Taking the Risk, Calculating the
Return: Developing Successful ELearning Partnerships
Curt Bonk, Indiana University, Associate Prof
http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk
and
President, CourseShare.com
cjbonk@indiana.edu
http://CourseShare.com
and
Ann Hill Duin, University of Minnesota;
ahduin@umn.edu
Are you ready???
Primary Institutional Motives
for Online Education
Access (81 percent)
Learning (53 percent)
Profit (29 percent)
Key Reasons for
University Investment
Access to external resources (67
percent).
Improved efficiency in teaching and
research (63 percent).
Providing distance education to a
potentially unlimited audience (58
percent).
Less Important Reasons for
University Investment
Cooperation and resource sharing
within the higher education
community (41 percent).
Building partnerships with
business and government (31
percent).
Percent of Respondents
Figure 24. Reasons for Institutional Investment
in Web-Based Teaching and Learning
80
60
40
20
0
Improved
Efficiency in
Teaching and
Research
Higher Ed
Community
Cooperation
Low
Education to
Unlimited
Audience
Medium
Access to
External
Resources
High
Build Business
and Gov't
Partnerships
Some Respondent Quotes




“to offer equal opportunity of high quality
education to students in more rural
areas,”
“we are under a mandate to increase the
number of students we serve…,”
“It’s a new revenue source, that’s #1,”
and “because Web-based activities are
becoming ubiquitous in ALL workplaces.”
“Students will demand Web-based
courses or go somewhere else.”
Facts and Projections
• Those participating in continuing education will
rise to 100 million by 2004
• Eleven mega-universities serve learners at a
cost of $350 per learner per year
• Postsecondary enrollment in web-based courses
will represent 15% of total enrollment in 2002
– International Data Corporation, 2001
• E-learning market will be $25 billion by 2003
– Merrill Lynch, 2001
• By 2010, the number of corporate universities
will exceed the number of traditional universities
– U.S. Commission on Web-based Learning, 2000
Robert Jackson, E-Learning, CorpUniversity Partnerships
University of Tennessee, Assistant Dean of University Outreach and Director of Distance Ed &
Independent Study; RHJackson@UTK.edu
“Higher education has long had a rocky road
creating successful partnerships with business
and industry. The rise of e-learning represents
a critical opportunity to all parties. Hear what
separates these groups and find out what could
bring them together in mutually beneficial
elearning partnerships.”
Distant Cousins
(Robert Jackson, e-learning 2002)
• Historical Perspective
– Closed Architectures
• Separate trade shows and coordinating orgs
– Uneasy Truce
• Philosophical Differences: “Training” vs “ED”
– Course cost $35,000-$125,000 (mostly slick
multimedia) vs $4,000-$10,000 (mostly text and static
graphics)
– SME (part-time or temps vs. fulltime tenured professor
– Owned by company (work for hire) vs. owned by individual
(intellectual property)
Inputs and Processes – Consensus
(Robert Jackson, e-learning 2002)
Learning Topic
Corporations’ View
Universities’ View
Dominant elearning instructional style
Self-paced
Instructor-led
Interest in collaborative activities as
learning tools
High
High
Preferred learning format
asynchronous
synchronous
Preferred live instructional metaphor
“Shoulder to shoulder”, peer-to-peer
“face to face”, expert to learner
Use of Course Preassessments and
gain scores
Frequently
Rarely
Curriculum Designer
Training Manager
Individual Faculty
Instructional Technology Developer
Contract Programmer
Faculty or grad assistants
Targeted learner community
Independent Study
Cohort
Preferred form of elearning content
management software
Learning Management System (LMS)
Course Management System (CMS)
Interest in Learning Content
Management Systems (LCMS)
Moderate to high
Low
Interest in elearning management
system uniform standards
High
Low to moderate
Goals & Outcomes – Consensus
(Robert Jackson, e-learning 2002)
Learning Topic
Corporations’ View
Universities’ View
Learning purpose
“just in time”, job enhancement
focused
“just in case”, knowledge awareness
focused
Target duration of learning
“Just enough”
Feast of learning
Concern for dropouts
Low to moderate
Moderate to high
Descriptive word for learning used in
conversation
“skills” or “training”
“education”
Assessment strategies
Competency, prescriptive assessment,
skill gap analysis, quantitative
Mastery, performance relative to
cohort, qualitative assessments
by faculty
Time efficiency goals
Reduce time and expense
Restricted by accreditation standards
Length of typical learning object is
measured in increments of…
Minutes, within learning objects
Hours/Days, within courses
Institutional desire for learning content
modularity
High
Moderate to low
Common Ground Strategic Directions
(Robert Jackson, e-learning 2002)
• Academic
– Value quantified
outcomes
– Embrace shorter
courses (modularity),
and by extension,
elearning standards
– Be flexible, rethinking
old campus-centric
conventions
– Embrace standards
and preassessment
• Corporate &
Government
– Appreciate knowledge
as a route to strategic
thinking
– Appreciate and help
change higher ed
standards of seattime.
