the further develop- ment of e-learning at uppsala university

O

The further develop-ment of e-learning at Uppsala University

Report of the e2014 working group

Ingrid

Maskinskriven text

Dnr UFV 2013/1558

UPPSALA UNIVERSITET THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF E-LEARNING AT UPPSALA UNIVERSITY

2014-12-19

2

Table of contents

1. Preface ___________________________________________________________________ 5

2. Executive summary ________________________________________________________ 6

3. Introduction_______________________________________________________________ 7

3.1 e2014 working group and activities _______________________________________ 8

3.2 International review of e2014 ____________________________________________ 9

4. E-learning: a definition and an ambition ______________________________________ 11

5. Efficient e-learning? _______________________________________________________ 11

5.1 Evidence-based e-learning ____________________________________________ 11

5.2 Conclusions ________________________________________________________ 12

6. The current status of e-learning at Uppsala University __________________________ 13

6.1 Background ________________________________________________________ 13

6.2 Status of e-learning at UU 2014 _________________________________________ 14

6.2.1 Strategy documents ___________________________________________ 14

6.2.1.1 Teaching and Learning at Uppsala University (2008) ___________ 15

6.2.1.2 Uppsala University Internationalisation Programme (2009) ______ 15

6.2.1.3 Handlingsplan för IT vid Uppsala universitet (Action plan for IT at UU, 2014) _________________________________________________ 15

6.2.2 An overview of resources _______________________________________ 15

6.2.3 Nodes for support and training ___________________________________ 16

6.3 The views of teachers and students at UU: a summary of the e-learning questionnaire16

6.3.1 Methods ____________________________________________________ 16

6.3.2 Results _____________________________________________________ 17

6.3.2.1 Pedagogical quality _____________________________________ 17

6.3.2.2 Technological systems __________________________________ 18

6.3.2.3 Quality of systems services _______________________________ 18

6.3.2.4 Use of e-learning and user satisfaction ______________________ 18

6.3.2.5 Balancing costs and benefits of e-learning ___________________ 18

6.3.2.6 Leadership ____________________________________________ 19

6.3.2.7 Wishes for the future ____________________________________ 19

6.3.2.8 The ISSM revisited _____________________________________ 19

7. Pathways for future development ___________________________________________ 20

7.1 Three areas of action _________________________________________________ 20


2014-12-19

3

7.2 Discussing trends, challenges and opportunities ____________________________ 20

7.2.1 Globalised learning ____________________________________________ 20

7.2.1.1 Competition for students _________________________________ 20

7.2.1.2 The worldwide university _________________________________ 21

7.2.1.3 The unbundling of higher education ________________________ 21

7.2.1.4 Recommendations ______________________________________ 21

7.2.2 New students ________________________________________________ 21

7.2.2.1 Life-long learning _______________________________________ 22

7.2.2.2 Larger, more heterogeneous student groups _________________ 22

7.2.2.3 Mobile learners ________________________________________ 22


7.2.3 A culture of openness and sharing ________________________________ 22

7.2.3.1 Open educational resources (OER) ________________________ 22

7.2.3.2 Open universities in an open society ________________________ 23

7.2.3.3 Recommendations: _____________________________________ 23

7.2.4 From distance pedagogy to blended learning _______________________ 23

7.2.4.1 Encouraging students to take control _______________________ 24

7.2.4.2 Flipped classrooms _____________________________________ 24

7.2.4.3 Renewal of learning spaces ______________________________ 25


7.2.5 Reflection and research: learning about e-learning ___________________ 25

7.2.5.1 Recommendation ______________________________________ 26

7.2.6 Equal opportunities/accessibility __________________________________ 26

7.2.6.1 Recommendation: ______________________________________ 26

7.3 Establishing a model for professional development _________________________ 26

7.3.1 In the company of colleagues ____________________________________ 27

7.3.2 Recommendation: _____________________________________________ 27

7.4 Renewing systems for e-learning ________________________________________ 28

7.4.1 Towards the internet of things, for e-learning ________________________ 28

7.4.2 Platforms ____________________________________________________ 29

7.4.2.1 The present situation ____________________________________ 29

7.4.2.2 A national initiative: the Ladok3 project ______________________ 30

7.4.2.3 The Student Portal and LMS solutions ______________________ 30

7.4.2.4 Conclusions ___________________________________________ 31


7.4.3 Multimedia production __________________________________________ 31

7.4.3.1 Recommendation: ______________________________________ 32


2014-12-19

4

7.4.4 Digital examinations ___________________________________________ 32

7.4.4.1 Recommendation: ______________________________________ 32

8. e2014 Recommendations in summary ________________________________________ 33

Globalised learning ___________________________________________ 33

New students ________________________________________________ 33

A culture of openness and sharing _______________________________ 33

From distance pedagogy to blended learning _______________________ 33

Reflection and research: learning about e-learning___________________ 34

Equal opportunities/accessibility _________________________________ 34

Establishing a model for professional development __________________ 34

Platforms ___________________________________________________ 34

Multimedia production _________________________________________ 34

Digital examinations __________________________________________ 34

9. References ______________________________________________________________ 35

Links ___________________________________________________________ 35

Supplement A ______________________________________________________________ 36

E-learning activities funded by the Vice-chancellor through e2014 _________________ 36

MOOCs _________________________________________________________ 36

Promoting models for sustainable knowledge transfer _____________________ 36

Supplement B ______________________________________________________________ 37

Results of e-learning questionnaire (in Swedish) ______________________________ 37

Supplement C ______________________________________________________________ 37

Analysis of the technical framework for central, web-based learning environments at UU (in Swedish) ______________________________________________________ 37


2014-12-19

5

1. Preface

The working group e2014 was assigned to enhance e-learning at Uppsala University: academically,

pedagogically, technologically and administratively (Dnr UFV 2013/1558). We have enjoyed

addressing the possibilities and challenges related to the present and future use of digital resources

in teaching and learning. The assignment is broad and several of our recommendations will require

additional work and investigations before they can be implemented.

Academically and pedagogically we have had many stimulating discussions on, for instance, how to

view e-learning in relation to learning (with or without an e). Research and education should

nourish each other and it is important to educate students with a scientific approach to knowledge

and learning, in particular as the use of digital resources increases. Our aim is to give

recommendations on what to improve and prioritize in the use of digital resources, in order for

Uppsala University to provide high quality research-based education globally – for a better world.

Technologically and administratively we are in a changing landscape and we will have to make

sensible choices and be ready for novelties, at the same time as benefits from previously invested

developments must be transferred into new systems. As they are developed further, via dialogue with

students, teachers, researchers and coworkers at UU, we must ensure that the technical and

administrative systems maintain high functionality, security and usability.

When gazing into the crystal ball of digital opportunities it is easy to feel like Alice in Wonderland

when the Red Queen tells Alice: “It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.” (L.

Carroll). However, once up and running we can be reflective and make well-informed choices on the

digital pathways to use so as to further increase the diversity and flexibility of methods we adopt.

This should make us better able to meet and interact with each and every student.

We would like to thank all the contributors and discussion partners of this work, who represent

members of sub-working groups, colleagues, students, seminar and workshop participants.

Uppsala 19th Dec 2014

On behalf of the e2014 group

Ingrid Ahnesjö Erik Björk

Chair Vice chair

Mats Cullhed Eva Pärt Enander

Secretariat Secretariat


2014-12-19

6

2. Executive summary Uppsala University (UU) should consider the continued and intensified development of e-learning

(i.e. the pedagogical integration of digital resources and tools into teaching and learning activities) as

an essential part of its educational strategy during the coming years. There are several justifications

for this:

Enhanced learning

E-learning solutions serve the growth of flexible and student-activating pedagogies, provide access

to a wealth of web-based resources, and permit students to engage in collaborative learning

experiences, across spatial barriers.

Increased efficiency

Well-designed systems simplify the workflow of the students and of the teachers, and will better

meet the demands of multiple learning styles and diversity in student groups.

Intellectual curiosity

The field of e-learning has entered an exciting phase, where discussions of the strengths and

weaknesses of different scenarios will move beyond exploration and into mature awareness. UU

should take its place among other research-intensive universities that benefit from the mutualism of

research and education, and empirically assess teaching and learning practices.

Collaboration and recruitment

Web-based platforms facilitate collaboration with other universities, in Sweden as well as abroad,

and contribute to developing both existing and emerging alliances. Through these networks, and by

reinforcing the University’s web presence through the creation of open courses and the sharing of

educational resources, UU can expect to attract an increasing number of Swedish and international

students.

Developmental potentials at UU

E-learning has been unevenly adopted within UU. At some departments, e-learning resources are

fully integrated within most educational activities. At others, many of these resources remain

unknown. Pedagogical e-learning support and competence development is required at all

organizational levels: evidence from educational research indicates that the most important

difference is not that between face-to-face and online delivery modes, but between good pedagogy

and bad pedagogy.

Many of the central, web-based systems for e-learning are aging and need to be re-made or replaced

within the next few years.

The production of e-learning material should be well supported and promoted.

The existing resources available on the web, for faculty and staff of UU, as well as for visitors from

other universities, include some excellent examples but these are difficult to locate online. This

should be improved.

UU should prioritize development in the areas of digital examinations, digital portfolios, flipped

class rooms and teaching through e-meetings.

Research efforts, including discipline-based educational research, should be promoted to understand

the teaching and learning benefits of e-learning.


2014-12-19

7

3. Introduction There is increasing diversity in how we learn and how we teach in higher education. In particular,

the increased use of digital resources (i.e., online activities, and devices such as computers, smart

phones, tablets, digital networks, etc.) provides new opportunities and challenges in the development

of learning, both on campus and in distance education. This calls for a renewed and strategic

development at Uppsala University (UU) to stimulate and increase the use of e-learning, with an

improved awareness of how this contributes to students’ learning, teachers’ development and the

role of the University.

The e2014 working group was tasked with academically, pedagogically, technologically and

administratively strengthening e-learning at Uppsala University (Dnr UFV 2013/1558), with the

following three main areas to approach:

Provide supporting material for strategic decisions on the future development of e-learning,

including recommendations and actions.

Initiate a three year project emerging from Campus Gotland to collaborate, test and provide

pedagogic development for online education, and distribute experiences and know-how

throughout the University.

