the virtual university as a conceptual model for faculty change and innovation

This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 08 October 2014, At: 16:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Interactive LearningEnvironmentsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nile20

The Virtual University as aConceptual Model for FacultyChange and InnovationAllison Littlejohn & Niall SclaterPublished online: 09 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Allison Littlejohn & Niall Sclater (1999) The Virtual University as aConceptual Model for Faculty Change and Innovation, Interactive Learning Environments,7:2-3, 209-225

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/ilee.7.2.209.7436

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever causedarising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of theuse of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nile20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/ilee.7.2.209.7436

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:05

08

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Virtual University as a Conceptual Model for FacultyChange and Innovation

Allison Littlejohn and Niall SclaterStrathclyde University, Glasgow

ABSTRACT

Virtual universities and virtual learning environments are becoming increasingly accessible tofaculty wishing to develop Web-based courses. They can provide a convenient cognitive frame-work to assist educators in moving towards new technology-based teaching methods. The Uni-versity of Strathclyde has developed a series of faculty development workshops based aroundthe conceptual model of Clyde Virtual University (http://cvu.strath.ac.uk) in an attempt to pro-mote cultural change within the institution. The virtual university, whilst providing examplesof good practice in the use of the new technologies, is also used as a delivery medium for thecourses themselves, and as a place where participants can communicate with each other andarchive their own materials. This paper explains the necessity for such a conceptual frameworkto overcome barriers faculty face in developing Web-based materials. It describes the ClydeVirtual University and the way in which innovative approaches to teaching, learning, and assess-ment in a virtual setting can aid the development of a fully professionalized teaching force inhigher education.

WHY A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK IS NEEDED

In Scotland, as in most other parts of the world, there is a social and politicalmomentum towards expanding higher education to reach greater numbers ofstudents of all ages and backgrounds at times and in locations which suit them.This transformation comes at a time when technical innovations, in particularthe World Wide Web, are having a major impact on the way we work, conductbusiness, communicate with each other, and learn. Meanwhile, Scottish uni-versities are subject to continual reductions in funding and are being forced toattract students in an increasingly competitive environment. Providing alter-native asynchronous study methods for the large number of students who areunable to attend lectures on a daily basis is becoming imperative. University

Interactive Learning Environments 1049–4820/99/0702–3–0209$15.001999, Vol. 7, No. 2–3, pp. 209–225 © Swets & Zeitlinger

Correspondence: Niall Sclater, Strathclyde University, Glasgow, Scotland. E-mail:[email protected].

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:05

08

Oct

ober

201

4

faculty realize the benefits of the Internet for communications and research;now many of them are beginning to examine ways of exploiting these tech-nologies in their teaching.

Recent government-led inquiries into the future of higher education in theUK support the view that widespread use of the Web for teaching and learn-ing in higher education can only occur if faculty are effectively supported indeveloping new strategies for teaching and learning (Dearing, 1997; SEDA,1997). In our experience of facilitating a staff development programme intro-ducing the use of new technologies in supporting teaching, learning, andassessment, academics struggle with a number of conceptual barriers. Thesebarriers include a limited conception of the potential of a virtual learning envi-ronment. One reason for this is that most educators have themselves been par-ticipants in a traditional teaching and learning environment and may havelimited conceptions about the use of the Internet for teaching, learning, andassessment. Also there is little scope for academics to develop sound strate-gies for teaching and learning, so there is a tendency to develop didactic,teacher-centered teaching methods.

Faculty often express the notion that these traditional models of teaching,learning, and assessment can simply be transferred to and “delivered” via theWeb. Some have a desire to put their lecture notes on-line but have no notionof a pedagogical basis for doing so. Perhaps they would like to recommend tostudents the use of the Web as a resource for performing literature searches orto encourage limited dialogue by e-mail. However, there is often no real con-ceptual framework on which to base the use of the Internet in teaching andlearning. As a result of this, students quickly adopt models of learning whichare expected of them in a traditional teaching environment. However, theselearning strategies may not enable students to develop the desired transferableskills they will require for future employment (Harvey et al., 1997).

Recent research has revealed two main conceptual barriers to widespreadadoption of C&IT as a tool for teaching and learning (Littlejohn & Stefani,1999):

• Faculty may have a limited conception of a virtual teaching and learningenvironment

• Some faculty may have a poor grasp of pedagogical issues.

