Encyclopedia ofDistance Learning

Caroline HowardCaroline HowardCaroline HowardCaroline HowardCaroline HowardTouro University International,USA

Judith V. BoettcherJudith V. BoettcherJudith V. BoettcherJudith V. BoettcherJudith V. BoettcherUniversity of Florida, USA

Lorraine JusticeLorraine JusticeLorraine JusticeLorraine JusticeLorraine JusticeHong Kong PolytechnicUniversity, Hong Kong

Karen SchenkKaren SchenkKaren SchenkKaren SchenkKaren SchenkK.D. Schenk AssociatesConsulting, USA

Hershey • London • Melbourne • SingaporeIDEA GROUP REFERENCE

Patricia L. RogersPatricia L. RogersPatricia L. RogersPatricia L. RogersPatricia L. RogersBemidji State University, USA

Gary A. BergGary A. BergGary A. BergGary A. BergGary A. BergCalifornia State UniversityChannel Islands, USA

Acquisitions Editor: Renée DaviesDevelopment Editor: Kristin RothSenior Managing Editor: Amanda AppicelloManaging Editor: Jennifer NeidigCopy Editors: Maria Boyer, Jane Conley, Renée Davies, Julie LeBlanc and Shanelle RamelbTypesetters: Diane Huskinson, Sara Reed and Larissa ZearfossSupport Staff: Amanda Kirlin, Dorsey Howard and Michelle PotterCover Design: Lisa TosheffPrinted at: Yurchak Printing Inc.

Published in the United States of America byIdea Group Reference (an imprint of Idea Group Inc.)701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Suite 200Hershey PA 17033Tel: 717-533-8845Fax: 717-533-8661E-mail: cust@idea-group.comWeb site: http://www.idea-group-ref.com

and in the United Kingdom byIdea Group Reference (an imprint of Idea Group Inc.)3 Henrietta StreetCovent GardenLondon WC2E 8LUTel: 44 20 7240 0856Fax: 44 20 7379 3313Web site: http://www.eurospan.co.uk

Copyright © 2005 by Idea Group Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed inany form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.

Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products orcompanies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI of the trademark or registered trademark.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Encyclopedia of distance learning / Caroline Howard ... [et al.]. p. cm. Summary: "This encyclopedia offers the most comprehensive coverage of the issues, concepts, trends, and technologies ofdistance learning. More than 450 international contributors from over 50 countries"--Provided by publisher.

Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 1-59140-555-6 (hardcover) -- ISBN 1-59140-554-8 (ebook)

1. Distance education--Encyclopedias. I. Howard, Caroline.LC5211.E516 2005371.35'03--dc22

2005004507

British Cataloguing in Publication DataA Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

All work contributed to this encyclopedia set is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this encyclopedia setare those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

1110

���������� ��������#������������

Jane E. KlobasUniversity of Western Australia, Australia and Boccini University, Italy

Stefano RenziBocconi University, Italy

Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc., distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI is prohibited.

INTRODUCTION

While virtual universities and remote classrooms havecaptured the headlines, there has been a quiet revo-lution in university education. Around the globe, theinformation and communications technology (ICT)infrastructure needed to support Web-enhanced learn-ing (WEL) is well established, and the Internet and theWorld Wide Web (the Web) are being used byteachers and students in traditional universities inways that complement and enhance traditional class-room-based learning (Observatory of BorderlessEducation, 2002).

The Web is most frequently used by traditionaluniversities to provide access to resources—as asubstitute for, or complement to, notice boards,distribution of handouts, and use of the library (Collis& Van der Wende, 2002). Therefore, most of thechange has been incremental rather than transforma-tional. Adoption of WEL has yet to meet its poten-tial—some would say the imperative (Bates, 2000;Rudestam & Schoenholtz-Read, 2002)—to changethe nature of learning at university and to transformthe university itself.

BACKGROUND

WEL makes a difference when it is used to improvelearning, for example, when it is used to enablecollaborative learning (Hamilton & Zimmerman, 2002;Klobas & Renzi, 2003; Rudestam & Schoenholtz-Read, 2002). Nonetheless, computer-supported col-laborative learning (CSCL) that makes a differencedoes not require expensive technologies (Hazemi &Hailes, 2002; Hiltz & Turoff, 2002).

To achieve effective, substantial, system-widechange through the adoption of new educationaltechnology, universities must pay attention to more

than the ICT infrastructure. Attention must also bepaid to educational values, resources, and transfor-mation of educational processes and organizationalstructure. Thus, WEL is more than new software andsystems—it is organizational innovation.