Support and provide grounds for the development of three MOOCs in order to learn more

about this form of knowledge distribution.

E-learning opens up multifaceted possibilities for the improvement of higher education and

pedagogical development can be greatly empowered by the embracement of e-learning tools and

techniques, as identified by the CrED-report (Creative Educational Development at Uppsala

University 2010–2012). Furthermore, the new campus on Gotland highlights the need to share

experiences and develop e-learning, as well as improve the use of video-teaching/meetings and other

digital resources to bridge geographical distances. At the same time, the rapid global increase in

MOOCs (massive open online courses) demonstrates the potential to provide high quality digital

learning resources and prompts development in all spheres of education (i.e., not only MOOCs). The

aim is to provide diverse, flexible, innovative and well-chosen modes of teaching and learning at

UU, and to support and encourage pedagogical development via improved awareness and

appreciation of digital resources. This will help UU provide research-based education, globally and

locally, for a better world.

In a report to the European Commission on New modes of learning and teaching in higher education

(2014) it has been recommended that, “The integration of digital technologies and pedagogies should

form an integral element of higher education institutions’strategies for teaching and learning”.

Recommendations for enhanced digital capacity, digital skills and professional training were also

highlighted.

Within e-learning we include any learning that includes digital resources to some extent, thus both

“blended learning”, as well as completely internet-based education, neither of which is new to UU;

indeed, this is an area in which we have knowledge, experience and are already responsible for front-

line development. However, when employing e-learning there is particularly large variation among

students, teachers, departments and learning environments. The rapid development of digital

techniques and social media promotes this development but also necessitates frequent updates in

views and implementations.

Academic institutions are increasingly adopting e-learning and this process can be described by three

stages: (1) awareness/exploration; (2) adoption/early implementation; and (3) mature

implementation/growth (Graham et al. 2013; Porter et al. 2014). The ambition of this report from

e2014 is to help and guide UU from the (second) stage of adoption/early implementation of e-


2014-12-19

8

learning to the final stage of mature implementation and growth. This will require well-established

e-learning strategies, structures and support that are integrated into our University operations and

organization (http://www.uu.se/en/about-uu/organisation/structure/overview/ ).

At UU, e-learning is found in both courses and educational programmes, on campus as well as in

distance courses, and will be an integral part of MOOCs. The distinction between courses and

educational programmes on the one hand, and MOOCs on the other, are the means of funding.

Courses and educational programmes (whether they are on campus or distance courses) are primarily

funded by student payments (governmental and student fees) and the students are enrolled and

registered at UU (although they can also be in the form of contract training courses). Alternatively,

the current situation is that MOOCs are not funded by student payments and nor will they yield

course credits or a degree at UU. Those enrolled will be MOOC-participants.

To further integrate e-learning into UU's education programmes we will here analyze the present

state of e-learning and its future in relation to Uppsala University’s goals and strategies. The report

will also provide views, discussions and recommendations on the development of e-learning at UU.

However, we also see a potential for national coordination and cooperation, as well as for Nordic

collaborations (cf. Moocs for Norway report). Areas that may particularly benefit from this kind of

coordination are administrative systems (like LADOK3), learning management systems (LMS),

MOOC-development and preparatory courses, legally required courses such as animal ethics

handling, or highly specialized courses that only attract single participants in each country.

3.1 e2014 working group and activities

Members of the e2014-working group:

Ingrid Ahnesjö, chair, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology

Erik Björk, vice-chair, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy

Mats Cullhed, secretariat/coordinator, Quality Enhancement and Academic Teaching and Learning,

University administration

Eva Pärt Enander, secretariat, IT division, University administration

Lars Weiselius, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences

Anette Månsson, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences

Catharina Svensson, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy

Anna Eckerdal, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology

Åsa Kettis, Quality Enhancement and Academic Teaching and Learning, University administration

Mia Lindegren, IT division, University administration

Felix Thålin, Gotland Student Union

Alexandra Abde, Uppsala Student Union (spring 2014)

The main working group e2014 has had 12 meetings in 2014. We have arranged the following

seminars: 10th

April MOOC-seminar; 24th

Oct. E-mingle afternoon; 30th

Oct. Seminar “Time for

MOOCs” with Prof. B. Kjeldstad, chair of the Norwegian MOOC-commission; 24th

Nov. seminar

led by A. Eckerdal on Open Access and academic unbundling.

Its work was presented at the Quality council on 1st April, and to the University Board on 2

nd April.

http://www.uu.se/en/about-uu/organisation/structure/overview/

https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/nou-2014-5/id762916/


2014-12-19

9

The working group for the development of MOOCs consists of:

Mats Cullhed, Quality Enhancement and Academic Teaching and Learning, University

administration

Anna-Carin Lundqvist, MedFarmDoIT

Camilla Lööw Lundin, Legal affairs divison, University administration

Carl Nettelblad, IT division, University administration

Eva Söderman, Student Affairs and Academic Registry Division, University administration

Alexandra Abde, Uppsala Student Union

Further assistance has been provided by Louise Bark, Legal affairs division, and Joachim Ekström,

Division for Communication and External Relations, both from the University administration.

The Campus Gotland project has been coordinated by:

Andreas Hedrén, Department of Informatics and Media, Campus Gotland

Ann-Marie Rosenqvist, Department of Social and Economic Geography, Campus Gotland

Erika Sandström, Department of History, Campus Gotland

Lena Tembe, Division for administration and campus management at Campus Gotland

Mats Cullhed, Quality Enhancement and Academic Teaching and Learning, University

administration, Uppsala

3.2 International review of e2014

In order to receive feedback from a panel of experts we have invited five delegates for a visit to

Uppsala on 10-11February, 2015:

Berit Kjeldstad (Trondheim, Norway); Ian Larson (Monash, Australia); Virginia Grande Castro

(Uppsala, Sweden); Paul Bacsich (UK); Ebba Ossiannilsson (Lund, Sweden).

We would like the panel to address the following:

1. Current status of e-learning at UU.

a. The present goals for the development of e-learning at UU – what are we trying to

achieve and how do we make it happen?

b. What is the current status of e-learning at UU and how do we support further

development in order to improve quality in teaching and learning? Do we have

efficient tools – technical, as well as pedagogical?

c. What are UU’s strengths – academically and pedagogically – with regard to e-

learning? What are its weaknesses?

2. The future of e-learning at UU.

a. What future development is desirable in an international higher educational

environment?

b. Where do we aim to be in 5 years - and how does it relate to goals and strategies for

UU, and the evidence base of e-learning? What are the benefits of e-learning in

improving quality in teaching and learning, both for the individual student and the

individual teacher? And what are the obstacles to be overcome and risks of adverse

outcomes to avoided?

c. What is required to reach our aims? What strategies and development actions are

needed?


2014-12-19

10

This self-evaluation will, together with underlying documents, provide the basis for the peer review.

The reviewers’ task will be to provide feedback on our own analyses and conclusions.

From an international standpoint, are there any additional strengths or weaknesses with

regard to e-learning that should be attended to?

What is the panel’s view on our suggested strategy for the future development of e-

learning? Do the actions that we have identified appear wise, or could they be revised? Does

the panel have suggestions on how to stimulate further development of e-learning, beyond

what we have identified ourselves?

The panel will provide a written report of their feedback by early March 2015.


2014-12-19

11

4. E-learning: a definition and an ambition The group has preferred the term e-learning over other alternatives, such as TEL (Technology-

Enhanced Learning) or net-based learning. TEL seemed to place undue emphasis on the effect of

technology in itself, rather than the pedagogical strategies behind it, while net-based learning

excluded offline resources. E-learning is a well-established term and we have chosen to give it a

wide and pragmatic interpretation: the pedagogical integration of digital resources and tools into

teaching and learning activities.

This is not a means for its own end. E-learning should present teachers and students with strategies

and opportunities to overcome pedagogical challenges, to support and enhance learning, and to

encourage and deepen critical thinking. It is not about maximizing the use of digital technologies on

all courses but, rather, about teachers and students making informed, pedagogical decisions.

We recognize that many teachers – and students - do not handle the tools and practices of e-learning

with the same ease and confidence that they bring to more familiar teaching and learning activities.

For this reason, the special attention provided by the term e-learning is justified, as it emphasizes the

need to explore its possibilities with support, so that decisions are made on an informed basis.

Nevertheless, our long-term aim is to avoid thinking of e-learning as a field of knowledge, separated

from other learning. The swift adoption of digital technologies for many purposes, and within all

professions, is already making any such distinction difficult to uphold. To the students and soon-to-

be teachers that are now coming into universities, technology is an obvious part of everyday life.

Similarly, it will be an obvious part in their education.

5. Efficient e-learning? The e2014 group was asked to approach the “evidence base for efficient e-learning”. Will e-learning

support students’ learning processes? Does it contribute to the students’ deeper understanding of a

subject? Will it facilitate the running of a course, enabling teachers to spend more time on feedback

and research than on course administration? Will the tools assist teachers and students in realising

their goals, or will the tools shape the goals?

In order to find answers to such questions, one may turn to a growing body of informal and formal

evidence on the outcome of e-learning practices. Informal evidence often rests on colleagues sharing

experiences, and for many teachers this is a common source of inspiration and information for e-

learning experiments. The limitations of this type of evidence often reside in non-systematic and

under-theoreticized approaches, and in a tendency to favor success stories, while disappointing set-

backs are rarely reported.

5.1 Evidence-based e-learning

The wish for formal, research-based evidence about the learning outcomes of e-learning activities,

compared to traditional teaching, is understandable, as this would provide a more balanced view and

enable the formation of general conclusions. Among the wealth of well-documented case studies,

however, only a minority include such systematic comparisons. Research goals and methodologies

also vary considerably. Nevertheless, during the last years, there have appeared a number of meta-

studies that combine into a single analysis the results of multiple investigations comparing online

and face-to-face instruction techniques.

