Identify the key stakeholders

Identify the key stakeholders

by Bill Fricker -
Number of replies: 25

We are off to a great start. Certainly great for those who are here! My first observation is that unless some of the key stakeholders (1) recent major research initiatives (per Stephen Downes' post), (2) likely players (AUCC, ACCC, CMEC, etc) and (3) various federal and provincial educational government offices, (4) perhaps there are more, have yet to post, we may be missing a key foundational element - the strength of the broadest possible participant base.

As George Siemens pointed out earlier, it is somewhat regrettable that we may be counting heavily on grass roots to start this initiative. So, let's invite a broader base of key stakeholders to join.

How? Well how about this? Similar to having participants submit their research projects (Rory McGreal's Baseline invitation), we could ask participants to identify key organizations and one or several contact points. Perhaps, then someone with an organizing bent - Terry, George, Sylvia or Paul, could invite and challenge additional particpants who would broaden our participant base to join.

Bonne Journee

Bill Fricker

(Edited by Sylvia Currie - original submission Monday, 12 May 2008, 02:01 PM. I changed subject heading from Best Methodology?? to Identify the key stakeholders and moved to a top level discussion thread.)

In reply to Bill Fricker

Re: Identify the key stakeholders

by Sylvia Currie -
Bill suggested that in order to broaden our participant base and rely less on a grass roots approach we compile a list of key stakeholders. I created this new discussion thread for that purpose.

As someone with an "organizing bent" I'm happy to invite those individuals/organizations we identify here to join the discussion.
In reply to Sylvia Currie

Re: Identify the key stakeholders

by George Siemens -
Hi Sylvia - Norm Friesen from TRU holds the Canadian elearning research chair position. I suspect he should be here :).
George
In reply to Sylvia Currie

Re: Identify the key stakeholders

by Vivian Forssman -
I think we need to get VP Academics into some elements of this discussion. Aren't they the key influencers in most post-sec's for the business of  "learning" ? Now if only tacking on the "e" was as simple as a delivery mode of learning. 
In reply to Vivian Forssman

Re: Identify the key stakeholders

by Valerie Irvine -
I agree with Bill's list. The researchers are obviously going to be at the core. However, I'm thinking again at how momentum has been gained in other fields. I have a colleague in the health domain and much of the funding reviewed/funded seems to have a heavy dose of "activist-style communities" (for lack of a better word... insomnia at 2:30am does not make for good writing...). It might be important to at least identify those communities as stakeholders. VP Academics are a good idea, but not likely to be as well versed perhaps on the topic. A list of PSE institution's CIOs, Distance Ed staff, Learning and Teaching Centre staff, etc - might be useful. Documenting size of population of users, etc. - to show impact of outreach of research.

Obviously, the site of any dialogue will be restricted to the small core at the top, but at least it gives the forward momentum?

Valerie
In reply to Valerie Irvine

Re: Identify the key stakeholders

by Terry Anderson -
Great idea Bill
I just emailed the link to this conference to colleagues in Alberta Education and Alberta Advanced Education. Likely there are key folks in each of the ministries and various government agencies like Industry Canada, Canadian Council for Learning, and key professional organizations.

It may be more effective to mail a personal invite to those whom you have an existing network connection. To make it easier, I've drafted a short invite below. Feel free to cut and paste and edit it before sending to someone who should be a part of these conversations. Also please take advantage of Sylvia's offer to email a message from the conference itself, if that seems most appropriate.

------------------
Dear _________________
As I am sure you aware e-learning provides a critically important means to enhance and extend both formal and informal learning, education and professional development. We think that research into effective use is of strategic importance to Canada and its citizens. To create awareness and chart a path forward a group of Canadian academics has organized a free online conference entitled Shaping Our Future: Toward a -Pan Canadian E-learning Research Agenda. The conference started this week with two real time keynotes and quite an expansive asynchronous set of discussions.
I think your participation in the conference would be both personally and professionally valuable and we welcome your comments and insights.
The conference runs until May 31 and can be access at http://scope.lidc.sfu.ca/course/view.php?id=56
Hope to “hear’ from you there!

In reply to Terry Anderson

Re: Identify the key stakeholders

by Suzanne Riverin -

Hello all

Thanks for this Terry. I have been following this discussion with interest and agree wholeheartedly that all key stakeholders should be part of this push so I will forward to my contacts in Ontario.

Cheers

Suzanne

In reply to Suzanne Riverin

Re: Identify the key stakeholders

by Sylvia Currie -
Thanks for the suggestion, Terry and the ready-made invitation to copy into an email message. And thanks Suzanne for helping to spread the word to your contacts in Ontario. Many hands make light work!