Observers of the effect of technological change onuniversities emphasize the factors associated witheffective change. These factors include reexamina-tion of assumptions about pedagogy (Leidner &Jarvenpaa, 1995; Rudestam & Schoenholtz-Read,2002), vision and leadership to implement large-scaleorganizational change (Bates, 2000), adequate finan-cial resources (Surry, 2002), attention to develop-ment of human resources and reward systems (Collis& Van der Wende, 2002; Pollock & Cornford, 2000),student aptitude and preparation (Palloff & Pratt,2002), and professional management of suppliers aswell as internal ICT infrastructure (Klobas & Renzi,2003). Less is known about the process of change.

Rogers (1995) proposes a generic model of theprocess of organizational innovation. Innovation isinitiated through identification of organizational prob-lems and the matching of potential innovations withproblems. The relevant innovation may be an idea, aprocess, a technology, or a combination of these(Spence, 1994). The end of the initiation period ismarked by a decision to adopt (or reject) the innova-tion. Subsequently, during the implementation pe-riod, the innovation and the organization undergosome mutual redefinition (Orlikowski, 1992), theorganizational role of the innovation is clarified, andits use finally becomes such a familiar part of theorganization’s activities that it is no longer recogniz-able as an innovation. Table 1 summarizes theseaspects of the innovation process.

In this article, we study the process of WELadoption at a traditional university using Rogers’(1995) model of organizational innovation as theorganizing framework. More detail of the case study

1111

Innovation in Web-Enhanced Learning

�

described here can be found in Klobas and Renzi(2003).

A CASE STUDY IN EDUCATIONALINNOVATION

In 1998, Bocconi University, a private (non-profit)business university in Milan, Italy, announced theadoption of WEL to support new approaches toteaching. At the time, this single faculty university hadaround 12,000 students and a well-developed ICTinfrastructure for Internet access. Quality of educa-tion is important to the University, which has areputation for high standards and outstanding comple-tion rates.

Agenda Setting

Several events contributed to setting the agenda forthe change. In 1997, the Italian government an-nounced significant changes to the educational sys-tem. Instead of offering the centuries-old mix of short(three-year) and long (four- to six-year) first degrees,a two-tiered system of a three-year first degree plusa two-year higher degree would be offered from theacademic year beginning in October 2001. At thesame time, the University was planning for significantgrowth and examining ways to further improve thequality of education.

Matching

The University was aware, through teachers’ experi-ments with online learning and multimedia, of thepotential for e-learning platforms to enable moreactive student involvement in learning. In May 1998,the University’s Multimedia Committee established aworking party to introduce a platform for WEL. Thecross-functional working party consisted of all thepeople needed to implement an initial pilot project,including pilot teachers, the group in charge of tech-nological infrastructure design and implementation,and those responsible for computer center operations.The working party was thus able to monitor, from itsinitiation, all aspects of project feasibility. The mostsenior figures in University administration (the Man-aging Director) and teaching and learning (the Pro-Rettore for teaching) participated in working partymeetings where key decisions were to be made.Information was therefore exchanged directly anddecisions made quickly. All involved in the projectwere personally involved in planning and sharedresponsibility for project’s success.

Goal Setting

Throughout the matching period, and indeed through-out the project, the innovation was defined as e-learning or WEL for on-campus students, rather thansoftware adoption. The project was therefore a busi-

Table 1. Rogers’ (1995) model of organizational innovation

STAGE ACTIVITIES I. INITIATION Agenda-setting The organization becomes aware of problems that

are perceived to require resolution through some form of innovation

Matching A fit is found between a problem from the organization’s agenda and a specific innovation

DECISION The organization decides to implement the innovation (or not to go ahead)

II . IMPLEMENTATION Re-defining/

Re-structuring The innovation is re-defined and the organization re-structured in a mutual process of reinvention and restructuration as a fit is sought between the innovation and the organization

Clarification The relationship between the organization and the innovation is clarified

Routinizing The innovation becomes routine

1112

Innovation in Web-Enhanced Learning

ness project, driven by business goals, and imple-mented through new ICT. The long-term vision was toimprove the quality of teaching and learning at theUniversity. The short-term goal was to introduce WELin a limited number of pilot courses, commencing in thefirst semester of the 1999-2000 academic year.

