Chris McCarthy, Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology, New Zealand
mccarthycm@cpit.ac.nz

Janne Ross, Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology, New Zealand
rossj@cpit.ac.nz

McCarthy, C. & Ross, J.(2006, July), eLearning Education in ICT for a Digital Opportunities Project. Bulletin of Applied Computing and Information Technology Vol. 4, Issue 1. ISSN 1176-4120. Retrieved  from  

ABSTRACT

CPIT (Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology) has recently started offering the Diploma in Information and Communications Technology (DipICT Level 5) in a blended delivery, or distributed learning format to a small group of students under the Ministry of Education’s Digital Opportunities Community Technicians Project (DigiOPs).  This article documents, reflects on and reviews the initial set-up, preparation and start-up of delivering this beginners' diploma to groups of students located in remote rural areas throughout New Zealand. 

The results of this initial review, along with the two further stages of evaluative research, will help towards supporting the growth of flexible delivery methods that include eLearning and allow us to ensure effectiveness of such blends for future projects or instances of delivery.

Keywords

 Blended delivery, eLearning, flexible delivery, distributed learning

1. INTRODUCTION

In March 2004, Janne Ross, Head of School of the School of Computing at CPIT, was approached by Dr Garry Falloon, Project Manager for Digital Opportunities Projects in the ICT Unit of the Ministry of Education.  He advised CPIT that the Ministry was in the process of developing a new round of projects relating to the innovative use of ICT in supporting student learning and removing obstacles and barriers to ICT innovation in schools.

One of these new projects aimed to deal with the technical challenges that small remote schools have in dealing with hardware and software support.  Dr Falloon said he was looking for the establishment of a course/qualification for people from such remote communities to train as “Community Technicians” so they would be able to provide basic computer technical support for schools, maraes, farmers, individuals and small local businesses within their community.  He envisaged that such a programme might involve online and campus-based sessions as well as some kind of school-based project or assessment tasks.  Participants should end up with a marketable qualification that could also form a basis for further study.

Dr Falloon invited CPIT to submit a possible programme option, either existing or proposed, that would enable these students to cover general technical support and to gain a qualification.  He forwarded a statement of preferred graduate profile and required knowledge and skill sets.

2. BACKGROUND

This article has many references to institutions, organisations and names that are highly relevant to New Zealand only.  For those readers who are not familiar with the terms this section will serve to explain them.

Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology (CPIT) is the largest tertiary institute in the South Island of New Zealand and one of the largest in New Zealand. The Polytechnic or Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand (ITP NZ) sector delivers technical, vocational and professional education which is student-focussed.  Study programmes concentrate on practical learning and the advancement and dissemination of knowledge and expertise.  Many of the 19 institutes around New Zealand teach industry-relevant certificates, diplomas and degrees (ITP NZ, 2005).

The Diploma in Information and Communications Technology (DipICT) has a one year format (Level 5) and a two-year format (Level 6).  The Level 6 version in particular is classified as an IT or ICT industry-standard entry level qualification with excellent placement results.  As offered at CPIT, the DipICT (Level 6) has streams in programming, PC support and network administration, or multimedia/web development.

The Ministry of Education is the department/division of the New Zealand government responsible for providing policy advice to the Minister of Education on all aspects of education, from early childhood to tertiary, overseeing the implementation of approved policies and ensuring the optimum use of resources devoted to education.  The current Ministry’s vision is that their influence on education outcomes is indirect as they are not a provider of education but rather a facilitator (Ministry of Education, 2005).

The National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications (NACCQ) was set up in 1988 as a result of a review of the various national qualifications in data processing and information technology (NACCQ, 2002).   One of its prime tasks, especially in relation to this article, is to contribute (on behalf of the NACCQ sector) to the development of prescriptions for vocational computing and information technology courses in New Zealand.

Much of remote, rural New Zealand, especially in the North Island, is populated by Maori - the indigenous people of this land who self-identify as such (Statistics NZ, 2005).    The Maori community have their focal point in the marae and the meeting house.  The meeting house, or whare nui, is normally the major central building and is, in the main, ornately carved while the marae is the sacred courtyard in front of the meeting house (Maori.org.nz, 2005).   The word marae is also now commonly used to describe the entire community area - the land and the buildings.

3. METHODOLOGY

The intended graduate profile and learning outcomes suggested by Dr Falloon were compared with those of the national DipICT (Level 5) as prescribed by NACCQ.

