The e-Campus initiative at

the University of

Stellenbosch and the impact

on teaching and LearningThe Digital Academic Library: A Reality Check

1 November 2002

Antoinette van der Merweadvdm@sun.ac.za

AGENDA

The Digital Library: Do we make a difference? A. e-Campus Initiative

1. Rationale & process 2. Brief description3. Current projects

B. e-Learning Initiatives and the e-Learning Project1. E-Learning @ the US2. How is the e-Learning project implemented?3. Advantages 4. Challenges

Some suggested challenges

Digital Library Federation (DLF) defnition:

Digital libraries are organizations that provide the resources, including the specialized staff, to select, structure, offer intellectual access to interpret, distribute, preserve the integrity of, and ensure the persistence over time of collections of digital works so that they are readily and economically available for use by a defined community or set of communities.

Does the DL make a difference in the T&L process?

The broader context at the US:

The e-Campus initiative

RATIONALE AND PROCESS

• Integrated, coordinated approach to ensure: • effective integration of ICT in all business processes in

order to improve the quality of core functions of the University

• core academic business, services and “business business” operate on a single platform

• Initiative started in 1999• e-Campus Forum in June 2000

• Strategy & concrete action plans• Wide consultation

• November 2001: University Council• Acknowledged strategic importance• Special Funding

BRIEF DESCRIPTION

• Nine components• Management• Infrastructure• Support• Training• e-Learning• e-Information• e-Student Administration• e-Research• e-Services

• 26 projects

MANAGEMENT EvaluationCommunication

SUPPORT Helpdesk

TRAINING Office Automisation

E-LEARNING E-Learning & Teaching

E-INFORMATION E-Information resources Virtual Information space

E-RESEARCH Virtual Research Portal

E-STUD ADMIN E-YearbookE-Applications E-Registration

CURRENT PROJECTS

Portal

INFRASTRUCTURE

Data projectors

KiosksWebCT servers

Video conferenceMeta directory

Network bandwidth Backup routes

CD ROM accessNetwork points

E-SERVICES

E-Management info

E-FinancesE-Infrastructure

Student systems

E-Human Resources

e-LEARNING INITIATIVES &

THE E-LEARNING PROJECT

E-LEARNING @ US: WEBCT (ONE OPTION)• Lone Rangers• Beginning of 1999 - Introduction of WebCT• http://learn.sun.ac.za• Infrastructure

• 3 servers (WebCT 2002, Tygerberg 2002, WebCT modules under development)

• Statistics• Modules on WebCT 2002: 534• Students on WebCT 2002:14650• Modules on Tygerberg 2002: 105• Students on Tygerberg 2002: 1635 • Modules o WebCT Dev: 698

• Workshops• 8 General• 25 Departmental

STUDENTS USING WEBCT

786

10000

17000

52

5000

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

Feb-99 Aug-99 May-00 May-01 Aug-02

WHAT IS E-LEARNING USED FOR?

• On-Campus • Value-add to f2f teaching and learning

1. Good teaching & learning principles as main driver (Gartner - 3)

2. Students want it (Gartner - 2)3. Enhanced customer service (Gartner - 1)

• Ranges from “minimum presence”• Module framework and some form of communication on

the Web

• To very sophisticated • Advanced online content, interactivity, communication

and assessment

e-LEARNING PROJECT (2002)

• Part of e-Campus AND Strategy for Teaching & Learning

• 3 Year project• 2002: 30% of all modules have minimum electronic

presence• 2003: 40% …• 2004: 30% ...

• Minimum presence• Module outline (with outcomes) on web• Some form of electronic interaction (eg e-mail, Bulletin

Board)

PROCESS

• Febr 2002: Guidelines – e-Learning funding approved by Senate

• Febr 2002: Decentralize e-Learning project• Dean appoints person responsible in faculty• Dean reports back on targets in Feb 2003

ADVANTAGES

• E-Campus initiative as concrete framework• Emphasis on strategic importance of e-Learning • Monetary incentives• “Compulsory” workshops

• Focus on infrastructure and support for e-Learning• Integration (?)

CHALLENGES• Bottom-up vs Top-down• Specifying a “generic” minimum presence for a

University (top down!)• 10 Faculties with countless disciplines • Different needs / different priorities• Varying class sizes• Diverse student population• Diverse lecturer population (computer literacy)• Funding too much• Funding too little

• You “have to” attend a workshop / use e-learning• Resistance to new and “foreign” ways of doing things• Lecturers insecure• Time management of lecturers (want TIME not money)

• Teach them to fish vs give them a fish (give them a bite of the fish and then teach them)

• Decentralised approach to funding • Panic – no uniform guidelines• No uniformity in allocation of funding• Different time schedules

• Instructional design of modules• Integration of ICT, adding value vs another add-on

• Availability of assistants (pool of assistants vs subject specific assistants)

• Support – lecturer and student level• Sustainability of efforts – revision• Integration with digital library?

CHALLENGES

Some suggested challenges

for a bigger difference

1. Library integration with Course Management System (CMS)• Only 15% of surveyed institutions: Real Time (Gartner)

2. E-Learning and Library integration• 46% of all surveyed institutions: Already or planned in 12

Months (Gartner)

3. Infrastructure4. WINWINI - "what I need when I need it." (Students,

lecturers, researchers) (Carl Berger, Director of Instructional Technology, University of Michigan)

5. “Pull” and “push” technology• “Pull technology” - Open a browser, type in an address

and download the information

• “Push technology” - Computer automatically transfers new information on a given topic and sends me a message

Some suggested challenges for a bigger difference

INTERDEPENDENCE OF ELEMENTS

No innovation comes without strings attached. The more technologically advanced an innovation is, the more likely its introduction is to produce many consequences, some of them anticipated, but others unintended and hidden. A system is like a bowl of marbles: Move any one of its elements and the positions of the others are inevitably changed also. The interdependency is often not fully understood by the adopters of an innovation, and may not be comprehended by the change agents who introduce a new idea in a system.

Rogers (1995)