Athabasca University as a case study

Transformational Strategies for Flexible E-Learning Delivery:

Dominique Abrioux

Overview Flexible E-Learning

– Institutional– Programmatic– Course module

Athabasca University and Flexible Learning

E-Learning Opportunities for Flexible Learning

Key Flexibility Factors– Institutional motivation– Organizational culture– Infrastructure

Concluding Remarks

Flexible E-Learning

Flexible = Student Centered

PROGRAM

COURSE

INSTITUTION

Institutional Flexibility Admission

Cost

Service Delivery Academic Student services Administrative services

Collaboration

Criteria Process Windows

Tuition Other Fees Relocation Foregone Income

How? Where? When?

Program/course design Course delivery Student services Course selection Credit coordination

PROGRAM FLEXIBILITY

Recognition of prior learning-Formal (e.g. transfer credits)-Informal (e.g. portfolio)

Challenge for credit

Time to completion

Residency requirements-On-site obligations

-Courses to be taken from host institution

Program design-Compulsory/optional course balance-Course prerequisites

COURSE FLEXIBILITYVariable / fixed start dates

Time to completion

Module length

Paced / unpaced

Course media (access)

Individualized / collaborative learning

Accommodating of different learning styles

- presentation of learning materials (content)

- variety of learning activities- alternative assessment models

Athabasca University Primer

Brief History

• 1970 Established By Province of Alberta as the 4th public university (June 25,1970)

• 1973 - 75 Pilot Project (First Course opened in 1973)

• 1978 Permanent Mandate: Single Mode ODL

• 1986 9,552 students

• 1994 11,591 students 2 Masters programs open AU’s future in doubt:

• Underperforming / costly• Misunderstood by primary stakeholder (government)

• 2005 35,000 students (@3,000 Master’s level)

• 2006 40,000 students (strategic goal)

AU’s Distinguishing Mission

• Removing barriers to access and success in university-level studies

geographical prior education financial

ENROLMENT DATA &

LEARNER DEMOGRAPHICS

Course Registrations by Location

17,963 19,050 20,963 22,867

31,375

17,289

23,17717,299 20,524 27,066

0%10%20%30%40%50%

60%70%80%90%

100%

1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04

International

US

ROC

Alberta

2003-04 Undergraduate Age and Gender Balance

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Under 25 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 +

Female Male

UndergraduatePrevious Education

15.40%

66.70%

17.90%

No Post - Secondary Some Post - Secondary

University Degree

Programs

1995/

1996

2003/2004

Undergraduate Degrees 08 14

Graduate Degrees 02 08

Undergraduate University Certificates 09 15

Graduate University Diplomas 01 05

STAFFING 1996 2004

Academics (regular) 65 106Academics (part-time) 31 161Tutors (part-time) 174 258Professionals 53 145Management/Executive 12 17Support/Temporary 132 262Casuals 34 79

TOTAL 501 1028

Budget

1994/

19952004/

2005

Annual budget

(millions)

$24.3 $75

Government grant 72% 30%

AU FLEXIBILITY REPORT CARD

INSTITUTIONAL FLEXIBILITY

Admission -Criteria-Windows

-Process

Cost -Tuition -Non tuition

-Relocation -Foregone income

Service Delivery - Academic

- Student services -How? Where? - Administrative services When?

Inter-Institutional Collaboration - Program design - Course development - Course delivery - Student services - Course selection - Credit coordination

>open – undergraduate>alternative routes– graduate>continuous – undergraduate

>online/paper/phone

+/- +/->anyplace>anytime

>web/email/phone/fax/mail>distributed/anytime exams>service culture

>some joint programs <seldom>some joint delivery>some joint delivery>strategic alliances>online consortia

PROGRAM FLEXIBILITY

Recognition of prior learning-Formal (e.g. transfer credits)-Informal (e.g. portfolio)-Challenge for credit

Time to completion

Residency requirements-On-site obligations

-Courses to be taken from host institution

Program design-Compulsory/optional courses-Course prerequisites

-individualized/articulated-range -all courses

-none (except labs)-@1/3 of total-one credit coordinating degree [BGS]

