E-education: creating partnerships for learning

School of Management, RMIT University, Australia.

Keywords: RMIT University, higher education, School of Management, student-centred learning, flexible learning, collaborative learning, team process, E-education, on-line education, multi-media, global, knowledge-driven society.

Article style and source: Peer Reviewed. Original ultiBASE publication. Paper originally presented at the Seventh International Literacy and Education Research Network (LERN) Conference on Learning, RMIT University, Melbourne, 5-9 July 2000.

Contents

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Section One:
  • The Student-Centred Educational Process
  • Universities and Technology
  • Collaborative E-Education Model
• Section Two - Case Study - RMIT
  • Introduction
  • Example one
  • Example two
• Conclusion
• References

Abstract

Higher education is facing unprecedented change as students and their potential employers face the global, knowledge-driven society of the future. On the one hand there is greater emphasis on designing a more student-centred learning experience in which students are able to discuss concepts, reflect upon them, and adapt their actions. This is achieved through designing teaching and learning that enables interaction between students and teachers and among students themselves. On the other hand the E-education revolution is providing universities with a range of flexible mediums through which large numbers of diversely spread students are provided with flexible learning opportunities. These two pressures are often seen as conflicting as on-line education potentially places a distance between the student and the teacher and between students themselves. For teachers trying to resolve this conflict what is required is innovative approaches to educational delivery that require different skills from that traditionally associated face-to-face teaching. This requires developing a team of experts – the teacher and a number of experts (technical designers, multi-media graphic designers, research designers) – who work together using each others skill and expertise. This process is at odds with the more traditional university culture in which academic freedom and individualism is seen as the mainstay of ensuring academic independence from outside political, social and religious influences. This paper seeks to explore the roles of participants within a cross-functional team in which educational design is aimed at a student-centred delivery outcome. Addressed is the issue of how a team based approach to the planning, development, evaluation and delivery of multi-media, including online material, might assist the facilitation of student learning. The paper develops a model of a collaborative team process and examines it against two experiences in the School of Management at RMIT in which the aim of the teacher was to deliver a student-centred educational process. In both cases the cross-functional team was found to be a necessity to develop the on-line educational delivery. However, the student-centred educational process was more evident in one case than the other. The authors conclude that a cross-functional team process is required for successful delivery of on-line educational delivery, however that a cross-functional team process is not sufficient to ensure a student-centred outcome. From this the authors suggest not that the cross-functional team is not necessary but rather that attention needs to be paid to the type and level of skills required in a cross-functional team to ensure that on-line education can deliver a student-centred educational experience. This conclusion opens the way for further research. back

Introduction

Higher education is facing unprecedented change as students and their potential employers face the global, knowledge-driven society of the future. On the one hand there is greater emphasis on the need to design a more student-centred learning experience in which students are able to discuss concepts, reflect upon them, and adapt their actions. This is achieved through designing teaching and learning that enables interaction between students and teachers and among students themselves. On the other hand the E-education revolution is providing universities with a range of flexible mediums through which large numbers of diversely spread students are provided with flexible learning opportunities. Teachers trying to provide both a student-centred educational experience, and cater for students geographically separated from themselves and other students are thus placed in a dilemma. What is required is innovative approaches to educational delivery that require different skills from that traditionally associated face-to-face teaching. This paper seeks to present a model for educational design and delivery that is aimed at delivering a student-centred educational experience on-line. The first section of the paper explores the dilemma facing teachers and presents a model of a collaborative team process. The second section of the paper uses two experiences in the School of Management at RMIT to examine the model. back

