Monday, February 28, 2011

Why 'successful' elearning projects 'fail'

What Tom Franklin calls ‘success’, and in particular, long term sustainability of elearning projects are a constant challenge to me in my role as Head of an eLearning Group in a large university. I absolutely agree with Tom’s January 2011 ALT Newsletter item that forward planning, budgeting for ongoing support and change management are important aspects to consider. However, in this I see tensions, first of all with funding body requirements (fixed term funding, intention to support start ups / exploratory projects etc) but more importantly, with the nature of innovation itself.

The kind of project that I want to see supported past the initial funding stage starts out with a great learning design idea and a creative teacher with a problem to solve. They [may] get start up funding, then use of the ‘product’ grows beyond their wildest aspirations. Colleagues in other faculties and institutions use – and even become dependent on it. In some cases, many thousands of students are involved, and no one questions the benefits to teaching, learning and productivity. But no one is ready to support long term sustainability either. This may be because it doesn’t come with the IT Services seal of approval, or because initial funding was from an external e.g. Government or one off source. There are probably many other reasons such ‘successful’ systems persist with just one or a few people to support them, and no institutional commitment. I see the lack of institutional response systems and processes as a key one.

The major difficulty of planning for change management and ongoing support with projects such as these is that the impact could not be anticipated at the time of the original proposal. That is the evolutionary nature of innovations, and the education sector – as a whole and in parts - seems woefully ill equipped to step in and provide the necessary support. I’d welcome any suggestions as to how these issues might be resolved. I have my own ideas, but they involve organizational change rather than change management at practice level. Further details in my 2010 article
Sustainability factors for elearning initiatives, ALT-J (Research in Learning Technology) 18, no. 2: 89-103.

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Seize the opportunity of online learning - once more unto the breach...

Collaborate to Compete is the latest release (Feb 2011) in a stream of reports on how universities can use technology and online pedagogy to achieve quality and cost-effectiveness in meeting student demands for flexible learning. In a nutshell, how to create the best opportunities, and get the best return on investment in online learning. The terms of reference for HEFCE’s Online Learning Taskforce focused on the UK higher education sector, though the case studies and recommendations have broader relevance.

I know I’m not alone in responding with a degree of scepticism to the announcement of another report on how to exploit the potential of online learning. The fact that we are still talking about potential means that work remains to be done to exploit it. Collaborate to Compete: Seizing the Opportunity of Online Learning for UK Higher Education) offers many valuable insights. For me, it also has one key limitation in the range of voices it represents. However, the impact of this latest set of recommendations – as the report notes about estimating the size of the market for online learning - is hard to predict.

A summary of recommendations (with my comments added):

1. Students need greater support to ensure their study and academic literacy skills are fit for the digital age (and staff need greater incentives, support and evidence of benefits to ensure their skills are up to the mark).

2. Investment is needed to build consortia to achieve scale and branding in online learning. (Cases where previous attempts failed are featured in the report. While I support the kind of multiskilled teams described by Edelson (2006), and believe collaboration can harness the strengths of diverse roles and organizations, I wonder if the consortium is a realistic proposition for how they will be put together? There are obvious benefits, as risk will be shared and dissemination more effective from the start, but where will the necessary investment come from in these tight financial times?)

3. Better market intelligence about international demand (this can only help to avoid repeating expensive mistakes of the past. Zemsky & Massy (2004) made a strong retrospective case against using inappropriate forecasting methods to anticipate demand and drive investment. There does indeed need to be ‘clarity about the markets in which ventures will operate’, but the wisdom of hindsight says more about what not, than what to do. What specific strategies will allow this to be achieved?)

4. Institutions take a strategic approach to realign structures and processes to embed online learning (this is my strongest wish). Such changes will not happen rapidly enough without effective organizational structures and processes (the mantra is good, articulation seems to be the problem, or perhaps it’s different interpretations of what effective means in this context.) Institutions need to ensure that staff understand the range of challenges and opportunities provided by online learning, and ensure what they do is cost effective and high quality (and experienced staff need to help their institutions understand what is involved in addressing these challenges and opportunities with cost-effective and high quality solutions.)

5. Realign training and development to enable the academic community to play a leading role in online learning (if the academic community can’t I don’t know who can!). Promote understanding of potential, and put greater priority on partnerships between technologists, learning support specialists and academics (with emphasis on partnership amongst equals).

6. Invest in the development and exploitation of open educational resources to enhance efficiency and quality (Open education is not just about sharing resources, initiatives such as the OPAL Open Educational Quality Initiative show that practice is equally important. The conceptual model here is one where producer and recipient practices meet comfortably in the middle.) There is no point in duplicating effort to create content that is already available, (but there is more than a grain of truth in the saying ‘to change something you have to understand it and to understand it you have to change it’. The ‘not invented here syndrome’ may have deeper psychological roots than we acknowledge.)

Key points I take away from the report are that a) adapting organizational structures and processes may require a significant change in academic and organizational culture; b) institutional promotion criteria (accountability measures), selection criteria for awards etc. would provide incentives for staff; and c) strong leadership and commitment to a clear strategic approach are fundamental to effect change in institutional policies and procedures.

With my academic / professional development hat on, I appreciate the report's acknowledgment that professional development for online learning is not just the responsibility of a small team of people in a central service unit, but the broad and joint responsibility of institutions and national and professional bodies.

Collaborate to Compete ‘highlights many things that have been said before but not widely heeded’. The authors state their belief in the title, and assert that the report has come ‘at a time when technology, internationalism, curricula and the power and nature of the student voice have moved forward, thus making the report timely and important’.

While I agree that the report is both these things, I also believe it is missing one very important voice, and thus not truly reflective of the spirit of the title. Composition of the task force does not quite model the kind of collaboration that some of us ‘chalk face’ workers are such strong advocates of - i.e. collaboration across all levels within organizations. I believe there is much to be learned from the experience of the lead practitioner, the average academic and the early career tutor, all of whose professional practice the online learning strategy seeks to reshape. Consultation with people in teaching and research roles is one thing, collaboration with them is quite another. The taskforce has captured the voices of leaders, directors, chief executives and managers and students through the President of the National Union. While case studies may reflect the practice of lecturers and tutors across institutional levels, I do not hear their voices in the report I have just read. This is the part of organizational culture and process I think will take longest to change - mainly because it doesn't even seem to be on the agenda yet.

References

Edelson, D.C. 2006. Balancing innovation and risk: Assessing design research proposals. In Educational Design Research, eds Van Den Akker, J, Gravemeijer, K, Mckenney, S and Nieveen, N, 100-06. London and New York: Routledge.

Zemsky, R. and W. Massy. 2004. Thwarted Innovation: What Happened to e-Learning and Why?: Final Report of The Weatherstation Project, The Learning Alliance, University of Pennsylvania. http:// www.irhe.upenn.edu/Docs/Jun2004/ThwartedInnovation.pdf