I sent a note to Norm Friesen, and also to Andrew Feenberg since his work has been mentioned a couple times in this forum. We have had two seminar discussions in SCoPE related to Teaching and Learning Centres so I'll try to get the word out through those participants.

Keep working through your own networks, and keep the suggestions coming...


In reply to Terry Anderson

Re: Identify the key stakeholders

by Paul Stacey -
We've been promoting this event through the BCcampus network of online communities and have also invited participation of the Ministry of Advanced Education in BC.

I've noticed most of the discussion seems to be coming from a post secondary perspective so I just sent out an invitation to some of the K-12 key stakeholders inviting them to join the fray too.

Paul
In reply to Valerie Irvine

Re: Identify the key stakeholders

by Virginia Yonkers -
I am not sure how the system works in Canada, however, many of my students work at "professional" colleges (i.e. library science, medical colleges, nursing, radiology, law, etc...). The problem they have with distance learning is getting the professional organizations that accredit the programs to accept distance learning as viable. Many of them have asked me help find them research that will justify to the professions that distance learning can have the same learning outcomes (especially in skill-based professions) as face to face. These professional organizations want specific information to justify the use of distance learning.

If this is the same in Canada, I would suggest you also extend an invitation to the Professional organizations that help to shape the various requirements for professional and specialized education and/or have an influence on licensing requirements for graduates. They often have very specific needs or views on learning outcomes.
In reply to Virginia Yonkers

Re: Identify the key stakeholders

by Rory McGreal -
Virginia,
Library science professionals, nurses, many medical fields including radiology all use DE. Didn't Nelson Mandela get his law degree through DE? Surgeons are using DE as a matter of course in many countries. Having said that in Canada teaching and law do not allow for DE courses for initial licensing although they do support it for continuing education.
All the research you need can be found at http://www.nosignificantdifference.org/

The articles go back to 1928.
There is NO evidence that classroom teaching is particulary better than any other form.
All the best.
Rory
In reply to Rory McGreal

Re: Identify the key stakeholders

by Peter Ball -

Virginia and all,

I would like to echo your sentiments about the difficulty getting folks to "buy-in" to e-learning in spite of evidence that there is "no significant difference" as Rory reminds us.  At Dept of National Defence/Canadian Forces, we have significant e-learning in place but at the bachelor's equivalent level.  There is only one occupation that has a graduate program permitted at a distance - mine.  Currently, we have a instructional technology requirement that we satisfy from Athabasca, RRU and others and a Human Performance Technolgy satisfied from Boise State U.  All other graduate programs - and there are many - must be taken face-to-face.  In the words of one senior officer ... " I don't know how you got your program approved at a distance but as long as I am here, there will be no other programs allowed!"  To my mind, there are many graduate programs that CF members take that could be taken at a distance at a significant cost savings (f2f usually means two cost moves - to the program and then to the next job 2 years later).

In terms of engaging DND/CF (gov't) stakeholders, I suggest that the appropriate office in DND/CF be approached with this issue.  If you like, I can find out who that would be.

Peter

In reply to Peter Ball

Re: Identify the key stakeholders

by Peter Ball -

An additional thought

Has anyone engaged DRDC - Defence Research and Development Canada?

Some highlights from their strategy:

Mission Critical Outcomes

The Defence S&T Strategy identifies eight strategic mission-critical outcomes that target Canadian Forces and departmental capability objectives where S&T can contribute. These outcomes are derived from departmental objectives enunciated in policy and strategic guidance, albeit refined appropriately to explicitly express the expectations for S&T. These outcomes are expected to be enduring for the shelf-life of this strategy, but must be reviewed periodically to ensure that they remain consistent with defence strategy documents as they evolve.

Outcome relevent to e-learning (my highlights in blue):

6. Sustainability, affordability, supportability of operations, assets and people

Effective operations require reliable equipment and supply techniques to ensure that the right supplies and personnel are delivered to the right place at the right time. The equipment must be robust and the personnel must be prepared for the diverse situations they will encounter. Cost effectiveness is essential to the sustainability of operations and must include cost of ownership optimization through acquisition, deployment and operations. Similarly, personnel must be supported through training, deployment and post-deployment.

Areas of Expertise

The Defence S&T Strategy identifies eleven primary areas of S&T expertise in which critical mass must be maintained in order for the departmental S&T investment to be able to reliably affect the mission-critical outcomes identified in Annex A. As shown in the Figure at right (reproduced from the strategy's main text), these S&T areas group into three domains: physical, information and human. A number of these areas include aspects of more than one domain. In this annex, each of these primary areas of S&T expertise is described further. For each area, a set of S&T challenges is defined that represents what are considered the most important scientific and technical obstacles that must be overcome. These challenges help to further clarify and focus the effort to establish the S&T expertise. These areas of expertise are expected to be enduring for the shelf-life of this strategy, but must be reviewed periodically to ensure that they remain consistent with defence strategy documents, as they evolve.