One of the most widely publicised studies has been Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in

Online Learning (Means et.al. 2009), published by the U.S. Department of Education. Its analysis

showed that blended or wholly online learning contexts produced significantly better learning


2014-12-19

12

outcomes than purely face-to-face versions of the same course. In addition, the students who took

part in the blended courses came out better than those whose classes were wholly online (though

another part of the analysis found little or no difference between these two groups). One factor

which clearly influenced this outcome appeared to be the greater time spent on tasks by students in

online classes. The authors stressed that their analysis did “not demonstrate that online learning is

superior as a medium. In many of the studies showing an advantage of online learning, the online

and classroom conditions differed in terms of time spent, curriculum and pedagogy. It was the

combination of elements….that produced the observed learning advantages”. (Means et al. 2009).

Another investigation, “What Forty Years of Research Says About the Impact of Technology on

Learning: A Second-order Meta-Analysis and Validation Study”, (Tamim et al. 2011) is an analysis

of meta-analyses. In contrast to the former study, it focused on face-to-face contexts, and compared

the results of in-class use of technology with classes that did not use any computers at all. A

“significant, positive, small to moderate effect size favoring the utilization of technology” was

found. (Tamim et al. 2011) However, it was also suggested that “it is arguable that it is aspects of

instruction, pedagogy, teacher effectiveness, subject matter, age level, fidelity of technology

implementation, and possibly other factors that may represent more powerful influences on effect

sizes than the nature of the technology intervention” (Tamim et al. 2011).

A recent overview is Kelly A. Lack’s Current Status of Research on Online Learning in

Postsecondary Education (Lack 2013). Lack provides a critical review of previous overviews

(including that of Means et al. 2009) and also includes short discussions of 30 studies that compare

the results of online and face-to-face students. Lack concludes that her literature review “yields little,

if any, evidence to suggest that online or hybrid learning, on average, is more or less effective than

face-to-face learning”, and underlines the “need to bear in mind the variety that exists both in web-

based instruction and in studies attempting to evaluate it” (Lack 2013).

The positive results of Means et al. (2009) and Tamim et al. (2011) are certainly interesting, but are

not conclusive, as Lack’s study shows. Though further studies will emerge, any general advantages

of e-learning over traditional forms of education remain, so far, unclear. More importantly, these

investigations highlight the difficulty of making valid comparisons between areas defined in such

broad terms as “online”, “blended”, “hybrid” or “face-to-face”. In the last instance, what they all

seem to recognize is that the success of any mode of delivery, with or without the prefix e- being

involved, is dependent on the pedagogical context that it serves.

5.2 Conclusions

From the perspective of e2014, these high-level studies are immediately useful for two purposes:

They contribute to rendering meaningless the – not uncommon – concept of all face-to-face

teaching activities as the norm, and all online teaching as its ever-second-best alternative.

They establish that the most important difference is not that between face-to-face and online

delivery modes, but between good pedagogy and bad pedagogy (with or without

technology).

This means that evidence for efficient e-learning will often have to be found on the level of the

individual course. E-learning solutions expand the range of methods that serve the growth of flexible

and student-activating pedagogies, provide access to a wealth of web-based resources and permit

students to engage in collaborative learning experiences across spatial barriers. As on any course,

however, success ultimately, relies on the teachers’ and students’ ability to handle these possibilities.


2014-12-19

13

6. The current status of e-learning at Uppsala University

6.1 Background

As in other universities, e-learning at UU was first adopted during the 1990s, mainly on distance

courses, as the world wide web spread and e-mail gained ground among both teachers and students.

Some departments also experimented with video conferencing, and several local systems were

developed for supporting teaching and course administration.

From the mid-90s, several steps were taken to strengthen e-learning. Students were provided with e-

mail accounts by the university. A node for the further development and discussion of e-learning was

created, Uppsala Learning Lab (ULL), that was part of the Wallenberg global learning network, (Lee

2010) which included Stanford University US, Karolinska Institutet and the Royal Institute of

Technology, Sweden. UU was host for the project and the Swedish Learning Lab was organized. In

addition to coordinating research projects on IT and learning, ULL also provided active support and

inspiration for teachers. The strategic importance of these and other measures was underlined

through the appointment of a vice-rector for IT. The university also adopted a Swedish LMS

(learning management system), Ping Pong, and in 2001 the first Student Portal was inaugurated.

The short-lived, national initiative Nätuniversitetet (Net University), launched in 2002, included

generous funding for the creation of web-based courses. In Uppsala, this resulted in several new

courses, most hosted on the Ping Pong LMS. Several departments also started developing online

courses systematically. The most conspicuous example was the Department of Theology, which

made web-based alternatives of all their courses available as distance courses, at first using a local

platform, for which, later, Moodle was substituted. On two occasions (in 2004 and 2006), grants

were channeled through ULL to teachers for developing distance courses, most of which were also

placed on the Ping Pong platform. A particularly noteworthy part was played by the Faculty of

Languages, which financed a large number of these projects.

The disciplinary domain of Medicine and Pharmacy created and financed the local node

MedFarmDoIT, which assists their teachers with, e.g., lecture capture and web-based course

evaluations. Its services have been kept free for users from its own domain, and have been available

for other teachers at a cost. For some years, there was also a central unit for multimedia productions,

Mediaservice, which worked on a self-financing basis. This proved economically unviable, and

Mediaservice was disbanded in 2006. ULL was entrusted with the task of developing a second

version of the Student Portal (open source), launched in 2007, after the vice-chancellor's decision in

2005. As with the previous version, it brought the automatic creation of course pages for every

course offered at UU, but with a new interface and more features than were included previously.

Above all, the new Portal was explicitly designed to offer the students access to courses and many

other services from a single page, whilst also allowing course administrators and teachers to work

within the same system. It is now an established and well-integrated system.

Although the Student Portal housed fewer features than a LMS, its user base quickly outgrew that of

Ping Pong. It has since become the standard, web-based platform for most UU teachers and students,

as well as for much of the course administration, and most local systems have disappeared.

Additional features have brought more functionality to the Student Portal but most of the teachers

who had learnt to use Ping Pong in an advanced mode have remained there.


2014-12-19

14

Since 2009, a half-day section about e-learning has been included in academic teacher training

courses. Through Sunet, the Swedish universities’ national network for IT resources, Adobe Connect

was established as the new e-meeting software, after Google’s acquisition of the Swedish Marratech.

In 2010, the Experimental Classroom at Campus Blåsenhus was inaugurated, marking a new focus

on e-learning for campus courses (https://mp.uu.se/en/web/info/undervisa/laborativ-larosal).

Teachers and students use the Experimental Classroom to explore how to use IT in face-to-face

contexts. The room thus functions as a learning space for academic staff from all disciplines within

UU. In the same year, a computer-based exam system (OpenExam) was developed at the BMC

(Biomedical Center) campus at UU. A number of first and second cycle programs at the disciplinary

domain of medicine and pharmacy are currently using OpenExam in a specially equipped exam hall

at BMC. The aim is to equip new exam halls with computers so as to provide this facility throughout

UU.

In 2011, the governing body of UU decided to investigate how Ping Pong might be shut down, so as

to provide the Student Portal to all students and for all courses. It was decided to make this a gradual

process: a drive for the further development of the Portal’s capabilities was expected to lead to more

courses migrating there from Ping Pong, until a time when too few Ping Pong users remained to

make it economically viable to maintain the platform is reached, whereupon an end date would be

decided. This date should be set not less than two years before the actual close-down of the platform.

In 2012, UU and Högskolan Gotland (HGo, University College of Gotland) initiated talks about

merging, and net-based education was seen as one of the key areas for discussion. This brought e-

learning, and especially distance courses, once more to the forefront, as a majority of the courses of

HGo were distance courses, run on an old, modified version of the Moodle platform. The possibility

of leaving Moodle has been discussed, too, but currently, since HGo became part of UU in 2013, UU

has three, centrally supported and financed course delivery platforms: the Student Portal, Ping Pong,

and Moodle Gotland.

In 2013, ULL was disbanded and some of its educational developers moved to the newly created

KUUP (Office of Quality Enhancement and Academic Teaching and Learning), while others, along

with the support staff and the systems developers, were transferred to the IT division, where a new

Office for User Support and E-learning was set up. A cross unit e-learning group, the Student Portal

and the Experimental Classroom, is available to provide support and enable dialogue on e-learning.

During 2014/15, and within the framework of e2014, UU is supporting the development of three

pilot, non-credit MOOCs (massive open online courses), one per disciplinary domain, with the aim

of learning more about this form of knowledge distribution and, based on the experience, provide

future guidance on MOOCs. Furthermore, ten e-learning projects have been granted funding for

course development and for developing sustainable models for knowledge transfer (cf. supplement

A).

6.2 Status of e-learning at UU 2014

6.2.1 Strategy documents

A number of documents provide guidelines and goals, though in no great detail, for the use of IT in

teaching and learning at UU:

https://mp.uu.se/en/web/info/undervisa/laborativ-larosal


2014-12-19

15

6.2.1.1 Teaching and Learning at Uppsala University (2008)

These guidelines (http://regler.uu.se/Detaljsida/?contentId=14253&kategoriId=137) comprise four

overall objectives for educational activities, providing a framework in terms of content and structure.

They include some points that involve e-learning and list UUs responsibilities:

Appropriate information and communication technology will be used when this

favours students’ learning or facilitates communication between students or between

students and teachers. (1.2.4)

The University’s internal IT structure will be continuously expanded in collaboration

with teachers and students, in order to facilitate administration and teaching (1.2.5).

Similarly,training in web-based teaching will be required if the teacher works with

such forms of teaching (3.1.1).

Continuous professional development in teaching and learning, up to the level

required for newly employed teachers at least, will be offered to all teachers based

on their needs and tasks. This also includes knowledge enabling the active use of

webbased technology (3.3.1).

6.2.1.2 Uppsala University Internationalisation Programme (2009)

The document (http://regler.uu.se/Detaljsida/?contentId=86953&kategoriId=248) stresses that

international cooperation represents a means and strategy for improving the quality of research and

study programmes. Under the heading Well-developed university environment (p. 4), it is stated that:

“Virtual environments represent new opportunities for international contact characterised be

operational efficiency, improved prospects for learning as a lifelong process and reduced need for

travel”.

6.2.1.3 Handlingsplan för IT vid Uppsala universitet (Action plan for IT at UU, 2014)

The Action plan (http://regler.uu.se/Detaljsida/?contentId=300265&kategoriId=243, available in

Swedish only,) devotes one section to IT in teaching and learning (pp. 6-7), emphasizing the need

for a review of current systems in the face of future developments.