The first actions of the working party were toidentify the critical technical elements in an e-learningproject and a model for representing different uses ofthe World Wide Web to enhance the learning of on-campus students. Critical technical elements includedthe availability of PCs, provision of laboratories,network bandwidth, remote connections, and training.Drawing on Angerhn’s (1999) classification of Internetbusiness strategies as creating virtual spaces for infor-mation, communication, distribution, and transactions(the ICDT model), the working party defined fiveprofiles of use of the Web to enhance on-campuslearning (Table 2).

All courses at Bocconi already had a traditionalWeb presence. The project was therefore concernedwith enabling more complex uses, in particular, use ofthe interactive Web (level 3) and CSCL (level 4)profiles. This approach was endorsed by senior man-agement in August 1998.

Software Selection

Two strategies were used to identify software thatmight meet the University’s needs: benchmarkingduring visits to other leading business universities, and

presentations from major software and system sup-pliers. Microsoft and IBM were invited to submitpreliminary proposals. A Microsoft solution wouldinvolve development of a custom-made system,while the IBM solution was based on IBM-LotusLearningSpace.

Decision

In January, after meetings with the suppliers, work-ing party opinion was split between the two solutions.The dilemma was referred to senior management,who opted for LearningSpace but also allowed ex-perimentation with Microsoft-based development.This approach would reduce the risk associated withinitial implementation because IBM—a long-termsupplier of significant systems to the University —would act as lead partner across the whole project,managing network capacity planning, server con-figuration, software installation, tuning and monitor-ing of the system, on-site support, and training oftechnical staff, teachers, and students. At the sametime, it supported development of innovative, cus-tom-built systems without exposing these systemsand the University to the risk associated with testingand development for large-scale implementation.

Redefinition

The implementation process began with the workingparty’s definition of the technical and human require-

Table 2. Hierarchy of WEL use profiles

Levela Label Use 1 Traditional web An environment to inform about the course.

The course web site usually available at universities, containing course description, book lists, timetable, teacher name(s) and contact details, exam procedures and calendar.

2 Advanced webb An environment to distribute educational material. Content is more dynamic, put online from time by time during the course. Content may include: educational material used by teachers in the classroom (slides, case studies, newspaper articles, site URLs related to course content), text of past exams, exam solutions, communication from teachers and the University.

3 Interactive web A bi-directional interactive environment. Teacher-student and student-student interactions based mainly on course forums, resource contributions, self evaluation tests, delivery of assignments, and secure online exams.

4 CSCL A CSCL (Computer Supported Collaborative Learning) environment with learning in student groups. Supports collaborative group learning and activities that go beyond those possible with simple course forums. Activities may include group projects that involve sharing materials or preparation of joint documents.

5 Experimental An experimental environment for pilot applications and testing new ideas. Available for teachers to experiment with new tools or technological solutions.

a. Use at each level includes uses at each preceding level; b. This level was later split into two: a) distribution of standard course material, and b) distribution of additional material by individual class teachers

1113

Innovation in Web-Enhanced Learning

�ments for implementation in February-April. Therisk associated with introducing a technologicallycomplex new system at the beginning of the aca-demic year, with relatively large numbers of stu-dents enrolling and placing a heavy and somewhatunpredictable load on the system, was sufficientlyhigh that other aspects of project initiation weredesigned to be as low-risk as possible. Three courseswere selected for pilot implementation in the firstsemester of the 1999-2000 academic year. Alto-gether, around 500 students in five classes wereinvolved. Specific teachers were chosen becausethey already had considerable experience in use oftechnology in education. The computer center teamthat already supported teachers acted as projectmanager and interface with the supplier.

Initial Redefinition of Teaching andLearning

Redefinition of teaching and learning began withteacher training. The training combined online coursedesign with software skills. Trainers advised teacherson ways to use the software to meet their educationalgoals. All pilot courses were at least partially rede-signed to include CSCL activities for students such asdirected online discussions, collaborative online groupwork and in-class group presentations.

By the first day of semester in September 1999,initial course materials were loaded, the system hadbeen tested, and load simulations done. The informa-tion technology infrastructure had been upgraded, aLotus Domino server was activated, and the building’soffice had fitted out two new classrooms with PCsdedicated to project activities. Online LearningSpacecourses were developed for students, and a tutor wasassigned to each of the classrooms. There was astrong sense of camaraderie among those who hadplanned for the start-up, a recognition that someteething problems were inevitable, and a commitmentto identify and resolve problems rapidly.