There is a degree of naivety with respect to new learning technologies beingable to cure the problems associated with traditional teaching and learning.Therefore it is essential that we find a way to close this gap in understanding

210 A. LITTLEJOHN AND N. SCLATER

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:05

08

Oct

ober

201

4

of the parameters of a virtual learning environment compared to those of amore-conventional environment.

At the University of Strathclyde we have attempted to overcome these con-ceptual barriers by enabling faculty to develop new strategies for teaching andlearning within a virtual learning environment. We perceived our staffdevelopment program as an excellent opportunity to overcome some of thebarriers to the adoption of the Internet for teaching and learning. This has beenachieved by using the metaphor of a virtual university and enabling faculty toexplore the similarities and differences of this virtual learning environmentwith a traditional physical learning environment. This paper examines howfaculty may use this form of conceptual model to develop new strategies forteaching, learning, and assessment.

THE VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AS A CONCEPTUALMODEL

Clyde Virtual University (CVU) is a joint venture to develop and deliverInternet-based teaching materials to students at five institutions in the West ofScotland. Founded in 1995 as Europe’s first virtual university, CVU bringstogether Glasgow, Strathclyde, Glasgow Caledonian, and Paisley Universities,together with the Glasgow School of Art. CVU has integrated custom-builttools and materials such as virtual reality educational worlds, on-lineassessment and automated marking, desktop video-conferencing, text-baseddiscussion forums, and a virtual library (Whittington & Sclater, 1998a).

CVU was developed to exploit rapidly developing technologies with finan-cial assistance from the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council. The Coun-cil had already put in place a system of Metropolitan Area Networks (MANs)connecting universities across Scotland via a 155 Mbps ATM backbone. In itsfirst phase of funding, which ran until mid-1996, CVU’s main objective was toconvert existing courseware to render courses suitable for teaching and learn-ing via the WWW. The development team concentrated on five subject areas ofgeneral interest to participating institutions: business, statistics, modern lan-guages, library and study skills, and computing science. In addition, CVU actedas an archive for Web-based courses developed under other initiatives, and wasexploited by academic staff wishing to develop their own on-line courses.

Since its early stages, CVU has developed into more than simply a reposi-tory for multimedia courseware. It has become a virtual learning environment

THE VIRTUAL UNIVERSITY 211

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:05

08

Oct

ober

201

4

integrating the main components of a traditional university campus. The Lec-ture Theatre is a home for a wide range of Web-based teaching materials, somestand-alone, others fully integrated into undergraduate courses. The Librarycontains other additional, mainly textual, resources. Students register forcourses and find out about the virtual university in the Administration Officeand take part in on-line discussions and virtual tutorial groups in the VirtualCafé. Formative and summative assessments are found in the AssessmentHall. Evidence of the ease of use of this integrated environment was voicedby both students and staff in an extensive evaluation, demonstrating few prob-lems with navigation (Whittington, 1999). Many discussions and assessmentsare held on CVU but are not linked in through this front end. There are, forexample, more than 80 discussion groups but less than half of these are pub-licly viewable in the Virtual Café. Figure 1 shows the campus at CVU.

In late 1996, the Funding Council decided to award CVU funding for a fur-ther two-year development phase. The emphasis this time was on the creationof courseware, computer-based assessment, electronic support mechanisms,and virtual tutorial groups in four subject areas: business/management, chem-istry, product design engineering, and social work. Aimed at approximately700 campus-based students at the five institutions, the new materials were setto replace traditional forms of teaching, learning, and assessment in consider-able parts of their courses. Additionally, a study was commissioned by theCouncil to look at the institutional processes involved in converting traditionalcourses to on-line courses.

The core developments in phase 2 involved around 20 academic staff fromthe five institutions with many more engaged in their own discussions andassessments via CVU. Two full-time developers were employed; firstly a Javaprogrammer who was responsible for refining the software infrastructure ofthe virtual university and programming the more elaborate user activities. Thesecond was an HTML and VRML expert who liaised with the academics overcourse content. A project manager and a technical director coordinated theactivities of CVU, reporting to a management group consisting of senior aca-demic and administrative staff from the partner institutions.