Table 1.  Comparisons of MoE requested outcomes with DipICT (Level 5) modules

When checking the learning outcomes provided by Dr Falloon against the learning outcomes of the NACCQ DipICT (Level 5), it was found that all but three of the 18 papers involved could accommodate Dr Falloon’s requirements (Table 1).  These three were from the eight compulsory papers - one in programming, one in data organisation and one that was an introduction to systems analysis and design.  The table of comparison was presented to Dr Falloon at the end of March 2004 and the differences were discussed and it was agreed that they stand as they were.  CPIT’s proposal to offer DipICT (Level 5) was eventually agreed upon in principle by Trevor Mallard, the Minister of Education.

(Since the initial acceptance there have now been two alterations to the courses outlined in Table 1.  Because of the interest of many of the students in Unix/Linux-based systems, it was decided to change the paper NM630, which was Microsoft Operating System orientated, to NM650 which was a mixture of Microsoft and Unix.)

CPIT then began a more detailed analysis of its capabilities in offering this programme, the cost of preparing and offering it, and the logistics of being involved, for the first time, in a reasonably large-scale distance learning opportunity.

Internal stakeholders were approached.  These included the eLearning team, the special projects team, the finance controllers and staff from the institution’s IT Division.  Each raised relevant issues.  A distributed learning environment was envisaged - with both on-line components and some on-site delivery.  This required consideration of whether the development work would be done by teaching staff or the eLearning team and whether existing staff could do the work of both development and teaching.  Workload issues were considered.  Assessment challenges were discussed.  These included discussion of the process of authentication for online assessment as well as discussion of which assessments would still require classroom attendance.

A traditional SWOT analysis was done.  Strengths included CPIT School of Computing’s experience in online delivery as part of several courses, and especially the success that the first author had with online asynchronous discussions (McCarthy 2002).   At the first eFest conference in New Zealand in 2002, the first author presented his use of Blackboard of several years, initially as a network storage area replacement, that was highly popular with students (it meant they could access course related material over the internet instead of having to be on the premises to access the network) and by 2001 the full online teaching of some of the DipICT (Level 6) papers.  The success achieved with online asynchronous discussions meant that students would willingly and readily participate in weekly discussion forums with up to three or four responses from each student each week.  This success lay in part in that this was considered to be the equivalent of class attendance, but also in the provocative initial thread posted by the author that inspired the students to respond in an analytical manner with examples to support their own argument.  In addition to this strength, the Ministry of Education was showing that it had confidence in CPIT’s ability to succeed with an innovative undertaking.

One weakness identified was that the School had not previously delivered full distance education programmes and its experience with any fully online delivery was also limited only to the first author.  While others had previous experience of using Blackboard as a network replacement, no other member of staff had had any online teaching experience.  It would be a steep learning curve.  This opportunity, though, would allow development of significant online material and internal co-operation.

The major threat to the project was the concept of failure.  This could arise from inexperience, high workloads and lack of available specialist staff, as well as having to work with students that had been selected by Ministry personnel rather than by CPIT’s own Programme Leaders.

Project costings were drawn up and presented to Dr Falloon at the end of May, 2004.  Two months of negotiation followed and, on 12 August 2004, we were advised that the Minister of Education had signed off the final structure and costs.

CPIT then began the process of preparing for academic documentation and approval and to address and solve issues that had been raised during earlier discussions. 

4. LITERATURE REVIEW

The authors conducted a review of literature relating to eLearning, distance delivery, blended delivery and distributed learning.  Issues raised by the staff and during inter-departmental meetings included discussion on how the courses would actually be delivered and how they would be assessed.  Many, if not most, of the proposed courses included significant practical content usually taught in a computer lab.  Theory components were commonly assessed by examination.

Since issues of authentication surrounding assessment seemed to be the matter concerning staff most, this area was researched first.  This single issue of authentication has impact on the wider issues of academic rigour, quality control, and both programme and institutional credibility.  Of course eLearning is not new, so there is a large body of work available for review and comparison, although only a few directly address the issue of authentication.

Kerka and Wonacott (2000), directly address the issue of “ensuring that the individuals completing the assessments are who they say they are” in the online environment.  In reviewing several items of literature themselves, Kerka and Wonacott have some specific suggestions for security measures.

These measures include holding proctored (invigilated) examinations at remote sites, minimising objective tests and focusing on methods calling for analysis and application (eg case studies), carefully designing web-based instruction to convey outcomes the learner perceives as useful and desirable, and considering online exams in the same way as take-home tests.

Olt (2002) gives support to the fact that academic dishonesty is on the rise and gives some practical strategies for minimising this dishonesty in online student assessment.  She focuses on the benefits of three key methods of online assessment as being most suited to counteracting student dishonesty. 

The first key method involves having multiple, individualised tasks utilising several short assessments throughout the course.  This makes counterfeiting harder “because of the necessary coordination and planning involved for the student to arrange for someone else to do the work in a timely and appropriately specific manner.”  In other words, it is “very difficult for the student to solicit help throughout an entire course.”