– Value synchronous
delivery
Making Connections
Partnering in a
Digital Age
Ideas from Ann Hill Duin
© Ann Hill Duin, ahduin@umn.edu
2002
“An Internet gateway
through which learners,
employers, and learning
providers are drawn
together into a dynamic
partnership that creates
value for learners,
enhances economic
development, and
engages institutions in
meeting the lifelong
learning needs of
twenty-first century
learners” (2001, xvii).
Priorities:
What outcomes
should you expect?
Possible Priorities
1. Address a clear learner need
2. Leverage resources; share
infrastructure
3. Respond to new markets; improve
competitiveness
4. Enhance access and pedagogy of
learning
US Army Choose
Pricewaterhouse
• $453 million e-learning program
• 10 companies and 29 colleges
• 12,000 students in year 1; 10,000 more in
2002
• Goals: Tech savvy soliders; succeed in on the
digitized battlefield, enhance retention and
help soldiers achieve academic degrees.
• Soldiers stationed in Australia, Honduras,
Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Belgium,
Japan, Egypt, the UK, Kuwait, Singapore,
Germany, Korea, Macedonia, Italy and Jordan.
Distance learner - message
I currently live in Maryland and will be
moving to Mason City, Iowa to be with
family. I have an AA from a community
college in Maryland. I wanted to know
if you had a distance education
program at [local community college]
that I would be able to get involved
in. If you do, could you email me info
at … or mail it to me at …
Certificate: Using the Internet
in Corp Training
Jones International University
• Corp trainers retool existing content for
online delivery; build an online module
• 4 weeks, $550; also optional
customized corp training certificate
• Use Web to enhance course content, &
create a powerful, interactive learning
environment for trainees.
Online Graduation Ceremonies with
Famous Commencement Speakers
In Search of a Need?
• Fathom, the for-profit, online-learning provider
run by Columbia University, has added
corporate-training courses to its academic and
cultural offerings in a bid to market itself to
corporate achievers and job hunters. The move
is the latest change in direction the company
has made in its search for customers and
investors in the competitive distance-education
market.
– Michael Arnone, Chronicle of HE, Feb 8, 2002
In Search of a Need?
• Columbia announced Wednesday that four
for-profit education companies -SmartForce, Zoologic, the Kaplan Colleges,
and PrimeLearning -- are now offering
mostly noncredit courses on businessrelated subjects through Fathom's
Professional Development Learning Center
…The partnerships will benefit Fathom in
the short run because Fathom needs the
money that the courses will generate,
Possible Priorities
1. Address a clear learner need
2. Leverage resources; share
infrastructure
3. Respond to new markets; improve
competitiveness
4. Enhance access and pedagogy of
learning
University Resource Partnership
• 3/3/02 DSpace Archive: MIT and HP to
create a LT sustainable digital repository
– “Instead of submitting the paper to a print
commercial journal and waiting months for
the results to be published, the researcher
can simply pull up MIT’s Center of
Teleportation Research Web page and
instandly submit the paper and data online,
for all his cohorts to review.” Kendra Mayfield
Wired News, College Archives ‘Dig’ Deeper.
• http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,54229,00.html
University Resource Partnership
University-World Resource Partnership
Administrators and faculty
members at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology are
debating what could become a
$100-million effort to create
extensive World Wide Web pages
for nearly every course the
university offers.
Jeffrey R. Young, March 1, 2001, The Chronicle of Higher Ed
Also See: MIT Cheered from a Distance, Wired News,
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,42841,00.html
Cross-University Partnerships
• 1/23/01 “The Alliance of Four”
• 4 Universities Create an Alliance Against
Onslight of Technology Vendors
– “UC-Berkeley, Penn State Univ World Campus,
Univ of Washington, and Univ of Wisconsin
Learning Innovations formed an (informal)
alliance to make joint technology purchases.
