top of page
This site was designed with the
.com
website builder. Create your website today.Start Now

 

 

The Navigation and Sailing Report #7

Port name: ETEC 520

Port Section: 65A

Port Website: http://met.ubc.ca/etec-520 

Port Time Frame: (Jan-Apr 2014)

Port specialty: Planning and Managing Learning Technologies in Higher Education (elective course)

Port Director: Dr. Mark Bullen

Port administrator: David Roy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Description

This course deals with the management of technology-based courses and projects, strategies for change needed at an institutional level to support technology-based teaching, and system-wide planning requirements at a provincial, state or national levels to support and regulate distributed learning. The course uses the Internet and print resources to enable participants to analyze and critique different management and planning strategies at various levels of technology-based operation.

 

Objectives

  • Students will be able to develop strategies for planning and managing technology-based courses or programs so that they are properly funded, effective in meeting their learning goals, exploit fully the educational potential of the new technologies, are developed on time and within budget, and are properly up-dated and improved. The strategies for course planning and management must also be appropriate for the organizational context in which they will be used;

  • Students will be able to develop strategies for planning and managing new technologies for teaching and learning at an institutional level so that they are funded, organized, and supported in ways that meet the educational, organizational and financial context in which they will be used;

  • Students will be able develop strategies for planning and managing new technologies for teaching and learning at a state or educational system level, so that they are funded, organized and supported in ways that meet the overall goals of the system as a whole;

  • Students will understand the theoretical and organizational differences between knowledge-based and industrial-based organizations and how that might impact on planning and managing new technologies for teaching and learning;

  • Students will be able to use the Internet to access and analyze research and reports on the planning and management of distributed learning, and find appropriate on-line databases in this area.

 

 

Artifact #1: Analysis and Comparison of Rationales for E-Learning

 

Simply put, e-learning is the application of information and communication technologies to education, either as face-to-face in school or workplace settings; blended with traditional learning, for full online course delivery, or for self-directed informal learning.  Furthermore, Rosenberg (2001) defines e-learning as a “networked phenomenon allowing for instant revisions and distribution.  In addition, it is delivered using standard Internet technology” (p.12).  E-learning goes beyond training and instruction to the delivery of information and tools to improve performance. There are many benefits of e-learning, including cost-effectiveness, enhanced responsiveness to change, consistency, timely content, flexible accessibility, and providing customer value.  E-learning can substantially increase our access to knowledge and information and, as studies suggest, it can also improve access to education, formal and informal learning, and employment opportunities.  Bullen and Janes (2007), stated that “higher education institutions around the world are increasingly turning to e-learning as a way of dealing with growing and changing student populations” (p.32).  According to Rosenberg (2012), a basic building block of a successful and sustainable e-learning program is a solid strategy.  “An e-learning strategy is a systematic and comprehensive plan of action designed to ensure the success of a broad-based e-learning initiative that adds value to the organization in ways that are supportable and sustainable” (p.72).  For the best analysis and comparison of the institutional strategies, this assignment consists of three parts:

  • A brief overview of the two e-learning strategies from the HE institutions.

  • An analysis of each strategy in terms of their rationales for eLearning.

  • A brief summary and conclusion.

Considering the essential importance of e-learning for every higher education institution, its learners, community, and society in general, as well as significance of its regulation in an e-learning strategy, I perform a balanced analysis and comparison of the two higher education, university level e-learning strategies, with the special focus on their explicit and implicit rationales for promoting e-learning.

The two institutional e-learning strategies or policies I chose for analysis and comparison are from the following renowned United States (U.S.) state universities:

  • California State University (CSU) Pomona, eLearning Strategic Plan 2007-2012

    Prepared by: Luke Maher and published on September 4th, 2012, 

  • University of Nebraska (UNK) at Kearney, eCampus Strategic plan Version 1.2

    Prepared by: Steven J. McGahan and published on October 16th, 2009.

  

 

Artifact #2: Analysis of an Institutional or Organizational E-learning Plan

 

E-learning is a serious and costly business in the function of teaching and learning, so for institution to grow and be successful in higher education it must be seriously managed at the strategic level, and implemented as planned.  Accordingly, e-learning strategies should reflect strong vision and commitment to excellence.   

  In order to provide the balanced, broad and quality analysis of the institutional strategy, its context and implementation, this assignment consists of three parts:

  • A brief overview of the institutional or organization e-learning strategy and its context

  • An analysis of the strategy and eLearning implementation plan.

