expected to be facilitated. Online/flexible/blended learning should at least offer the
same flexibility as is currently enjoyed in face-to-face teaching at both undergraduate
and postgraduate levels. While the physical fabric of the teaching/learning space is
determined by the institution what actually happens within a lecture or tutorial room is
dependent on the academic. An academic may chose to use video, visual or auditory
presentations in lectures and tutorials - and a range of additional resources and learning
activities can be sourced. The e-environment should be similar - the fundamental
should allow for interaction, the extent and intensity to be determined within a
framework that all parties (student and academic) are aware of at the commencement of
the session.
Recognising always that pedagogic flexibility remains constrained by available infrastructure
and University resources, the Working Party considers that the e-environment will change and
evolve with the needs and creative energy of academics keen to enhance the quality of the
curriculum on offer to their students. For these reasons we make the following recommendation
to Senate:
Recommendation 5.2
That the responsibility for authorising the use of online strategies and requiring students to
engage in online learning activities, should rest within courses and subjects.
6. The adoption of policy which presumes online access for all internal students and all
distance students other than those who have deregistered
‘Access’, in the discussion above, is defined minimally. What is mandated is for all CSU
students to have available to them the equipment, skills, time and support to interact with the
University online for the sorts of administrative purposes currently available. 98% of CSU’s
current students already have this level of access (Burr 2003), and the Working Party sees little
reason to move beyond this as the basis for a flexible learning environment. This level of access
will ensure that all CSU students have the flexibility to engage in at least Mode 1, Websupplemented learning (see page 6 above). This means that we believe the option that currently
OLS Working Party Report
12/02/16
14 of 20
exists for students to ‘deregister’ from CSU online should cease, apart from in genuine instances
where online communications are either unavailable, unhealthy or unsustainable at a level
deemed necessary for successful completion of the requirements of a particular course or subject.
In these circumstances, students must be able to apply for material or learning support particular
to their situation once their enrolment has been accepted, and be able to appeal refusal of
enrolment on these grounds if they are a part of a designated Equity group.
Several contributions to the University–wide discussion during the Working Party’s consultation
period raise this sort of dilemma. For instance, Brennan (2003, p.4) notes the tension between
“Online delivery facilitat[ing] new and exciting modes of communication between learners and
facilitators vs Online delivery further isolat[ing] those already isolated by distance, ethnicity or
socio-economic disadvantage.” As an Indigenous student commented:
I have to come out to Uni to get access to a computer – I don’t have one at home
that works. I’m lucky ‘cos I live quite close – what about the Kooris out west?
They won’t have anywhere to go use a computer.
At the same time, current students and staff at the Wagga Wagga Campus meeting asked the
Working Party to recognise the extent to which reliable online access can support some students
with disabilities that may prevent either on-campus or DE study. Our response to these issues of
Equity and accessibility, and to the undeniable issues around the reliability of communications
infrastructure across distance, weather and accident is to stress the importance of flexibility in
the implementation of our recommendation.
We stress that over-reliance on any one mode of delivery and communication with students is
both inadvisable and potentially inflexible. The Working Party stresses the need for CSU to
retain the degree of flexibility that will allow both students and staff to communicate, learn and
teach in ways that recognise the futility of a totalitarian approach to pedagogy. In addition, as
one Reference Group Report noted:
there was a view promoted that all students, whether internal or external, need to
participate online in some way during their course of study at CSU. This will ensure
that our graduates have at the minimum some basic level of digital literacy.
If we do want our students to leave CSU with the ability to function and continue to learn
effectively in digital environments, then we believe that mandating access for all students is a
necessary first step. Legislation of this kind names the ideal to which we aspire – our experience
and everyday practice allows us to name a reality which may sometimes be far from this ideal.
Students particularly in the west of the state, have reported problems relating to
'brown-outs' which not only damage their computer hardware but make e-access
unreliable (re-affirmed by year 2 Study Skills visits). Internet access cannot even be
relied upon in Goulburn, where the line is continually cut, and, after storms, damaged
telephone lines can take a fortnight before they are restored.
For these reasons, if flexibility is the goal, two further recommendations are made to Senate:
Recommendation 6.1
That consistent with Recommendation 5.1 above, in which students’ access to the online
environment at CSU will be mandated, students will be unable to ‘deregister’ permanently
from CSU online apart from in genuine instances where online communication are either
unavailable, unhealthy or unsustainable.
OLS Working Party Report
12/02/16
15 of 20
Recommendation 6.2
That, concomitant with a requirement for mandatory online access Faculties and Schools
must recognise the University’s obligation to support both the entry to Higher Education and
the ability to continue their study, of potential students from the targeted Equity groups within
our region and elsewhere.
This of course will mean a greater responsibility for academic staff to engage and work within the
e-environment as a pedagogical space. Our current regulations note that “Academic staff teaching
a subject must use the forums that are linked to their online supported subjects as a major form of
communication with students, and respond to forum messages at least within a week of posting”
(CSU Academic Manual 2003, p. 8, 1.2.6). The Working Party considers that our current
regulations sit well with Mode A expectations as outlined above, but that development of policy
which extends beyond this to accommodate minimum requirements specific to learning and
teaching activities for Modes B & C may be advisable.