– Trying to deal with vendors who besiege
universities and pick them off one at a time
State Resource Partnership
National Resource Partnership
National/Int’l Resource Partnership
“Publishers”
Software Developers
Book Publishers
Hollywood Producers
Newspapers
On-Line Services
Technology
ISDN
MPEG/DVI
Photo CD
HDTV
QuickTime
OS/2
Windows
Distribution
USERS
Cable Companies
Broadcasters
Telephone Cos.
Computer Nets
Retail Stores
Learning Object Standards
International Resource Partnership
Other Resource Partnerships
 22 virtual universities to collaborate
 9 universities on 4 continents collab to
offer online graduate and professional
development courses in Asia
University of the Arctic is a consortium of
31 “high latitude” colleges, universities,
and governments across 8 countries. First
course is Introduction to Circumpolar
Studies. (Feb. 15, 2002, Chronicle of HE).
Possible Priorities
1. Address a clear learner need
2. Leverage resources; share
infrastructure
3. Respond to new markets;
improve competitiveness
4. Enhance access and pedagogy of
learning
Level 3 University Partnerships
(Dan Carnevale, Chronicle of Higher Ed, Jan 28, 2002)
• Babson College MBA for Intel
• Oregon Health and Science Univ MA in Tech
Management for Microsoft
• UT-Austin Online MS in Science, Tech, and
Commercialization for IBM
• Univ of Georgia MBA for
PricewaterhouseCoopers
• Cenquest, President, LaVonne Reimer claims
courses are more relevant to occupations
(colleges target corp training and exec ed)
Not All Partnerships Work
• 6/9/01 Faculty wary of e-Cornell
• 6/1/01 Company that sells Duke’s online MBA
program (Pensare) files for bankruptcy
• 8/7/01 UNext asks to restructure its
relationshsips with CMU,Stanford, Columbia…
• 9/13/01 UNext lays off 135 employees
• 12/14/01 Debating the demise of NYUonline
• 5/2/02 US Open University will close
• 2/20/02 SUNY-Buffalo drops online MBA
Reasons for Failure
• UNext--Difficult economic period; cited
challenges of raising venture capital
• US Open U—Insufficient revenues; inadequate
enrollments; lacking accreditation & name rec
• E-Cornell—diff from mission; out of thin air
• Pensare/Duke—lower interest than expected
and then market tightened
• NUYonline—inadequate business plan (similar
problems to UMUConline, Virtual Temple, etc.)
• SUNY-Buffalo—not worth expense & hassle
– Labor intensive courses, time consuming, etc.
Some Partners are Not Strong
Katherine Mangan, Chronicle of HE, Feb 20, 2002
• “Like several other business schools whose
efforts to expand online have been
derailed, Buffalo was burned by an outside
partner that failed to live up to its
promises…The Albany-based Institute for
Entrepreneurship, which ran into financial
and management problems, gave the
school only about $65,000 of the
$200,000 it had promised.”
IU Online MBA Homepage
Some Facts
• The Indiana University Kelley School of
Business, for more than eighty years, has
been one of the country’s premier business
schools.
• The undergraduate program is ranked
among the top 10 in the country.
• The MBA program is ranked by
BusinessWeek as among the top 20.
• The MBA faculty have the top three
teaching faculty in the country.
IU Oncourse Partnership
(now ANGEL?)
Kelley Direct Partnership with GM
• Joint program with Purdue School of
Engineering and Continuing Education
• Obtain MBA online after complete
engineering MS
• 48 credits normal (cut to 42 in here)
• March 2002 35 in program
• 100 waiting to get in
• Take 1 courses/quarter (3 yr program)
Partnership with GM
•
•
•
•
•
MS in Finance (20 students)
MS in Strategic Management (15-20 st’s)
30 credits
1 course/quarter
3 year program
Partnership with United
Technologies
•
•
•
•
•
•
MBA, began spring 2002
MS in Global Supply Chain Management
2 year program
30 students, 2 courses/quarter
1 week summer residency
1 week at site
Partnership with John Deere
•
•
•
•
MS in finance for financial managers
Just began
52 credits
25 students in program
Summary to Date
•
•
•
•
•
2 year program with residency
Started with 14 students
Now have 240 total in MBA programs
Graduated 60 MBA students to date
Gain students though networking,
customer contacts, etc.