CVU combines a number of technologies in the most recently developedcourses, all of which are task-centered (Whittington & Sclater, 1998b). TheVirtual Human Resource Management Consultancy is one such environment,which has already been fully evaluated with over 100 students (Gibb, 1998).The course is based in an immersive world, written in Virtual Reality Model-ing Language (VRML). This system allows students to navigate around an


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:05

08

Oct

ober

201

4

office environment, obtaining information from a variety of sources beforeperforming a learning task based on the information they have discovered. Ina typical scenario, an office worker has lost his job after a dispute with a col-league. The student must piece together the facts of the situation and the rel-evant guidelines and legislation before making a decision as to whether or notit was justified that the employee lost his or her job. This task-based activelearning helps the student to develop the intellectual and analytical skillsrequired of a Human Resource Manager and to learn by making mistakeswithin a “safe” virtual environment.

The Clydetown Virtual Community, developed for teaching social-workstudents, utilizes a different set of technologies and is designed to be workedon by small groups of students rather than individuals. Navigating around thecommunity, students are presented with a range of background informationand convincing Quicktime video clips of situations of family conflict typicallyencountered by the social worker. Again promoting task-based learning, thegroups discuss relevant information and formulate ideas as how best to dealwith the situation. The students then submit their ideas as on-line text to thetutor, who provides feedback. This enables the students to reassess their


Fig. 1. Clyde virtual university campus (http://cvu.strath.ac.uk/).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:05

08

Oct

ober

201

4

conceptual models and obtain remedial assistance if necessary; this process ofteaching and learning models the “conversational framework” advocated byLaurillard (1996). The resulting textual dialogue may be made available tosubsequent classes, thereby promoting vicarious learning (Mayes, 1995).

The Clyde Virtual Design Studio has been developed for product designengineering students, enabling joint design projects to take place at remotelocations. Several evaluations have taken place, with students using a range oftechnologies including video and audio conferencing, shared whiteboards,shared applications, and shared workspaces to design products collaboratively.There were many technical problems initially with this course, as the Web-based communication technologies were not sufficiently robust; the situationwas further exacerbated because students were using both Macs and PCs.However, each batch of students persisted and the software has improved tothe point where joint Internet-based design projects are now viable (Sclater etal., 1997).

Finally, a complete on-line package in organic chemistry has recently beendeveloped using three-dimensional molecular models, fully manipulable bythe students. A molecular modelling package, specially developed to allowstudents to build their own molecules, performs an analysis of their input andis able to mark them as part of a novel question type integrated with the CVUAssessment Engine (http://cvu.strath.ac.uk/ae). The process of reflecting onchemical structures helps identify weaknesses in students’ understanding.They then have the opportunity to revisit, test, and reformulate their ideas lead-ing to more coherent, robust, integrated understanding (Linn, 1995). Thismodule also had some teething problems, as use of the software was not com-pulsory and therefore was not taken seriously by all of the students. It is hopedto address this problem with the next cohort of students by strongly encour-aging them to take the modules in the first semester as a preparation for thesummative assessments which will take place using the system in the secondsemester. This should help technical staff to evaluate and iron out any prob-lems with the software while giving academic staff confidence that they canuse the system for examination purposes.

CVU has a simpler structure than some other virtual university models(Whittington & Sclater, 1998a, 1998b). The easy conceptual link of the CVUmodel with the metaphor of a “bricks and mortar” university environmentappeals to faculty. This is evident in the results of a summative evaluationstudy of CVU in which the majority of academic staff respondents listed anumber of benefits. These include ease of use of the CVU model resulting in


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:05

08

Oct

ober

201

4

immediate or long-term time savings in teaching and increased access to learn-ing resources and activities (Whittington, 1999). Academics are able to reviewthe learning packages, assessments, and discussion groups currently availablebefore developing new teaching materials. Courses such as the Virtual HumanResource Management Consultancy and the Clydetown Virtual Community inparticular help faculty to quickly grasp the potential of such learning environ-ments. Enthusiasm has to be dampened down somewhat, however; these arerelatively high-budget projects which are not necessarily scalable throughoutthe institution.

Simply immersing faculty within a virtual learning environment is not anadequate means of developing new teaching and learning strategies. We havealready highlighted the fact that some academics have limited conceptualmodels of effective teaching via the Web. Therefore it became necessary toprovide a skills development programme blending pedagogical and practicalskills within this virtual learning environment.

