Introduction Universities have largely ceased to enjoy their - PDF document

E-Learning 2.0: A Case of Different Strokes for Different Follks? eLearning Forum Asia 2011, Singapore E- -Learning 2.0: A Case of Different Strokes Learning 2.0: A Case of Different Strokes for Different Folks? for Different Folks? Dr. David H. Wong Chair of Teaching and Learning Curtin Business School E: David.Wong@cbs.curtin.edu.au Introduction Universities have largely ceased to enjoy their relative geographic monopolies. – Competitive work culture and the aging population have decreased the potential market. – Funding issues have increased the need to be competitive (Dolinsky & Quazi 1994). – Technological developments have increased the scope of competition (Allen & – Technological developments have increased the scope of competition (Allen & Seaman 2008; Ryan & Lane 1998). Introduction Trends in teaching: – Curriculum design is long been recognised as a factor in differentiating educational services (Kotler & Murphy 1981). Flexibility in delivery is now increasingly relevant in differentiation. – Use of technology to increase market reach (Binsardi & Ekwulugo 2003; Ivy 2001; McDonald & Postle 1999; Foster, Sauser & Self 1994; Smart & Ang 1992). Example: WebCT Blackboard Web 2 0 Example: WebCT, Blackboard, Web 2.0. Trends in industry: – An economy increasingly reliant on the integration of technology and other organisational functions to be competitive (Heckman 1999). – These developments have presented crucial implications for the knowledge and skills required in the future (Wee, Kek & Kelley 2003; Flynn & Kamm 1999). eLearning Forum Asia 2011, NTU Singapore 1

E-Learning 2.0: A Case of Different Strokes for Different Follks? Introduction Trends in the student population: – Prensky (2001) defined ‘digital natives’ as a generation that has grown up with digital technology, operating at “twitch speed”, and performing multiple activities simultaneously. – Oblinger and Oblinger (2005) characterise next generation (“n-gen”) - students as digitally literate, highly Internet familiar, connected via networked media, used to digitally literate, highly Internet familiar, connected via networked media, used to immediate responses, preferring experiential learning, highly social (“being a friend of a friend is acceptable”), preferring to work in teams, craving interactivity in image rich environments (as opposed to text intensive environments), and having a preference “for structure rather than ambiguity”. Introduction Two major demands on Universities: – To use technology in a way that enables effective learning. – To adapt their curricula to meet the changing skill requirements of the future (Wee, Kek & Kelley 2003; Smart, Kelly & Conant 1999). Learning from Past Research Mode of Delivery: – Use of technology in learning brings flexibility (Malhotra 2002; Spooner et al. 1999). – May increase student retention rates (IUPUI). – Does not necessarily increase demand (Lawley, Summers & Gardiner 1999). – May result in loss of interaction between students and instructors (Kriger 2001; Clark 2000; Neumann 1998, Spooner et al. 1999). Clark 2000; Neumann 1998 Spooner et al 1999) – Paladino (2008), and Mood, Stewart and Bolt-Lee (2002) prompts consideration of interactive and experiential factors. eLearning Forum Asia 2011, NTU Singapore 2

E-Learning 2.0: A Case of Different Strokes for Different Follks? Our Recent Research Mode of Delivery Results FACTOR ANALYSIS Factor Variables Description Loadings Alpha Mean V09 Access to immediate response to questions 0.774 V10 Allow personal interaction with instructor 0.763 Interactive 0.8239 5.5682 V05 Ability to have two way interaction with instructor 0.734 V11 Allow social interaction with fellow students 0.701 V23 Pressure free 0.860 V24 Stress free 0.858 Pressure Free V21 Minimum paper work 0.544 0.7106 4.7564 OPPOV28 OPPOV28 Use of case studies to illustrate theory (inverse coded) Use of case studies to illustrate theory (inverse coded) 0 478 0.478 V20 Interesting and fun 0.456 V15 Exposure to people of different cultures and views 0.683 V29 Use of visual material 0.639 Experiential 0.7219 5.3932 V14 Exposure to industry 0.593 V26 Technology easy to use 0.516 V07 Ability to self study 0.779 Enable Self Study V08 Ability to study from home 0.752 0.6137 5.1636 V22 Minimum time spent on university campus 0.468 Minimise Effort V25 Teaching in a language other than English 0.736 0.3671 3.6591 in Understanding V06 Ability to learn with minimal self effort 0.498 Utilise a Comfortable & V12 Comfortable environment 0.849 0.7914 5.6591 Convenient Environment V13 Convenient 0.727 V18 Incoporate the use of email and the internet 0.834 Utilise Technology 0.7863 5.3591 V19 Incorporate the use of computers 0.724 V17 Flexible timetable 0.641 Flexible 0.3045 4.4818 OPPOV27 The need to be disiplined (inverse coded) 0.571 V16 Flexibility to work at own pace independent to rest of class 0.481 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a Rotation converged in 43 iterations. Our Recent Research Mode of Delivery Results T-TEST (AGE GROUPS) Variable Age Group Variable Description Mean Std. Dev. P-Value 21 or under 6.091 0.811 V10 Allow personal interaction with instructor 0.002 over 21 5.000 1.386 21 or under 6.636 0.658 V12 Comfortable environment 0.001 over 21 5.538 1.421 21 or under 6.273 0.883 V13 Convenient 0.001 over 21 5.231 1.142 21 or under 6.364 1.093 V17 Flexible timetable 0.001 over 21 4.962 1.483 21 or under 5.818 1.140 V18 Incoporate the use of email and the internet 0.021 over 21 4.923 1.412 UPS) T-TEST (YEA R OF STUDY GRO Variable Year Group Variable Description Mean Std. Dev. P-Value ear 5.000 first y 1.298 0 V1 Allow pe rsonal interaction with 0.020 continuing 5.857 1.145 i t t ear 5.300 first y 1.302 4 re to industry V1 Ex posu 0.033 continuing 6.071 1.120 ear 4.100 first y 2.532 4 Stress free V2 0.031 continuing 5.571 1.709 ear 5.800 first y 1.361 8 V2 Use of case studies to illustrate 0.028 continuing 4.786 1.641 th Recent Web 2.0 Developments at the School of Marketing School of Marketing eLearning Forum Asia 2011, NTU Singapore 3

E-Learning 2.0: A Case of Different Strokes for Different Follks? Recent Traditional T&L Developments at the School of Marketing School of Marketing Online and Offline Learning: Where do we draw the line in Blended Learning? in Blended Learning? Our Recent Research v2 Balanced Modes of Deliveries Characteristics of MODE Delivery Methods  Pressure Free E-Learning tools that are fun and interactive – blogs, wikis, self paced reflective journals.  Flexibility* E-Learning tools  Industry Mentoring Programs  Interactive E-Learning tools  Instructor Led Discussions   Industry Mentoring Programs Industry Mentoring Programs  Case Study Approach  Utilize Technology* E-Learning tools  Experiential Industry Mentoring Programs  Instructor Led Sessions  Industry visits/study tour  User Friendly* E-Learning tools  Academic mentoring/individual tuition  Foster Discipline Instructor Led Sessions  Industry Mentoring Programs  Industry placement  Utilize Case Illustration Case Study Approach  Industry Mentoring Programs  E-Learning tools Attributes marked * are of particular importance eLearning Forum Asia 2011, NTU Singapore 4