-10 years(unless time sensitive)

-rationalized in program proposal

COURSE FLEXIBILITY

Variable / fixed start dates

Time to completion

Module length

Paced / unpaced

Course media (access)

Accommodate different learning styles- presentation of learning materials (content)- variety of learning activities- individualized / collaborative Learning- alternative assessment models

•12 per annum

•0 to 6 months•Extensions / Suspensions

•3 credits

•all courses unpaced•some paced alternatives

•Multi-media •in transition to e-learning

•very little

E-Learning Opportunities for Increased Flexibility

INSTITUTIONALAdmission CostService delivery

PROGRAMPLATime to completionResidencyDesign

COURSEStart datesTime to completionModule lengthPaced/unpacedCourse mediaDifferent learning styles

High Medium Low None

E-Learning Opportunities for Flexibility cntd.

COLLABORATION

Program design

Course design

Course delivery

Student services

Course selection

Credit coordination

High Medium Low None

CORE FACTORS IMPACTING FLEXIBLE LEARNING AS A STRATEGIC INSTITUTIONAL GOAL

KEY FLEXIBILITY FACTORS

Organizational Culture

Institutional Infrastructure

Originof Demand

3 Key Factors Impacting Flexibility

Demand for Flexibility– Mandate-driven?– Strategic priority?– Business-driven?

Organizational Culture– Common values– Service as a core business

Institutional Infrastructure– Single/ dual mode– Staffing complement– Size of student body

DEMAND FOR FLEXIBILITY

- Mandate-driven? - Strategic priority?

- Business-driven?

Mandate-Driven Flexible Learning Government determined mandate (1995, 1999) emphasizing:

– Open university– Individualized distance education– Coordination of credit & transfer credit– College collaboration– Assessment of prior learning

Government determined Letter of Understanding (1995) emphasizing learner-driven determination of academic regulations & curriculum articulation:

– Open admission– Minimal course prerequisite restrictions– Maximum course selection flexibility within programs– Minimal residency requirements (courses taken from AU)– Credit coordination options– Course challenge-for-credit– Year-round enrolment– Liberal course completion and extension deadlines– Policies and procedures to facilitate part-time enrollment– Delivery models emphasizing individually-paced learning

MISSION-Driven Flexible Learning

Internal Institutional Mission Statement (1985) emphasizing:

– the removal of barriers that traditionally restrict access to and success in university-level studies

– increasing equality of educational opportunity for all adult Canadians regardless of their geographical location and prior academic credentials

Reaffirmation of Institutional Mission Statement

(1996, 2002)

STRATEGIC Planning for Flexible Learning (1996-1999 Strategic University Plan / 2000-2002 Update)

Identify Individualized D.E. as the core business & defines accessibility/flexibility strategies around:

– Electronic, Multi-Modal Learning Systems– Asynchronous Administrative Access to Services – Partnerships– Prior Learning Accreditation– Tuition and related costs

Identify significant strategic implications for increasing accessibility, individualization and quality:

– Investment in (asynchronous) e-technology and e-systems– Single-window point of access for students (web, alias, call-

centre)– Policy development and benchmarks (e.g. service to students)

STRATEGIC Planning for Flexible Learning cntd. (2002-2006 Strategic University Plan)

Builds on previous SUPs and assigns primordial strategic importance to Meeting Learners’ Needs through flexible learning systems that exploit:

– Open, individualized DE – E-learning pedagogy that engages students in asynchronous

learning and assessment activities– Asynchronous, online e-services to learners (e.g. library)– Quality courses, programs, and student support services

BUSINESS-Driven Flexible Learning(1995 – present)

1995 Reality Check– No growth during past 10 years– Highest tuition, highest grant per FLE– Lowest performance on KPI’s

External environmental assessment (1996 SUP) – Diminishing public resources– Performance-based funding– Increased demands for accountability– Greater competition– Rapid technological change– Uncertainty in all things economic, political, social,

and technical

“Increased competition, both from out of province/out of country

providers of DE and from institutions that historically have not exploited DE systems means

that AU’s growth depends on its ability to continue to distinguish itself from

competitors. This can best be achieved by building on the

learner-centered philosophy…” 1999 SUP Update

BUSINESS-Driven Flexible Learning cntd.

