An approach for e-learning/b-learning dissemination in a higher education institution using pivot faculty

Gonalo Cruz Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences University of Coimbra (UC) Portugal Ana Maia Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences University of Coimbra (UC) Portugal Joo Barroso School of Sciences and Technology University of Trs-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD) Portugal Teresa Pessoa Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences University of Coimbra (UC) Portugal Leonel Morgado School of Sciences and Technology University of Trs-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD) Portugal
Abstract: This paper presents a preliminary approach for implementing e-learning/blearning pedagogical practices at the University of Trs-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD), North-eastern Portugal. It is a low-resource, middle-out approach, based on the creation of pivot teachers at each UTAD subunit, supported by consultancy services. It was initiated in September 2010 and scheduled for one year, with the ambition to serve as a basis to extend e-learning and b-learning practices to the overall organization.

Introduction
Empowering faculty to take advantage of the affordances enabled by e-learning technologies in their educational approach can be a major task, when viewed from an institutional perspective, requiring significant allocation of human and technical resources. But strategies and approaches can be taken to facilitate or support wider adoption of these technologies, even before allocation of significant resources becomes viable, as we mention in the next section. The University of Trs-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD), located in Vila Real, North-eastern Portugal, is taking such an approach, led by the Pro-Chancellery for Innovation and Information Management, building from existing technology and scattered efforts and goodwill. There is an institutional practice of administrative use by faculty of online services developed locally, to provide syllabi, grades, and other course materials. There is a willingness of several faculty members to engage in b-learning and e-learning practices, as a way to increase contact with their students, and as way to reach new audiences, geographically distant, for whom physical presence at the campus would not be viable. There are scattered online education practices by some faculty members, using wikis, blogs, and virtual worlds. There is also a scarcely-used Moodle platform and a technical team available to maintain its operation (but not for producing content and no team with an educational background).

- 714 -

The adopted approach consisted in creating pivot faculty members in each sub-unit of UTAD, assisted by a small team of educational consultants, in the form of Educational Sciences trainees with a background in e-learning as part of their formal education. The goal is for these faculty members to become aware of educational possibilities and the actual practices involved, not just in terms of traditional e-learning/b-learning, but also of novel practices using Web 2.0 platforms and virtual worlds: the planning requirements, the management process, assessment, etc. In doing so, it is UTADs expectation that these pivots both can act as supporting peers of other faculty members in their sub-units, and as advocates for adoption of e-learning and b-learning technologies and practices. This, in turn, is intended to serve as a base for establishing clear needs and requirements, so that a university-wide approach can later be developed.

Institutional practices for adoption of e-learning/b-learning

Adoption of e-learning by higher education institutions has been widespread throughout Europe, with varying degrees of success (Barajas & Gannaway, 2007; PLS Ramboll, 2004). That is not an easy and simple process for the traditional European universities. The complexity and difficulty associated, normally requires a greater effort from involved actors than initially expected. It is reflected in the alliance between resources, time, energy and skills. For every arisen problem, is necessary a fully context and strategic vision adopted analyze. Only these way universities can effectively adapt and respond to their own situations, because each problem is unique and exclusive to the reality of each institution. (Barajas & Gannaway, 2007). In the specific case of Web 2.0 and eLearning 2.0 respectively, inclusion and equity, advanced digital competence, safety and privacy concerns, special needs, pedagogical skills, uncertainty and requirements on institutional changes are the largest challenges, barriers, and bottlenecks identified in educational European institutions. In this way, institutions must provide students with access to media, as well as ways to promote their responsible and critical use. On the other hand, should also provide an adequate infrastructure, supporting and equipping teachers with the required skills for the development of e-learning with their students (Redecker & Punie, 2010). Therefore, organizational changes, particularly in university contexts, can not only focus on whether the approaches are top-down or bottom-up. The middle-out approach, in this context, must be considered. It is based on management staff work, to promote the change process. That is, the middle-out approach juggles a mid-terrain between the individual focus of faculty members and the strategic focus of higher management (Rankine & Malfroy, 2009). Cautions are needed. Since process beginning, starting at individual purposes to organizational purposes, good dynamic understandings crucial, facilitating implementation and unwind of institutional process. This is the present challenge, especially for universities (Casanovas, 2010). These institutions have followed different paths towards innovation, with diverse allocation of resources/features, and varying costs associated with them. The changes in institutional policies must be followed by changes in leadership perspective (Giardina, 2010). Peer instruction education has been increasing in the past few years. Its potential is big in many situations, innovation being one of them. Several researchers defend that a good strategy to obtain good results is creating pioneers (or pivots) in the use of e-learning on pedagogic practices, so they can influence actively and help their peers to do the same. In several projects for innovation technology, specifically in e-learning, this concept of pivot (typically, a pivot teacher) is consensual and used, because results often exceed expectations. We consider that the key element is a culture of mutual support and sharing, to increase the possibility of success. On example of adoption of this model is the FutureSchool@Singapore Programme (Lim & Cheah, 2010; Giardina, 2010). Another element to bear in mind is the possibility of supporting pivots with consulting services. Such an approach is found in the Flexible Learning Initiatives Project, implemented in the Faculty of Law of the Queensland University of Technology: a team of consultants provides pedagogical support to teaching staff introducing e-learning in their practices. The consultants work in a case-by-case basis, helping design appropriated pedagogical strategies for each teachers educational content. The consultants are also available for consultation and assistance at any time (Giardina, 2010).