DEVELOPING A SKILLS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AROUND THECONCEPTUAL MODEL

A program of workshops was piloted at the University of Strathclyde duringthe first semester of the 1997/1998 academic year aiming to promote goodpractice in the development and use of new learning technologies. This pro-gram is being continued in 1998/1999 and is additionally being offered atGlasgow Caledonian University. Five full-day workshops were designedaround the conceptual framework of CVU. Not only did this present acade-mics with the notion of a virtual learning environment, but it also offered aninfrastructure to aid in the construction of their own learning materials. Eachcourse was based around a different area of CVU; for example:

• Choosing the Right Technology—an overall introduction to learning tech-nologies

• Electronic Assessment—based in the Assessment Hall• Web-Based Teaching—creating material in the Lecture Theatre• The Electronic Library• Internet Communication—includes a virtual discussion in the Virtual Café.

During each workshop faculty are initially invited to examine some of theeducational issues involved in using the Internet for teaching and learning.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:05

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Case studies are presented to illustrate these issues, showing examples of goodpractice where new technologies have truly enhanced teaching and learning(for example Duffy et al., 1995). Focus is placed on the teaching and learningpotential rather than the purely technological issues. Faculty are continuallyinvited, through the use of face-to-face and electronic discussions, to thinkabout how the technologies would best be used to enhance the student learn-ing experience. Wherever possible Web-based materials, assessments, andcommunication methods are used by academics themselves, placing them tem-porarily in the role of students and enabling them to evaluate the technologiesat first hand. This form of modeling the learning process through experimen-tation with new technologies and making the skills explicit has already beenshown as an effective technique in staff development (Ryan, 1998).

The advantage of basing this staff development around the CVU model isthat it provides a conceptual framework enabling academics to investigate theinter-relationships of several areas of the virtual learning environment. Forexample, formative assessments created during the electronic assessmentworkshop could easily be integrated with teaching material placed in the Lec-ture Theatre. Furthermore, issues can be discussed in the Virtual Café withouthaving to move to a different physical location. In this way academics explorethe relationships between physical and virtual learning environments througha synergy of technology and pedagogy (Davis et al., 1995). It also provides acoherent framework for the entire staff development program.

Each workshop begins with a discussion of pedagogical issues, such asevaluating collaborative technologies or accommodating differing learningstyles. In our experience academics with limited IT skills can acquire practi-cal skills such as creating on-line learning material using Netscape Composerwithin 2 to 3 hours. Interactivity can quickly be incorporated using the CVUTest Wizard to add formative assessment and incorporate HyperNews discus-sions in the Virtual Café.

The first workshop, Choosing the Right Technology, provides an introduc-tion to the other courses and gives faculty an overview of the learning tech-nologies available to them. A major concern voiced was that existingmaterials, such as educational CD-ROMs, promote surface learning. This isaddressed by examining ways in which these materials can be integrated intothe existing curriculum and, combined with more traditional methods, canenhance teaching and learning. Research behind the successes and pitfalls ofthis form of integration has been extensively documented (Stoner, 1996), andis highlighted in an on-line course, placing faculty in the role of an on-line


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:05

08

Oct

ober

201

4

learner. Formative evaluation studies have indicated that participants find theexperience of being in the role of a student highly illuminating.

Dialogue between students and teachers is an essential part of the learningprocess. One model of learning involves a “conversational framework”, wherestudents engage in a learning activity to test their conceptual knowledge.Learning may occur by discussion of the concept from teacher to student, thenfrom student back to the teacher, who then gives effective feedback (Lauril-lard, 1996). However, current use of learning technology tends to facilitateonly one-way delivery of information: from teacher to student (Mayes, 1997).In the workshop on Internet Communication the importance of various formsof dialogue is discussed with staff from both the University of Strathclyde andGlasgow Caledonian University via a wide range of technologies includingtext conferencing, Internet Relay Chat, desktop and ATM video-conferencing,and shared whiteboards. Once again the modelling of the on-line teaching andlearning process enables faculty to formulate new strategies for their ownteaching and learning (Littlejohn & Sclater, 1998).