Area of Expertise relevent to e-learning (my highlights in blue):

Table B-1 Area of Expertise

S&T EXPERTISE

S&T CHALLENGE

10. Human Systems Integration

10.1 Human performance models for military simulations

10.2 Human Systems Integration (HSI)

10.3 Monitoring, predicting and enhancing psycho-physiological readiness

10.4 Increased effectiveness and efficiency of the CF HR system

10.5 Distributed, adaptable, and on-demand learning, training and rehearsal

Table B-2 - Description of Areas of S&T Expertise and S&T Challenges

S&T EXPERTISE

S&T CHALLENGE

  1. Human Systems Integration

Humans are required to interact with more and more complex systems to communicate, obtain information and effect actions. S&T expertise includes modeling of humans for simulation and system performance evaluation, human-systems integration, monitoring and predicting of psycho-physiological readiness and the design of systems that effectively train and prepare humans for operations.

10.4 Increased effectiveness and efficiency of the CF HR system

Effective recruitment, training and personnel assessment is crucial to support of CF operations. As the CF undergoes transformation, the HR system also needs to transform to support the changes and to provide timely recruitment and training. The challenge is to develop operational concepts, techniques and tools that will lead to a more efficient way of providing HR services to the CF and other DND personnel.

10.5 Distributed, adaptable, and on-demand learning, training and rehearsal

Tactical and operational success demands CF capability of timely, affordable, and effective learning. In particular, full operational control of a transformed and integrated CF charged with an expanded variety of missions will require distributed and adaptable training capabilities. The challenge is to advance technologies and psychological techniques for deployable training and rehearsal that facilitates rapid deployment into a Joint Interoperable Multinational Public environment including interoperability with allies and cultural awareness.

see the attached document for the full strategy.

Peter

In reply to Peter Ball

Re: Identify the key stakeholders

by Peter Ball -

I seem to be having a problem uploading my document - 2.6M.  If anyone wants it, I can email.

PB

In reply to Peter Ball

Re: Identify the key stakeholders

by Sylvia Currie -
Peter, we've just recovered from a small technical problem related to our database. That was probably the reason for not being able to attach your document. Sorry about that! You may be able to upload now, or send it to me by email and I'll add it. scurrie@bccampus.ca
In reply to Peter Ball

Re: Identify the key stakeholders

by Rory McGreal -
Peter,
Ironically, the US military invented the Internet (not Al Gore) and could be considered among the first adopters of elearning. Today, they are among the world's leaders in elearning. Their systems could not function without it. Simulation, electronic games, etc.The comment of the Canadian officer is a sad reflection on the level of preparedness of the Canadian military. Such comments are not just anti-learning, but they also reflect the type of backward thinking that could prove fatal in crisis combat situations. Does the army relegate their incompetent officers to the teaching halls??
Rory
In reply to Rory McGreal

Bring in NG stakeholders that have an influence over policy

by Virginia Yonkers -
The point of my posting was that there might be something that could convince the Canadian Military to use elearning. By bringing them (and the arm of the professional medical organization that works with the government on lisencing requirements, for example) into the discussion, the research agenda should be able to address some of their questions, misunderstandings, and assumptions within the Canadian context (as opposed to what works in the US, Europe, Asia, or Australia). They might even be willing to then fund the research.
In reply to Virginia Yonkers

Re: Bring in NG stakeholders that have an influence over policy

by Bill Railer -

Virginia,

Let me start off by applauding you and the group for this initiative. My name is Bill Railer and I am the Director of the Canadian ADL Partnership Lab and the Senior Staff Officer for the Learning Concepts and Experimentation cell within the Canadian Defence Academy.  Peter’s comments above reflect a bit of the old organization. The CF is well immersed in elearning and the addition of both tactical and serious games are taking hold. 

My team's main objective is to move the CF further down the path of a learning organization by focusing on a full scale learning architecture. Nationally we are working in tandem with DRDC, the NRC, Industry, Academia, and a number of other Government Departments. Internationally we are heavily involved in collaborative projects with NATO, ADL, and the Partnership for Peace and other Foreign Militaries.