Institutional context UTAD

UTAD is located in Vila Real, North-eastern Portugal. Originally the Polytechnic Institute of Vila Real, founded in 1973, with a focus on agricultural and biological sciences, it became a university in 1986. Currently, the educational offer at UTAD is diverse, organized in five schools: School of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences (ECAV, Portuguese-language acronym), School of Humanities and

- 715 -

Social Sciences (ECHS, Portuguese-language acronym), School of Sciences and Technology (ECT, Portuguese-language acronym), School of Life and Environmental Sciences (ECVA, Portugueselanguage acronym), and Higher School of Nursing (ESE, Portuguese-language acronym). UTAD has several technical services, including a Computing and Communications Service (SIC, Portugueselanguage acronym), which provides technological support to computer systems, such as e-mail, computer networks, institutional intranet, Moodle platform, and SIDE (described later), among others. However, the SIC do not provide pedagogical support of training for e-learning; nor is it available at any other UTAD technical service. The SIDE platform (information system in support of teaching, Portuguese-language acronym), provides online content in support of classes and student autonomous study. It also supports routine administrative tasks such as registering attendance, grades, syllabi and class summaries. The use of this platform is widespread by faculty members, to the point of being explicitly mentioned in the teaching standards of UTAD that all teachers must use it to provide basic information about each course, the attendance records and students grades (Reis et al, 2006). SIDE originated locally at UTAD in 2002 and has been constantly developed ever since. It originated as a final graduation project in Electric Engineering, and evolved into an on-line service which was used by the full Department of Engineering, and later by the entire university (since 2006). A technical support team produces further enhancements and responds to needs and requirements that are identified regularly. Since SIDE is not focused on the teaching-learning process, but rather on the administrative procedures, it is not a Learning Management System (LMS) but a Course Management System (CMS), simplifying students access to courses syllabi, supporting materials, and results of assessment. A Moodle platform is also available at UTAD, with technical support provided by the SIC, since the academic year 2005/2006, as part of the institutional will to develop e-learning initiatives. All teaching staff at UTAD has access to the platform with the same credentials they use for SIDE and for the institutional intranet. The SIC has promoted initiatives for teacher training on how to use Moodle, from a purely technological and functional view. Very few faculty members have responded by taking up the challenge of using this platform. The teaching staff numbers about 600, with only about 4 or 5 regularly uses Moodle in their teaching practice and mostly for the most basic activities, such as forums and providing feedback on student assignments. One cannot disregard, at this level, the lack of support for the transition from classroom teaching practices to online practices. However, individual initiatives by that small percentage of teaching staff keep occurring. The latest is that in February 2011 a post-graduate programme on Natural Hazards and Emergency Plans will be launched, almost entirely supported by using Moodle. This is the result of a joint initiative by three institutional departments, involving approximately about ten teachers. However, the use of Web 2.0 tools for educational practices, especially blogs and wikis, is found amongst teaching staff in particular, staff that is not using Moodle. Initial contacts with some of these members of teaching staff have been fruitful, for they have expressed an interest in improving their teaching practice with these tools and willingness to use other tools. 3D virtual worlds are also found. A small number of teachers use them in their practices and even develop educational and technical research in the field, particularly in the teaching of programming. There are also several engineering projects involving the use and development of virtual worlds, in partnership with national and international companies.