Some Technology Redefinition

As use of the system increased to peak load during theinitial weeks of semester, response times deterio-rated. Monitoring tools revealed bandwidth satura-tion at a critical point in the network. In a combined

action, the computing center and IBM rapidly in-stalled and configured a second server and re-allo-cated resources within the University network. Thissolved the problem and provided information withwhich to review some components of the systemarchitecture and plan additional features to balancethe load.

Mutual Redefinition of Technology andTeaching

The educational success of the pilot implementationwas monitored during the semester and in formal end-of-semester evaluations. Across all the courses, 77%of participating students agreed that they would likeother courses at the university to adopt WEL. Redefi-nition of university education began for these studentsas they adopted and adjusted to the new ways oflearning introduced in these courses.

The pilot demonstrated that LearningSpace wassuitable for CSCL (level 4), but would it also besuitable for more simple uses of WEL? The platformwas tested with the advanced Web (level 2) profileduring a second pilot semester. All 2000 studentsenrolled in a large, core unit were issued the sameusername and password, enabling them to downloadcourse material and participate anonymously in courseforums. Both staff and students regarded this trial asa success; it provided a simple system for givingstudents timely course materials and an optionalforum for discussion.

The success of the first year, from the points ofview of system reliability, ease of use, student de-mand, and learning outcomes, produced an unex-pected outcome—teachers who had not participatedin the first-year trials began to request LearningSpacesfor their courses. By the end of the third year (2001-2002), 25% of the University’s courses were sup-ported by LearningSpace and a significant proportionof the student body had used the system for at leastone course.

As new teachers adopted WEL and LearningSpace,they too redefined their modes of teaching and learn-ing; 94% of all courses that used LearningSpaceincorporated some form of active learning (adoptingeither an interactive Web or CSCL profile), and only6% used it just to distribute course materials (ad-vanced Web). The technology had enabled and en-

1114

Innovation in Web-Enhanced Learning

couraged teachers to adopt more varied approachesto teaching and learning than they had used in thepast. Where the teachers incorporated more activelearning in their courses, students expressed highsatisfaction with learning technology and a desire tohave it adopted more widely across the university.

Clarification

Clarification of the relationship between the Univer-sity and the innovation began when the most activeLearningSpace teachers met in July 2001 to reflecton their experiences during the first two years. Theydeveloped a list of suggestions for enhancement ofWEL at the University, including:

• suggested migration paths for teachers movingfrom traditional classroom teaching to WEL;

• suggested migration paths for teachers movingfrom simple to more complex uses of WEL;

• increased technical support for teachers wishingto adopt WEL;

• deeper analysis of the relative roles of teachers,tutors, and other support staff as the modes andmethods of teaching and learning change;

• incentives for teachers; and• other structural redefinition to underpin and

sustain the redefinition of educational methodand technology that occurred during the previ-ous two years.

These issues were reiterated in a review work-shop in June 2002.

Routinizing

Routinizing is occurring at a different rate at differentlayers of adoption. For individual teachers and stu-dents, WEL became routine during the first course inwhich it was used. Once a teacher has usedLearningSpace in one class, it seems natural for himor her to use it in other courses that he or she teaches.Student pressure on teachers to adopt LearningSpaceis an expression of how its use is routine for thestudents. At the organizational level, routinizing be-gan when the computer center, without questioning,activated LearningSpace for any teacher who re-quested it. Nonetheless, the teachers’ suggestions forchange indicate that several issues related to peda-

gogy, organizational structure, and reward systemsneed to be resolved if WEL is to become routine.

Success Factors

The case study described in this article confirms otherauthors’ observations about the factors associatedwith success of educational technology in universi-ties. A clear vision of the required educational change,reliable ICT, and training of staff and students allcontributed to the early success of the project. Bystudying the process of innovation, we have also beenable to identify operational issues associated withsuccess. These include a strong and well-definedrelationship with the technology partner, and leader-ship by staff with knowledge and experience ofeducational innovation, supported by an active steer-ing committee that is representative of all the groupsand points of view needed for successful implemen-tation. Ongoing success, however, will require greaterattention to support for radical change in pedagogyand organizational structure and associated changesin staffing structure and reward systems.

FUTURE TRENDS

Recognition that WEL is an organizational innovationunderlines the significance of the organizational andpedagogical change that accompanies its implementa-tion. Both university and technology will undergochanges as teachers, students, and administrators gainmore experience with WEL. Until WEL becomesroutine, universities need to be aware of the processof mutual redefinition of organization and technology,attending to the requirements of the organization aswell as to changes in pedagogy and ICT if the potentialof WEL is to be achieved.

