Untitled - socium.ge
Untitled - socium.ge Untitled - socium.ge
e-learning in post-secondary education 285and makes it easier for part-time or working students to access learning. Inparticular, e-learning provides lifelong learners with a flexible and convenientway to continue to study and learn throughout their lives.The biggest impact, though, is in the work organization of the teacher.There are many different ways in which a course can be developed and delivered.The choice of model will depend on the scale and complexity of thecourse, and the centrality of the use of technology. By far the most commonmodel of e-learning course development is what I have called the “LoneRanger” approach, after an old Hollywood cowboy film and subsequent televisionseries (Bates, 2000). Teachers work on their own, usually using a coursemanagement system or platform such as WebCT or Blackboard. This fits wellwith the autonomy of the classroom teacher. Furthermore, Lone Rangers areessential for getting innovation started, for demonstrating the potential of technologyfor teaching, and for ensuring e-learning is used when there is nosystematic support from the institution. Usually, Lone Rangers are dedicatedteachers who put a great deal of time and effort into experimenting with technologyfor teaching. However, there are considerable limitations of the LoneRanger approach to the use of e-learning. The main problems are workloadand quality.For a teacher to work alone, the Lone Ranger has to deal with all the activitiesassociated with the use of technology, as well as choosing and organizingcontent and learner interaction. Consequently, the Lone Ranger model usuallyresults in a great deal more work for the teacher compared with a regular faceto-faceclass. Furthermore, quality in teaching with technology requires expertisenot just in content, but also in course or program planning, instructionaldesign, media production, online moderating, student support, and course orprogram evaluation and maintenance. It is very difficult for teachers tobecome experts or even experienced in all these areas without their workloadincreasing to unsustainable levels. Therefore, a number of alternativeapproaches to the Lone Ranger model are being developedHartman and Truman-Davis (2001) describe the boutique approach to e-learning course development. A teacher approaches an instructional supportunit for professional assistance on an individual, one-to-one basis from aninstructional designer or technology support person. As Hartman and Truman-Davis (2001) explain, this is a satisfying experience for both teacher andsupport person and works well when there are relatively few instructors needinghelp. However, the model starts to become unsustainable as demandincreases because of the resources needed. It causes particular difficulties forthe instructional support unit or person, as there is no obvious way to determinepriorities between multiple requests for help, and there is no boundaryaround the support commitment. Furthermore, because the teacher usuallyinitiates the process, the wrong kind of assistance may be requested. For
286 Tony Batesinstance, the request may be limited to purely technical assistance, when whatmay be required is a different approach to course design for the technology tobe used effectively. Nevertheless, the boutique model can be useful in helpingindividual teachers to get started in using technology in a systematic andprofessional way.Another model that is beginning to emerge is the collegial materials developmentmodel. In this model, several teachers work collaboratively to develope-learning materials. The teachers may be from the same department or fromdifferent departments in the same institution, or subject experts from differentinstitutions. By working collaboratively, they can share ideas, jointly developor share materials, and provide critical feedback to each other. In collegialmaterials development, each participant in the project is free to decide whatmaterials to include in his or her own courses, and what materials to share withother colleagues. Often, the material is made public.Another feature of collegial materials development is that rarely is a wholecourse produced. The focus is usually on developing materials that otherteachers and students may find useful within their own courses. However, atsome stage, even collegial development approaches are likely to reach a pointwhere there is a need for more formal management of the process, some formof evaluation or peer review of the materials, and the need for professionaldesign and graphics. At this point, a project management approach is needed.Project management is common in creative media areas, especially wherethe project is complex, such as film and television production, advertising,video and computer games design, and also in many building, engineering,and information technology-based projects. Project development and deliveryinvolves a team of individuals each contributing different skills, and theprocess is managed by a team leader or project manager. There is a defined setof resources, usually determined at the outset of the project, a timeline, and aclear “deliverable,” that is, it is clear what the project has to achieve and it isobvious when it is completed. Project management has been used for manyyears in education for course development and delivery. However, it hastended to be restricted to distance teaching and educational television.Nevertheless, as the use of e-learning in regular teaching becomes morecomplex, project management will become increasingly important as a meansof controlling workload and quality.The decision whether to adopt a Lone Ranger, boutique, collegial materialsdevelopment, or project management approach depends on a number offactors. The most critical are the size, complexity, and originality of a project,and the resources available. Thus, a teacher thinking of adding PowerPointpresentations to her classroom teaching will not need project management forthis. However, if a whole course is to be delivered online and at a distance, orif a multimedia expert system is to be developed, or if a large lecture class is
- Page 255 and 256: 234 Manuel Castells et al.this stud
- Page 257 and 258: 236 Manuel Castells et al.On the ot
- Page 259 and 260: 238 Manuel Castells et al.friends a
- Page 261 and 262: 240 Manuel Castells et al.Table 10.
- Page 263 and 264: 242 Manuel Castells et al.way behin
- Page 265 and 266: 244 Manuel Castells et al.by radio.