Section One: The Student-Centred Educational Process

Traditionally educational design followed what has been termed a teacher-centred approach in which the task of the teacher was to "transmit content or demonstrate procedures" (Ramsden 1992:111). This has been otherwise described as the ‘teacher as story-teller’ (Laurillard 1993, 1994). More recently there has been greater attention given to what is termed a student-centred approach. Under this approach teachers are encouraged to become guides, coaches, motivators and facilitators to students who play a more active role - presenting, analysing, solving and constructing ways to develop the knowledge provided by the teacher into skills required to function effectively. This approach requires the teacher to present knowledge in an integrated cross-discipline way with an emphasis on problem-solving of real world issues. Students work both individually and as a team to collect and assess information to solve problems with their success assessed in terms of their ability to solve problems, communicate ideas, present information and learn how to learn, rather than simply to repeat facts. Ramsden (1992) describes the student centred approach as moving from the simple provision of information to the organisation of subject content. Teaching becomes a cooperative enterprise involved in "creating a context of learning which encourages students actively to engage in subject matter" (Ramsden 1992:114). Through this process student capabilities are developed rather than just focusing on content (Bowden et al, 2000). Laurillard (1994) presents a useful model of a student-centred learning. The model, presented in Figure 1, shows how the teacher’s conceptual knowledge (content) is added to the student’s conceptual knowledge. This conceptual knowledge is then tested through the teacher designing experiential learning opportunities for students. Using this experience students are encouraged to reflect on their learning from the interaction and to adapt their actions accordingly. The process also allows for a two-way flow of reflection between the teacher and student through which additional reflection and adaptation can occur.

Figure 1: Essential Aspects of Teaching-Learning Process

Given the interaction between teacher and students and among students required by this student-centred model the question that arises in an e-education world is - how can on-line technology be used to provide the level of interaction required? The next section explores the role of technology in education. back

Universities and Technology

The potential for technology to "revolutionalise higher education" (West 1998:59), and cater for students who want "professional training and acquisition of a credential which will assist their chances of career advancement" (Coaldrake & Stedman 1999:3) is currently under discussion and debate. Debate revolves around questions of the educational value of on-line ‘virtual courses’, and flexible delivery of education ‘just-in-time’ (Flew 1998:7). Further discussion concerns the technical capacity of universities to deliver, and students to receive, on-line education effectively and efficiently. Finally, there is discussion on the ability of both the academic and student cultures to adapt to a more technologically interactive educational process.

It is argued that if universities are to engage productively with the developing distributed knowledge systems "they will need to restructure fundamentally their approach to research and teaching" (Coaldrake & Stedman 1999:5). Under a teacher centred educational model technology can be used simply to ‘broadcast’ material from the teacher to the student. Roberston (1998) describes how material can be placed on the web, reading material can be suggested, and quizzes devised. This ‘broadcast’ model does not at first to appear challenge the teachers autonomy. However it does require new skills in presenting material in a visually attractive, instructional way, it requires technical skills in how to place material for distribution to students on-line, and it requires a new approach to assessment. This places the academic under new challenges and a level of scrutiny that has not been historically present.

The broadcast model been criticised for failing to "consider the potential of information technology to facilitate new ways of supporting learning and communities of learners" (Collings 1999:1). When a student-centred approach to education is considered more challenges become evident.

Laurillard claims that computers, by modelling real world activities and creating interactive opportunities for students, can "provide students with a simulated environment with which to interact" (Laurillard 1994:20). As shown in Table 1, Laurillard claimed that computers can be used to support a two-way dialogue between teacher and students through teleconferencing. They can also be used to simulate the real-world and to link students to various audio and visual data bases.

Table 1: Interactive Computers and Student-Centred Teaching and Learning

 

Educational Process	Form of multimedia	Outcomes
interaction ‘negotiation between teacher-student	computer-mediated teleconferencing	can support a two-way dialogue
adaptation and reflection ‘discovery’ - individual student research	computer-based simulation	teacher merely constructs the world interaction between the learner and the real-world provides students with a stimulating environment
adaptation and reflection ‘discovery’ through collaborative	integrated multimedia multi-linked audio visual database	teacher guides, advises, comments and explains teacher links database and sets tasks learner requires information handling skills

However, even used in this way, Laurillard argues that computer-integrated learning and research should complement rather than replace face-to-face teaching:

She concludes that in order to engage in discovery learning teachers and students must become collaborators and that the opportunities for this form of interaction through technology are limited:

Developing these more advanced interactive opportunities requires different knowledge and skills to that of a traditional face-to-face teaching environment. Advanced instructional design, application design, technical implementation skills, multi-media graphic design skills. Furthermore associated knowledge such as the law associated with copyright and privacy and search/research skills traditionally associated with librarian skills are also required. Reliance upon knowledge and skills outside their traditional field of knowledge questions the traditional autonomy of academics. Thus the success of such change will depend on the degree to which existing cultures within universities can shift. back

Collaborative E-Education Model

A collaborative e-education cross-functional team model of academics and general staff is presented in Figure 2. The model explains what Collings termed teaching or ‘real work’ and ‘articulation or "the work involved in negotiating the development and use of information technology infrastructure and designing and organising new ways of teaching" (Collings 1999:5). The model also incorporates Kandlbinger’s (1999) concept of multi-disciplined teams consisting of "some combination of graphic designers, computer programmers, video makers, animators and content experts" (Kandlbinger 1999:2).

Figure 2: Collaborative E-Education Model

In this model the academic retains responsibility for determining the educational content and design of the subject. The academic is responsible for:

• establishing the aim of the educational process
• deciding on content requirements
• determining the knowledge and skill capabilities they wish students to develop
• identifying the experiential opportunities in which they wish students to participate
• setting assessment tasks to test the development of student knowledge and skill capabilities.

The ‘General staff’ assists the academic in designing the process by which the delivery can occur. General staff are responsible for:

• design of on-line process
• exploration of technical possibilities of the computer-interactivity
• administration and management of the technical aspects
• provision of advice on research skills
• provisions of advise on legal issues.

Between these separate responsibilities there is an overlap in which academics and general staff work together. It is in this ‘play space’ that academics and general staff communicate, collaborate, discuss, explore possibilities, design, and share goals and values, concerning how the technology can be used to enhance the teaching-learning process. This is similar to the joint ‘play space’ Creese (1998) found in her work in the performing arts where managers (concerned with administrative matters) and artistic directors (designing the production), could jointly develop innovative ideas. It is in this joint space that the technology can be used to either simply improve delivery of the teacher-centred ‘broadcast’ model of teaching, or where discussions can be held to explore the possibility of developing innovations aimed at a more student-centred educational experience.

In presenting such a model the authors recognise that there will still be inherent difficulties despite the ability of the model to preserve academic autonomy. The difficulties will arise principally from the different cultures of the two groups and their consequentially different views towards technology. First, unlike the individualism, independence and autonomy required by academics as they seek to present the most appropriate educational experience for students, general staff are not bound by such philosophical concerns but rather are concerned with delivering the most effective and efficient technical process. Sinclair (1991) describes the role of administrators and general staff as being responsive to organisational and managerial values of supervision and control. Kandlinger states "each of these fields has a different conception of what the computer is for, bringing little common ground to planning or decision-making (Kandlbinger 1999:2). Indeed Alexander, McKenzie & Geissinger (1998) found that if cross functional teams are to effective they must recognise one another’s values sufficiently so they may share goals and be able to resolve conflicts which arise. Second, care must be taken at all times to ensure that good communication between the two groups is maintained. Bull (2000) writes of the communication problems that arose between academics and administrative staff when introducing computer assessment at Luton University. Accordingly it is in the joint ‘play space’ that these differences can be discussed and communication improved.

In this section of the paper it has been argued that in order for academics to produce both a student-centred teaching and learning process and to use technology to assist on-line education, collaboration is required between academic and general staff. A cross-functional collaborative e-education model was presented. This model allows both parties (academics and general staff) to work independently in their areas of expertise and also to co-operate in a mutual ‘play space’ to develop innovative use of the technology to assist the educational aim set by the academic. The next section presents two examples in which academics and general staff used such a model.