6.2.2 An overview of resources

All students are provided UU mail addresses, though most of them prefer to use other mail accounts.

However, they have also expressed their wish to keep a more official address for mail conversations

with, e.g., possible employers. There is also an ongoing assessment as to whether to offer Office365

to UU students, which would provide them with, e.g., document sharing facilities. Their UU account

also allows them to print hard copies (at a cost) all over UU, the so-called Korint System.

All courses have course pages in the Student Portal, and most teachers use them, both for

communication purposes and providing teaching material. Students can submit assignments that are

automatically uploaded to the Urkund system, to check for plagiarism. A much smaller number of

students use other LMSs.

For e-meetings, there is Adobe Connect, where teachers can gather students for classes or meetings.

Facilities for video conferencing have also been expanded, and are now available in all campus areas

(with one exception).

Teachers also have access to the experimental classroom in Blåsenhus, where they can test

alternative teaching models, using tools such as clickers and interactive whiteboards (these tools are

http://regler.uu.se/Detaljsida/?contentId=14253&kategoriId=137




2014-12-19

16

also available on some local campus areas). Use of the classroom is free, but the educational

developers working there will follow and discuss with teachers the activities that take place there.

Recorded lectures are available at MedFarmDoITs Media Library (http://media.medfarm.uu.se/).As

of 2014, all teachers have been able to upload video clips etc. to this server.

6.2.3 Nodes for support and training

A central helpdesk for all systems has been created by the IT division; its services are available to

teachers and students. Courses on IT in teaching, and on other courses (about Clickers, and Adobe

Connect etc.), are offered for free to faculty and staff.

At KUUP, the e-learning perspective is being integrated into the teacher training courses, and advice

is provided on a consultative basis.

TUR at the faculty of science and technology is a pedagogical council for higher education in the

faculty of science and technology. TUR works with networks and supports a pedagogical

development (see http://www.teknat.uu.se/about-us-contact/pedagogisk-utveckling/tur).

MedFarmDoIT, within the domain of medicine and pharmacy, provides practical support for surveys

and for multimedia production, but also offers pedagogical advice to teachers (see

http://doit.medfarm.uu.se/index.php?id=hem&lang=en ).

In addition, support and training is present at several local nodes. For example, at the IT-department

e-learning is highly conspicuous (see http://www.it.uu.se/aboutus). The biology departments have

organized their education in a department of its own: the Biology Education Centre

(http://www.ibg.uu.se) providing support.

6.3 The views of teachers and students at UU: a summary of the e-learning questionnaire

We will here present some preliminary results from an online questionnaire on e-learning, sent out

by e2014, in June-September 2014. The results are summarized in Supplement B (in Swedish). The

questionnaire covered questions on: pedagogical quality, technology systems, quality of systems

services, use of e-learning, user satisfaction, the costs and benefits of e-learning, leadership and

wishes for the future. There was both a student version and a faculty version of the questionnaire,

each available in both Swedish and English.

6.3.1 Methods

The questionnaire targeted all faculty with teaching responsibilities (since many PhD-students teach,

they were also eligible for the questionnaire). The number of respondents was 305 among faculty

(the faculty numbered 1469 at UU in 2013), with a further 43 PhD Students (total number of PhD

Students was 2427 in 2013, though not all teach) and 91 students (the total number of students at the

undergraduate level and the masters level is 41 000.) Reasons for the low response rate include the

mode of distribution of the questionnaire and, most likely, its length. The low response rate means

that the quantitative results have to be interpreted with caution, although they may be useful in

indicating areas for further exploration. The value of the information stemming from open

commentaries, i.e., qualitative data, is however less dependent on the response rate.

In the following, the results are presented according to the DeLone and McLean’s information

systems success model (ISSM). The model consists of six dimensions of information systems

success (see below), and is intended to guide evaluation of information systems. Information quality,

http://media.medfarm.uu.se/

http://www.teknat.uu.se/about-us-contact/pedagogisk-utveckling/tur

http://doit.medfarm.uu.se/index.php?id=hem&lang=en

http://www.it.uu.se/aboutus

http://www.ibg.uu.se/


2014-12-19

17

system quality and service quality influence the use of information systems and user satisfaction,

which in turn, influences the results that are achieved, i.e. the net benefits. The attained results then,

subsequently, influence the use of the information system and user satisfaction by a feedback loop.

The model did not underpin the design of the questionnaire, but it is used to structure the

presentation of the results post hoc. The model is modified by replacing Information Quality with

Pedagogical quality.

DeLone and McLean, 2003 (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/12/64/figure/F1)

6.3.2 Results

According to the results, there is a wish for more discussions on e-learning at UU. Comments such

as “Good that this is investigated” were given. Some 90% of the teacher respondents wanted to

discuss e-learning, while around 60% reported that there are organized discussions on the topic in

their local context. Several respondents stated that time constraints explain the lack of discussions,

and that it is the “usual suspects”, i.e., the enthusiasts that are already dedicated to e-learning that

populate the activities that take place. Respondents wanted discussions on questions like: “What do

we want to achieve by e-learning?”, “Is this the best way to do it?”, and “What is required by

teachers working with e-learning?”

6.3.2.1 Pedagogical quality

The survey indicated some differences between teachers in different subject fields, also there was

some covariance between the teachers general teaching experience and uptake of e-learning. The

responses indicated that it is not e-learning that is the main point, but rather learning per se. There

was also a clear wish that technology should adapt to pedagogical needs, rather than the other way

around, i.e., technology should support learning. It was also clear that the most appropriate mode of

teaching may differ depending on the situation. Sometimes campus-based teaching is the better

choice, at other times online delivery is preferable.


2014-12-19

18

6.3.2.2 Technological systems

Some comments indicated that UU's Student Portal is primarily focused on administrative aspects of

teaching and learning rather than on pedagogic aspects. Nevertheless, 2/3 of respondents who use the

Student Portal were satisfied with the system, and some commented that it has improved over the

years. A minority uses Ping Pong and, among respondents who do, half were satisfied and some

strongly advocated its benefits.

Some comments suggested that teachers should be more involved in the development of e-learning

tools, in order to make them better adjusted to pedagogical needs.

6.3.2.3 Quality of systems services

Half of respondents were satisfied with existing system support services and the opportunities for

further academic development focusing on e-learning, but 80% asked for additional training. For

example, there was a wish for learning in teams, for short pedagogical workshops and for coaching

on e-learning. Several comments indicated that the central support function for e-learning ULL

(Uppsala Learning Lab) has been of utmost importance. MedfarmDoIT was also cited as important

for the development of e-learning.

6.3.2.4 Use of e-learning and user satisfaction

Some teachers, who belong to a small group of “early adopters”, have had Web-based courses since

2001. About 50% of the teachers and 40% of the students responding to the survey had experience

from blended learning. A majority of the respondents indicated they would like to learn more about

e-learning, and to try it themselves, whilst around 20% had limited interest. Interest was greatest for

blended learning (especially flipped classroom), distance education combined with face-to-face

meetings, and e-learning resources. E-learning was, however, considered time consuming and

reasons given for limited experience of blended learning were: time constraints, a change-resistant

culture, few incentives to develop teaching, limited ability to influence course design, insufficient

personal competence, insufficient access to pedagogical development support for e-learning and

shortage of suitable tools (Student Portal viewed primarily as an administrative tool).

A majority of teachers lacked experience of digital examinations (about 60%), but some 70% said

they would like to learn more. Among the student respondents, about half had experienced digital

examinations and about 40% would like to have more e-exams.

There seemed to be a demand for an increase in the overall use of e-learning among student

respondents, and several student comments specifically put forward the advantages of the flipped

classroom approach. The students also reported frequent and worthwhile use of Youtube, TED-talks,

Khan Academy, and MIT open courseware videos for e-learning. There was, however, a gap

between what students request and teachers’ perceptions of students' desires - a majority of the

teachers claimed that students seldom ask for more e-learning opportunities. ‘

6.3.2.5 Balancing costs and benefits of e-learning

According to the teachers that have used e-learning approaches themselves, they have a number of

advantages. E-learning facilitates teaching in large groups, interaction, feedback, independent work

of students, monitoring of students’ development, creativity in course design, and course

administration. The downsides are that developing elements of e-learning is time-consuming, and

there is a risk that learning becomes more superficial and student activity more limited.

Students appreciate the flexibility gained by e-learning. Learning becomes self-paced and it is easy

to repeat challenging parts, and the flipped classroom approach increases interaction with teachers.


2014-12-19

19

Both teachers and students agreed that e-learning does not replace face-to-face interactions but is

instead a complement.

The following comments illustrate the breadth of views on e-learning that were expressed in the

questionnaire:

Students need to learn to be present IRL (in real life) instead (Teacher)

E-learning is non-functional. Just because [something] is on the web does not make it more

pedagogical (Student)

According to my own experience, one of the best ways of teaching is the flipped classroom approach

– [it provides] efficient learning in my own pace, [it is] varied and [what I learn is] confirmed in

class. (Student)

Undertake an offensive to make teachers use flipped classrooms. [It] would make learning more

efficient through activation. A promotion campaign for this would be an excellent idea. (Teacher)

6.3.2.6 Leadership

In the questionnaire, it was indicated that teaching and learning are less prioritised at UU, and that

incentives for developing teaching are lacking. If, as a teacher, you want to develop the e-learning

aspects of your teaching, it therefore has to be done in your spare time.

6.3.2.7 Wishes for the future

When the respondents were asked about what would be important features of a future university

wide e-learning platform, the following emerged from the comments. A learning platform should be

easy to tailor to varying needs and pedagogical approaches, and should have well developed and

fully integrated administrative functions. All e-learning tools should be user friendly, technically

well-functioning, well supported and accessible, also in areas with lower digital capacities. There

should be good opportunities for academic development of faculty with regard to e-learning,

including collegial exchange of experiences focusing on pedagogical aspects. E-learning should,

however, not be developed at the cost of physical face-to-face meetings. There were also wishes for

more flexible classrooms on campus, facilitating student activity. An individual comment suggested

that there should even be an outdoor lecture hall (amphitheater) for teaching in beautiful weather.

