1. ByS K Pulist, Ph D Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi, INDIA

2. eLearning completely online, blended learning (mix of face-to-face and online), and use of online tools as supplementary to face-to- face for some activities. 2 3. How is eLearning doing? How are different activities managed? What are the challenges andopportunities?3 4. Commonwealth Asian countries Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, India, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Singapore and Sri Lanka 4 5. To compile eLearning countryprofile; To review growth and development of eLearning programmes; To identify nature of programmes offered through eLearning; To identify the policy initiatives 5 6. To identify the eLearning policy forpeople with disabilities; To find out the measures to maintain quality; and To analyse use of technologies and pedagogical practices. 6 7. Online Survey (7600) Responses Received = 221 Relevant Responses = 211 Descriptive analysis andinterpretation Secondary Data: Reports, Websites, articles 7 8. Focus on Commonwealth Asian Countries No response from BruneiEmail - only channel of contact Not good response (221/7600-2.7%) Limitation of data which has been analysed 8 9. Respondents Malaysia (52%) India (25%) Pakistan (14%) 3%3% 2%1%Malaysia14%India Pakistan 52% 25%Maldives BangladeshSingapore Sri Lanka9 10. Major Roles performed Teachers (76%) eContent Developers (32%) System Administrators (16%) 76%32%1% As Camp us Mana9%Others1% Facult y Develo pereLearn ing system admieConte nt devel2% Coordi nator16%Teach er80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%10 11. Programme Disciplines Social Sciences (24.1%) Sciences (13.3%) Engg. & Technology (10.3%) 8.4%3.0%21.2% Social Sciences Sciences8.9%Engineering and Technology Medicine and Health Humanities9.4%Commerce and Management 24.1%Agriculture Others10.3%13.3%11 12. eLearning used for Blended mode (50.4%) Face-to-face (26.5%) Completely online (23.1%) 60.0%50.4%50.0% Completely online 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0%23.1%26.5% Blended mode (mix of faceto-face and online components) Face-to-face with some online components0.0%12 13. Adoption of eLearning Policy Yes (54.1%) No. (20.7%) Not Sure (25.2%)Not sure; 25.2%Yes; 54.1%No; 20.7%13 14. OthersResearch and developmentTraining and staff developmentQuality assuranceIncentive/appreciationContent developmentCopyright /LicensingEthical issuesAssessmentManagement4.4%45.6%64.7%50.0%23.5%61.8%45.6%36.8%58.8%63.2%47.1%70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Governance eL Policy Provisions Trg & Development (64.7%) eL Management (63.2%) Content Development (61.8%)14 15. eL Policy implementation Through specific Unit (91%) Centralised budget (80%) Autonomy (66%) 100%91%90%80%80% 66%70% No Yes60% 50% 40%34%30% 20% 10%20% 9%0% The e-learning policy is implemented through a Specified UnitThe policy provides for autonomy to all Units to manage their programmesThe budget for e-learning activities is centralised15 16. 8% 7% 6%Software procurement/ Training programmes91%67%33% 14%9%80% 85%20% 15%Maintenance/troub leshooting86%Revision of econtent94%e-Content development/93%System development/92%Research and development94%Consultancy service charges6%Hardware procurement/120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%Physical infrastructure eL Budget provides for Training & Dev (94%) Infrastructural purchases (94%) Software (93%) 96% NoYes4%16 17. Copyright over eContent Institutions (67.3%) Faculty/developer (10.2%) Joint Copyright (9.2%) 8.2%5.1% Institution9.2% Individual Shared/joint10.2% 67.3%e-content is released under OER license Others17 18. OER Policy Not sure (61.2%) No OER Policy (20%) No rights reserved (5.9%) OER Policy adopted (3.6% 