The approach
The approach adopted is based on two main aspects: a pedagogical supervision with a team of two consultants, who are experts in Educational Sciences and with knowledge in e-learning pedagogy, and in pivot faculty members, two volunteer teachers of sub-units of UTAD. The reasons for choose two teachers per sub-unit are related to intention of promote the institution autonomy, enabling the pivots assist others in the same school, who wish to join use of technology to their teaching practices. The intend is ensuring the continuity the project and get a redundancy that prevents dropouts or losing motivation of one of the pivots, keeping the second to guarantee the stability of this one. This initiative starts in September of the academic year 2010/2011. There were two alternatives for action: a) starting to prepare, with teachers, the semester which starts in February, or b) start working with teachers immediately, even though they already have plans for teaching defined, established and started. We opted for the second part, to the extent that - although very limited in scope than would be possible - would allow the team of consultants and teachers to establish a mutual understanding of interests and objectives and develop ways to communicate more free from misunderstandings or differences in terminology and culture. Thus, it is possible not only to develop some experience within

- 716 -

the disciplines e-learning/b-learning underway in the first half, but also ensure that the planning of the second semester will not be impaired by deficiencies of communication or mutual understanding.

Establishing Communication Channels Mutual Knowledge

Prepare and plan the activities for 2nd semester

2nd semester

Moment 1

Moment 2

September

December

February

June

Image 1: Temporal diagram representing the principal phases of the project. The first phase will start in mid September 2010. The goals are the presentation of the participating teachers and consultants and interviews to survey the needs and expectations of each. It is expected in this period the preparation and planning activities to be held next semester and still produce b-learning situations that allow a setting to Web 2.0 tools in teaching practices of teachers and students. The aim here is to prepare these players for the use of different tools, promoting a period ambience to them, allowing their exploitation and development of skills to use technology, thereby enhancing its use as a tool for pedagogical work in the semester that will follow. In the case of teachers that already use e-learning in their practices, this period will serve to support the pedagogical development. The second phase aims to achieve the plans drawn up earlier time, using appropriate technological tools. The expected is start the second half with a detailed planning of courses and/or modules that will be taught, including activities using various technology tools, past the Web 2.0, virtual worlds, skills acquired for manipulation of these tools and tutoring and evaluation practices of the tasks required. The consulting function and the role of consultants guess is most intense at first phase, as mediators in the process of inclusion and adequacy of tools for teaching practices of each teacher. It also extend to functions as aids in the process of planning activities and schedules, instructional design, in online tutoring, development of assessment tools and tutorials and to motivate the different subjects of the process: teachers and students (intervention just in time). In the second phase the consultants will monitor all activities to be undertaken, restricting itself to provide assistance whenever requested. At the end of this process will proceed to the evaluation. It will take place according to several dimensions, the activities of consultants in different tasks, getting an insight into the burden of supporting educational effort that was involved. This allows assess how large of an ideal team to support UTAD as a whole or, from another perspective, what the scope of results expected and the pace behind those of a team with the same dimension. The satisfaction of teachers and students in the consulting provided and the activities will assess the adequacy of the model used for consulting and teaching strategies adopted. Finally, the usefulness of the instruments produced (video tutorials, questionnaires, etc.) and the need for them, lead, initially, the conclusions regarding the immediate need to adapt and improve them, as well as gauging the need for a specialized team in content production technology and their size, to support the process of UTAD b-learning/e-learning. Other dimensions deemed relevant will also be subject to evaluation. This evaluation plan will integrate necessarily three phases: an initial diagnostic evaluation, through an ongoing evaluation or evaluation-regulation (which will allow identification of problems and solving the same throughout project intervention just in time) and a final evaluation, summative (aiming to examine the achievements and indication of the important aspects in order to pursue the project and similar future actions).