Before leaving this question it is important to recognise that the production of multi-media for on line teaching is labour intensive in the short term, as is the ongoing support to ensure the delivery of a quality product, with unknown long term returns (Kort http://www.musenet.org/WCE/)). Accordingly universities must provide the supportive infrastructure for the development and implementation of innovative interactive computer possibilities. back

Section Two - Case Study - RMIT

Introduction

In 1998 RMIT commissioned a project to investigate ways of aligning information technology with the teaching and learning strategy priorities of the university. Arising out of this RMIT introduced interactive communication technologies designed to improve its teaching and learning process. In 1998 the university required all courses to be "refurbished to include flexibility delivered courseware….60% by 2000" (RMIT Teaching and Learning Strategy, 1998-2000). As well the university has also committed itself to a student-centred educational approach (Dunkin 2000). RMIT developed a university-wide distributed learning system (DLS) in which the technology makes possible increasing diversity in educational experiences through online content and interactions with both peers and academics. The DLS is a suite of interlinked, proprietary software suited to a range of teaching and learning approaches. It can be used without html expertise. Learning Technology Mentors (LTMs) were a key to the system. The university trained 75 staff, at least one from each school or department, and provided payment for one day’s time release per week "to work with their colleagues on centrally approved technology teaching projects with support and supervision from the Faculty Educational Services Group (ESG)" (Lines 1999:7). The two examples outlined below are from the School of Management within RMIT. In the first example two LTMs (one academic and one general staff) worked together to prepare an introductory level management course with large numbers of students for on-line delivery. In the second example an academic not trained in the DLS system worked with representatives from the Faculty ESG and a business librarian trained as a Faculty LTM to prepare an interactive glossary of employee relations terms that would be accessible to all students through the DLS system. At the time of writing both these examples are still in development stage (an interesting comment in itself on the time required to develop such student experiences given the commencement in semester 1 2000).

Discussion within the School of Management about flexible delivery had been ongoing since RMIT’s adoption of the flexible delivery model. The School has mixed modes of teaching. These vary from large group teacher-centred lecturing environment supported by small group tutorials in which a more student-centred educational process is implemented, to smaller size, intensive learning environments in which a student-centred, action-based educational process is implemented. Discussions within the School on flexible delivery have resolved principally around whether on-line education is compatible with the student-centred philosophy of the School. Concern had also been expressed at the lack of technical skills held by academics and the time it would take for academics to both acquire these skills and deliver courses on-line. These discussions had resulted in a few individual academics experimenting with on-line delivery, but no agreed concerted action being taken by the School. This was the situation that existed at the beginning of 2000. back

Example One – Development of an On-line version of an introductory Management Course

‘Introduction to Organisational Behaviour’ is a large, compulsory course in the School of Management’s Bachelor of Business. Students in the course are also drawn from other Schools in RMIT, particularly the engineering schools. Traditionally the course comprised large group face-to-face lectures of 2 hours complemented by small group (25 student) tutorials of one hour. In 2000 this course was targeted for flexible renewal. A newly employed academic lecturer with some experience in web-design was nominated as an LTM for the School with the specific aim of having her develop this course for flexible delivery and from this experience to have her help other academics to explore on-line possibilities. It was decided that students from departments and schools outside the Business Faculty would be separated into a discrete group and the subject designed for delivery in flexible mode to these students.

The first step in the process of flexible delivery was to develop and place content material for student access in the DLS. It was hoped that as academics became familiar with this there would be an increasing understanding of the educational potential of the software. This was termed Band E of the DLS.

It was recognised that this first step limited educational delivery to the teacher-centred education model of ‘broadcast’ delivery as written material is provided in a computer-based form for students to print at their discretion. There is little capacity for interaction between the teacher and the student. There is, however, the ability to use an ‘announcement’ page through which the academic can communicate with the whole class in between face-to-face meetings, and a ‘group page’ for students to communicate amongst themselves in group projects. Thus, despite these limitations this example does provide the opportunity to examine how successfully these extension facilities can be used. Syndicate groups could be created within the group pages and discussion board, virtual chat and file drop box, were created with assistance from the general staff LTM (the Schools’ IT Projects Officer).

