CSCS Derby online African MSc.doc

 

Derby learning resources and activities (MSc Strategic Management) case study

 

  Author: Richard Self

 

 

1. We used this e-learning approach because:-

 

• University policy to be able to provide flexibility in learning

   

• The MSc Strategic Management is offered in two forms, as a pure on-line e-learning programme and as a blended mode of face-to-face supported with e-resources which is delivered in Malawi and Botswana
• The Blended approach was introduced for Southern Africa as part of the institutional strategy to support the students, including the provision of University of Derby Athens Authenticated journal resources and to provide e-support of a similar nature to that offered to on-campus students. In 2005/6 a decision was taken as a matter of institutional policy to provide the 4 option modules as a pure on-line mode. Given that the programme team were already aware of significant connectivity issues in Malawi and Botswana, an introductory day was provided "in country" for each of the option modules.
• The use of the pure e-learning mode was chosen as the strategic means to deliver the programme to students who could not study on-campus

 

2. The context in which we used this e-learning approach is as follows.

• The course, in both modes, is designed to be studied on a part-time basis by students who have full time managerial jobs. It is in some respects similar to an MBA in the learning outcomes but has the benefit that all the students retain their jobs and apply the theory immediately in the context of their work place by means of the assignments.
• composition of learner groups (including numbers of staff, students and courses affected);
  •  The Malawi and Botswana students are normally middle and senior managers in their organisations .
  • There are of the order of 100 students  per cohort in the Blended form and about 40 students who are enrolled on the pure e-learning mode, who study a total of nine taught modules from a total diet of 7 core modules and 4 option modules, plus the Dissertation Module.
  • Six or seven lecturers are involved in the teaching of the students in the Blended mode and a further 4 are involved in the on-line mode.
• This teaching was conducted prior to our use of an e-learning approach as follows;-
  • Different lecturers travel out from Derby to deliver 3 day intensive seminars at each centre. Delivery is still done exactly the same way, i.e. no change was forseen or expected in the Blended approach. The e-support provision for the blended form was developed to provide the students with the means to access electronic journals.
  •   The Pure e-learning mode is taught in 12 to 16 week blocks with the module leader responsible for running the module and assisting the on-line students.
• We anticipated the following problems that this context would produce in terms of implementation of the e-learning approach.
  • We anticipated that some of the students in Malawi and Botswana might have a few problems in accessing the platform.  In fact ,in practice, very few of the students are able to access any of the materials
  • By the time that we introduced the pure on-line mode, we already had considerable institutional experience of designing and running other on-line programmes and we had had some 5 years experience with the F2F mode of delivering the programme.

 

3. The technologies and/or e-tools were available to us were:-

 

• Blackboard is used as the platform, having started by using the Global University Alliance / NextEd implementation in 2000. Over time we have migrated through three different hosting environments to the current, final in-house implementation. We also use an in-house portal which provides access to Blackboard, to the students' own records and also to electronic journal sources.
• The choices are made at institutional level and had to be followed.

 

 

4. The design of the e-learning approach, including description of learning activities is as follows:-

 

• Bearing in mind that the programme started life as an F2F programme, all the module content and structure had been developed well before the need to go "e" was taken. Carefully designed work books had been developed for each module which were designed around the Socratic approach of information,  discovery, question and develop the answer. Each topic or sub-topic has an introduction and then requires both directed reading and also research for sources, in order to address one or more of the "difficult" questions that is typical of Master's level learning.
• As a result, the Design process started from the F2F mode and placed them on-line in a form that is very similar to the result of Course Genie, ie a set of web pages.
• the personnel involved in the design process were the module leaders, with some support from a central specialist learning materials development team who were responsible for taking the word processed conetnt and loading it into the platform, doing the equivalent of Course Genie in passing.

 

5. How did you implement and embed this e-learning approach?

 

• This e-learning approach was 'rolled out' in practice as follows:
  • Following our institutional practice, we carried out full training of all the e-tutors and module material creators, using both the GUA processes and also in-house training programmes.
  • Clearly, training the off-campus students is problematic, since one is attempting to use the platform to train students with the platform. As a result, we created a short, simple programme to introduce all students to the Blackboard platform, on which they were automatically enrolled as soon as they apply for a programme. This requires that they have access to the Derby Portal, in order to gain access to the Blackboard environment.
• We evaluated this e-learning approach for the two modes of presentation by:
  • Evaluation of both the Blended and pure e-learning approaches is carried out in terms of achievement levels and retention rates and the use of student questionnaires
  • When we attempted to use the pure e-learning approach for the Blended students, the predicted lack of effective access to the platform clearly jeopardised the students' success. As a result, we had provided the Module Work books to all students and given the one day introduction to each module and did not require them to use the digital drop box for the submission of their assignments, rather we required them to submit paper copies in the normal way.
  • In relation to the pure e-elearning mode, the programme has similar retention rates to our other similar programmes.

