E-LEARNING DEVELOPMENTS AND EXPERIENCES

Prof. Shirley Alexander

Director, Institute for Interactive Media and Learning
University of Technology, Sydney (UTS)

Paper presented at conference Technological Demands on Women in Higher Education:

Bridging the Digital Divide, Cape Town, February 2001

The paper presented by Shirley Alexander was based on the article which first appeared in
Education + Training, Volume 43 Number 4/5 2001 pp. 240-248

Introduction
Over the past five years, institutions of higher education in Australia and overseas have been
investing increasingly larger sums of money in a range of e-learning initiatives. RMIT
University for example, has allocated AUS$50 million over the period 1999-2001 for aligning
information technology to the needs of the core business of the University [HREF1] and The
University of Melbourne, has allocated $12 million since 1997 for multimedia enhanced
teaching and learning development. [HREF 2]

This increased investment in e-learning initiatives appears to have occurred as a reaction to

the view that higher education is in crisis. The crises center around three issues - access to
education, the cost of providing education, and dwindling public revenues (Daniel, 1997;
Johnstone, 1992).

Both authors believe that the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in
teaching and learning will provide at least part of the solution to many of these issues. Daniel
(1997; p.14) for example, believes that “technology provides the most fertile ground for
growing these key ingredients of university renewal: lower costs and unique attractions.”

Bates (1997) believes there are four reasons for using technology in higher education:
• To improve the quality of learning;
• To improve access to education and training;
• To reduce the costs of education; and
• To improve the cost-effectiveness of education.

Green & Gilbert (1995) noted, "the stated hope is that computing and information
technologies will yield new levels of institutional and instructional 'productivity.' The stated
expectation is that the infusion or integration of new technologies into instruction will, at
minimum maintain and ideally enhance student learning while significantly reducing
instructional costs."

1
The second catalyst for the interest in e-learning appears to be centered around concern that
higher education might not be able to continue its monopoly on the delivery of education. One
area of potential competition is alleged to come from international institutions of higher
education, and an article in The Australian on 22 November, 2000 claimed that Australian
Higher Education faces competition from overseas universities: “Australian universities face
a threat from foreign institutions if they fail to bring their online learning systems to
international standards”.

Others such as Twigg and Oblinger (1996) see the competition as coming from non-
traditional providers:

The most aggressive competition facing traditional institutions today is not from
within higher education but from new providers of postsecondary educational
services. These include an increasing number of proprietary institutions—some of
which are modeled on the traditional construct—such as the University of Phoenix,
whereas others are more reminiscent of training institutes—such as the DeVry
Institute or Motorola University.

Much of this activity is fueled by claims by people such as John Chambers, CEO of Cisco
who said in 2000: The next big killer application for the Internet is going to be education.
Education over the Internet is going to be so big it is going to make email usage look like a
rounding error [HREF 3]

Regardless of the reason for the investment decisions, much of the activity in e-learning is
taking place at the level of development of courses and their resources. Only a small number
of institutions have recognised that successful e-learning takes place within a complex
system, composed of many inter-related parts, where failure of only one part of that system
can cause the entire initiative to fail.

This articles proposes a framework for the successful design, development and
implementation of e-learning systems within higher education. The framework is based on
Trigwell’s (1995) work on the levels of influence on student learning and is informed by the
outcomes of a range of evaluation studies, including a national, two-year study (Alexander &
McKenzie, 1998) led by the author which sought to determine the outcomes of 104 e-learning
projects across Australia. The major finding of this study is that the use of information
technology does not itself improve learning. Rather, a range of issues were identified which
contribute to the success or otherwise of learning and teaching with technology. Each of these
issues is discussed within the framework developed.

The starting place for the development of this framework is to review what is known about
the influences on students as they learn and as they engage in a range of e-learning activities.

Begin with the end in mind

Ultimately, the aim of all education initiatives (regardless of the medium used), is to make it
possible for students to learn, and Trigwell’s (1995) model below (Figure 1.) highlights very
well the range of influences on students as they learn.