Case studies are very effective in illustrating innovative communication andcollaborative working methods. One example used is the ICON project, whichutilizes the Clyde Virtual Design Studio. Product design engineering studentsfrom Strathclyde University build products collaboratively with counterpartsat the Glasgow School of Art using a range of collaborative tools providedthrough the virtual university. The ICON project is now in its third year andhas produced much useful information on the appropriateness of Web-basedtools for collaborative student projects (Sclater et al., 1997).

The workshop focusing on Electronic Assessment, like the others, hasbeen made effective by blending pedagogical and practical skills. Partici-pants discuss the most effective uses of electronic assessment in theirclasses, for example for formative assessment of large numbers of students.Case studies are presented of effective implementations of computer-assistedassessment and there is ample opportunity to try out a range of tests createdusing the Authorware-based TRIADS assessment engine, which has a rangeof complex question types (O’Hare et al., 1998), and the Web-based CVUAssessment Engine, ‘Miranda’. Participants are then shown how to utilizeMiranda and are able to build assessments after a one-hour training session.Many have expressed surprise at how easily they can construct on-lineassessment without technical support. Miranda allows them to use all fea-tures of HTML, such as linking to further Web-based resources when a stu-dent chooses a wrong answer. The monitoring facility can be useful for


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:05

08

Oct

ober

201

4

instant Web-based collation of results; faculty are often unaware of thesimplicity of these tools and how much they can reduce marking time formultiple-choice type assessments.

The Web-Based Teaching workshop combines the design and pedagogicalskills required for Web-based course development with the practical issuesinvolved in creating small-scale educational websites. Academics are asked tobring example teaching material that they wish to convert for Web-baseddelivery. Despite often limited IT skills, most participants quickly learn howto create Web pages. This allows them to concentrate on the underlying ped-agogical principles of designing Web-based courses (Conole & Oliver, 1998).

Increased use of CVU means that there are even more educational websiteswith ideas to explore. Faculty who may begin with the notion of “placing lec-ture notes on-line” become engaged in exploring ways of developing assess-ments in the Assessment Hall. The realization that the Web can be useddynamically for discussions in the Virtual Café can transform an otherwiseuninspiring series of on-line lecture notes placed in the Lecture Theatre into acourse focused around central tasks. As faculty adopt more of the technologiesinto their teaching, the conceptual framework changes from that of a collec-tion of isolated discussions, assessments, and lecture notes to a more inte-grated approach. Courses begin to evolve into fully integrated learningenvironments with materials, activities, formative assessments, lists of fre-quently asked questions, discussions, and summative assessments availablefrom a single front end based on the course itself rather than being split up intothe various areas of the virtual university.

Many staff express concerns about the lack of a suitable technical andorganisational infrastructure for the implementation of these technologies;these are regularly relayed by the course organisers to senior management,who appear to be sympathetic to the aims of the programme, while not nec-essarily having the financial means to address these concerns. One barrierwhich is regularly encountered is the inadequate provision of computers.However, the problem is slowly decreasing as many students purchase Inter-net-ready PCs and log-on from home.

Other barriers to the adoption of these technologies expressed by academicsinclude technophobia and a fear of dramatic increases in workloads. Further-more, prior experience with educational technologies such as some CD-ROMpackages has led to a cynicism among some staff about the educational effec-tiveness and the feasibility of implementing electronic teaching and learningon a large scale, though the potential of the Web often re-enthuses


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:05

08

Oct

ober

201

4

disillusioned participants. Evaluation studies have demonstrated that many ofthese reservations were reduced simply by being guided in the use of the tech-nologies during the staff development courses.

The courses also provide a forum for discussion of ways of circumvent-ing these barriers. For example, electronic assessment involving multiple-choice type questions is often unsuitable for summative examination asmultiple-choice questions can fail to assess “deep” learning. However, it isperfectly suitable for assessing the knowledge-base of first-year students.Encouragement to students to communicate with their lecturers electroni-cally can result in increased administration. However, techniques for man-aging these communications by peer tutoring or group discussions aredeliberated.

ANALYSIS OF THE ADVANTAGES OF USING A VIRTUAL UNIVER-SITY AS A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

All classes were evaluated by anonymous on-line evaluation forms enablingthe developers of the training program to assess its usefulness and to changethe format and content in response to new requirements. From these forms andclass discussions we have developed a clearer picture of the advantages anddisadvantages of using the virtual university as a conceptual model.