Conclusion
The Online MBA program is designed to be
beneficial to the employer of a student as well:
1. Key component in many recruiting strategies.
2. Assists firms in retaining their most valued
employees.
3. Since the program has a very small “inresidence” component, there is little
disruption to an employee’s work schedule.
Possible Priorities
1. Address a clear learner need
2. Leverage resources; share
infrastructure
3. Respond to new markets; improve
competitiveness
4. Enhance access and
pedagogy of learning
Videoconferencing at IU
IUPUI & UCLA e-Portfolios
http://eportconsortium.org
1. Members pay $10,000 per year to join
2. Full access to software and its source code
3. Documents and evaluates student
achievements and learning improvements
4. Students reflect on work and instructors
reflect on their quality
5. Help students transfer
6. Learning benchmarks can be established
Learning to Teach with Technology
Studio (Partnership of IU and PBS)
A New Type of
Professional Development
 The Learning to Teach with
Technology Studio is a Web-based
professional development system
offering quality instruction in quality
K - 12 technology integration
designed for educators.
LTTS Features
 Short courses (25 growing to 55+)
 On the web
 Start anytime and move at own pace
 Focus on technology integration in inquiry
lessons and projects
 Problem-centered modules
 Practical and educational
 Facilitated
 Standards-based (ISTE NETS and national
academic standards)
TICKIT: Rural Teacher
Technology Integration
Overview of TICKIT
•In-service teacher education program
•Rural schools in southern Indiana
•Yearlong, 25 teachers from 5 schools
•Primarily school-based
•Supported by participating school
systems, Arthur Vining Davis
Foundations and Indiana University
Quality on the Line: Benchmarks for
Success in Internet-Based Distance Ed
(Blackboard & NEA, 2000)
Teaching/Learning Process
• Student interaction with faculty is facilitated
through a variety of ways.
• Feedback to student assignments and questions
is provided in a timely manner.
• Each module requires students to engage
themselves in analysis, synthesis, and evaluation
as part of their course assignments.
• Course materials promote collaboration among
students.
– http://www.ihep.com/Pubs/PDF/Quality.pdf
Quality on the Line: Benchmarks for
Success in Internet-Based Distance Ed
(Blackboard & NEA, 2000)
Other Benchmark Categories:
• Institutional Support: incentive, rewards, plans
• Course Development: processes, guidelines,
teams, structures, standards, learning styles
• Course Structure: expectations, resources
• Student Support: training, assistance, info
• Faculty Support: mentoring, tech support
• Evaluation and Assessment: review process,
multiple methods, specific standards
E-Learning: Harnessing the hype. Cohen
& Payiatakis (2002, Feb). Performance
Improvement, 41(7), 7-15.
…both instructional and graphic
(design)…must be compelling and engaging
enough to keep the learner involved,
interested, and stimulated…The ideal future is
a learning experience designed to be
memorable, motivational, and magical if it is to
make a lasting impact on the capabilities of the
learner.
Online Courseware
Development Partnerships
Rather than every large higher education institution
attempting to spend money to develop its own
courseware platform or shell, colleges and
universities should seek partnerships with
courseware and other e-learning companies wherein
they serve as beta test sites for new tool
development efforts. They might also seek to form
tool development consortia with other institutions.
(Bonk, 2001) “Online Teaching in an Online World.”
Online Learning
Pedagogy Partnerships
In conjunction with the last recommendation, higher
education institutions need to demand and perhaps help
develop and research different types of pedagogical
tools for e-learning that foster student higher-order
thinking and collaboration. Once developed, online
tools that target critical and creative thinking as well as
teamwork online should be showcased for faculty,
students, and administrators. (Bonk, 2001) “Online
Teaching in an Online World.”
Ideas
• Develop a joint program
• Locate the best resources and bring them
to learners via a learning marketspace
• Promote collective virtual learning
resources to the world
• Make credits transferable between
programs
• Partner with private companies to assist
learners with additional experiences
Readiness:
What factors most
determine success?
Readiness
The probability of success is dependent on
many factors…the basic premise is that a
university’s preparation or readiness prior
to a partnership initiation is the single
most important contributor to success.
Robinson & Daigle, 1999, p. 4.
State Readiness Criteria
• Rosevear’s study of 8 virtual universities
• What is the state’s technological infrastructure?
• How prepared are the traditional colleges and
universities to support virtual learning
environments?
• Do they all have equal technological capabilities?