- Page 267 and 268: 246 Manuel Castells et al.The six t
- Page 269 and 270: 248 Manuel Castells et al.that belo
- Page 271 and 272: 250 Wayne E. Baker and Kenneth M. C
- Page 273 and 274: 252 Wayne E. Baker and Kenneth M. C
- Page 275 and 276: 254 Wayne E. Baker and Kenneth M. C
- Page 277 and 278: 256 Wayne E. Baker and Kenneth M. C
- Page 279 and 280: 258 Wayne E. Baker and Kenneth M. C
- Page 281 and 282: 260 Wayne E. Baker and Kenneth M. C
- Page 283 and 284: Table 11.5Logistic coefficients fro
- Page 285 and 286: 264 Wayne E. Baker and Kenneth M. C
- Page 287 and 288: 266 Wayne E. Baker and Kenneth M. C
- Page 289 and 290: 268 Wayne E. Baker and Kenneth M. C
- Page 292 and 293: 12. The promise and the myths ofe-l
- Page 294 and 295: e-learning in post-secondary educat
- Page 296 and 297: e-learning in post-secondary educat
- Page 298 and 299: Public Dual-mode Institutionse-lear
- Page 300 and 301: e-learning in post-secondary educat
- Page 302 and 303: e-learning in post-secondary educat
- Page 304 and 305: • the courses are delivered globa
- Page 308 and 309: e-learning in post-secondary educat
- Page 310 and 311: e-learning in post-secondary educat
- Page 312 and 313: e-learning in post-secondary educat
- Page 314 and 315: 13. e-health networks and socialtra
- Page 316 and 317: e-health networks and social transf
- Page 318 and 319: e-health networks and social transf
- Page 320 and 321: e-health networks and social transf
- Page 322 and 323: e-health networks and social transf
- Page 324 and 325: e-health networks and social transf
- Page 326 and 327: e-health networks and social transf
- Page 328 and 329: e-health networks and social transf
- Page 330 and 331: e-health networks and social transf
- Page 332 and 333: e-health networks and social transf
- Page 334 and 335: e-health networks and social transf
- Page 336 and 337: e-health networks and social transf
- Page 338 and 339: e-health networks and social transf
- Page 340 and 341: 14. Narrowing the digital divide: t
- Page 342 and 343: The US community technology movemen
- Page 344 and 345: The US community technology movemen
- Page 346 and 347: The US community technology movemen
- Page 348 and 349: community issues, access advanced t
- Page 350 and 351: The US community technology movemen
- Page 352 and 353: The US community technology movemen
- Page 354 and 355: The US community technology movemen
e-learning in post-secondary education 285and makes it easier for part-time or working students to access learning. Inparticular, e-learning provides lifelong learners with a flexible and convenientway to continue to study and learn throughout their lives.The big<strong>ge</strong>st impact, though, is in the work organization of the teacher.There are many different ways in which a course can be developed and delivered.The choice of model will depend on the scale and complexity of thecourse, and the centrality of the use of technology. By far the most commonmodel of e-learning course development is what I have called the “LoneRan<strong>ge</strong>r” approach, after an old Hollywood cowboy film and subsequent televisionseries (Bates, 2000). Teachers work on their own, usually using a coursemana<strong>ge</strong>ment system or platform such as WebCT or Blackboard. This fits wellwith the autonomy of the classroom teacher. Furthermore, Lone Ran<strong>ge</strong>rs areessential for <strong>ge</strong>tting innovation started, for demonstrating the potential of technologyfor teaching, and for ensuring e-learning is used when there is nosystematic support from the institution. Usually, Lone Ran<strong>ge</strong>rs are dedicatedteachers who put a great deal of time and effort into experimenting with technologyfor teaching. However, there are considerable limitations of the LoneRan<strong>ge</strong>r approach to the use of e-learning. The main problems are workloadand quality.For a teacher to work alone, the Lone Ran<strong>ge</strong>r has to deal with all the activitiesassociated with the use of technology, as well as choosing and organizingcontent and learner interaction. Consequently, the Lone Ran<strong>ge</strong>r model usuallyresults in a great deal more work for the teacher compared with a regular faceto-faceclass. Furthermore, quality in teaching with technology requires expertisenot just in content, but also in course or program planning, instructionaldesign, media production, online moderating, student support, and course orprogram evaluation and maintenance. It is very difficult for teachers tobecome experts or even experienced in all these areas without their workloadincreasing to unsustainable levels. Therefore, a number of alternativeapproaches to the Lone Ran<strong>ge</strong>r model are being developedHartman and Truman-Davis (2001) describe the boutique approach to e-learning course development. A teacher approaches an instructional supportunit for professional assistance on an individual, one-to-one basis from aninstructional designer or technology support person. As Hartman and Truman-Davis (2001) explain, this is a satisfying experience for both teacher andsupport person and works well when there are relatively few instructors needinghelp. However, the model starts to become unsustainable as demandincreases because of the resources needed. It causes particular difficulties forthe instructional support unit or person, as there is no obvious way to determinepriorities between multiple requests for help, and there is no boundaryaround the support commitment. Furthermore, because the teacher usuallyinitiates the process, the wrong kind of assistance may be requested. For