1.2%9.4%Not sure2.4%No OER Policy adopted yet5.9%No rights reserved CC-BY 20% 61.2%CC-BY-NC-ND Others18 19. Policy on Differently abled Yes (28% No (35%) Not Sure (35%) Not sure; 35% Yes; 28%No; 37%19 20. Programme QA Through committees (31.7%) Individual Units (22.8%) Set quality indictors (19.8%) 7.9%31.7%12.9%Advisory/Monitoring Body/Committee is appointed Some outside agency is engaged to monitor this aspect Quality indicators are set and individuals maintain them Individual functional e-learning units have their own standards No such activity is undertaken22.8%5.0% Others 19.8%20 21. eContent QA Individual teachers (40%) Quality Control Unit (28.4%) Quality Assurance Group (18.9%) 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%37.9%Quality control unit28.4% 18.9%Quality assurance group 9.5% 5.3%Individuals are responsible No mechanism Others21 22. Coordination of eL activities Designated unit (36.1%) Central committee (30.9%) Functional unit (26.8%) 6.2% 30.9% 26.8%36.1%Coordinated through a central committee/body Specified unit coordinates the e-learning activities All eLearning functional units are responsibility Others22 23. Widely used LMS Moodle (46.2%) Own LMS (9.9%) Not Sure (13.2%) 8.8%Moodle 13.2%Inhouse developed Blackboard2.2%46.2%WebStudy ATutor3.3%iFolio3.3%Clarolin5.5%Not sure Others 7.7% 9.9%23 24. 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Others37.8%Search tools (like search engines, etc)54.4%Teaching/ presentation tools (like68.9%e-Content / files uploading tools (like server, video42.2%Editing tools (like screen capture, flashAssessment tools (like quiz makers, rubrics, et56.7%Calendar58.9%News and Social ForumsAdministrative tools (like databases, payme60.0%Student collaborative tools (like Wiki, googleNavigation tools (like buttons, pointers, ico ns, URL, mindCommunication tools (like chat, email, instant LMS tools used Communication tools (86.7%) Assessment tools (68.9%) Content uploading tools (68.9%) 86.7% 68.9% 54.4% 37.8%7.8%24 25. Place to access LMS Home (84.6%) Computer Lab (78%) Access points (31.9%) 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%78%84.6%31.9% 17.6%Computer laboratories on the CampusHomeDesignated TeleLearning Centres/Hot Spots/Access PointsOthers25 26. Field visitsWorking projectsAssignmentsGroup discussionQuizzesSimulationsVideo/audio programmes1%1%2%4%26%17%19%66%57%42% 57%50% 48%80%69%63%48% 49%33%49% 44%31%19%12%5%7%3%90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% e-Content available on the LMS Printed reading material Components of ID Assignments (80%) Projects (57%) Quizzes (49%) NoneOptionalCompulsory26 27. Video Conferencing tool Skype (41%) Adobe Connect (18.8%) Google+/Hangout (16.7%) 45.0%41.7%40.0% 35.0%29.2%30.0% 25.0% 20.0%18.8%16.7%15.0%10.4%10.0%12.5% 4.2%5.0% 0.0% SkypeGoogle+ /HandoutsGoogle Open MeetingWizIQAdobe ConnectA-VIEWOthers27 28. Dissemination of eContent Through LMS (77%) Through Web (61%) Printed books (57%) 90% 80%77%70%61%60%57%50%41%40% 30% 20%10% 0% Learning Management SystemDownloadable from webPrinted booksUSB/Pen drive/CD28 29. C0mmon file format pdf (88.3%) ppt (67%) doc (56.4%) 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%88.3% 67.0% 56.4%21.3% 2.1% pdfpptdocxls5.3%odfOthers29 30. Multi-media file format mpeg (52.6%) mp3 (42.1%) wmv (39.5%) 60.0%52.6%50.0%42.1%40.0%39.5%34.2% 27.6%30.0% 20.0%6.6%10.0% 0.0% mpegmp3wmvmp4aviOthers30 31. Image file format jpeg (86.3%) gif (35%) png (21.3%) 100.0%86.3%80.0%60.0% 35.0%40.0% 20.0%21.3%16.3%5.0%0.0%tiffgifjpegpngOthers31 32. Streaming file format flv (47.5%) wmv (45.9%) swf (29.5%) 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%47.5%45.9%29.5% 18% 11.5% 6.6%6.6%1.6% swfflvasf1.6% rmwmvwmamovoggOthers32 33. 