The second key method is to include assignments that require some degree of cooperation and coordination among the students on the course.  Again it would be “very difficult for a student to find consistent help throughout a cooperative project (assignment) of some duration and complexity.”

The third key method is to build into the course a “high level of instructor/student interaction.”   Possible ways to achieve this are more frequent email contact and either synchronous chats or asynchronous discussion.  The more frequent the contact the more difficult it will be for the student to find consistent help in responding to instructor emails and online discussion.  Through this ongoing dialogue, the instructor will get a better “feel” for a student’s ability.

Shepherd (2003) gives a cut down version of his previous paper in the eLearning Developers Journal and unsurprisingly comes to the same conclusion - you must use an assessment centre for maximum authentication when assessing by way of examinations.

Rowe (2003) paints such a detailed and graphic account of cheating that he turns the pitfalls of online assessment into a veritable nightmare, and believes that the only solution is to have human-proctored assessment held in assessment centres.

The issue of how the courses would actually be delivered was, in part, determined by the initial request by the Ministry that “such a programme might typically involve online and campus-based sessions”.  However, there was still the issue of how much development to do specifically for CPIT’s Blackboard online learning method system.  Planning involved decisions on whether existing course books should be re-developed into screen-sized learning modules delivered by Blackboard and whether existing text books should have their “plug-ins” used as an on-screen replacement.

Rennie (2003) is a major proponent of having the optimum mixture of different teaching media.  This provides consistency and quality in distributed learning to rural and remote areas where it is not normally available.  He also promotes the establishment of an online community identity using different blends of resources for tutor-student-student communication. 

Rennie (2004) says that as many media as possible should be used ranging from face-to-face induction, text books, online teaching material, online discussion boards, email, video or telephone conference calls, through to invigilated examinations.  He calls this delivery method “distributed learning”.  Rennie believed that the imminent arrival of broadband access to the Internet, even in fairly remote areas (he was talking about the Scottish highlands and islands), would change the nature of what was possible to access online, and consequently provide opportunities to vary the previously preferred blocks of learning styles.

In an interview with Rennie of Lewis Castle College, University of the Highlands and Islands, Scotland, held at CPIT on May 9, 2005, Rennie emphasised his position that our project would be classified as “distributed learning” not just online learning, nor even just blended delivery.  The fact that several of our courses had existing text books, the fact that we had a remote server for students to attach to took us beyond the standard concept of blended delivery - block courses mixed with online learning.  His recommendation to us was to extend it even further and use video conferencing, videoed lectures distributed on CD, etc.

Harvey (2004) defines distributed education as what happens when the teacher and student are situated in separate locations and learning occurs through the use of technologies (such as video and internet) which may be part of a wholly distance education programme or supplementary to traditional instruction.  Distributed education is similar to, but contrasted with, distance education because it includes both education delivered wholly off-campus and elements of traditional education made available remotely. Therefore it is similar to blended learning. 

According to Brown and Wheeler (2001) distributed education refers to flexible and location independent course delivery, covering the range of campus-based learning, distance education, work-based and home-based learning and driven by a new generation of telecommunications in either cabled or wireless format.

5. OUTCOMES

The Ministry had planned to provide the students with laptops, cell phones and broadband Internet access as well as paying for any other expenses the students required such as miscellaneous equipment and text books.  This enabled CPIT to decide to keep the text books and course books already used by these courses in the face-to-face scenario. Blackboard would be used as a means of directing students to weekly tasks, weekly readings, weekly online discussions and weekly communication through the Announcements section.  Email would also be used as a means of regular communication and the Ministry was proposing regular telephone conference calls. The students would also be given remote access (from their laptops back home in their rural area) via Virtual Private Network (VPN) to a powerful HP GSX server housed at CPIT.  This would mean that via Remote Console, each student could access a virtual machine on the server.  The server supports not only a practical full working operating system but also full networking capabilities for a large networking infrastructure.

The students would also participate in a series of block courses held five times throughout the 18 months of the project.  The first block course would be at the beginning and would also serve as the period of induction and team/group building.All delivery media were totally consistent with the literature on blended and distributed learning.

Assessment would be the same as for the face-to-face scenario, but with a move towards being delivered online wherever possible.  If it were possible to be online, then authentication would be resolved by asking the Principal of the school the student/technician was most closely affiliated with to invigilate the online examination - and sign appropriate forms accordingly.  Where examination was not able to be offered online, then the examination would be held during the next on-campus block course and invigilated by a CPIT staff member as usual.  Again, the adopted practice here was consistent with the literature on the subject.

