E learning project definition
•Download as PPT, PDF•
2 likes•2,623 views
Recap of business plan development; Detail your e-learning project goals; Describe critical competencies; Outline your project; Validate with major stakeholders
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to E learning project definition
Similar to E learning project definition (20)
More from Eric Kluijfhout
More from Eric Kluijfhout (15)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
E learning project definition
- 1. E-learning project definition author: Eric Kluijfhout, eric.kluijfhout@gmail.com This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses or send a letter to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
- 2. E-learning project definition Refresher Course for Senior Executives Program “ Entrepreneurship development and -training in a global perspective”: e-learning strand Uganda, 18-29 October 2004 by Dr Eric Kluijfhout
- 4. Where are we? Level Dimension Macro National environment Mezzo Institutional environment Micro Learning environment Pedagogical Technological Organizational
- 5. SWOT analysis Level Dimension Macro National environment Mezzo Institutional environment Micro Learning environment Pedagogical Technological Organizational
- 6. Select your e-learning approach Extended classroom Blended learning Distributed learning Substitution Innovation Transforma-tion
- 14. Validate your e-learning project goals Level Dimension Macro National environment Mezzo Institutional environment Micro Learning environment Pedagogical Technological Organizational
- 17. IS development phases initiation expansion consolidation integration transform. costs time
- 24. Logical framework outcomes objectives activities inputs planning Context analysis
- 27. Phasing options Level of complexity Level of uncertainty low linear parallel: - sub-projects - simultaneous high cyclic: - development - version low high
Editor's Notes
- Often no clear demarcation/some overlap between cells!! We will discuss each cell, for general (in terms of facilitating or inhibiting e-learning) as well as e-learning specific.
- Often no clear demarcation/some overlap between cells!! We will discuss each cell, for general (in terms of facilitating or inhibiting e-learning) as well as e-learning specific.
- Substitution, innovation, transformation: see before Individual lecturer = course level: e.g. no development teams, no content management, simple user-interface required. Department = programme level: agreement on interface standards (look and feel of courses for students the same), usually portal function required, ………… Institution = curriculum level: institutional policy on how to use, requires institutional support organization, often integration with portal, LCMS, administrative systems (registration, admission, student information, finances). Domains (knowledge areas), educational levels (primary, secondary, tertiary) and learning outcomes (facts, principles, rules, ……… Bloom & Gagné’s taxonomy; knowledge, skills, attitudes) Gap to bridge: the wider, the more complex, and also: what are second-order prerequisites and inhibitors? Institutional e-learning provision, or (national) e-learning resources centre? Requires different roles and functions; organizational affiliations; funding mechanisms/business model!!
- Relates to the options for solutions - given the scope and size - to be implemented. Example integratedness: group work requires certain electronic services and organizational procedures to support/tutor groups.
- Often no clear demarcation/some overlap between cells!! We will discuss each cell, for general (in terms of facilitating or inhibiting e-learning) as well as e-learning specific.
- Free interpretation of Nolan’s stage hypothesis. With new technology a new cycle starts Dutch HE institutions mostly in consolidation phase Initiation: a few enthusiastic individuals take the lead: tend to be lecturers with a technological bias and interested in educational innovation. Experimenting thrives in an open environment, without management interference. Expansion: the idea is catching on; different systems (hard- and software) and approaches proliferate; required investments grow! Consolidation: costs have grown to a level where management gets worried; incompatibility of systems and approaches begins to be ineffective; management starts regulating and employs professionals (ICT staff, educationalists, project managers); educational and technological roles and responsibilities are to be separated; interfacing between these different new roles/units becomes necessary; new structures are required: the result is often a break with the enthusiastic initiators of the first hour! Integration: E-learning has now become a common facility and is part of the core process; its efficiency and effectiveness is further finetuned, and further integration with other systems (support processes) is promoted (LCMS, admission and registration, SIS, FIS, MIS) to increase efficiency. Coordination between academic and administrative units is required, middle-managers play a prominent role!! Transformation: the core process is being changed as a result of technological opportunities; as a result the whole organization changes. Note 1: phases may differ between and within hierarchical levels, and between and within units! Note 2: phases may also differ between types of technology employed within the organization: the ‘hard’ ICT technology often is ahead of the ‘soft’ educational technology. Note 3: Because the ICT technology is often ahead of the educational technology, a support function (ICT) tends to dominate discussion on a core function (teaching & learning).
- When in a development team
- Self-directed learner: only relatively, depending on the level of personalisation. Study discipline: only relatively, becomes more demanding with full distance learning. Basic computer skills (technical): windows, www, VLE-operation, downloading and installation. Asynchronous communication and cooperation skills and attitudes: especially in oral cultures, and with large power-distance between people, this may initially be a problem.
- Bottom-up: provides opportunities for new solutions to emerge; fosters commitment; has to fit the organizational culture; may lead to anarchy; may lead to personal hobby-horses; may never lead to completion. Top-down: relatively easy to manage and monitor; difficult to plan everything in advance. Often used after the pilot phase, for institution-wide implementation. Push activities = ‘designed’ implementation activities and tools. Pull activities = target is clear, but the activities and tools to get there are open: reward initiative instead of ‘proper’ behaviour. Phased = phased according to scope, size or complexity! Mix: being used in Dutch higher education (consolidation phase). Central goals and support, but decentralised implementation.
- Uncertainty determined by: - clarity of expected end-result - the possibility to define the problem and generate solutions - the stability and accessibility of the environment - ……….. Complexity determined by: - functionality - technical aspects - methods and tools used - the organisational environment - the availability of time, staff, means
- The emphasis tends to change as you move through the project life-cycle from initiation to planning to coordination to control. However, none of these activities is exclusive to a certain stage (refer back to slide of project life-cycle). Control and steering is possible on: - time - money - organisation - quality - information
- Leerdoel: Begrijpen van de samenhang tussen een aantal organisatie-culturele kenmerken en het selectie- en implementatie- en gebruiksproces van een ELO. Aantal hiërarchische lagen: Power-distance (m.n. tussen studenten en docenten, rolopvatting) Academische cultuur De docent als koning in zijn klas Typering van universiteiten
- Given the fact that all obvious prerequisites are met, it is still possible that your project fails, bacause: Wanting too much: individuals and organizations can only handle change in small bits; don’t lose sight of the real problem you want to solve! Wanting too little: not capitalising on additional easy wins. Institutional and individual inhibitors: even when policy documents are available, infrastructure is in place, training funds are available etc., the project can still fail because of ‘hidden’ inhibitors.