• What is a reasonable prediction for how long it will
take before the virtual university is operational?
• What are the resources gaps, and how will they be
filled?
Inter-Institutional
Readiness Criteria
• Leadership committed to the effort
• Commitment to learner centered
education
• Climate to support partnership and
change
• Alignment of key decision makers
• Buy-in by faculty, departments, and
colleges
Readiness criteria for shared course
environments
• Similar problems
• Trust and respect
• Low level
permissions
• No $$ or credit
• Clear
communication
• Clear outcomes
•
•
•
•
•
Delineation of tasks
Matrix development
Phase one prototype
Course offered again
Equivalent tech
infrastructures
• In-house mentoring
What is your
institution’s
partnership rationale?
Partnership Rationales
• Dave King (IHETS):
– Our rationale is that we choose partners based on learner
needs and risk. The learner’s risk must be low. Technology
is never complete until the user is satisfied.
• Susan Kannel (NACTEL):
– Our rationale is that we choose a college or university
partner based on quality online curricula needed by
industry.
• Bruce Chaloux (SREB):
– Our rationale is to use partnerships to level the playing
field (policy development) on behalf of student access.
Partnership Rationale -Blueprint
•
•
•
•
•
•
Vision
Description
Beliefs
Assumptions
Operations
Commitment
•
•
•
•
•
Collaboration
Risk
Control
Adaptation
Return on
Investment
John Chambers’ Partnership
Rationale (criteria)
• Do the partners enjoy a shared vision
with complementary roles?
• Can the partners create short-term
wins?
• Does the partnership create a “win” for
all key stakeholders?
• Are the organizational cultures similar?
• Is there geographic proximity?
What is your institution’s
risk tolerance related to
partnerships?
-----
legal
financial
experimental
academic
Types and Levels of Risk
Associated with Partnerships
Commerce
Alliance
Minority
equity
investment
Joint
Venture
Spin off
Merger or
acquisition
Legal
Low
Low
Low
Medium
High
Financial
Low
Low
Low
High
High
Experimentation Low
Low
Medium
High
High
Academic
Medium
Medium
High
High
Medium
Consider your current
partnerships.
What is your potential
return on investment?
– Learner/Citizen
– Faculty
– Campus
– State
Adding Value
The magnitude, form, source, and
distribution of that value is at the heart of
relational dynamics. The perceived worth
of an alliance is the ultimate determinant
of, first, whether it will be created and,
second, whether it will be sustained.
--James Austin, 2000, The Collaboration Challenge, 87
ROI for Iowa State University
Commerce Minority
Alliance – investment
Fathom
– PBS and
IU
Joint
Venture
– IUPUI
& UCLA
Joint
Venture –
Purdue-IU
& GM
Spin off –
Wisdom
Tools &
IIPI
High
Medium
Learners High
/ citizens
High
High
Faculty
Medium
Medium
Medium Medium
Low
Campus
Low
Low
Medium High
Medium
State
Medium
Medium
Medium High
High
ROI: What is the return on
e-learning???
Business ROI Objectives
• Better Efficiencies (reduced travel,
instructor fees, distribution and facilities
costs)
• Greater Profitability
• Increased Sales
• Fewer Injuries on the Job
• Less Time off Work
• Faster Time to Competency
ROI in Higher Education
• Students: opportunities, integration with
work, learning on demand, inc promotion,
new wealth
• Faculty: templates for dev curric,
integration with real world, time, $
• Campus: educating more, reaching local
community, expanding resource base,
dispersing costs
• State: economic devel, increased
business competitiveness, better resource
allocation
Talking about ROI
• As a percentage
– ROI=[(PaybackInvestment)/Investment]*
100
• As a ratio
– ROI=Return/Investment
• As time to break even
– Break even
time=(Investment/Return)
*Time Period
More Calculations
• Total Admin Costs of Former Program
- Total Admin Costs of OL Program
=Projected Net Savings
• Total Cost of Training/# of Students
=Cost Per Student (CPS)
• Total Benefits * 100/Total Program
Cost
=ROI%
Percent of Respondents
Kirkpatrick’s
• Reaction
• Learning
• Behavior
• Results
4 Levels
Figure 26. How Respondent Organizations Measure
Success of Web-Based Learning According to the
Kirkpatrick Model
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Learner satisfaction
Change in
knowledge, skill,
atttitude
Job performance
Kirkpatrick's Evaluation Level
ROI
Level 1 Comments. Reactions
“We assess our courses based on
participation levels and online surveys
after course completion.