6.3.2.8 The ISSM revisited

When revisiting the ISSM applied on the case of e-learning, the interrelatedness of the results from

the questionnaire becomes evident. If a teacher has sound pedagogical approaches that are supported

by digital tools that are fit for purpose, and if the teacher is also provided with technical and

pedagogical high quality support, then he or she will use the tools and be satisfied with them. (This

resembles the situation described by the respondents in the “wishes for the future section” above.)

This will, in turn, lead to a favorable net benefit in using the tools, i.e. student learning will improve

to a reasonable cost, which will reinforce continued use. On the other hand, if the teacher is not

updated on modern pedagogy, or if the tools are poorly adapted to pedagogical needs, or if

pedagogical and technical support is poor, then use will be limited and satisfaction low, providing an

unfavorable net benefit that will make the teacher avoid further use. As apparent by the results, there

are additional factors influencing the use of e-learning, that are not taken to account in this model.

These include, for example, the degree to which good teaching is recognised by the leadership, the

departmental culture with regard to change, and available time resources. The model still reminds of

the need to keep a holistic view of any actions taken to stimulate the further development of e-

learning, and to keep an eye on the balance between costs and benefits.


2014-12-19

20

7. Pathways for future development

7.1 Three areas of action

In the following paragraphs we define three areas where we believe that action should be taken.

Strategic choices: E-learning evolves rapidly, and it is imperative that UU takes an

independent and informed stand on these developments and their consequences. We suggest

a number of roads to be explored and wish to initiate widespread reflection and discussion

about our teaching practices, about the linkage between teaching and research, and about the

strategic choices that lie ahead.

Professional development: We believe that the initiative for professional development for e-

learning (and all other learning) cannot be left only to individual teachers, but must be

handled by the departments or programmes to promote collegial discussions. Therefore, we

suggest that the disciplinary domains and the faculties, together with the central offices for

educational development as well as other nodes, work on developing models which involve

and assist the departments in their work with professional educational development. This

will also allow for better sharing of successful ideas and experiences within UU.

Updated systems: In order to meet the challenges and rise to the opportunities that come out

of the discussions, and to match the requests of the growing number of teachers who wish to

develop more advanced e-learning scenarios, UU will need to update its systems for e-

learning. We suggest that UU adopts a modern, advanced, and flexible LMS, while

preserving some of the fundamental and important insights gained during the years using

the Student Portal.

7.2 Discussing trends, challenges and opportunities

As one of Sweden’s leading research universities, UU needs to consider the larger context of e-

learning, and to assess the importance of emerging trends, challenges and opportunities. In the

following section, a selection has been made of developments that are, internationally, much

discussed within higher education and within e-learning communities. Their relevance for UU is

discussed and, under each heading, a number of suggestions for future action have been made.

7.2.1 Globalised learning

The world’s students are online and all major institutions within higher education have responded by

establishing their presence on the Web. Some aspects of this world-wide accessibility are clearly

relevant to UU.

7.2.1.1 Competition for students

The combination of an ever-growing volume of web-based information, search engines and search

strategies, official ranking lists and student-driven rating sites may increase competition between

universities that wish to attract students, and especially international students.

In this context, the way in which universities introduce their educational activities may send

important signals to those who visit their web pages. As web pages from the world’s universities

grow increasingly similar, often repeating phrases and images that are all too recognizable from site

to site, standing out from the crowd becomes more difficult. The prominent display of a clear

pedagogical profile, and highlighting its connections to research and continuing educational


2014-12-19

21

development, conveys an image of an institution which takes its teaching as seriously as it does its

research.

An important part could be played by open courses. MOOCs are already widely used to give large

numbers of people access to online activities and material that showcase a particular university’s

strengths. These open courses give prospective students a foretaste of what the university has to

offer.

7.2.1.2 The worldwide university

That students substitute course books of their own choice for those prescribed by the course syllabus,

is not a new phenomenon. The last ten years, however, has made not only books but whole series of

lectures and entire courses available online. The proliferation of alternatives and complements to the

course students actually follow can have profound effects on the dynamics of a course, and on the

students’ perception of the teachers’ authority. Some teachers see this as a problem, whereas others

regard the students’ use of these resources as an asset.

7.2.1.3 The unbundling of higher education

MOOCs have also accentuated another process, which was already set in motion by the increasing

number of distance courses developed since the 1990s: students may compose an education of their

own by piecing together courses from many different universities. The tendency for students to

follow their own routes, and to regard the academic world of education as a gigantic buffet, may also

have consequences for the universities’ view of themselves and their own role.

MOOC participants often seek knowledge for knowledge’s sake only, but a growing interest in

seeking formal accreditation for competencies and skills, acquired during more or less informal

learning processes, is discernible. Applying for accreditation has, of course, always been an option

but has been a fairly rare practice. The MOOC phenomenon, however, may render this far more

common and has also boosted the market for commercial, non-academic course purveyors. The

probable increase of applications for accreditation, and the concomitant issues of quality control and

verification of results, may cause both practical problems and doubts about what constitutes a high-

quality, academic education.

7.2.1.4 Recommendations

UU should review its open web pages, and seek to establish a strong research-based educational

profile.

UU teachers should discuss ways to handle open resources on the web and their consequences for

teaching practices.

UU should consider the development of open courses for recruitment and other purposes. Its

production of three pilot MOOCs will be evaluated and the outcome used for future guidance.

7.2.2 New students

The student body itself is changing. New groups of students are entering the universities, and student

behavior and study preferences are influenced by technical developments. A common, if not

conclusive, argument for e-learning is that we need to adapt to the requirements of the so-called

digital natives. At the same time we need to meet and benefit from the diversity in students’ abilities

and make education accessible.


2014-12-19

22

7.2.2.1 Life-long learning

In a knowledge-based society learning will always be sought and within many professions it is

natural to continue learning. The results of research may need to be spread, e.g., to medical staff, or

software developers may need an update to their programming skills. School teachers need

information about research advances within their subjects. Increasing numbers of enrolling students

will be professionals, with an academic degree and a job, who will not be coming to campus. We

will need to identify the courses that will attract these learners and to deal with experienced students,

whose professional experiences must be integrated into the course structure.

7.2.2.2 Larger, more heterogeneous student groups

The size of student groups has grown. At the same time, new students include individuals whose

background is more varied than before. The composition and quality of their pre-university

education vary, students’ command of the working language (Swedish, English etc.) may require

development, and multiple learning styles will be represented, even within a small group of students.

7.2.2.3 Mobile learners

The catch-phrase digital natives is coming out of fashion, but one trend is undeniable: many students

coming into today’s lecture halls and labs are online for hours every day, and carry with them a

portable device, the smartphone, whose power in processing data outdistances by far that of an older

computer. Present-day teachers, who belong to the laptop generation, should take into account that

most students may wish to engage with course material and fellow students via their phones or

tablets. This trend also paves the way for BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) scenarios, when teachers

use this pervasive technology in order to, e.g., engage students in learning activities, or to gauge

students’ understanding of a subject.


UU should prepare to broaden its range of high-quality, distance courses for professional

development

UU should consider developing preparatory, open, non-credit courses for prospective students,

preferably in collaboration with other Swedish universities.

Teachers should consider including BYOD scenarios in their courses.

7.2.3 A culture of openness and sharing

The drive for openness and sharing is one of the most significant trends in both research and

education. In Sweden, as elsewhere, state funding of research is often linked to demands for Open

Access publishing. Here we will, however, concentrate on aspects that concern higher education.

7.2.3.1 Open educational resources (OER)

As noted above, students have access to vast amounts of open, web-based resources, including

recorded lectures, instructional videos, open textbooks, image databases, etc., but teacher attitudes to

these resources are ambivalent. Students’ constant comparison of one’s own teaching to open

courses or lecture series may be challenging and there is legitimate concern about the lack of quality

control characterising some repositories. The occurrences of deceptive “science” productions require

particular ethical attention. Easy access, and a culture of copy-and-paste may contribute to an

increase in plagiarism, and even to a blurring of the border between original work and plagiarism.

Teachers, too, like to use material from the web on their courses, but there is confusion about


2014-12-19

23

copyright and what constitutes fair use. In UU, and in Sweden more widely, there is also a noticeable

hesitance to take part in the production of OER, for reasons that vary from concern over their re-use

in other contexts, to strategic decisions to safeguard one’s own department’s position on a

competitive market.

Some ethical aspects of research and education require, by law, certain courses, for instance, animal

research ethics and ethics of research involving humans. Support should be given to join national e-

educational initiatives to fulfill such requirements.

But openness is also being embraced by teachers, who introduce OER creatively within their courses

in order to enrich the students’ learning, and the training of critical skills. There are also prominent

producers of open resources at UU: the University Library is, steadily, making more and more of its

unique collections available online, for research and teaching, and the collections of UU’s museums

are also accessible via the web.

7.2.3.2 Open universities in an open society

Another aspect of openness is the role universities may play in debate and social development. It is

more important than ever that the results of research and the views of researchers are brought to bear

on current affairs. Technological development has put an array of new channels, beside traditional

media, into the hands of academics. Through open platforms, such as MOOCs, or through blogs, or

by participating in networks based on social media, researchers and teachers have more opportunities

than ever to make their voices heard and their competencies visible in discussions about equal

opportunities, sustainable development or other societal issues.

7.2.3.3 Recommendations:

A scientific approach and critical thinking should be promoted. Ethical awareness and ethical

education should be promoted and reinforced by e-learning and UU-support for the implementation

of ethical guidelines. Support to join national e-educations in this field should be given.

UU teachers should be encouraged to contribute to the culture of sharing and to engage in the

production of OER, which will require the formulation of clear guidelines for OER production.

Good examples and excellent resources available for e-learning should be visible and easily

accessed on the web. UU-produced open educational resources as well as UU-research should also

be accessible for global e-learning. Web design work for this purpose should be prioritized.

UU should consider new channels and arenas for making the voices of its researchers and teachers

heard

7.2.4 From distance pedagogy to blended learning

During the 1990s, e-learning gained its early followers primarily among those who taught distance

courses. They appreciated the quick means for communication and for distribution of course material

offered by e-mail and, later, by learning management systems. They were also pioneers in exploring

the challenges posed by working with the web as the main interface for facilitating student learning.