All participants were asked the following questions:

1. To what extent were you already familiar with the content/skills?2. How did you find the overall presentation of the session?3. What were the two most interesting/useful aspects?4. Can you suggest changes that you think would improve the session?5. What did you think of the organisation/arrangements for the session?6. Do you think you would now use the WWW in your teaching?7. What other learning technology sessions would be useful for you?8. What further support would be most beneficial to you (e.g., lunchtime

discussions, university resources, etc.)9. Would you like to join a support group of academics using LT in teaching?

10. Do you already make use of new teaching methods?11. If not, would you now consider making changes?12. Do you think anything would hinder you from using new teaching

methods? If so, what?


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:05

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Though most faculty reported they previously had “none” or “some” famil-iarity with learning technology, they stated their desire to use the WWW forteaching activities. Enthusiastic responses included:

“excellent—good rapport and very supportive atmosphere”“it could be better if the course were organised for two days. As abeginner, I will still need another course of this kind”

Some frustrations were also voiced and responses like these were used tofurther improve workshops:

“More time to be given to demonstrating how to create Web pages”“Some notes are required in advance”

One major advantage is that the CVU model provides a framework linkingthe concept of a traditional, physical learning environment with that of a vir-tual learning environment. It also provides a platform for experimentation innew teaching and learning strategies, providing faculty with a much clearerconcept of how to work within an electronic environment, based on Kolb’stheory of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984). Kolb describes four dimensionsin a learning cycle: firstly the learner’s immersion in a concrete experiencesuch as a virtual learning environment, followed by observations and reflec-tions on that environment. This in turn is followed by the formation of newconcepts of learning within the virtual environment, and, finally, active exper-imentation in the creation and testing of the effectiveness of courses. Thisgives rise to new experiences, and the learning cycle begins again.

Because CVU electronically links several universities, it provides a plat-form for inter-university collaboration and discussion of teaching and learn-ing methods. Discussion and the exchange of ideas amongst faculty frominstitutions of different institutional cultures have been extremely fruitful. Fearof technology can be reduced by providing an infrastructure that can be eas-ily understood. Many participants did not realise how quickly and simply theywould be able to create teaching material using the available tools. This alsoserves to alleviate concerns over the amount of time required for developingnew teaching materials.

The use of local case studies has proved to be highly motivating for faculty.These ideas can be quickly adopted and improved for use within their ownteaching and learning. The CVU model serves to aid academics in taking theirfirst steps in using the Internet for teaching. This provides them with a firmerbasis for further developing their own ideas for future teaching and learning.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:05

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Some disadvantages of the CVU model include the fact that the same modelmay not work well for all courses, so the CVU infrastructure may be some-what limiting and may restrict academics from thinking in newer and evenmore innovative ways. There are also access and intellectual copyright issueswhich concern faculty, though these are overcome to a certain degree byexplaining the legalities surrounding electronic copyright.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

In conclusion, the virtual university model offers a framework in which fac-ulty can develop their own cognitive model for virtual learning. Coursesdesigned for the virtual university can enhance communication between lec-turers and students and between the students themselves. The need for dia-logue and feedback as an essential part of the learning process is often lackingin existing teaching methods, so this issue is stressed to staff attending thecourses. The interaction continuously encouraged during the workshops them-selves provides opportunities for faculty to experience the positive effect oftwo-way communication on the learning process.

There is also an essential requirement to develop a community of scholarsactively using these technologies. It is important to retain the momentumkindled during the workshops by promoting dialogue, debate, and discussion.Therefore, after completion of a workshop participants are invited to add theirnames to a mailing list advertising meetings and special events. These includediscussions of innovative methods of teaching and learning and seminars byvisiting academics.

Another fundamental component of supporting academics wishing to usenew learning technologies is to provide consultancy in educational develop-ment to individual departments. Presently at the University of Strathclydemany departments are developing strategies for implementing innovativemethods of teaching, whilst some have secured funding for specific projects.It is important to offer informed guidance whilst embracing the individualityof each department.