The difficulty with the CF tends to be its sheer size. We have recently alleviated some of the traditional visability and org issues with the addition of a Learning Project Registry (great product for this initiative) and a Virtual Learning Innovation Support Centre. Our current focus is on developing I.D process tools that will allow our I.D's to focus on the learning. The majority of our application development is done in house and is shareable.  We are strong believers in the power of the collective and are always looking for new ideas and partners.

Cheers,

Bill

In reply to Peter Ball

Re: Identify the key stakeholders

by Jason Barr -
Good day all,

I just wanted to follow up from my esteemed colleague's earlier post yesterday morning on Distributed Learning (DL)/e-Learning in the Canadian Forces (CF). First, I will attempt to clarify a point brought forward, then provide highlights of a few initiatives currently taking place in the CF pertaining to DL/e-Learning. Out of approximately 126 occupations in the CF, we have one specific occupation that serves as a specialist in military training, education and professional development activities, called a Training
Development Officer (http://www.forces.ca/v3/engraph/jobs/jobs.aspx?id=74&bhcp=1). Under this occupation there are only two approved fully sponsored two-year Post Graduate (PG) programmes that allow a member a paid leave of absence to focus on Master's level training. They are, as mentioned by my colleague, Instructional Design or Human Performance Technology, both of which have identifed DL/e-Learning training delivery options. In speaking with the CF's Independent Learning Programme (ILP) Coordinator late yesterday afternoon at Canadian Defence Academy (CDA) in Kingston, she confirmed that they are seeing an increasing number of graduate level DL/e-Learning programmes being supported and anticipate that this will be a continual trend, due to the overall lower costs and increased quality of life for the member remaining close to their families. In addition, it was identified that more occupational sponsored PG programmes are being reviewed for potential completion via DL/e-Learning.


As for e-Learning initiatives, I will first explain that within the CF there are four managing authorities that are responsible for training and education, they include: Canadian Defence Academy (CDA) , Army, Navy and Air Force. In 2001, the Department of National Defence (DND) Military and Civilian Human Resources (HR Civ) jointly sponsored a project to enable virtual learning “anywhere, anytime, just-in-time” within the CF/Department of National Defence (DND).The project has has had some successes across the CF/DND and collected a considerable number of lessons learned. Many of the project objectives are already well underway (as highlighted later in the post), and the management of the remaining objectives are being accomplished through a newly formed Federated Centre of Excellence (FCoE) managed by Canadian Defence Academy (CDA) and DND HR Civ towards a fully integrated life-long learning system within the CF/DND.

Without going into too much detail on each, here are some of the activities and initiatives within the CF/DND that may be of interest to the participants of this Pan-Canadian e-Learning

Research Agenda.

1. Canadian Defence Academy (CDA) (http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/) which is responsible for training and education of military support occupations that are not environmental specific occupations, launched an interim Learning Management System (LMS) solution in 2006, called DNDLearn (http://www.dndlearn.forces.gc.ca/). As of April 2008, there are over 20,826 active e-Learning users. In April 08 alone, over 450 courses ran and there were over 70 different training establishments/schools designing, developing and delivering training within DNDLearn. Along with this LMS, a number of training and education applications have been, or are being, developed to support our Canadian Forces Individual Training and Education System (CFITES). The point of contact for these initiatives, is Senior Staff Officer, Mr. Bill Railer at CDA Directorate of Learning Innovations (DLI), Learning Concepts and Experimentation (LCE) Cell (railer.wg@forces.gc.ca ). Furthermore, at Royal Military College (RMC) there is a significant amount of design, development and delivery of DL/e-Learning both for undergraduate and graduate programmes, but also for our internal Professional Development Programme (http://www.opme.forces.gc.ca/);

2. Army E-Learning and ALSC - Another initiative the should be highlighted is CF Army e-Learning (http://www.armyelearning.ca/army_portal/main.html) and Army Learning Support Centre (ALSC) (http://www.armyelearning.ca/army_portal/ALSC.html ) [please note as this is a website that is accessible on both the Internet and CF Defence Wide Area Network (DWAN), some links only work on DWAN side]. This team is located out of Gagetown, NB and are working quite closely with external e-Learning agencies within Learn NB (http://www.learnnb.ca/) . An area of work that is gaining significant attention within the CF and externally, is the ALSC. One of the ALSC's projects that is gaining significant attention is their work with simulation and gaming, to find out more on CF Direct Action (CFDA) (http://www.armyelearning.ca/cfda/index.htm). To find out more on these army e-learning initiatives here is a link to seek more information (http://www.armyelearning.ca/army_portal/contact.html).