7.
Alternative access to learning opportunities and support for students without online access
where online learning and teaching becomes integral to a subject
The Working Party considered that the discussions related to equity of access and support for
learning, above, clearly demonstrate the need for vigilance among staff in relation to one of the
key values of CSU: “social justice – equity of opportunity, tolerance, ethical conduct,
accountability” (CSU Strategic Plan 2002-2007, p. 3). There will be occasions where student
online access is either not available or not satisfactory to ensure an adequate study experience. If
the pedagogy developed for any particular subject becomes a source of discrimination against
any student enrolled in the subject, then it is the responsibility of the Head of School, through the
particular Subject Coordinator, to ensure that alternate provision of subject materials and
pedagogical communication is made for that student.
Recommendation 7.1
That where online learning and teaching becomes integral to a subject, alternative access to
learning opportunities and support for students without online access must be provided to
those students for whom online access is, or has become, even temporarily, unavailable,
unhealthy or unsustainable. Alternate provision is not required where online access is
intrinsic to the subject content.
8.
Other issues
Three other concerns have emerged within the Working Party, in forum discussions, Reference
Group Reports and on-campus meetings. These are 1) the needs for staff and student
development in relation to changing pedagogy, 2) acknowledgment of changing workload
practices related to cultural change brought about by online technology, and 3) the associated
need for research into pedagogies in the new learning cultures. We hope that our emphasis on
flexible learning and teaching rather than just the rhetoric of ‘online learning’ will allay
expressed student fears and perceptions that a shift to mandating online access for all students is
a means of saving money and transferring costs of printing to students. As Ryan and Stedman
clearly state in their report to DEST (2002), this is not the case:
Most organizations, from conventional universities through to [fully online providers],
are moving towards hybrid systems of face-to-face contact and online teaching, and the
OLS Working Party Report
12/02/16
16 of 20
level of online activity is increasing at a rapid rate. However the economics of online
education remain unclear, apart from the general observation that the higher the level of
interactivity, and the higher the level of personal contact involved, the higher the cost
will be (Ryan and Stedman 2003, p. 52).
One Reference Group Report suggested that “this may be cost-neutral: a trade off between richer
learning environment for DE and fewer mandated classes for face-to-face students.” Another,
focussing on the change to work practices that need to be investigated and researched, wrote:
If an academic is expected to have some interaction time with distance education
students besides being "available" in consultation times which tend to be within
working hours and not always suitable for student contact then this is a responsibility
that will change. The use of asynchronous communication means that academics and
students can access communication when it suits them, and can allow for meaningful
and useful interaction.
The issue, for staff workload, becomes, in the words of another Reference Group Report:
‘Increased staff workload due to increased access by students (24/7/52)’. That this issue of
‘personal contact’ costs, previously less problematic in traditional DE pedagogies, needs to be
addressed is clearly an issue impacting on the University’s future:
Accounting for the increase in workload will need to be determined by the strategies
adopted within subjects as well as courses and needs to be considered at the School
level where workloads are determined. If the University is going to commit to
mandatory online access then there needs to be a determination of minimum and
maximum workload expectations. Individual subject coordinators can then determine
the intensity relative to the learning they expect within their subjects.
At present there is no substantive information available about how we, and how other
Universities, are dealing with the cultural changes to our pedagogical and work practices. This
also includes attention to the role and work of support services such as the Library, Student
Services and DIT. Several useful suggestions were made in Reference Group Reports, and
campus meetings, and these may well form the basis of continued discussion.
There is a need to evaluate lower levels of interaction, such as E-mail and forum
interaction, before moving to higher levels. The time and resourcing to create
elaborate multi-media needs to be carefully evaluated for cost-benefit compared to
moderated forums. The question is where should resources be expended first? If
online learning is developmental then there needs to be growth from both an
academic and student perspective. There needs to be more considered evaluation of
learning outcomes with modest interaction prior to the greater investment of more
resources. A curriculum centred approach may also be required to ensure early
development of the requisite skills to enable higher levels of learning in more
advanced subjects.
For these reasons we make the following final recommendation to Senate:
Recommendation 8
That the University commissions and conducts a systematic study of the workload implications
of changing cultures of teaching and learning in DE and on-campus settings.
OLS Working Party Report
12/02/16
17 of 20
CSU Online/flexible learning strategy
Goal
1.
Mandating online access
for all CSU students as a
condition of enrolment
Action Strategy
Responsibility
1.1 Senate to steer acceptance of this policy change
1.2 Definition of online access refined and clarified
1.3 Specification in functional and/or technical terms of minimum requirements for online
access
1.4 Development of CSU online platform to accommodate layering of access
1.5 Faculties, Schools and Divisions fully informed of policy changes
1.6 Schools ensure that all staff (including casual staff) have appropriate functional access to
enable development of pedagogical skills for e-environment
1.7 University Budget Committee to plan strategy for maintaining equipment as a Universitywide concern
Academic Senate
T & L Committee
ILSC
Timeframe
2003
DIT
DVC(Academic)
HOS
2003
2003
2003/4
2003
2003 – ongoing
Budget Committee/DIT
2003
2.