  • A brief summary and conclusion.

Considering the essential importance of e-learning for every higher education institution, its learners, community, and society in general, as well as significance of its regulation in an e-learning strategic plan, I perform broad and balanced analysis of the higher education, university level e-learning strategic plan, with the special focus on the following:

  • How eLearning plan is being, or is proposed to be implemented, organized, supported and delivered)

  • Strengths and weaknesses of the implementation plan, or the actual implementation?

  • Ways to strengthen the organization’s approach to and implementation of eLearning

     

According to Bates and Sangrà (2011), “successful technology integration requires a complex environment that supports change, with engagement from a number of key players, all working together and developing and sharing a common vision or set of goals for the use of technology”(p.42).  Guri-Rosenblit (2005) stated that “well-designed e-learning environments tend to cost even more than comparable face-to-face encounters, so it has to be managed at the strategic levels” (p.474). 

 

The institutional e-learning strategy or e-learning plan I chose for broad analysis is from the renowned United States (U.S.) state university; University of Nebraska (UNK) at Kearney, eCampus Strategic plan Version 1.2, prepared by: Steven J. McGahan and published on October 16th, 2009.

 

Artifact #3: National, Provincial/State or Regional Level Analysis (eCampus Alberta)

 

Considering the essential importance of e-learning for learners success, community, education system and society in general, the quality of strategic approach and defining it at the national, provincial/state or regional level, is critical, as well as significance of its further regulation in the government and related ministries policies, business plans, and related documents. Considering that importance, I am dedicated to perform broad and balanced analysis of the government level e-learning strategy strengths, weaknesses, and underlying issues, and solutions in the education system, primarily applying the following criteria:

  • Description of the education system and its efficacy at the primary, secondary, and postsecondary level.

  • Identification of issues of the education system, and the role of e-learning in addressing them.

  • Ways to strengthen the government’s approach to implementation of eLearning.

     

According to Bates and Sangrà (2011), “successful technology integration requires a complex environment that supports change, with engagement from a number of key players, all working together and developing and sharing a common vision or set of goals for the use of technology”(p.42).  Furthermore, Guri-Rosenblit (2005) stated that “well-designed e-learning environments tend to cost even more than comparable face-to-face encounters, so it has to be managed at the strategic levels” (p.474). 

 

I chose to conduct an analysis of the Government of Alberta (GOA) approach to e-learning, defined and embedded in the following strategic documents:

 

  • Government of Alberta Strategic Plan 2014-17: Building Alberta, prepared and published by the Government of Alberta on March 6, 2014, and signed by Alison Redford, Premier, on March 6, 2014.   

  • Government of Alberta, The Building Alberta Plan - Budget 2014, Fiscal Plan, published by the Treasury Board and Finance Ministry and signed by Doug Horner Minister on March 6, 2014.

  • 2014-15 Government and Legislative Assembly Estimates - Education, published by the Treasury Board and Finance Ministry and signed by Doug Horner Minister on March 6, 2014.

  • The Ministry of Education Business Plan 2014-17, prepared and published by the Ministry on February 12, 2014, and signed by Jeff Johnson Minister, on February 19, 2014.

  • The Ministry of Innovation and Advanced Education Business Plan 2014-17, prepared and published by the Ministry on February 12, 2014, and signed by Dave Hancock Minister, on February 19, 2014.

  • Province of Alberta, Post-secondary Learning Act, Campus Alberta Sector Regulation, Alberta Regulation 239/2008, (Consolidated up to 6/2013) published by Alberta Queen Printer, in June 2013.

  • Alberta Education. Framework for student learning: competencies for engaged thinkers and ethical citizens with an entrepreneurial spirit, published by Alberta Education in 2011.

  • Campus Alberta: A Policy Framework, published by Alberta Learning in April 2002.

  • eCampusAlberta, Strategic Plan 2012-2015, published by the eCampusAlberta Board of Directors, in June 2012.  