Continuous assessment of marketplace

“Post-secondary institutions will increase offerings of grouped-study

online offerings, particularly in undergraduate and graduate

professional programs…

Competition based on the cost and quality of learning

opportunities and support services will increase…

Athabasca University’s learning flexibility and

openness is unparalleled…”2002 SUP

BUSINESS-Driven Flexible Learning cntd.

Continuous assessment of marketplace

BUSINESS-Driven Flexible Learning cntd.

Institutional 4-Year Business Plan– Premised on 10% growth per annum

– Links growth with meeting learners’ needs for flexibility

– Importance of flexibility represents key attraction of AU to its learners

Reasons for Enrolling in BA Degree

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Self Paced Courses

Diploma Credits

AU Staff & Service

Reputation of AU

Lower Cost

PLAR

Seminar Location

Very Important Important Not Very Not At All

BUSINESS-Driven Flexible Learning cntd.

Continuous Assessment of Client’s Needs

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

- Common values- Flexibility & service culture

Our Values (2002 SUP)

EXCELLENCE

LEARNING

SCHOLARLY RESEARCH

FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS

OPENNESS AND FLEXIBILITY

DIVERSITY AND INCLUSIVENESS

OUR EMPLOYEES

ACCOUNTABILITY

Our Values (2002 SUP)

EXCELLENCE

LEARNINGStudent learning and satisfaction are the measures of our success

SCHOLARLY RESEARCH

FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS

OPENNESS AND FLEXIBILITYReducing barriers to education enhances access and social equity

DIVERSITY AND INCLUSIVENESSDiversity and inclusiveness enhance the quality both of learning

and of the workplace

OUR EMPLOYEES

ACCOUNTABILITYWe are accountable to students, to each other, and to the public

•Online student have high, ever escalating service-related expectations

•Competition is regional, national, global •Unlike campus-based education, there is no protected market

•Delivering online education is part of the service industry

Flexible Learning & Service Culture

Define/Publicize/Monitor/Review/Revise Benchmarks

Implement Systems

Develop Policies

Provide Systematic Training

Monitor service levels and benchmarks

Turning Values into PracticeFlexible Service as a Core Business

Your Colleagues: Give and Expect the Best

Expect the Best: Student Service Standards

EXPECT THE BEST AU Service Standards

Give and Expect the Best

Staff at AU have a right to expect the best as well. Every day each of us serves our colleagues to assist them with their work in serving other colleagues or students. The standards identified here are meant to provide information about the level of service staff members should expect of each other.

Give and Expect the Best cont.

Qualitative Service Standards

In many ways, these are the standards that speak to a "culture of respect" in which we would all like to work. When asked what aspects reflect a respectful interaction, staff members cite:

addressing the colleague in a respectful way ensuring not to interrupt a colleague who is busy asking, not demanding assistance allowing time for response and action providing an opportunity for problem solution rather than approaching the supervisor understanding that at times a colleague may be under stress and need some special consideration thanking a colleague for a service performed refraining from sending e-mail when angry respecting your colleague’s expertise

Give and Expect the Best cont.Quantitative Standards are outlined for the following areas: General Service Expectations Executive and Senior Managers Office of the President and University Secretariat Office of the Vice-President, Academic Office of the Vice-President Student Services Counselling Unit Ombuds Office Academic Staff Academic Support Unit Learning Services, Tutorial Learning Services, Outreach Collaborations Office of the Registrar Course Materials Production Computing Services Library The Learning Centres

– Edmonton – Calgary

Finance Human Resources Facilities Educational Media Development (under development) VPSS FOIP and Records Management Institutional Studies (under development) Training and Consultation Public Affairs

EXPECT THE BEST AU Service Standards

Know The Level Of Service To Which You Are Entitled We’ve established service levels in the following areas:

General Information Administrative Service Library Service Course Materials Service Electronic Communication Assistance Academic Support Service Counselling, Advising and Ombuds Services

These standards are provided by Athabasca University to:-determine if the service standard is being met; -determine whom to contact for follow-up; and -determine when to involve the Ombuds office.