The academic responsible for this development, although trained in the technical process of how to place written material within Band E of the DLS found that she did not have the knowledge, experience, or indeed time to perform all the processes required to make the course available for on-line delivery. She became increasingly reliant on the general staff LTM to assist her in this process. She also found that other academics involved in teaching the course and students also needed to be trained in how to access and use the DLS. In terms of the Model introduced earlier, the academic and general staff LTM adopted a collaborative working arrangement as outlined in Figure 3. back

Figure 3: Collaborative Model Used to Prepare Course Material for Band E of the DLS

During the preparation phase the academic retained responsible for determining the educational content and design of the subject. She also prepared the material included in the subject, determined the knowledge and skill capability requirements and identified the experiential opportunities in which she wished the students to participate and the assessment requirements. During the delivery phase the academic kept students up to date between lectures through the announcement page. Finally, the academic monitored student use of the group pages.

The general staff LTM assisted the academic staff member by converting the files to PDF format to ensure for student access. She organised the crucible space for the academic through which the academic could interact with the students. Finally, she prepared and ran a student induction training program in the E-Band and devised, administered and assessed a student assessment of the flexible delivery.

Between these separate responsibilities the academic and the general staff LTM also worked as a cross-functional collaborative team. They discussed possible uses to which the E-Band could be put. They discussed, developed and delivered appropriate training for students and staff to enable effective use the E-Band. Discussion within this joint space became more imperative as the lecturer selected an external commercial provider who could provide online lecture material to support the text she has chosen for the course. She chose to use this provider to reduce the resource-intensive nature of developing, maintaining and updating on-line material (Creese & Kemelfield 2001). However, there were problems as the material put into RMIT’s Distributed Learning System, was within WebCT, no longer a preferred platform for the university. Consequently, the Faculty Computer Service Group was reluctant to provide assistance. This meant that the general staff LTM discussed with the academic what she required as an outcome and then performed a liaison role with the commercial provider to ensure that the material could be made available to RMIT students.

In summary example one provides an interesting example of a team-based approach to computer assisted teaching. In this example the academic retained responsibility for subject content and assessment, the general staff LTM provided the technical knowledge of how to access the DLS, while both worked as a team to discuss and develop delivery options. It is recognised that this approach was limited to a teacher-centred, broadcast delivery use of on-line technology. However the collaborative ‘play space’ did provide the opportunity to discuss possible future innovations that could assist a more student-centred approach, especially in the development of interactive activities for small group tutorials.

Before leaving this example it is important to identify other issues that emerged in this example that are not directly related to the subject of this paper, but which will influence the success of any on-line teaching processes. These include the:

• time involved in designing the teaching and servicing the students
• need for technology of commercial providers and students to be compatible
• need for attention to be given to training all staff and students associated with the course in the use of the technology
• resistance from academics not directly involved to the academic-general staff collaborative partnership (Creese & Kemelfield 2001).back

Example Two – Development of an Interactive Glossary available as courseware for all RMIT students

The second example involves the development of an interactive glossary of employee-relations terms to be accessed by students through the RMIT system. An academic within the School of Management identified that although there was a hard copy Glossary of Employment Relations terms available, it was out of date, and there were no apparent on-line versions available. She discussed with a cross section of academics from several Schools and Faculties within RMIT the potential demand for an interactive glossary as a ‘courseware item’ available through the DLS to all RMIT students for reference purposes. The intent was that such a glossary could be used to assist a student-centred educational and research process, especially if it provided links to related websites. She received a positive response from these discussions and concluded that there is a need for the glossary. She discussed the provision of such a glossary with a relevant external professional body with similar confirmation of the need for an on-line glossary of terms to be made available as a public document in CD form. She determined from these discussions that an interactive site that had links to other sites, and was supported by visual graphics, would be the most attractive for students.