In the second year of running these courses, which are inevitably oversub-scribed, we are finding a much greater awareness of the educational potentialof the Web amongst participants. Many faculty, rather than attending out ofcuriosity as they were in the first year, have made a genuine commitment toimplement Web-based courses or have received funding to do so from their


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:05

08

Oct

ober

201

4

departments or outside bodies. As new communication technologies becomewidespread, it is increasingly important for academics to have a clear under-standing of teaching and learning issues and to acquire the necessary technicaland pedagogical skills. To this end we are currently teaching a PostgraduateDiploma in Advanced Academic Studies which includes two modules (at Scot-tish Masters level) in Web-Based Teaching and Internet Communication. Par-ticipants take part in discussions and dialogue not only with faculty from otherScottish Universities, but with colleagues in the United States, adding a furtherdimension to the learning experience (Littlejohn, 1999).

There is already evidence that participants take these accredited coursesmuch more seriously than those on our series of workshops, and consequentlybenefit more from them. The level of commitment is necessarily higher as thecourses require them to design and build full educational websites which willbe of genuine use in their own teaching. They also take part in on-line discus-sion forums, and their contributions are assessed, giving them a realistic stu-dent experience before implementing such technologies in their own teaching.Our courses, and those developed by the course participants, are housed in thevirtual university infrastructure itself. This continues to evolve, and we expectto add the experience gained from those developing and using other virtuallearning environments to the overall conceptual model.

RELATING THE EXPERIENCES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF STRATH-CLYDE TO THE TWENTE IMPLEMENTATION MODEL

Experiences at the University of Strathclyde correspond to a large extent withthe Twente implementation model (Collis & De Boer, 1999). During the ini-titation phase the Scottish MANs were put in place (3) and funding was madeavailable for software applications by the Funding Council. A culture of inno-vation (8) had already been established at the participating universities. Itcould, however, be argued that this extends from the initiation phase to thecurrent day as the possibilities of the Internet are grasped by increasing num-bers of staff.

The key initiating figures (4) at Strathclyde would perhaps come before thebudget (9), as they were instrumental in obtaining funding for the project.Other key figures appear in the institutionalization phase when the staffdevelopment initiative was being put into place. The initiation target (10) andeducational target (1) were clearly spelled out in the project plans for CVU


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:05

08

Oct

ober

201

4

and it was then possible to assemble a project team (11) with the requisiteskills. Though the hardware had been bought before the project team was inplace, much of the software was built by team members. The “build/buy/soft-ware/hardware” circle (5) in the Twente model could thus be split into twoseparate circles for hardware and software in the CVU case. A top-down, bot-tom-up approach (6) took place throughout the implementation phase. The fitwith instructional practices (2) is necessary for effective implementation,though the developments themselves served to alter some of these practices.Although the content of some of the learning packages did not differ greatlyfrom previously, it was delivered and assessed in different ways, necessitatingfor example the provision of computer labs with the correct software or themonitoring of Internet-based discussion groups by lecturers.

The institutionalisation phase has been entered at Strathclyde, with certainWeb-based courses now requiring a minimal amount of central support. Thespecial team referred to by Collis and De Boer (1999) has evolved from onein which members were employed specifically to work on the project into amore loosely structured organisation. The members are now employed pri-marily in other capacities but continue to embed the use of the virtual univer-sity (7) by, for example, delivering training courses or setting up discussiongroups as required. The Twente model should perhaps be seen as an iterativerather than a purely sequential process which stops at the institutional phase.Once an initiative has been institutionalised it will be necessary to return to theinitiation and implementation stages to upgrade hardware and software,implement new pedagogical practices, and maintain the culture of innovation.

GENERALISABILITY OF THE EXPERIENCES AT THE UNIVERSITYOF STRATHCLYDE TO OTHER UNIVERSITIES

Some of the underpinning concepts within the Strathclyde faculty develop-ment model are directly transferable to other universities. In particular the useof a coherent conceptual framework to enable faculty to grasp the relationshipbetween real and virtual environments is recommended. CVU provided a con-venient metaphor; other learning environments such as WebCT may also helpthis process. Demonstrating such environments should serve to highlight thesimilarities to traditional methods of teaching and learning as well as showingtheir advantages (such as the use of hyperlinks) and limitations (e.g., the lackof spontaneity in asynchronous discussions).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:05

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Placing faculty in the role of learners enabled them to experiment with on-line learning and to develop a clearer understanding of the problems whichstudents may encounter. Other studies have also noted this as beneficial (Ryan,1998; Wood, 1997). This form of faculty development provides a synergy ofpedagogy and technology. One supports the other and both are interlinked.