3. Navy e-Learning Portal - Significant work is being completed by the Navy e-Learning Centre of Excellence, Fleet School Quebec, Quebec City, QC along with the Naval Officer Training Centre (NOTC) in Victoria, BC. They are working to align many of the e-Learning resources so that they are available within one access point (http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/ecampus/main/main_e.asp?category=6) , hats off to one of the members of this SCoPE conference, (Lt(N)) Guy Boulet working at Laval University and his colleague Petty Officer 1st Class Chris Jalbert for this portal. Another initiative they have been working on is the design and development of Naval Reserve courses into DNDLearn for anytime anywhere training and education;

4. Air Force AFIILE - Air Force has embarked on a large scale Modeling, Simulation & Training (MS&T) initiative which will allow content for training and education to be available as an online, web-based service. This Air Force sponsored project is called Air Force Integrated Information and Learning Environment (AFIILE). Via AFIILE, DND members will have assured and secure access to models, simulations, training documentation and other items of value to their training or technical programs. AFIILE is well into its first phase of the project and we are quite interested to see it develop in the coming years.

To my other colleagues in the CF engaged in DL/E-Learning, if I have not captured your work, by all means jump in and expand or further highlight your initiatives.

Thanks for letting me share,
Jason
In reply to Rory McGreal

Re: Identify the key stakeholders

by guadalupe vadillo -

Not only there is no evidence that F2F is better than DE, but several metaanlayisis (for example, Shacar and Neumann, 2003 http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/153/704) indicate superiority of DE educational outcomes over those of traditional courses.

I would also like to comment that in Mexico we have several undergraduate and gradutae programs completely on line and employers make no difference among candidates because of the mode of delivery of their programs. 

Guadalupe

In reply to guadalupe vadillo

Re: Identify the key stakeholders

by Deirdre Bonnycastle -

Guadalupe, I agree

I participated in an informal study where 1/2 the class discussion was online and 1/2 in class. The students overwhelmingly preferred online because:

1. everyone participated

2. they had an opportunity to think about the discussion before responding so they felt the quality of answers improved.

The instructor agreed that the quality of answers improved online. Unfortunately, we didn't have ethics approval so we were unable to publish our results. We weren't expecting such profound results when we decided to compare the two.

In reply to Deirdre Bonnycastle

Re: Identify the key stakeholders

by guadalupe vadillo -

Your results are very interesting, Deirdre. I hope in the near future you will be able to conduct another comparison and get to publish those findings.

We have a virtual high school with both thousands of adults and hundreds of teenagers. Reasons to choose (and enjoy) DE include having a busy schedule, feeling comfortable with technology, presenting diverse health conditions and some special needs, and trying a new way to learn.

Guadalupe

In reply to guadalupe vadillo

Re: Identify the key stakeholders

by Jo Ann Hammond-Meiers -
Hi Guadalupe,
In your virtual high school you mentioned some very good reasons that people could choose DE. As a person who continues to be curious about and to examine how people become life -long learners and lifelong contributers, I think that high school students (adults and teens) who have good experiences will likely to continue online learning. I am encouraged by some of the accessibility work in Canada and the future possibilities. Online learning can equalize more -- or at least create some sense of fairness. In the various population groups, including those with diverse health conditions and some special needs, are you collecting data on what works for your students. Do you have some research or are you doing online evaluations? I know that all these applied e-learning situations take time to set up, but I think research data can be more easily collected from students who are already online. This may be another advantage of e-learning. Jo Ann
In reply to Jo Ann Hammond-Meiers

Re: Identify the key stakeholders

by guadalupe vadillo -

Hi Jo Ann,

I agrre that DE is an important means to have more equity. In my country, where we have a terrible distribution of wealth (with around 50 million living in poverty and 0.4% possesing the same as more than 20% of the population), ED constitutes hope for hundrends of thousands. We are working with underprivileged people and they cherish the opportunity to continue studying their high school.

We are beginning to research some issues. The first work was on best practices on the use of the forum: we made a discourse analysis of the best tutor (in terms of retention and approval rates) and of the worst one. We found very interesting differences (in the first case, lots on human information, pride in working on line, love towards his subject area -Math-, and almost instant response).

We are now working on the characterization of students' Math and written expression entrance profiles (only teens), and the impact our courses have on both types of abilities.

Best, guadalupe

In reply to Deirdre Bonnycastle

Re: Identify the key stakeholders

by Randy Fisher -
This is interesting...is there any research about drop-out / retention rates?

I have observed that e-learning means different things to different people - and while the materials are delivered a la elearning (i.e., video, asynchronous / synchronous discussion, etc.), the learner-support and followup is just not there. Consequently, a lot of people drop off the radar, and out of the courses.

What's the comparison between traditional learning programmes and elearning programmes?