 

• Given our previous experience with other programmes, we have not had any unanticipated problems with either mode of presentation, we already knew of the significant challenges that we faced.
• The very nature of the problems associated with communications difficulties mean that it is not feasible to overcome fundamental infrastructural problems in sub-Saharan Africa or with other students who do not  have satisfactory access to effective, cheap connectivity. See this paper that was presented at the Greenwich e-learning and Teaching Workshop on 6 June 2007, R J Self Paper for Greenwich.pdf

 

6. What tangible benefits did this e-learning approach produce?

 

This section will look at the provided headings in sequence.

 

Unfortunately under each section it has been very difficult to find any real benefits to students or the institution taht have any real significance. I am sure that there are some "political" level achievements and benefits but when we look for real world "bottom line" benefits there aer surprsingly few in the context of distance learning through a pure e-learning approach, particularly into the developing world. Yes, the biggest and greatest real benefit is to allow students who would otherwise not be able to study to gain access to the programmes and education. But provided that cohort sizes in a country are of the order of 40 to 45, it becomes cheaper and far more effective to deliver the teaching in-country face to face in the concentrated mode that we use.

 

• significant improvements in student learning
  • In common with most published research, e.g HEA e-Learning Workshop at Greenwich ,6 June 2007, there are no demonstrable pedagogical or attainment benefits relating to the use of e-support. Indeed, for our Blended mode, the attempt to use a pure "e" approach for the option modules caused a very severe adverse reaction from the students which required us to revert to the normal face to face mode of delivery in 2007.
  • The difficulties of administering the distance learners causes significant dissatisfaction amongst some students, due to problems with e-mails, the platform etc.
• significant improvement in student satisfaction with the learning process;
  • See above, all students who have an option strongly favour the face-to face mode of delivery, with the benefits of being able to hold seminars and discussions, which is not possible on-line if there are no audio discussion facilities. Type based seminars are too slow to be worth while and are not used by any students on this programme, however incentivised.
• significant improvement in retention rates
  • There are no demonstrable benefits in retention rates on these programmes. Indeed, in common with much published research, see for example A Andersson, e-learning Africa 2007, Nairobi, the retention rates for almost all pure e-learning programmes are not significantly different from the old style correspondence courses and are much worse than face to face based modes.
• significant improvement in staff satisfaction with, and enthusiasm for, e-learning;
  • As a general rule, academics are not satisfied with the e-learning process due to the added work loads, particularly the administration aspects and the slowness of typed communication. In addition, the inability to effectively run synchronous on-line seminars due to the time zone problems of worldwide cohorts and the inability to provide audio conferencing to low-bandwidth connected students leads to dissatisfaction with the loss of the human touch and interaction with students. The students mostly "disappear into their bunkers" and only re-appear to submit their assignments, sometimes.
• significant improvement in staff's ability to deliver e-learning;
  • Over the past 5 years there have been developments in the way of designing the materials for the e-learning modules. This has moved the process from teaching to facilitated learning, in other words, providing a series of simple objectives and introduction, directed reading and searching questions and tasks for the students which ultimately lead to the development of the scaffolding of the assignments, rather like the patchwork approach.
• significant improvement in staff performance more generally;
  • This has not generally happened, delivering e-learning is seen as an imposition and a diversion from the real business of face to face teaching and learning, in other words, diversion from the "human" aspect of teaching and learning.
• increased performance towards departmental and/or institutional strategic targets (for example, recruitment, retention, widening participation targets, space usage, computer availability, room allocation) through the use of this e-learning approach
  • The main advantage of the pure distance e-learning programmes is the contribution towards the institutional targets for the provision of flexible learning and minor additional recruitment, equivalent to perhaps 1 to 2% of total student population in headcount terms but in overall student FTE terms is only equivalent to about 0.2% or less.
• any actual savings in terms of costs, time and resources.
  • There are no expected cost savings from using e-learning, it is only capable of delivering additional costs, see chart below. This assessment is supported by the HEA e-learning Workshop at Greenwich, 6 June, where all participants recognised that there are no significant cost savings as a result of the "e" provision, only very significant additional costs in all areas.