The academic had no training as an LTM and no training in using the RMIT DLS, however she had previous experience in producing a multi-media training package on the 1998 waterfront dispute (Jones 1998). This was prepared in collaboration with general staff in the Faculty of Business Educational Media Unit (EMU) and the RMIT printing group. In terms of the model introduced earlier, as the project progressed various forms of general staff expertise, as shown in Figure 4, were required.

Figure 4: Collaborative E-Education Model-Courseware Development

As shown in the Model the academic retained responsibility for content to be included in the glossary, and for identification of the links to other Websites. The academic remained the major conduit to external bodies, and the principle consultant with other academics within the university. As the project developed the academic recognised the need for a Project team to be established with the academic retaining the role of project leader. An academic with responsibility for teaching in a related discipline, Information Technology, was consulted to explore the potential for a Master Program student becoming involved in research for the project.

General staff with a variety of technical expertise were gradually added to the project as the breadth of expertise required became self evident. The academic approached the general staff within EMU with whom she had worked collaboratively on the previous project. These experts provided suggestions on graphic interface design to support the written text and assured the academic of the technical feasibility of the project, with a commitment that the Unit could provide the knowledge and skills requited. They suggested a variety of mediums to support the text part of the glossary with animation, video footage, and links to other variety of sites. A general staff member with librarian expertise was consulted to use her web-search skills to search other sites for valuable links. She located an international thesaurus that could be used as a source of information and a university site with related information. General staff with legal knowledge about copyright and intellectual property were consulted. General staff with expertise in publishing were consulted, as were general staff with expertise in marketing. This meeting exposed the need to explore the availability of a variety of data-entry packages for use in this project.

Over time the need for a more permanent collaborative project team within which all the parties could discuss possibilities became self-evident. The academic found it impossible to amalgamate from the various separate meetings the different, and sometimes conflicting information she was receiving, especially in technical matters outside her area of expertise. The academic also became aware of the competing interested between various parties, again outside her area of expertise, that made it more difficult for her to determine the appropriate direction to take. She successfully approached the Faculty Director of Teaching Quality and the Director of Information Technology for funding for the Project.

In summary this example demonstrates that the collaborative model of academic and general staff with cross-functional expertise is required in order to develop innovative interactive courseware material that will assist a student-centred educational approach. The originating academic identified the aim of the project and retained responsibility for identifying the content to be included. She also identified the principal Weblinks appropriate to the subject matter of the glossary. She was the principal link to outside practitioner experts, and she identified the type of interactivity that she required to ensure the project assisted a student-centred educational design. The general staff had responsibility for providing a variety of technical expertise required for the project. Critical to the production of a viable and relevant end product is, however, collaboration between all the relevant parties in a cross-functional project team.

Before leaving this example it is important to again identify other issues that are not the direct subject of this paper but which emerged in this example as potential problems for any potential development of innovative student-centred on-line teaching projects. These included the:

• time required to consult all the appropriate experts and to organise team meetings
• costs associated with all phases of the design process, from preliminary design to final completion and marketing (if appropriate)
• project management skills required to develop the level of collaboration required
• level of skills required of students and general public seeking access to the courseware
• computer software and hardware capabilities of potential users. back

Conclusion

This paper sought to explore the roles of participants within a cross-functional team in which educational design is aimed at a student-centred delivery outcome. The paper presented a collaborative model in which academic and general staff bring different forms of expertise to a cross-functional team for discussion aimed at developing innovative learning opportunities. This model accommodates the traditional autonomy and independence of academics in establishing the aims and objectives of a course, the student capability developments required, the course content and the experiential opportunities desired. The general staff provide the technical expertise to develop the innovations required.