 

Captain's Log

 

The early spring of 2014 caused the MET Sea to peacefully and gradually tranquilize, so the waves were friendly, the days were clear, the nights were starry and navigation and sailing friendly. The complete atmosfere empowered with the beautiful sunrises and sunset bonanzas of the ETEC 520 harbour was quite inspirational for me to study hard every day and often burn the midnight oil in my captain's cabine, resulting in exemplary research of e-learning practices in various levels of higher education, resulting as well in thorough and decent meta-cognitive reflections on my unique navigational and sailing journey to the quite popular docks of Planning and Managing Learning Technologies in Higher Education. I am glad that I  well learned how to plan and manage learning technologies in higher education, and I am proud of that. Below is my meta-cognitive reflection and artifact feedback on this extraordinary research and analysis process: 

 

Analysis and Comparison of Rationales for E-Learning

From my perspective, due to some common mistakes in building the strategies, neither the CSU, nor the UNK e-learning strategies are an excellent example of e-learning strategy. However, I prefer the UNK strategy, due to the fact that it is based on the internal SWOT analysis, and has the timeline incorporated for easier tracking of achievements/failures.  Compared to the CSU strategy, the CSU serves three times more students, and thus, it bears more social and ethical responsibility to knowledge delivery, to its learners.  Incorporating e-learning and costly technology improvements into strategic planning maximizes the affordances of the different technologies and modes of deliveries. Additionally, it contributes to overall improvement of the Information Communication Technology (ICT) as a base for improvement of teaching and efficient e-learning, which results in quality knowledge building for 21st century learners.

According to Bates and Sangrà (2011), “successful technology integration requires a complex environment that supports change, with engagement from a number of key players, all working together and developing and sharing a common vision or set of goals for the use of technology”(p.42).

Guri-Rosenblit (2005) stated that “well-designed e-learning environments tend to cost even more than comparable face-to-face encounters, so it has to be managed at the strategic levels” (p.474).  As Bates & Sangrà (2011) stated that “the executive team members together with the leadership of learning technology professionals are critical factors that can and should be the powerful champions of the need for change” (p.84).  Without the proper leadership and implementation of strategic planning, improving and changing of teaching and e-learning solely depends on the “Lone Rangers” and life-long learner faculty members as the only agents of change and improvement of e-learning, which may potentially cause the mixed perceptions of faculty and staff about the technology and leadership role in improving teaching and e-learning.  

E-learning is a serious and costly business in the function of teaching and learning, so to grow and be successful in higher education it must be seriously managed at the strategic level.  Accordingly, e-learning strategies should reflect strong vision and commitment to excellence.  

 

Analysis of an Institutional or Organizational E-learning Plan

As a result of analyzing the  university e-learning plan, the UNK eCampus strategy is a very good example of e-learning strategy. I did not find the significant common mistakes in building the strategy that may have negatively impacted its implementation.  The UNK strategy is based on the internal SWOT analysis, and has the timeline incorporated for easier tracking of achievements/failures.  The UNK and its strategy bears significant importance and social and ethical responsibility to knowledge delivery, to its learners, locally and wider.  Incorporating e-learning and costly technology improvements into strategic planning maximizes the affordances of the different technologies and modes of deliveries. Additionally, it contributes to overall improvement of the Information Communication Technology (ICT) as a base for improvement of teaching and efficient e-learning, which results in quality knowledge building for 21st century learners.

The fact is that NU system has been delivering distance education to students for over 100 years, and a good planning and implementation of the UNK eCampus strategy, contributed to significant technology and related instruction improvements that gradually over 20 years resulted in strengthening of e-learning at UNK.  The success of e-learning and DE at UNK proves that eCampus e-learning strategy is feasible during the planned period, is quite defensible and brought a decent range of possibilities that were achieved. All those achievements are result of good strategic planning and serious eCampus strategic plan implementation.

 

Analysis of the Government of Alberta (GOA) Approach to E-learning

From my analysis, the eCampusAlberta e-learning strategy initially defined by GOA and its education ministries is a very good example of dynamic e-learning strategy incorporating all stakeholders and showing high national readiness for addressing the connectivity, capability, content, and culture (4Cs) issues and transforming them into the opportunities through the policies and frameworks utilizing and gradually implementing balanced conservative, radical and/or funding strategies. The GOA and eCampusAlberta strategies were based on the internal SWOT analysis, and have addressed the opportunities and threats, with no common mistakes in negatively impacting e-learning implementation in the province.  The eCampusAlberta and its strategy bears significant importance and professional, social and ethical responsibility for knowledge delivery, to its learners, locally and wider.  Incorporating e-learning and costly technology improvements into eCampusAlberta strategic planning maximized the implementation, effectiveness, and affordances of the different technologies and modes of deliveries, triggering unavoidable changes in pedagogy. Additionally, it contributed to overall improvement of the Information Communication Technology (ICT) base that induced applied research leading to improvement of teaching pedagogies and efficient e-learning culture, resulting in higher quality content delivery and knowledge building for 21st century learners.