The emphasis on, e.g., structure, with clear paths of progression, and on methods for activating

students, encouraging them to engage in collaboration and other forms of interactivity to form

communities of study, are typical for most distance courses.

In 2014, the efforts of these early adopters have been vindicated, as mainstream, educational

development has come to share their values, such as:

A learner-centered approach


2014-12-19

24

Teaching for student activity

Dialogue, interactivity and collaboration

The teacher as facilitator

More emphasis on well-designed assessment and feedback

The adoption of the digital tools and platforms that went with these pedagogical goals has gradually

created the settings for what is termed blended learning for on-site courses. In the following

paragraphs, three current trends are presented. They are all relevant for blended learning, but also

concern wholly online courses.

7.2.4.1 Encouraging students to take control

The openness that presents so many possibilities to higher education has often stopped at the LMS.

These have tended to be controlled, closed environments where each course exists in isolation from

other courses, and where guest access has been difficult to arrange. Currently, there is a strong focus

on letting students shape parts of the course by contributing material, and on peer-to-peer

engagement and other types of feedback. Several LMSs are adapting to this development, but many

courses are still, typically, under full teacher control. Any student activity has to be planned or

permitted by the teacher, and students cannot add functions. As a result, many students prefer tools

of their own for communication and collaboration. This need not be a problem but if teachers wish to

follow the students’ learning processes and work flows they will need to seek other solutions.

Learning is a reflective and life-long process for which the student is responsible. This reflective

process can be well supported by the use of digital portfolios for systematic feedback and self-

assessments, within courses as well as in educational programmes. In the Student Portal, an e-

portfolio system, covering multiple courses, is now available and used for ability training in

communication (related to the DiaNa-project – dialogue for natural scientist and technology students

http://www.ibg.uu.se/diana ). We recommend an increased use of e-portfolios in teaching where

students document learning activities and reflections based on feedback and assessments, and in

particular e-portfolios that cover educational programmes, not only individual courses. With the

increased use of e-learning, an increased opportunity and demand for e-support to organise student

life is inevitable (e.g., individualized schedule alerts for smartphones). Any e-learning or supportive

development should be promoted with an awareness of the student’s own responsibility for learning

(a key point in the guidelines for teaching and learning at UU).

7.2.4.2 Flipped classrooms

In flipped classroom scenarios, students do not attend lectures followed by studies on their own, but

instead, typically, watch a video before coming to class, where they engage with other students in

analysis, discussion and other types of activities. In terms of student learning flipping the classroom

often results in dramatic improvements.

The “flip” part of this concept is perhaps the least original part. Having students come prepared to a

session that requires their active participation is, essentially, the formula of the seminar, which has

been a cornerstone of much of higher education since the 19th century. It is, of course, an excellent

format for analysis and for training independent, creative and critical thinking. The novelty of

today's emerging approach is the ease with which other types of media can be prepared for the

students. Furthermore, software tools allow questions to be inserted into, e.g., a video clip. The

teacher may have access to an interface which allows an analysis of the students’ engagement with

the material. This, in turn, allows the teacher to come prepared for the seminar in a way that

otherwise would not be possible, and can improve the quality of discussions and other activities.

http://www.ibg.uu.se/diana


2014-12-19

25

At UU, several teachers successfully use this teaching method and emphasise its benefits (e.g., see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57MvwhSbv3k). However, it should be chosen with a

pedagogical awareness of the desired learning outcomes.

7.2.4.3 Renewal of learning spaces

In the context of the standard classroom scenario, one digital tool was quickly adopted during the

1990s: the presentation program. It is only recently that pedagogical strategies for so-called face-to-

face teaching have started to move beyond PowerPoint and to rely on the inclusion of other

resources.

During the last years, different models for technologically well-equipped learning spaces have

appeared: Active Learning Classrooms, Teal and Scale-up are three examples from the US. They

rely on fixed installations, with groups of tables set up with computers and software that allow

teachers, e.g., to pull material from student computers on to large screens. Student attention shifts

between work in small groups, and joint sessions. These rooms work very well for activating

students, but are static in design. Similar experiences can be made in more flexible rooms, such as

the experimental classroom in Uppsala. There, teachers plan sessions that encourage student

participation in the creation of content, as well as in providing peer-to-peer feedback, and engage a

larger proportion of students in discussion and analysis. The flexibility of such rooms, e.g.,

interactive whiteboards and student response systems, allow teachers to adapt their planned sessions

to the actual learning processes going on in the room, and allow them to save and share the results of

their collective work immediately.

The increased use of digital resources requires a development of localities, facilities and equipment

for teaching. We will need more flexible classrooms and equipment, social learning spaces, digital

connective systems to bridge spatial distances, social libraries, the inclusion of virtual and social

online facilities, etc. Competence and support is required to allow the widespread use of such

facilities and e-tools by teachers and students.


Teachers should actively explore how students can contribute to course content and structure, and

web-based systems should support and facilitate such practices

The implementation of e-portfolios for documentation of ability training and other learning activities

should be supported and prioritised in portal/platform-systems.

The use of flipped classroom pedagogy should be more widely encouraged, in order to investigate

how it can support student learning within a broader range of teaching traditions.

When rebuilding and building new localities, the need for flexible, digitally accessible, and

technologically adaptive locations should be considered.

7.2.5 Reflection and research: learning about e-learning

E-learning solutions expand the range of methods that serve the growth of flexible and student-

activating pedagogies, provide access to a wealth of web-based resources, and permit students to

engage in collaborative learning experiences across spatial barriers. E-learning tools provide teachers

with new teaching methods, each with specific advantages and disadvantages, depending on the

context in which they will be used – the same goes, of course, for traditional methods of teaching,

such as the lecture. Professionalism in teaching is, among many other things, to know when a certain

method is the one that will serve your goals better than any other, and when you should rather

choose another. A recorded lecture may be excellent – but you should not expect it to work in the

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57MvwhSbv3k


2014-12-19

26

same way as an ordinary lecture. In this respect, the field of e-learning has entered an exciting phase,

where discussions of the strengths and weaknesses of different scenarios have moved beyond

exploration into increasingly sophisticated analyses.

Research on e-learning has been further stimulated by the growth of MOOC. The huge amount of

data regarding learner behavior generated by these courses can be correlated to, e.g., actual learning

outcomes and subjected to further analysis. So-called Learning Analytics is an evolving branch of

research, and has come in for some criticism, but promises new perspectives on what facilitates

learning and to the development of adaptive systems, which give automatic, personalised feedback

to students, according to their choices and results.

Discipline-based educational research should be promoted to understand the teaching and learning

effects of e-learning. Increased e-learning will generate data suitable for learning analytics.

However, as pointed out by the EU-commission’s report on New modes of learning and teaching in

higher education (2014), it should be ensured that legal frameworks are in place to allow the

collection of data and that all involved appreciate that full and informed consent of students is

required.

In order to promote discipline-based educational research in higher education we suggest resource

allocation to such research within the disciplinary domains. This can, for instance, be organized like

MINT - Centre for Discipline-Based Education Research in Mathematics, Engineering, Science and

Technology (see http://www.mint.uu.se/ ).

7.2.5.1 Recommendation

The allocation of resources to discipline-based educational research in all three disciplinary

domains, to promote general educational research as well as research on e-learning in higher

education.

7.2.6 Equal opportunities/accessibility

We should increase the diversity and flexibility in teaching forms by the use of e-learning, to meet

the requirements of multiple learning styles and teaching styles. Digitalization will improve

accessibility, such that students who, for example, depend more on hearing than reading can access

audio versions of teaching material. Furthermore, texts, films and other visual media may

complement each other, and the option for speech-to-text and similar functions will also make the

teaching material accessible to a broader group of students. However, to apply such digitalization

will require support and resources. Furthermore, promotion of equality should be further enhanced,

as representations in digital resources can be produced whilst maintaining awareness of gender and

other aspects of equal rights.

7.2.6.1 Recommendation:

Central support for increased accessibility should be given, thereby meeting the requirements of

multiple ways of learning, improving accessibility and promoting awareness of equal rights. The

equality groups should attend to aid equal rights awareness in the productions.

7.3 Establishing a model for professional development

There are lots of skilled teachers running excellent courses, in Uppsala and in Visby, and whose

students benefit from their considerable e-learning expertise. There are central units, and other

nodes, which provide training, seminars, and support for teachers, for free. There are centrally

funded systems, and the Student Portal has made basic e-learning features available to most students,

http://www.mint.uu.se/


2014-12-19

27

and has improved cooperation between teachers and course administrators. The IT division provides

a central helpdesk as well as other services for faculty, administrative staff, and students.

Yet, the results of the survey, as well as the experiences of educational developers over recent years,

indicate that the average level of e-learning at UU could be raised. There is a general wish among

teachers to learn more, with 80% of respondents asking for additional training. E-learning has spread

unevenly and is often carried forward more by the efforts of individual teachers, or teams of

teachers, than by the organization as a whole

It should be admitted, at once, that this situation is not unique to UU. On the contrary, it seems to be

characteristic for many large, well-established, research universities, with a strong tradition of

campus-based education, both in Sweden and internationally.

For the further, and intensified development of e-learning (and all other learning), professional

development for faculty is a key area, and we believe that the initiative for this cannot be left only to

individual teachers, but must be handled by the departments or programmes to promote collegial

discussions.

7.3.1 In the company of colleagues

Time for professional development is included in faculty positions, but teaching, assessment, feed-

back, course administration and research can make it difficult for teachers to find the time for this. It

is at the level of the department or programme, that decisions can be taken to give faculty both time

and opportunity to discuss and develop teaching. Time can be set aside by the head of department, or

the director of studies, for collective or individual activities.

Courses, as well as consultative support, provided by central units for specific departments, can have

immediate results, as colleagues start discussing how they can apply what they have learnt within

their own courses. While it will always be necessary to provide support for individual teachers,

collective efforts are more likely to stimulate discussion and result in teachers carrying out

pedagogical, developmental work on their courses. Making the central units go on a tour of the

departments, rather than having them wait for teachers to respond to invitations, promises to be an

efficient way of using the resources available at UU.

We suggest a university-wide initiative, in which all faculties and departments at UU collaborate on

sharing and developing good practice in e-learning. This may be achieved in different ways. A

possible design is presented in Box 1.