All the proposals were taken back to relevant School of Computing staff and to the eLearning team and accepted by all.  Teaching staff were then able to commence development of material for posting onto Blackboard and to liaise with the eLearning staff. An intense period of preparation followed until the students arrived for the first block course and the Associate Minister of Education, David Benson-Pope, visited to officially launch the project on 27 January 2005.

Delivery of this programme began on 23 January 2005 with the first three courses ready to be delivered online and one more ready for its practical component to be delivered in the block course.  The students had been selected by the relevant rural school, in conjunction with the Ministry, and all the equipment had arrived.  The students ranged in age from 32 to 55.  The launch was deemed highly successful with all required loose ends well tied up.

Since then, four more courses have been developed for online delivery, three students have pulled out and two new ones have joined the scheme.  The Minister and the school-clusters were delighted with the project and its successful beginning.  During the rest of this year further courses were developed, more block courses held and a formal evaluation of current practices will commence.

By the end of the first semester both the CPIT staff involved and the students themselves had to come to terms with change.  While strictly maintaining standards, CPIT staff had to be more flexible than usual and frequently extend deadlines for the submission of assignment material.  While this does not seem to have affected the quality of the assignments, it certainly means the students have had more time than the “regular face-to-face” students to complete them.  On-line examinations have had to be offered over a week, rather than a specific examination day, giving the students the opportunity to fit the examination in around their school or community-based work. While acknowledging the need to maintain strict academic standards to meet NACCQ requirements, the staff had to become aware of the remote students’ needs to balance work and study.

After returning from the very first block course, many of them, at the same time as starting their online learning had to begin the process of developing clientele and working relationships within their communities. After this it became an experience in learning to manage time - work time, personal time, and study time.  Many of the remote students found it very difficult to manage this balance and some are still, almost a year into the 18-month long project, trying to find a workable solution. 

6. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

The first stage of this project has involved a great deal of learning and negotiation by a dedicated group of academic staff.  Their willingness to adapt and to modify their regular teaching practice has resulted in an initial phase that can be considered successful for a variety of reasons.

It is recommended that the team involved continue researching the Community Technicians Project now that it is well under way.  This evaluation will provide further information and allow the team to reflect on and to implement any further modifications that might be required.

REFERENCES

Brown, G. & Wheeler, S. (2001) “An Evaluation of Wireless Local Area Networks in Distributed Education” E-Learning Conference and Expo, Washington D.C., USA 17-20 April, 2001

Harvey, L. (2004) “Analytic Quality Glossary” retrieved May 13, 2005 from http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/distributededucation.htm

ITP NZ (2005) “Welcome to ITP New Zealand” retrieved on September 29, 2005 from http://www.itpnz.ac.nz/

Kerka, S. & Wonacott, M. (2000) “Online Assessments:  Principles and Practices - Security” ERIC/ACVE Assessing Learners Online Practitioner File 1 and 8

McCarthy, C (2002) “From there to eternity” eFest Conference and TalkFest, Hamilton, 11-12 October, 2002.

Maori.org.nz (2005) “Tikanga - Customs/Traditions” retrieved September 29, 2005 from http://www.maori.org.nz/tikanga/?d=page&pid=sp30&parent=26

Ministry of Education (2005) “About the Ministry of Education” retrieved on September 29, 2005 from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentId=3611&indexid= 2107&indexparentid=1000

NACCQ (2002) “Background” retrieved September 29, 2005 from http://www.naccq.ac.nz/index.html?page=2

Olt, M (2002) “Ethics and Distance Education:  Strategies for Minimizing Academic Dishonesty in Online Assessment” retrieved June 7, 2004 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall53/olt53.html

Rennie F (2003) “The Use of Flexible Learning Resources for Geographically Distributed Rural Students” Distance Education, May 2003 vol 24, no. 1. 25-39, Carfax Publishing, London

Rennie F (2004) “The importance of the online component in the blended learning experience for distributed rural students” retrieved May 13, 2005 from http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/getfile.cfm?documentfileid=4875.

Rowe, N (2003) “Cheating in Online Student Assessment: Beyond Plagiarism” retrieved June 7, 2004 from http://www.cs.nps.navy.mil/people/faculty/rowe/dlcheat.htm

Shepherd, E (2003) Delivering Computerized Assessment Safely and Securely The eLearning Developers’ Journal October 20, 2003. 1-9

Statistics New Zealand (2005) “Maori population estimates” retrieved September 29, 2005 from http://statsnz.resultspage.com/search?p=KK&srid=S2%2d4&lbc= statsnz&ts=custom&pw=Maori&uid=515444772&&w=maori%20population%20estimates&rk=9  

 Copyright © 2006 NACCQ. Krassie Petrova, Michael Verhaart & Donald Joyce (Eds.). An Open Access Journal, DOAJ # 11764120