2
The diagram is a section through a set of concentric spheres that places the student at the
center or core. The layer closest to the student represents what the teacher does (teachers’
strategies) while the next layers involve the planning and thinking done by teachers. All
levels are surrounded by an outer layer that represents the teaching/learning context.

Figure 1. Trigwell’s (1995) levels of influence on student learning

Student

Teaching/ Teachers’ Teachers’ Teachers’

learning Thinking Planning Strategies
context

Unfortunately, much of the staff development for e-learning initiatives is focused around the
level of teachers’ strategies — courses on Powerpoint slide development, web page
development, use of online conferencing systems etc abound but we know that other issues
such as the teachers’ conception of learning has a major influence on the planning of courses,
in development of teaching strategies, and ultimately on the what and how students learn.

A review of the range of student experiences of e-learning is the starting point for the
argument for a systems approach to e-learning development.

The student experience of e-learning

Much of the literature on e-learning is merely a description what the teacher could do or has
done online, while the student experience of those activities goes largely undocumented.
What literature there is, reports significant variation in that experience as one might expect. If
the view of e-learning as a system is accepted, then there is no single “experience”. Rather,
the experience of a particular student or group of students is a direct result of the particular
combination of factors which make up the e-learning system described in this paper.

Within the diversity of student experiences however, there are some common factors which
have been reported in the literature as significant determinants of student satisfaction with the
online aspect of e-learning.

Students consistently rate communication and support from faculty and other students as
having the major influence on their online learning experience (Weller & Mason, 2000;

3
Fredericksen et al, 2000; Hara & Kling, 1999; Myerton, 1999, Rossman, 1999; Powers &
Mitchell, 1997). Specifically, students value prompt and informative feedback on their work,
clarity of faculty expectations of their work, and welcome high levels of participation by other
students.

A second factor is that of time available to devote to the course (Weller & Mason, 2000;
Powers & Mitchell, 1997). Mason (2001) has proclaimed that “time is the new distance”, as
lack of time, rather than long distance, has become one of the primary reasons that students
withdraw from courses.

The third issue is the student experience of the technology. Students report that their own
level of skill with information and communication technologies has a significant impact on
their participation in e-learning activities (Fredericksen et al, 2000; Hara & Kling, 1999).
Adequate access to technical support was reported as essential to these learners in achieving
successful learning outcomes.

The Alexander & McKenzie study (p234) reported a number of major issues from the student
perspective.

The experience of group work was a significant factor in determining the student experience.
Regardless of the learning design being used in the projects, those students who did not have
a positive experience of working in groups did not appear to have achieved the desired
learning outcomes and were very negative about their experience. Only a small number of
students reported previous experience of group work, yet few of the faculty provided any kind
of preparation of students for this experience.

Assessment of learning was an issue that was comprised of several parts. Firstly, if the e-
learning activity did not count towards assessment of the subject, students simply did not use
the materials or participate in the activity. Secondly, where assessment of student learning
was not modified to reflect any changes made to the content and process of learning, students
did not participate. For example, if a project was designed to foster improved understanding
of subject content, yet the assessment of learning tested students’ memorisation of subject
content, then students became aware of that very quickly, and adjusted their approach to
learning towards that of memorisation.

Thirdly, a degree of resistance to new forms of learning was observed, in particular amongst
groups of students who were not experienced learners. Many of these students believed that
the best form of learning occurred when teachers gave lectures, and resisted all attempts by
teachers to involve them in activities that facilitated knowledge construction rather than
reception of information.

The issues raised by the student experiences reported above highlight a range of factors.

At the level of teacher planning, increased attention must be paid to design of the assessment
– ensuring that e-learning activities are assessed in appropriate ways, that students receive
prompt and useful feedback on their work, and that the assessment reflects the learning
objectives of the e-learning project.

4
Adequate preparation of students for qualitatively different learning activities cannot be over-
emphasised. Students need to be briefed on the views of learning that underpin particular
learning strategies, and encouraged to be reflective about their own learning.