Ensure that students have
a working knowledge of
the technological
infrastructure and are
familiar with
online/flexible learning
approaches at CSU
2.1 Identification of entry level working knowledge and IT skills for students
2.2 Development of IT skills self-assessment tools for students
2.3 Student orientation to include face-to-face sessions, print-based tutorials, web-based
training, research data-base training and brochures
Student Services
Student Services/DIT
Student Services/DIT
Library Services
2003
2003
2004
ongoing
3.
High quality provision of
staff development and
training pitched across
range of expertise
3.1 IT induction to include training on forum access and management
3.2 Provision of School-based staff training at basic level
3.3 Provision of training for academic staff on pedagogical use of progressively published
materials
3.3 Development of new subject for Tertiary Teaching Colloquium, focussed on learning and
teaching in an e-environment
3.4 Development of rewards and incentives for reform and innovation in flexible pedagogy
3.5 Maintenance of online/flexible Learning website within CSU
HR – ASD
CELT, Schools
ASD/CELT
2003-4
on-going
2004
T & L Committee
ongoing
T & L Committee
CELT
ongoing
ongoing
4.1 Amendment of policy document to include learning and teaching as well as administrative
uses of the e-environment
4.2 Review and revise Principles underpinning ‘An Online Strategy for CSU Revisited’
4.3 Coordination of working parties focussed on online policy formation for CSU and explicit
communication of relationships between these
T & L Committee
2003
CELT/DIT
2003
ILSC/ T & L Committee
ongoing
4.
CSU Web Policy to be
modified to include
learning and teaching
aims
OLS Working Party Report
12/02/16
18 of 20
Goal
Action Strategy
Responsibility
Timeframe
5.
Review and make necessary
amendments to partnership
agreements with outside
agencies relating to
mandatory online access for
CSU students
5.1 Review of existing agreements in order to re-negotiate issues of online access for students
enrolled at CSU through Partnership agreements
5.2 Drafting of new agreements with CSU Partners recognising the layers of student access
DVCs /International
office
“
2003asaap
6.
Ongoing research into
and development of
flexible learning and
teaching at CSU
6.1 Coordination and streamlining of activities within CSU aimed at improving flexible and
online infrastructure, pedagogy and publication.
6.2 Showcasing and publication of innovative practice in flexible learning and teaching
6.3 Allocation of targeted research funding each year in CSU competitive grants scheme for
research into flexible/online learning and teaching
6.4 Schools and Faculties address issues related to workload, student consultation and
rethinking of existing DE/On-campus divisions
6.5 The University and staff address workplace change issues related to changing learning
cultures at CSU
6.6 Formulation of policy which extends beyond the current regulations on academics’ use of
subject forums to accommodate minimum requirements specific to learning and teaching
activities.
ILSC/ T & L Committee
ongoing
Faculties, CELT
ongoing
CRGT
2004
Schools/Faculties
ongoing
SEG
2004
T & L Committee/Senate
2003
7.1 Student associations to monitor and report regularly to Course Committees, School and
Faculty Boards
7.2 Student Services to provide paper on current and planned approaches to address areas of
student need
CSUSA, CSUPA,
Faculties
Student Services
ongoing
7.
Development of clear
Equity guidelines for
provision of appropriate
learning and teaching
activity where online
delivery is compromised.
OLS Working Party Report
12/02/16
19 of 20
2003
References
Boyce, S 2003, Shaped by the Book: continuity and change in school libraries in the information age,
unpublished Doctoral thesis, Charles Sturt University
Brennan, R 2003, ‘Adoption of online delivery of education’, unpublished paper, School of Education, CSU,
Wagga Wagga.
Charles Sturt University 2002, Strategic Plan 2002-2007, Office of the Vice Chancellor/
Charles Sturt University 2003 Academic Manual: Part P Teaching and Learning,
http://www.csu.edu.au/acadman/pcontm.htm
Chopping, E 2003, ‘Layers of online access’, discussion paper prepared for Online Learning Strategy
Working Party, June.
Dengate, R 2003, ‘HSC Online Report 2002’, discussion paper prepared for Online Learning Strategy
Working Party, May.
O’Donnell, B 2001, Memorandum: DETYA data collection – online courses.
Palaskas, T and Muldoon N 2003, Learning and teaching at CSU: Moving towards increased flexibility
CELT.
Rebbechi, M and Smith, A 2002, ‘An online strategy for CSU revisited’, presented to University Senate Dec 2,
http://www.csu.edu.au/division/deputyvc/acad/online_learning/
Ross, J 2003, ‘The CSU online environment: issues of access and equity’, Student Services, CSU.
Ryan, Y and Stedman, L 2002, The Business of Borderless Education, 2001 Update, Canberra, DEST
Schwab, J J 1969, College Curricula and Student Protest, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Snyder, I (ed) 1997, Page to screen: Taking literacy into the electronic era. Sydney & London: Allen &
Unwin/Routledge.
OLS Working Party Report
12/02/16
20 of 20