Academic Support Standards (Cont’d)

Library & Course Materials Standards (Cont’d)

Registry Service Standards

Registry Standards (Cont’d)

SERVICE STANDARD CONTACT

Registry Standards (Cont’d)

SERVICE STANDARD CONTACT

registrar@athabascau.ca

(780) 675 6302

Online Self-Help Ask-AU (IntelliResponse System) Student Information System data Course Management System data Web registration and other web services

Call-Centre Model For non-academic support

Telephone 1-800 lines E-mail access

Academic Call Centre (School of Business) Learning Facilitators Markers Academic Experts

Service: System Drivers

Service: Policies/Procedures

Centralized Policies (examples)

Voice-MailE-MailAvailability of Academic Staff

(described in terms of their accessibility)

Procedures (examples)

Departmental procedures @ benchmarksOmbuds Office procedures

Managerial responsibility (ongoing)

Institutional Studies Responsibility Student Satisfaction With Academic Services

Survey (annual) Student Satisfaction with Service Units Surveys

(bi-annual)

Reporting Reports released individually Through Institutional Key Performance Indicators

reported annually internally& to Board

Monitoring Service Levels

Title of Survey Latest Survey Date Next Survey Date

Library August 2004 August 2007

CS Help Desk (staff) December 2004 December 2007

CS Help Desk (students)

December 2004 December 2007

Registry September 2002 To be included in Academic Services (June 2005)

Learning Centre Students

December 2001 To be included in Academic Services (June 2005)

Counselling August 2004 August 2007

Course Materials Part of Central Student Evaluation (Fiscal Year Summary Available - June)

Part of Central Student Evaluation (Fiscal Year Summary Available - June)

Call Centre Part of Central Student Evaluation (Fiscal Year Summary Available - June)

Part of Central Student Evaluation (Fiscal Year Summary Available - June)

INSTITUTIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE

-Single / dual mode-Staffing complement-Size of student body

Single / Dual Mode Infrastructures&

Flexible Student Learning

Flexible learning is more easily achieved in a dedicated, single mode ODL institution– Differentiated mission minimizes sub-cultures– Institution-wide commitment to FSL more readily

achievable– Flexible academic regulations and modes of

delivery can be the rule rather than the exception – Organizational infrastructure conceived and

developed with a view to FSL

Collaboration across single mode ODL institutions create more opportunities for FSL

AU/Téluq Alliance

In place since Sept. 1999

Each institution delivers its own courses

Courses from either institution accepted as meeting institutional requirements of both institutions

Student advising coordinated across institutions

Students pay fees set by their home institution and register with their home institution

Quasi seamlessness from learner’s perspective

Official launch Fall 2000

Current membership of ten provincial universities

Open to any chartered (AUCC) Canadian university

Common online course catalogue

Unable to deliver on principles around seemlessness – E.g. Transferability, residency, duplicate fees

Staffing & Student Complements

Staffing complement factors– Number of academic faculty– Status of academic faculty

Full-time/part-time Tenured / contract

– Faculty buy-in to mission / rapidity of growth in faculty numbers

– Special incentive systems required (as FSL = less faculty flexibility)

Governance model– Accountability, particularly to learners– Learners as stakeholders

Student complement– Number, rate of growth, age, expectations, mobility

CONCLUSION

Self-help and asynchronous access are the best friends of flexile student services

Growth rate of academic staff & student volume impact flexibility

Flexibility in addressing different learning styles remains elusive

No flexibility is desirable insofar as quality is concerned…

Student Satisfaction ResultsAlberta University Survey 2002