Ultimately, the goal is to contribute to the creation of a culture of teaching, whose openness and

ongoing debate corresponds to that of the culture of research, and which will survive the project

itself. Some initial inspiration may come from the results of another, on-going initiative: during

2014/15, the vice-chancellor has provided funding for a number of e-learning projects in Visby. The

projects have very different goals, but what unites them is that all were required, from the outset, to

formulate ideas and strategies for how the pedagogical experiences gained from these projects could

be presented, diffused and preserved for the benefit of other teachers. The results of the projects will

be the subject for two workshops during 2015, one in Visby, and the other in Uppsala.

7.3.2 Recommendation:

Allocation of funds to initiate this multilevel organizational project, and formation of a group tasked

with (i) establishing a working model and (ii) coordinating efforts to meet departmental needs.


2014-12-19

28

Box 1: a suggested model for professional development

7.4 Renewing systems for e-learning

A sub-working group of e2014 with IT-expertise has analysed the technical system situation at UU,

and enclosed is a report “Analys av tekniska ramverk för centrala webbaserade lärmiljöer vid

Uppsala universitet” (supplement C; in Swedish). Their work will be summarized in this section.

7.4.1 Towards the internet of things, for e-learning

There is a drive towards bringing together the physical and digital world using real-time solutions.

Crucially, the tools supporting such blended learning have higher functionality requirements than a

purely digital solution. Features could include schedule access, reservation of rooms and resources,

and having automatic access to course material based on location. Another future avenue would be

automatic integration of electronic whiteboards to automatically adjust to the group present in the

room. For example, a student-driven study group would automatically maintain their own

whiteboard, which is resumed from their last meeting. The content on the whiteboard is easily shared

Each department carries out an analysis of its course offerings and teachers’ requirements in

the way of professional development. A team of educational developers, from KUUP and

from the Office of User Support and E-learning, as well as staff from other nodes and units

that serve departments, will assist in the planning and carrying out of the department’s e-

learning activities. This can include training, adapted to local requirements, support for

curriculum development, help with course design etc.

The goal of this process is to create an opportunity to reflect, and to re-think all aspects of

pedagogy, professional development, curricula, organizational structures, material conditions

etc. which involve faculty, staff and students at each department, and to raise awareness and

skills for educational development, including e-learning.

A number of conditions should be observed, in order to make this process relevant,

productive and worthwhile:

1) The disciplinary domains, faculties, and departmental leaders must be the driving

force behind the process, even if it must be formed and carried out in close co-

operation with central units and local nodes.

2) This idea has grown out of the e-learning project, e2014. However, the prioritised

development of e-learning should not be carried out in isolation from other teaching

and learning activities.

3) The focus is on supporting the departments and teachers, and suggestions on how to

improve teaching practices or training should evolve out of the dialogue between

support teams and the departments’ faculty and staff. The approach must be flexible

to match teachers’ actual needs.

4) No formal re-organization of the central support units is suggested to make this

process possible. Instead, existing resources from various units and nodes at

different levels, should be realigned towards its goals

5) We suggest that a group, consisting of representatives from the three disciplinary

domains co-ordinates activities together with the cross-unit, e-learning group, which

already includes educational developers from both KUUP and the IT division.

6) Students will also be involved in the process.


2014-12-19

29

real-time with another group member who couldn’t make it due to illness. Course participants in

class can send questions or comments to the teacher using their smartphone, without needing to first

log in or specify their course. The smartphone is aware of the time, the students’ schedule and can

infer the context.

Such examples may seem gimmicky but smart technologies may soon be taken for granted by

teachers and students alike, permeating all teaching and learning activities. The MOOC-development

also infers the growth of learning communities and discussion groups (there is always someone in

the world online).

The maintenance and renewal of the systems, underpinning developments within e-learning will be

of central importance to UU. When each student in a classroom goes online at the same time (in a

BYOD scenario) to view, e.g., a film clip, the wireless network must have sufficient capacity.

7.4.2 Platforms

7.4.2.1 The present situation

Today, the Student Portal is well established and well integrated into our educational system. It is

used for practically all student administration (registrations, groupings, enrolling for exams,

registration of examination results, etc.), provisioning of instructional material of any kind, has a

schedule function (TimeEdit) and a learning portfolio, discussion forums, email lists, bulletin boards,

course evaluations, an assignment function with integrated plagiarism control (Urkund), etc. The

national study administration system, Uppdok/LADOK, is also integrated in the portal meaning

students have all their needs served via a single, self-service portal entrance. The Student Portal is

frequently used: in 2013 the number of unique users who logged into a teacher or student account

were 60,700, and there were 10-20,000 unique logins per day. The number of teachers and

administrators with access to work within the Portal are close to 5,000. This illustrates the usability

of the system and demonstrates a substantial level of basic e-learning adoption at UU.

The Ping Pong LMS has for several years faced the intention to be phased out and is, therefore, in a

low-maintenance mode. Patches have been applied, but new features that alter the user experience

are avoided. Another LMS used at UU is the platform Moodle (older modified version) on Campus

Gotland, which is central to the broad array of distance courses on offer. Similarly, Moodle Gotland

is likely to be gradually phased out and is at present not being updated. Neither of these two

platforms has applications tailored for smartphones and tablets. Thus both Moodle Gotland and Ping

Pong will gradually be phased out, though some support and dialogue is required for sufficient

functionality to be maintained during the migration phase. Maintaining multiple e-learning platforms

comes at a significant cost.

There are many developmental requests for the Student Portal. In particular, users ask for the

enhancement of individual tools, additional teacher control and “a modern look and feel”. Test and

quiz functionality is one of the feature classes generating the most requests. Building a complete

system for tests and quizzes, while also tracking general development in terms of user interfaces,

might prove to be a serious challenge. Additional needs relate to improved interoperation between

different tools and features. Today, modern LMSs allow greater integration of tools between

disparate environments, as compared to the Student Portal. Available information from a testing tool

can be transferred to other parts of a common learning environment, for examination or progress

tracking. All current, major LMSs provide some Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) support. The

Student Portal, however, currently lacks such support.


2014-12-19

30

Most LMSs provide statistics on usage patterns (e.g., login activity and frequency, activity

participation, etc. The Student Portal lacks such functionality. The general user interface of the

Student Portal can be perceived to require “too many clicks to get things done”.

7.4.2.2 A national initiative: the Ladok3 project

LADOK (https://www.ladok.se ) is a national system for study administration within higher

education in Sweden. The Swedish Ladok consortium has initiated a total renewal of the national

solution for study documentation: the Ladok3 project. This will be used by the majority of Swedish

institutions for higher education within a few years. The new architecture being introduced is more

modern and functional: the renewal affects data model, business logic and presentation layer alike..

The new Ladok platform will be deployed as a common national service. End-users will have the

ability to log into a common, national service.

Thus, the strict need for local administrative portals for study documentation is removed. For larger

institutions with a significant online and distance learning presence, it might be justifiable to provide

access to Ladok through a proprietary, local solution adding further customizations, as might also be

the case for many local system integration points for Ladok data and services. It should be expected

that these integrations will be more maintainable in the new product than the current ones. Still, local

development and organizational work will increase in the run-in to migration and immediately

afterwards.

7.4.2.3 The Student Portal and LMS solutions

As presented above, and in supplement C, the current Student Portal has difficulties with adding

significant new features and much time is devoted to technical maintenance of an aging system. A

possible solution could be to develop integration toward a learning management system available in

the market. Such an integration of this magnitude would need to be maintained, through explicit

vendor agreements, or in-house development. There might still be a need for a student portal for self-

administration, for those workflows that are more complex than the foundation that will be provided

within the new Ladok generation.

If UU aims to remain in a pioneering position regarding e-learning on the national arena, an

appealing concept would consist of marrying the services and adapted workflows of the Student

Portal to a leading LMS. Some environments, such as Open edX (originally intended for MOOCs),

are gaining features that are more clearly geared towards campus education. Some LMSs that could

be evaluated for such an approach include BlackBoard (due to its significant history in Sweden and

the rest of the world), Canvas (due to its future adoption by other Swedish institutions), Open edX

(due to an appealing MOOC relation and new pedagogical support including automated and semi-

automated feedback within a digital learning context), and Moodle (due to its significant current

adoption within and beyond Uppsala University). BlackBoard is a proprietary system. The other

platforms suggested above are available as open source, but all of them are so widespread that they

can be delivered with full support from commercial vendors. Canvas has a very clear dual model,

where the main developer is also the company providing the platform as a service (with additional

add-ons in the paid-for version). The crucial discussion to have in this context is what kind of web

experience (graphically and otherwise) UU wants to provide to students, prospective students,

faculty and staff with respect to e-learning for the coming 5-10 years.

Alternatively, UU could consider initiating a thorough redesign, similar to the in-house development

project that led to the current Student Portal. Such a solution would be increasingly reliant on

functionality developed exclusively within the Student Portal team at UU. If in-house development

is chosen as the main component of a future strategy, it becomes critical to seek developmental

https://www.ladok.se/


2014-12-19

31

collaborations with other Swedish education institutions: continuing a wholly in-house approach will

probably be the most expensive means of delivering a relevant feature set in all areas.

In all, we recommend a solution where a state-of-the-art LMS is integrated with the kind of

administrative solutions characteristic of the current Student Portal (Supplement C). A technical

review should be initiated for at least the candidate environments, focusing on their ability to

integrate administrative workflows with regard to visible functionality and experience, as well as

stable programmatic integration interfaces. Such a solution could be the foundation for future tools

that eliminate the border between the digital realm and the physical classroom. Depending on the

outcome of such a review, the LMS could be launched alongside the Student Portal, which would, in

turn, be fully retired when the next-generation Ladok services are sufficiently mature. The LMS

could also more fully replace the Student Portal in all aspects.

7.4.2.4 Conclusions

To summarise the technical infrastructure discussion: well-designed systems simplify the workflow

of students and teachers, and well organised course material will assist students in learning and

teachers in their work. The development of e-learning requires technical systems and learning

platforms that are efficient, up-to-date and well supported. They should also be secure and in full

accord with Swedish legislation (for instance, regarding data storage). A portal system should

primarily meet the demands of students and teachers, but also administrative needs, and should be

fully compatible with the coming Ladok3 (see above). When shifting technical systems,

functionality should be ensured with overlap into new systems. We recommend giving priority to

well established systems (commercial or open source), with tailoring for UU's needs, rather than

developing and maintaining UU-specific systems. The technical development has also to meet the

demands of users accessing systems via mobile devices, an increasingly common mode of access.