CONCLUSION

We have presented a case study in educational inno-vation and confirmed that management vision, lead-ership, appropriate technology, planning, training,teamwork, and project management all play a role insuccess. A successful project is, however, insufficientfor successful innovation. Pedagogy and the univer-sity itself undergo change as both technology and

1115

Innovation in Web-Enhanced Learning

�organization are redefined during implementation.To achieve transformational change that goes be-yond current incremental changes, universities needto recognize, support , and manage therestructuration, redefinition, and clarification thatare part of the process of organizational innovationthat is WEL.

REFERENCES

Angerhn, A. (1999). Designing mature Internet busi-ness strategies: The ICDT model. European Manage-ment Journal, 15(4), 361-369.

Bates, A.W.T. (2000). Managing technologicalchange: Strategies for college and university lead-ers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Collis, B. & Van der Wende, M. (2002). Models oftechnology and change in higher education: Aninternational comparative survey on the current andfuture use of ICT in higher education (Report).Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente,Center for higher Education Policy Studies.

Hamilton, S. & Zimmerman, J. (2002). Breakingthrough zero-sum academics. In K.E. Rudestam & J.Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.), Handbook of online learn-ing: Innovations in higher education and corporatetraining, (pp. 257-276). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hazemi, R. & Hailes, S. (2002). Introduction. In R.Hazemi & S. Hailes (Eds.), The digital university:Building a learning community. London: Springer.

Hiltz, S.R. & Turoff, M. (2002). What makes learningnetworks effective? Communications of the ACM,(4), 56-59.

Klobas, J.E. & Renzi, S. (2003). Integrating onlineeducational activities in traditional courses: Univer-sity-wide lessons after three years. In A. K. Aggarwal(Ed.), Web-based education: Learning from experi-ence, (pp. 415-439). Hershey, PA: Information Sci-ence Publishing.

Leidner, D.E. & Jarvenpaa, S.L. (1995). The use ofinformation technology to enhance management schooleducation: A theoretical view. MIS Quarterly, 19(3),265-291.

Observatory of Borderless Education. (2002). OnlineLearning in Commonwealth Universities. RetrievedDecember 13, 2003, from: www.obhe.ac.uk

Orlikowski, W.J. (1992). The duality of technology:Rethinking the concept of technology in organiza-tions. Organization Science, (3), 398-427.

Palloff, R M. & Pratt, K. (2002). Beyond the lookingglass: What faculty and students need to be successfulonline. In K. E. Rudestam & J. Schoenholtz-Read(Eds.), Handbook of online learning: Innovations inhigher education and corporate training, (pp.171-184). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pollock, N. & Cornford, J. (2000). Theory andpractice of the virtual university. Ariadne (24).Online: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue24/virtual-universities

Rogers, E.M. (1995). The diffusion of innovations(4th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Rudestam, K.E. & Schoenholtz-Read, J. (2002).The coming of age of adult online education. In K.E.Rudestam & J. Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.), Handbookof online learning: Innovations in higher educationand corporate training, (pp. 3-28). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Spence, W.R. (1994). Innovation: The communi-cation of change in ideas, practices and prod-ucts. London: Chapman & Hall.

Surry, D.W. (2002). A model for integrating in-structional technology into higher education.Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, NewOrleans, LA.

KEY TERMS

Adoption: The decision to implement an innova-tion.

Agenda Setting: Recognition of a problem thatmay be solved through innovation.

Collaborative Learning: Learning that occursthrough the exchange of knowledge among learners.

1116

Innovation in Web-Enhanced Learning

Implementation of an Innovation: The pro-cess of mutually fitting innovation and organizationto one another until the fit is so good that the (former)innovation is routine.

Innovation: (noun) A new technology, idea orprocess; (verb) The process of identifying, adoptingand implementing a new technology, idea or process.

Matching: The process of finding a fit between anorganizational problem and an innovation to resolvethe problem.

Redefinition: The process by which an innova-tion is redefined to fit the organization during itsimplementation. See also Restructuration.

Restructuration: The process of structuralchange associated with an organization’s implemen-tation of an innovation.

Routinizing::The final stage in the innovationprocess; the innovation becomes part of the organi-zational routine.

Web-Enhanced Learning (WEL): Use of theWorld Wide Web (Web) to provide students studyingin the classroom with access to electronic resourcesand learning activities that would not be available tothem in traditional classroom-based study.