From the strategic plans and reports is clear that eCampusAlberta system has been constantly growing and successfully delivering distance education to students for over 10 years, moreover, a good planning and implementation of the eCampusAlberta strategy, contributed to significant technology and related pedagogical improvements of instruction, resulted in strengthening of e-learning in Alberta.  The success of e-learning in schools and DE provided by eCampusAlberta proved that the GOA e-learning strategy has been feasible during the planned period, was quite defensible and brought a decent range of e-learning and DE possibilities that were achieved. All those achievements in e-learning in Alberta are result of good strategic and operating planning and implementation at the GOA and ministries level, the Campus Alberta and eCampusAlberta level, including serious operationalization at all three education levels.

 

I really enjoyed this quite interesting and challenging course, considering the fact that I work in post-secondary educational environments where e-learning is a reality, so I wanted to really get a good grasp on e-learning and general planning and managing of learning technologies in higher education. I am glad I suceeded adn feel much empowered to continue research, planing and further implementation of learning technologies not only in any higher education environment, but also in othe formal/informal learning environments 

 

Artifact References:

 

A. W. (Tony) Bates, Albert Sangra (2011) Managing Technology in Higher Education: Strategies for Transforming Teaching and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ISBN: 978-0-470-58472-9 . Other Available Formats: E-Book

 

Bates, A.W. (2001). National strategies for e-learning in post-secondary education and training. Paris: UNESCO/International Institute for Educational Planning. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001262/126230e.pdf

 

Bates, A., W. & Sangrà, A. (2011). Managing technology in higher education: Strategies for transforming teaching & learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Bullen, and Janes. (2007) Making the Transition to E-learning: Strategies & Issues. Hershey, PA.: Information Science Publishing. ISBN: 9781591409519

 

Bullen, M., & Janes, D. (2007). Making the Transition to E-Learning: Strategies and Issues (pp. 1-366). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-950-2

 

ETEC 520. (2014). Rationales for using e-learning. Retrieved from http://blogs.ubc.ca/etec520/unit-2/unit-2-rationales-for-using-e-learning/

 

ETEC 520. (2014). Retrieved from http://blogs.ubc.ca/etec520/

 

Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005). “Distance education” and “e-learning” pp. 474-486

 

Rosenberg, M. J. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age (Vol. 9). New York: McGraw-Hill.

 

Rosenberg, M. J. (2005). Beyond e-learning: Approaches and technologies to enhance organizational knowledge, learning, and performance. Wiley.com.

 

The University of Nebraska online worldwide (2014). A leader in online education. Retrieved from http://onlineworldwide.nebraska.edu/

 

The University of Nebraska (2014). Fast facts. Retrieved from http://www.unk.edu/about/fastfacts/At-A-Glance/

 

The University of Nebraska at Kearney (2009) eCampus Strategic Plan 2009. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/ZAwj8D

 

The University of Nebraska at Kearney (2011). eCampus Annual Report 2010-11. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/uG1ssa

 

The University of Nebraska at Kearney (2014). In-State Tuition/Fees (2013-14). Retrieved from http://www.unk.edu/academics/ecampus/Tuition_and_Fees/

 

The University of Nebraska at Kearney (2014). NCA Re-accreditation Self-Study. Retrieved from http://aaunk.unk.edu/NCAvisit/SelfStudy/SSTOC.htm   

 

The University of Nebraska at Kearney (2012). Strategic Planning at UNK (2013-2016). Retrieved from http://www.unk.edu/about/plan/Strategic_Planning/

 

The University of Nebraska at Kearney (2008) Strategic Enrollment Plan - Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/mewrt7p

 

The University of Nebraska at Kearney (2008). Student Success Plan. Retrieved from

http://www.unk.edu/uploadedFiles/about/plan/StudentSuccess.pdf   

 

The University of Nebraska at Kearney (2014). University profile. Retrieved from http://www.unk.edu/universityprofile.aspx?id=35582

 

US News, rankings and reviews (2014), University of Nebraska - Kearney. Retrieved from http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/university-of-nebraska-kearney-2551

 

Sailing - Mike Oldfield
00:0000:00

© 2015 by mzivko

bottom of page