17.8% 3.3%OthersActivity is completely outsourcedStudents (their work is shared as part of case studies or in any other form)25.6%e-learning management system administratorsInstitutional Teachers90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Outside content developers Source of eContent Dev In-house teachers (77.8%) System Administrators (33.3%) External developers (25.6%) 77.8%33.3% 10.0%33 34. Authoring tools MS PowerPoint (22.2%) Camtasia Studio (15.6%) Flash (13.3%) 66.7%70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0%22.2% 20.0% 15.6%13.3% 10.0%8.9% 8.9% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 8.9% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% OthersNo ideaRaptivityMoodle interfaceHot potatoesDreamweav erOfficeHTMLArticulateWordCaptivateFlashCamtasiaPowerPoint0.0%34 35. eContent development Team Subject experts (88.1%) Authoring expert (52.4%) Educational Technologist (50%) 88.1%42.9%42.9%50%Simulation/a nimation expertsEducational technologistGraphic designerLanguage editorAuthoring expert21.4%10.7% Others52.4%Subject expert100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%35 36. 13.8% 7.5% 5.0%Other12.5%Some money put at the disposal for discretionary usePreference given in other developmentPurchase of additional books27.5%Preference given in career advancement27.5%No provision of special incentive/appre33.8%Monetary incentiveWeightage in performance appraisal50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Appreciation letter/ award Form of appreciation Appreciation letter (45%) Weightage in Appraisal (33.8%) Monetary incentive (27.5%) No provision (27.5%) 45.0% 23.8%36 37. Formative/Summative Eval Only Summative (18%) Only Formative (14%) Both (68%) 100%85%82% 68%50%0% SummativeSummative FormativeFormativeBothBoth37 38. Evaluation System Continuous Eval through LMS (83%) Term end Exam through LMS (64%) Paper based continuous Eval (78%) Paper based Term end Exam (83%) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%83%83%78% 64%No36% 17%Continuous evaluation through LMSYes22%Term End Examinations through LMSPaper based Continuous evaluation17%Paper based Term End Examination38 39. Eval system components Multi Choice questions (92%) Short answer questions (84%) Essay type questions (73%) All the above (38%) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%92%84% 73% 62% 38% 27%8%Multi-choice questionsNo Yes16%Short answer questionsEssay type questionsAll types39 40. Evaluation tools Written assignments (92%) Projects (87%) Quizzes (71%) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%92%87% 71%63% 36%43%47%6%Written assignmentsProjectsQuizzesTerm PaperOnline presentationField workAudio/Video PresentationsOthers40 41. Emphasis on eLearning (78.8%)User friendly LMS (65%) Emergence of eL culture (58.8%) Motivated faculty and staff (55%) Increasing interest in eL(47.5%) Availability of eContent (46.3%) Optimal technical support (45%) 41 42. Workload on teachers (56.1%) Lack of training (41.5%) Financial constraints (40.2%) Inadequate facilities (39%) Non-tech savvy persons (37.8%) Much involvement in F2F(34.1%) Lack of relevant content (34.1%) Lack of incentive (32.9%) 42 43. More eLearning programmes (80%) Diversification of eL programs (56.3%) Updating LMS (56.3%) Integration of social media (55%) Use of mobile technology (53.8%) Intelligent tutoring (38.8%) Geographical expansion of eL (37.5%) New eL support centres (36.3%) 43 44. eLearning on moving trend Lot of challenges Offered in blended mode Strong case for fully online programmes44 45. Explore online programmes Need to create awareness Efforts for inclusive growth Development of quality parameters Ensure parity/mobility in online programmes45 46. Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia (CEMCA), COL, New Delhi (INDIA)46 47. 47