O5.1.1

=E-learning technology and pedagogy decisions are guided by an explicit e-learning development plan. =

Evidence
E-learning is a new reality that expands understandings of teaching and learning practice, because ‘e-learning represents a very different category and mode of communication’ (Garrison and Anderson, 2003, pp. 1- 2). Such extraordinary change presents both opportunities and risks that call for complete and coherent articulation of institutional rationales and plans for e-learning’s complex role. A consistent rationale is presented in the literature, which positions learning first when considering educational technology and many studies and synopses of e-learning principles commence with a review of pedagogical concepts. Bates and Poole (2003), for example, state that ‘choice and use of technology are absolutely dependent on beliefs and assumptions about the nature of knowledge, how our subject discipline should be taught, and how students learn’ (p. 25). They add, however, that in reality few higher education teachers have learned how to teach.

Evidence of capability in this practice is seen in definition and use of an explicit course or programme elearning development plan. This plan should be formally developed and endorsed by the institutional leadership. Alignment with institutional strategies and plans is essential as is the consideration of business issues such as risk assessments and quality assurance. Teaching staff should be supported in both the development of plans and their application in specific contexts.

Bates (2007) describes the transition to e-learning at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology. Instructors in academic departments indicated in discussions that they wanted to see a set of core values and principles for the development of e-learning if any plan was to receive their support. They wanted assurance of job security, without workload increases. Some examples of the core values agreed upon are:

1.	E-learning will be used only where there are clearly identified benefits (educational, financial, strategic positioning, etc.). 2.	Decisions about appropriate use of e-learning is an academic decision to be made at departmental level, but based on knowledge and understanding of the strengths and limitations of e-learning. 3.	E-learning is not being used to replace instructors but to strengthen their role in teaching and learning. 4.	Increase in workload for instructors and students is to be avoided by following best practices in e-learning, which includes team work, quality assurance processes, new approaches to teaching and learning, organizational change, and project management. 5.	Instructors will have adequate time and resources for training in the use of e-learning. 6.	E-learning materials and programs will be developed in a cost effective manner, although costs will vary depending on the market and the requirements of the subject matter.

By establishing this sort of plan, many potential points of conflict were avoided in the transition to e-learning. The core values also provide a framework to evaluate and guide decisions in an environment of trust.

Bates (2007) explains how a mandate for e-learning planning from the executive management committee coupled with a detailed rationale for e-learning can smooth the transition to e-learning in an institution. The plan at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology described by Bates was to ‘provide a means by which SAIT could meet the increased market demand, particularly for workplace training, and increase overall student numbers, without the full cost of additional physical facilities’ (p. 53).

Resources
Australian government ‘innovate and integrate’ plan: http://innovateandintegrate.flexiblelearning.net.au/

Suzuki & Tada (2009) draw upon relevant instructional design literature and propose a five tiered hierarchical model for ensuring quality in e-learning course design. Their model places easy to use, friendly information design at the heart of the model (tier 3), with exactness of content and a ‘painless’ well functioning technological infrastructure below that. At the higher tiers they advocate ensuring learning effectiveness with learner support and appropriate structure and sequence of the course, and finally at tier 5, ensuring that students are engaged, motivated and willing to learn. These authors explain the major instructional design techniques necessary for achieving these goals of instructional design. They include: Learning environment analysis; Needs, task and content analysis; Rapid prototyping and formative evaluation; Structuring and sequencing; Aesthetic design, androgogy, and serious games among others. The model is then applied to an existing course to see how it measures up, and how it might be improved. They emphasize high performance technology, sharing a set of course design policies among professors, relationships among courses to be kept in mind, alignment of the course with professional requirements. They also note the need for a series of studies [or information collected by an institution], aiming at determining learning outcomes and satisfaction measures for students taking courses designed using this model.