Students also need preparation for working in groups. Few students have experience of group
work and therefore should undertake preparatory work for the activity, and opportunities
should be provided for support of the activities and de-briefing of the experience.

Finally, time management skills need to be embedded in the learning activities of courses. All
of the above skills – meta-cognition, working in groups, and time management are considered
to be lifelong learning skills, and hence the time spent in planning for student acquisition of
those skills is well worth the investment.

At the level of university context, the results above highlight the need for staff development
opportunities that support the development of online communication skills. They also
emphasise the great importance of a reliable technology network, and a technology support
service for both students and staff.

The level of influence that is closest to the student is the teaching strategies used.

Teachers’ strategies
This level describes the actual student experience – the teaching strategy. In traditional face-
to-face teaching the common experience would be that of lectures, tutorials and sometimes
laboratory classes. In Alexander & McKenzie’s study of e-learning projects, the following
teaching strategies were reported as used by the e-learning project developers (p30):

• presentation of a collection of multiple media (n=24, 22% of responses)

• presentation of a collection of information (22, 20.6%)
• case studies (17, 15.9%)
• simulation (11, 10.3%)
• tutorial/module (11, 10.3%)
• problem based learning (6, 5.6%)
• hypertext (6, 5.6%)
• self-assessment (4, 3.7%)
• individualised instruction (3, 2.8%)

When asked about intended and actual outcomes of projects for students, project leaders from
the study reported the following (p54):

5
Table 1 Intended versus actual outcomes of project for students*
Outcome of project Number of responses Percent of cases
for students
Intended Actual Intended Actual
Improved quality of learning/ 111 28 87.0 37.3
outcomes
Improved attitudes to learning 22 47 16.0 62.7
Improved learning 42 9 39.0 12.0
productivity
and access
Other - 7 - 9.3
Not used/no impact/ - 6 - 8.0
problems/difficulties/
*Base: excludes respondents who answered ‘Too early to determine’ in an earlier question.

The reported actual outcomes for students were rather different from the intended outcomes
and a number of explanations are put forward for these findings.

One interpretation of these results could be that the majority of projects have not been
successful in achieving their intended outcome. As noted above, 43% of the e-learning
projects were based on collections of multiple media or of information. These projects were
not successful in general, especially if supporting materials were not available to students (eg
guides to using the resources), if student exploration of the collection was not assessed, or the
collections were supplementary material for the course.

Secondly, many project evaluations did not involve the collection of meaningful evidence of
student learning outcomes, making it difficult to claim the anticipated outcomes. In the study
project leaders were asked about the indicators they had used to determine the success of their
project. Students’ reactions were the main focus of responses; the majority of project leaders
used positive student response and students’ enjoyment in using the program as indicators of
success.

While feedback from each of these groups is important, evaluation methods that might have
enabled the project leader to determine the actual learning outcomes were not often used.
Project leaders cited lack of time, and lack of knowledge of evaluation methods as factors
inhibiting a detailed evaluation of student learning outcomes.

The actual development of the teaching strategies as e-learning products is very time
consuming on the part of the academics involved and was reported by 78% of project leaders
as being greater than expected. When asked about factors that had hindered the development
of the projects, the major category of response (35%) related to lack of time. Other factors
hindering development of e-learning projects include (pxii):
• inadequate access to technical advice, expertise and support;

6
• academic team members who felt they could perform all the technical functions, such as
programming, graphic design, etc., but were not able to do so;
• presence of staff on the project team who did not value the different skills required and
available for the successful project completion;
• project teams which were unable to resolve differing opinions;
• project development teams which did not include a member with responsibility for project
management, and which did not foresee the need for project planning and/or
documentation;
• a project leader who, in view of his or her teaching release to develop the project, was
allocated an extra administrative load by the Head of Department;
• a project leader who was located in a faculty or school where the Head of Department was
not supportive, often because he or she felt the time would be better spent on research, or
did not value the project;
• project was developed which was operational on the development computer only, and
could not be run on the implementation computers because of inadequate memory, disk
space, etc., or because of non-existent CD-ROM drives;
• project was developed for implementation on computers which were expected to become
available in the future, but which did not become available;
• evaluation conducted (if at all) only when the project was complete, and discovered that
changes were required for which funds were no longer available;
• did not evaluate the project in the anticipated context of use, prior to implementing it.