All of our
courses are asynchronous.”
“Typically involves “Smile sheets” or endof-training evaluation forms.
“Easy to collect, but not always very
useful.”
“We use the Halo Survey process of asking
them when the course is concluding.”
Kirkpatrick Level 3: Behavior
• Can learner apply what learned? Might include:
– Direct observation by supervisors or coaches
(Wisher, Curnow, & Drenth, 2001).
– Questionnaires completed by peers,
supervisors, and subordinates related to work
performance.
– On the job behaviors, automatically logged
performances, or self-report data.
Shepard, C. (1999b, July). Evaluating online learning. TACTIX from
Fastrak Consulting. Retrieved February 10, 2002, from:
http://fastrak-consulting.co.uk/tactix/Features/evaluate/eval01.htm.
Kirkpatrick Level 4: Results
• Often compared to return on investment
(ROI)
• In e-learning, it is believed that the
increased cost of course development
ultimately is offset by the lesser cost of
training implementation
• A new way of training may require a new
way of measuring impact
Kirkpatrick Level 4: Results
• Might Include:
– Labor savings (e.g., reduced duplication of effort or faster
access to needed information).
– Production increases (faster turnover of inventory, forms
processed, accounts opened, etc.).
– Direct cost savings (e.g., reduced cost per project,
lowered overhead costs, reduction of bad debts, etc.).
– Quality improvements (e.g., fewer accidents, less defects,
etc.).
Horton, W. (2001). Evaluating e-learning. Alexandria, VA: American
Society for Training & Development.
Of course, this assumes you have all the documents!
My Evaluation Plan…
Considerations in Evaluation Plan
8. University
or
Organization
7. Program
6. Course
5. Tech Tool
1. Student
2. Instructor
3. Training
4. Task
What about specific
courseware or LMS and
other considerations???
Online Program or Course Budget
• Indirect Costs: learner disk space,
coordination, phone, admin training, creating
student criteria, accreditation, integration with
existing technology and procedures, library
resources, on site orientation & tech training,
faculty training, office space, supplies
• Direct Costs: courseware, instructor,
business manager, help desk, books, seat time,
bandwidth and data communications, server,
server back-up, course developers, postage
Online Program or Course Budget
http://webpages.marshall.edu/~morgan16/onlinecosts/
brian.morgan@marshall.edu
Questions to ask
• How large a course?
• Technology fees charged?
• Projected growth rate?
• Number of courses?
• How pay for system and use?
• Tuition rate?
Vendor Selection
• True commitment to learning…can define
what learning is.
• 24 x 7 support
• Partnerships
• Any research, reports, or funded centers?
• Longevity
• Honest talk and less hype
What steps in getting it work?
• Institutional support/White Paper
– Identify goals, policies, assess plans,
resources (hardware, software, support,
people)
•
•
•
•
Faculty qualifications & compensation
Audience Needs: student or corporate
Finding Funding & Partnering
Test software
– usability testing
– system compatibility
– fits tech plans
How to get buy-In?
•
•
•
•
•
Let’s form a committee…at least one…
Needs analysis, interviews, focus groups
Mini-grants, stipends, (i.,e., MONEY!!!)
Success stories, sharing, PR
Involve all stakeholders in the DM process
Marketing
• Listed in Major Search Engines (Free in Yahoo!
•
•
•
•
•
•
or pay for top listing; premium listing in
GradSchools.com)
Bulletin Boards—Usenet Newsgroups
(alt.education.distance)
Specific Web Sites for Domain
Mailing Lists—email to subscribors
Internal PR
Conference Presentations and Pubs
Make Academic Advisors Aware
How to Fail at e-Learning
(Brooke Broadbent, e-learning, January 2001, p. 36-37)
• Thinking training, not business
• Promise the moon (e.g., 50% cut in
costs)
• Outsource everything (hire consultants)
• Simply make e-learning available
(instead select target groups and help
change)
• Force e-learning on resisters
• Don’t evaluate
Final Quote
Not all partnerships necessarily will be
long-term ones, but the commitment to
partnering must be long term to
counteract the competing forces working
to maintain the status quo… To the
extent these portfolios develop will depend
on the “vision of the possible” provided by
all those involved.
--Ann Hill Duin and Linda L. Baer, 2002, NLII
Some Final Advice…
Or Maybe Some Questions???