Finally, the use of technology to discuss issues concerning the use of tech-nology in collaboration with other universities was found to be particularlyvaluable at Strathclyde. Staff, like the students referred to by Kolb (1984),learn by doing.

REFERENCES

Conole, G., & Oliver, M. (1998). A pedagogical framework for embedding C&IT into the cur-riculum. ALT-J, 6, 2, 4.

Collis, B., & De Boer, W. F. (1999). Scaling up from the pioneers: The TeleTOP method at theUniversity of Twente. Interactive Learning Environments (this volume).

Davis, E. A., Linn, M. C., & Clancy, M. J. (1995). Students’ off-line and on-line experiences.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 2.

Dearing, R. (1997). Report of the National Committee Inquiry into Higher Education. Recom-mendation 47. (http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/docsinde.htm)

Duffy, C., Arnold, S., & Henderson, F. (1995). NetSem—electrifying undergraduate seminars.Active Learning, 2, 42–48. (http://www.cti.ac.uk/publ/actlea/issue2/duffy/)

Gibb, S. J. (1998). The virtual human resource management company. Active Learning, 9,15–20.

Harvey, L., Moon, S., & Geal, V. (1997). Graduate’s work: Organizational change and students’attributes. Centre for research into quality and the association of graduate recruiters.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and develop-ment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Laurillard, D. (1996). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of edu-cational technology. London: Routledge.

Linn, M. C. (1995). Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4, 103–126.Littlejohn, A. H., & Sclater, N. (1998). Overcoming conceptual barriers to the use of Internet

technology in university education. Paper presented at WebNet ’98, Association for theAdvancement of Computing in Education, Orlando, Florida.

O’Hare, D., Mackenzie, D., O’Reilly, C., & Wilkins, H. (1998). Application of TRIADS to theassessment of biology practicals. Paper presented at the Computers in University Biol-ogy Conference—CUBE. (http://www.liv.ac.uk/ctibiol/cube98/html/proceedings.html)

Mayes, T. (1997). Dialogue with a dumb terminal, Times Higher Education Supplement.Mayes, J. T. (1995). Learning technology and Groundhog Day. In: W. Strang, V. Simpson & D.

Slater (Eds), Hypermedia at work: Practice and theory in higher education. Canterbury:University of Kent Press. (http://led.gcal.ac.uk/clti/papers/Groundhog.html)

Ryan, M. (1998). Using computer mediated communication to deliver staff development. ActiveLearning, 9, 61–62.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:05

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Sclater, M., Sclater, N., & Campbell, L. (1997). ICON: Evaluating collaborative technologies.Active Learning, 7, 41–46.

Littlejohn, A. H. (1999). Unravelling the Web: The accreditation of web based teaching. Paperpresented at EdMedia ’99, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education,Seattle, Washington, USA.

Littlejohn, A. H., & Stefani, L. (1999). Effective use of communication and information tech-nology: Bridging the skills gap. ALT-J, 7, 66–76.

Stoner, G. (1996). Implementing learning technology. Learning Technology Dissemination Ini-tiative Publications, Edinburgh. (http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/ltdi/implementing-it/cont.htm)

SEDA (1997). Dearing Committee inquiry report: Staff development and teacher accreditation.Response to the National Committee Inquiry. (http://www.seda.demon.co.uk/ncihe.html)

Whittington, C. D. (1999) Clyde virtual university: The motivation, construction and summa-tive evaluation (http://cvu.strath.ac.uk/dave/publications/cvueval/)

Whittington, C. D., & Sclater, N. (1998a). Building and testing a virtual university. Computersand Education, 30, 41–47.

Whittington, C. D., & Sclater, N. (1998b). A virtual university model. Paper presented at Web-net ’98. Orlando, Florida: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Wood, J. (1997). Staff development for the virtual campus: A matter of teachers first re-skillingas learners? Presentation at ALT-C, University of Wolverhampton.

(http://www.warwick.ac.uk/alt-E/alt-C97/papers1.html#twentyone)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

6:05

08

Oct

ober

201

4

the virtual university as a conceptual model for faculty change and innovation

Documents