Field effort: first impressions

The development of this approach has now ensued. At the time of writing, pivot faculty members were already identified in all schools except the Higher School of Nursing. Of those, some have embraced the project with enthusiasm, either by being more ambition in their ongoing Web 2.0 efforts and elearning efforts, or by deciding to start the preparation of the February semester right away. Others have been more cautious, refraining from changing practices, wishing to start only in January. Others still have

- 717 -

embarked on assisted experimentation and fiddling with e-learning tools, with the support of the consulting team, but not with the direct involvement of students, rather as a personal awareness. Unforeseen events did occur, which have impacted our consulting planning, and may ultimately require a reorganization of the approach during its course. It is necessary to take into account that the educational dimension of a university professor has the lowest value compared to the dimensions of research and extension. Because of that, some teachers not always have the availability that an effective development of e-learning activities requires and others do not demonstrate the pedagogical and technological skills that supposedly should have. This fact, associated to some communication failures with teachers involved made us to change some aspects of our initial approach and point of views.

Final thoughts
We are confident and hopeful on the outcomes of the presented approach. While technical resources have been applied regularly in the past 4 years to develop e-learning at UTAD, the pedagogic know-how and practice is a critical element which requires significant investments in human resources. While these will eventually be put into place, establishing the actual needs and ensuring the sound use of such investments is no trivial task. The resources involved in the approach described in this paper is low, and the potential is high: if we do achieve to making e-learning/b-learning practices more widespread and diversified at the institutional level, the actual needs and requirements may spring out of grassroots dynamics, thus ensuring that larger investments can be made effective almost as soon as they are put into place, and possibly reach maturity faster than through an institutional top-down approach.

References
Barajas, M., & Gannaeay, G. (2007). Immplementing E-learning in the Traditional Higher Education Institutions. Higher Education in Europe 32 (2) , pp. 111-119. Carver, R., King, R., Hannum, W., & Fowler, B. (2007). Toward a Model of Experiential E-Learning. Jornal of Online Learning and Teaching 3 (3). Casanovas, I. (2010). Exploring the Current Theoretical Background about Adoption until Instiotutionalization of Online Education in Universities: Needs for Further Research. Electronic Journal of e-Learning 8 (2) , 73-84. Giardina, N. (2010). Designing for successful diffusion: A faculty-based approach to enhancing staff use of technologies for effective teaching and learning. ascilite 2010 - curriculum, technology & transformation for an unknown future. Sydney. Lim, C., & Cheah, H. (2010). Situating Practitioner research in the future schools. In L. Tay, M. Khine, & C. Lim, Research by Practitioners for Practitioners: A School's Journey into the Future (pp. 2-14). Singapore: Pearson. PLS RAMBOLL. (2004). Studies in the context of the E-learning Initiative: Virtual Models of European Universities (Lot1). Final Report to the European Commission. DG Education and Culture. Rankine, L., & Malfroy, J. (2009). An institutional approach to embedding quality in e-learning: Developing staff capacity at UWS. EDUCAUSE. Australia: Perth.

- 718 -

Redecker, C., & Punie, Y. (2010). Learning 2.0 - Promoting Innovation in Formal Education and Training in Europe. In M. Wolpers, P. Kirschner, M. Scheffel, S. Lindstaedt, & V. Dimitrova (Eds.), Sustaining TEL: From Innovation to Learning and Practice (pp. 308-323). Berlin: Springer. Reis A, Fraga G, Godinho J S, Borges J, Rodrigues F, Costa A, Barbosa L, Barroso J, Bulas Cruz J, (2006). Providing services for students - a project report, Is Information Technology Shaping the Future of Higher Education?, EUNIS 2006 - European University Information Systems, pg. 385-388, University of Tartu, Estonia 28-30 June, 2006, ISBN 9985-4-0484-X. Wolpers, M., Kitschner, P. A., Scheffel, M., Lindstaedt, S., & Dimitrova, V. (2010). Sustaining TEL: From Innovation to Learning and Practice. 5th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning. Barcelona - Spain: Proceedings.

- 719 -