UU’s present web-based systems for e-learning are aging and need to be rebuilt or replaced within

the next 5 years. However, Ping Pong and Moodle Gotland require replacement sooner, within two

years. Choosing the right kind of system support, in terms of technology and the surrounding

organization, may prove crucial in attracting students as well as engaging faculty. It is, of course,

also crucial to ensuring high-quality education.


UU should actively continue to influence the Ladok3 development in order to ensure that the student

administrative functions of the Student Portal will be given a continued and developed functionality

in the LADOK3 environment.

In order to promote e-learning, we recommend that a technical review and evaluation is pursued to

find a suitable and leading LMS for UU. This evaluation should consider the need for a technical

environment that takes into account the high functionality of our present Student Portal as well as

the future LADOK3 system, and requests from Ping Pong and Moodle users. We must also ensure

that high general IT capacities and security are available.

7.4.3 Multimedia production

Furthermore, e-learning requires good media support for film-making etc. The Medfarm-DoIT

system is a good model which could provide a joint UU system for a “play-it” function. Such media

support also requires easy local access for institutional interactions and to be compatible with the

chosen MOOC-platform. It is also important that film making should be easily accessible and self-

serviced, as well as integrated into the ability training of students.


2014-12-19

32


It should be investigated whether Medfarm “Play-it” system or other options could be made

available as an UU-system, which should also be compatible with the chosen MOOC platform

7.4.4 Digital examinations

The development of digital examinations (e-examination) should be prioritised at UU. The test

facility for using computers in on campus examinations (at BMC - the Biomedical Centre) should be

more heavily used and evaluated. There is large potential for e-exams in terms of how and what to

examine (e.g., essays, multiple choice tests, mathematical problems and the option of virtual

environments to examine various abilities). There is great potential for quality development by the

use of e-exams on campus, though paper and pen may still be the best option for some examinations.

(n.b., on-line e-exams are essential for distance courses and possibly also MOOCs). This will require

security to ensure the right individual is performing the online exam. E-examination also requires the

storage and distribution of corrected exams. Here, digitalisation is fast approaching but brings with it

increased technical, administrative and legal challenges of document storage.


A development to promote reliable e-examinations should be implemented throughout UU. The

question of security and handling of digital exams should be prioritized.


2014-12-19

33

8. e2014 Recommendations in summary

Globalised learning

UU should review its open web pages, and seek to establish a strong research-based educational

profile.

UU teachers should discuss ways to handle open resources on the web and their consequences for

teaching practices.

UU should consider the development of open courses for recruitment and other purposes. Its

production of three pilot MOOCs will be evaluated and the outcome used for future guidance.

New students

UU should prepare to broaden its range of high-quality, distance courses for professional

development

UU should consider developing preparatory, open, non-credit courses for prospective students,

preferably in collaboration with other Swedish universities.

Teachers should consider including BYOD scenarios in their courses.

A culture of openness and sharing

A scientific approach and critical thinking should be promoted. Ethical awareness and ethical

education should be promoted and reinforced by e-learning and UU-support for the implementation

of ethical guidelines. Support to join national e-educations in this field should be given.

UU teachers should be encouraged to contribute to the culture of sharing and to engage in the

production of OER, which will require the formulation of clear guidelines for OER production.

Good examples and excellent resources available for e-learning should be visible and easily

accessed on the web. UU-produced open educational resources as well as UU-research should also

be accessible for global e-learning. Web design work for this purpose should be prioritized.

UU should consider new channels and arenas for making the voices of its researchers and teachers

heard

From distance pedagogy to blended learning

Teachers should actively explore how students can contribute to course content and structure, and

web-based systems should support and facilitate such practices

The implementation of e-portfolios for documentation of ability training and other learning activities

should be supported and prioritised in portal/platform-systems.

The use of flipped classroom pedagogy should be more widely encouraged, in order to investigate

how it can support student learning within a broader range of teaching traditions.

When rebuilding and building new localities, the need for flexible, digitally accessible, and technologically adaptive locations should be considered.


2014-12-19

34

The development of educational infrastructure (premises, equipment, technical support and

competence of teachers and students) must consider flexibility and rapidly changing requirements

to promote a global class room.

Reflection and research: learning about e-learning

The allocation of resources to discipline-based educational research in all three disciplinary

domains, to promote general educational research as well as research on e-learning in higher

education.

Equal opportunities/accessibility

Central support for increased accessibility should be given, thereby meeting the requirements of

multiple ways of learning, improving accessibility and promoting awareness of equal rights. The

equality groups should attend to aid equal rights awareness in the productions.

Establishing a model for professional development

Allocation of funds to initiate this multilevel organizational project, and formation of a group tasked

with (i) establishing a working model and (ii) coordinating efforts to meet departmental needs.

Platforms

UU should actively continue to influence the Ladok3 development in order to ensure that the student

administrative functions of the Student Portal will be given a continued and developed functionality

in the LADOK3 environment.

In order to promote e-learning, we recommend that a technical review and evaluation is pursued to

find a suitable and leading LMS for UU. This evaluation should consider the need for a technical

environment that takes into account the high functionality of our present Student Portal as well as

the future LADOK3 system, and requests from Ping Pong and Moodle users. We must also ensure

that high general IT capacities and security are available.

Multimedia production

It should be investigated whether Medfarm “Play-it” system or other options could be made

available as an UU-system, which should also be compatible with the chosen MOOC platform

Digital examinations

A development to promote e-examinations should be implemented throughout UU. The question of

security and handling of digital exams should be prioritized.


2014-12-19

35

9. References

Graham C.R., Woodfield W. & Harrison J.B. (2013). A framework for institutional adoption and

implementation of blended learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education 18: 4-14.

Lack K.A. (2013). Current status of research on online learning in postsecondary education. Ithaka

S+R

Lee, J. ed. (2010), Kunskapens nya världar : Mötet mellan pedagogik och teknik vid Uppsala

Learning Lab, http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A395792&dswid=382

McAleese M. et al. (2014). High level group on the Modernisation of Higher Education. European

Commission report on New modes of learning and teaching in higher education. Oct 2014

doi:10.2766/81897

Means B., Toyama Y., Murphy R., Bakia M. & Jones K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based

practices in online learning. U.S. Department of Education (revised 2010)

Porter W.W., Graham C.R., Spring K.A. & Welch K.R. (2014). Blended learning in higher

education: Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers & Education 75: 185-195.

Tamim R.M., Bernard R.M., Borokhovski E., Abrami P.C. & Schmid R.F. (2011). What forty years

of research says about the impact of technology on learning: a second-order meta-analysis and

validation. Review of Educational Research 81: 4-28.

Links

Centre for discipline-based education research in mathematics, engineering, science and technology

at UU: www.mint.uu.se

DiaNa: http://www.ibg.uu.se/diana

European commission report retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1188_en.htm

Flipped classroom: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57MvwhSbv3k

CreED report:- Creative Educational Development 2010-2012 - An overall Evaluation of

Educational Development at Uppsala University:, retrieved from

http://aktivstudentmedverkan.uadm.uu.se/references/litterature/documents/?languageId=1

MOOCs for Norway: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/nou-2014-5/id762916/

Legal handbook: http://www.legalahandboken.se/

Teaching and Learning at Uppsala University:


TUR: http://www.teknat.uu.se/about-us-contact/pedagogisk-utveckling/tur

http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A395792&dswid=382

http://www.mint.uu.se/

http://www.ibg.uu.se/diana

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1188_en.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57MvwhSbv3k

http://aktivstudentmedverkan.uadm.uu.se/references/litterature/documents/?languageId=1

https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/nou-2014-5/id762916/

http://www.legalahandboken.se/


http://www.teknat.uu.se/about-us-contact/pedagogisk-utveckling/tur


2014-12-19

36

Supplement A

E-learning activities funded by the Vice-chancellor through e2014

MOOCs

UU is supporting the development of three pilot MOOCs (massive open online courses; one per

disciplinary domain) with the aim of learning more about this form of knowledge distribution. This

experience will inform future guidance on MOOCs. The three chosen MOOCs are:

Antibiotic resistance (Disciplinary domain of Medicine and Pharmacy).

Crises, politics and business cycles (Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social

Sciences)

Computational finance (Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology).

The aim is to learn more about the production and use of MOOCs, to guide us on future strategy

decisions. At present, the participants will not receive credits or degrees at UU, though they will be

issued a certificate based on certain requirements being met.

The MOOC working group is currently negotiating with the MOOC-platform provider FutureLearn,

with the intention of reaching an agreement. The courses will be launched in the second half of

2015. After each course has been delivered twice, the results will be evaluated. We see a potential in

the production of MOOCs at UU as it:

Makes UU's qualities visible and market our education and research.

Gives the opportunity for public education and general competence developments, as well

as the option to contribute to online learning communities.

Enhances qualities in our campus and distance courses by the use of MOOC-material and

working methods. We see a potential for pedagogical development and the possibility for

use in, e.g.,, preparatory courses.

Promoting models for sustainable knowledge transfer

During 2014/15, the vice-chancellor has provided funding for ten teacher-led e-learning projects in

Visby. The projects have disparate goals, ranging from the development of tools for distance courses

to a major overhaul of a department’s educational activities. What unites them is that all projects

were required, from the outset, to formulate ideas and strategies for how the pedagogical experiences

gained from these projects could be presented, diffused and preserved for the benefit of other

teachers.

Campus Gotland was chosen as the base for the projects, because the compact campus makes it easy

to keep the group together, allowing them to learn from each other’s projects. At the same time, the

18 departments represented in Visby will also provide channels for the diffusion of project results

back into UU. An educational developer has been hired to support the projects. The results of the

projects will be the subject of two workshops during 2015, one in Visby, and the other in Uppsala.


2014-12-19

37

To follow:

Supplement B

Results of e-learning questionnaire (in Swedish)

Supplement C

Analysis of the technical framework for central, web-based learning environments at UU (in Swedish)

the further develop- ment of e-learning at uppsala university

Documents