Through a study of the interaction between academics and general staff in the production of two very different teaching experiences in the School of Management at RMIT, the paper demonstrated the relevance of this model. It suggested that academics should be less concerned about loss of academic freedom that has been supposed in many forums. However, it also suggested that there is greater complexity in the development of more experiential, student-based teaching experiences. The paper demonstrated the necessity of collaborative teams in the development of innovative teaching and learning opportunities, but it also suggested that this the existence of such teams is not a sufficient requirement. Attention must also be given to the time involved in creating innovative opportunities, the costs involved, the need for project management expertise, the need to ensure that students and other involved teaching staff have the technical requirements and the training to enable them to interact with the programs. back

References:

Alexander, S. McKenzie, J. & Geissinger, H. 1998, An Evaluation of Information Technology, Projects for University Learning, Australian Government Publishing Service: 155-168, AGPS, Canberra.

Bowden, J et al 2000 ‘Generic Capabilities of ATN University Graduates’ RMIT Report from to Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra.

Boyer, E (1990), Scholarship Revisited: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, San Francisco.

Bull, J. 2000, ‘Computer Assisted Assessment’, Notes from Workshops, Luton University in England.

Coaldrake, P. & Stedman, L. 1999, ‘Academic Work in the Twenty-First Century’, Occasional Paper Series, Higher Education Division Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Collings, P. 1999 Sustaining Academics’ Agency in Determining Work Practices in Information Technology-Mediated Teaching and Learning, HERDSA Annual Conference July 12-15, Melbourne.

Creese, E. 1999, Unpublished Master of Business thesis, Swinburne University, Hawthorne, Australia.

Creese E & Kemelfield J 2001, ‘Creative Adaptation to Technological Revolution Through Partnerships: An Exploratory Case Study Involving the Evaluation of Online Lectures in Organisational Behaviour’ forthcoming paper prepared for the Annual HERDSA Conference 2001, Melbourne June.

Dunkin R 2000, ‘E-Commerce: RMIT University’s Current Approach and Emerging Strategy’, Paper presented at the 13^th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference, Slovenia June 19-21.

Flew, T. 1998, ‘New Media and Borderless Education’ Australian Universities Review, 1:7-9.

Gibbons, M. 1998, Higher Education in the 21^st Century, UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education, Paris, Oct 5-9

Jones S 1998, Power, Politics and Persuasion; the 1998 Australian Waterfront Dispute’ Multi-Media Training Package, RMIT Educational Media Unit, Melbourne.

Kandlbinder, P. 1999, Valuing Collaboration in Design for the World Wide Web: A Creative Team Approach, HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July.

Kort http://www,musenet.org/WCE/ accessed May 2000.

Laurillard, D. 1993, Rethinking University Teaching, Routledge, London.

Laurillard, D. 1994, Multimedia and the Changing Experience of the Learner, Asia Pacific Information Technology in Training and Education Conference and Exhibition, June 28-July 2, Brisbane.

Lines R 1999, Teaching with technology: The Space Between Strategy and Outcomes’, http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/Articles/online/lines1.htm, accessed 26.03.01.

McNaught, C., Kenny, J., & Lord, R. 1999, ‘Developing & Evaluating a University-wide Online Distributed Learning System: The Experience at RMIT University,’ in Educational Technology & Society 2 (4), 70-81.

Ramsden, P. 1992, Learning to Teach in Higher Education, Routledge, London.

Robertson, T 1998, Changing Work Practices in Technology Mediated Learning Environments: Exploiting the Insights of Participatory Design and CSCW, position paper to PDC/CSWC 98 Workshop W5 Changing Work Practices in Technology-Mediated Learning Environments: and the workshop proposal; Seattle (unpublished).

Sinclair, A. 1991, After Excellence: Models of Organisational Culture for the Public Sector, Working Paper 3, February, The University of Melbourne, The Graduate School of Management, Melbourne.

West Report, 1998, Learning for Life – Final Report. Review of Higher Education and Policy, Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra, AGPS. back

About the authors