 

 

7. In common with most of the e-learning programmes, there are many draw backs with e-support of programmes

 

• at departmental and/or institutional level the following disadvantages  are apparent ;
  • Extra time required for academics to go that extra step to convert Word documents via Course Genie prior to loading in the platform
  • The need to re-load all materials into each module / course instance, at least once per year
  • Lack of IT literacy amongst both Academics and students
  • Significant module and programme management overheads to maintain contact with the students
  • e-tutors get an allowance of 2.5 hours per student, which means that the staff costs of supporting e-students is much higher than face to face, see chart below.
  • Additional administration costs due to the low levels of engagement and retention in the pure e-learning programmes

 

 

 

 

• in addtion there are other disadvantages such as:.
  • Slowness of typed communication
  • spoken communication is between 5 and 10 times faster than typing, hence communication with purely online students is very slow and is a significant overhead for the e-tutors.
  • Use of audio communications technologies, such as Skype or MSN Messenger, will not work to students with dial-up connections

 

• User access bandwidth.
  • Most sub-Saharan students do  not have access to connectivity better than 10 to 20kbs dial-up internet. Those lucky enough to have "broadband" normally only have 128kbs at high cost compared to European cost rates. This severely restricts access to e-journals, as articles are normally 150KBytes and upwards in size. This often leads to download times of 30 minutes to 1 hour or more per article (if successful).
  • Only 45% of UK households have broadband access.
• Retention Rates and Achievement Levels
  • As with most on-line programmes, the pure-e-learning programme students  have to be managed very tightly, in order to ensure that students complete the programme.
  • In contrast, the retention rate for the Blended version of the programme in Malawi and Botswana has the highest completion rate and achievement levels of any programme in the University of Derby and has done from the very beginning of the programme before any "e" support was provided. In other words the introduction of the "e" component has had no detectable impact on the retention rates in Malawi and Botswana or on achievement levels

 

 

 

 

8. How did this e-learning approach accord with or differ from any relevant departmental and/or institutional strategies?

 

• Both the Blended and pure e-learning modes are fully embedded in the University of Derby institutional strategies.
• The University continues to develop and embed e-learning in all variations of the approach from F2F, via e-provision of some or all materials via the VLE through Blended to pure e-learning for Distance students.
• The following diagram, developed by D Foord, illustrates the full spectrum of e-learning that the University of Derby recognises and is supporting. The Programme discussed in this analysis operates at the resource supported level (in a minor way) and at the right hand extreme of the spectrum. Internet infrastructural issues mean that there is little opportunity to apply any of the aspects in the middle of the spectrum

 

 

 

9. Summary and Reflection

 

Give details here of

• whether you believe this e-learning approach worked in pedagogical terms;
  • The only aspect of the e-provision that  has provided benefits for some of the Blended mode students is related to the portal provision of access to academic journals, for those students for whom the system worked, enriching their breadth of material used in developing their analysis and argument. This, therefore enriches their critical thinking and evaluation which are the cornerstone of Master's level studying and writing.
  • Without the provision of materials, learning objects, even a full module, that specifically introduce critical thinking and analysis, it can be very difficult to devote the time to this in an on-line course, whereas it can easily be added into a face to face seminar if required.

• whether you believe this e-learning approach worked in terms of departmental and/or institutional strategies;
  • The pure e-learning approach is clearly working to some extent in  that it is marginally improving the FTE numbers and is also providing some students with the opportunity to study our programmes who would otherwise be unable to study because of their circumstances. We have several students studying online MSc programmes who live in Derby.
• We have learned from implementing this e-learning approach that pure e-learning in all its forms when compared to face to face
  • is far more expensive in all respects
  • delivers no better results and often worse results
  • has far worse retention rates
  • generally has lower student satisfaction

 

General Reflection on the CamelBelt Project

 

• I am very surprised that the approach of CamelBelt has been to approach the individual projects that are participating from the perspective, as far as possible, of the positive benefits of e-learning with guidelines that strongly indicate that we are to avoid as far as possible the negative and controversial aspects. Surely, as an ethical, scientific piece of research, we are honour bound to be honest in reporting the true situation of each of our projects. I am aware of at least one of these projects already which has been "politicised" into a purely positive report, carefully glossing over all negative aspects.