Again, a number of issues arise from the evaluation data at this level. The importance of
faculty development is emphasised once again, an issue that must be addressed at the level of
the university context. Faculty need development and support in project management, team
work, evaluation, and time management. They also need support for the development of those
teaching strategies that have been demonstrated to result in improved learning outcomes.
Management support from the faculty or school was also shown to be critical, thus
highlighting the importance of an e-learning plan for the institution, and for the
communication of that plan to all levels of the university so that e-learning activities are
valued rather than seen as detracting from the “real work” of the department.

The experiences described here also highlight the importance of a technology plan for the
university so that faculty may engage in planning for e-learning activities with confidence that
the particular technologies will actually be available for their students to use.

Teachers’ planning
Where e-learning is contemplated, the first stage of planning should include the following
questions adapted from Alexander & Blight (1996) which will provide evidence on which to
determine whether implementation will be successful, and guide thinking about the
appropriate use of ICT:

Context of Learning
• who are the learners (age, experience of learning independently etc)?
• what is the most appropriate location for these learners to engage in independent learning
activities (home, work, other)?
• what kinds of technologies are available in those locations?
• what level of technological expertise do the learners have?

7
• what level of learner support is available in their location of learning and from the
institution?

Information Technology
• is this technology available and accessible for this group of learners?
• what is the cost of this technology to the learner?
• does this technology support the most suitable learning design for this content?
• what kinds of interaction are possible with this technology?
• what level of support does this technology require?
• is this technology a viable option in this context, and does it enable the most appropriate
learning strategies to be used for this particular content, and for this group of learners?

Teaching/ Learning Design

• what kinds of learning are needed?
• what teaching strategies will best meet these needs?
• what kinds of learning designs are made possible?
• what kind of assessment activities do learners engage in?

The e-learning projects reported in the Alexander & McKenzie study that were not successful
were deficient in the following areas of planning (p. xii). They:
• were overly ambitious in terms of desired outcomes for the budget and time available;
• utilised particular information technologies for their own sake, without sufficient regard
for appropriate learning design;
• did not change the assessment of learning to reflect changed learning outcomes;
• failed to recognise the importance of the project’s context of implementation and the need
to think through and plan for this;
• commenced software development without adequate planning;
• did not adequately prepare students for participation in learning experiences which they
had not encountered before, such as working in groups;
• over-estimated students’ willingness to engage in higher level learning activities,
especially when they were not related to assessment;
• used resources in the project development for which copyright clearance had not yet been
obtained, and could not subsequently be obtained.

The issues raised above highlight the importance of support at the university level for more
detailed analyses of potential students, their characteristics, and circumstances of learning.
This is a task more suited to a specialist team within an institution with experience in market
research.

Teachers’ planning of learning experiences (which includes development of the aims,

objectives, and assessment) is strongly underpinned by their thinking about what learning
means.

8
Teachers’ thinking
When asked about the intended learning outcomes, project leaders’ responses from the
Alexander & McKenzie study (p34) were categorised as improved quality of learning if their
focus appeared to be on the learning outcomes that students would achieve from using the
project materials. These responses were sub-categorised to reflect the level of learning
outcome described, using a scheme modified from the literature on conceptions of learning
(Marton, Dall’Alba and Beaty, 1993).

At the simplest level, ten responses (from 111) indicated a desire for students to be exposed to
information or ideas, sometimes of a kind unavailable in the standard classroom environment,
with a further 16 indicating that they would like students to develop an awareness of, explore
or experience various phenomena.

In both of these categories, the described learning outcome could be related to Marton et al’s
conception of learning as increasing one’s knowledge, with the main focus on broadening
students’ knowledge or awareness.

In the next category (30 responses), learning was still described as an increase in knowledge,
but the focus was on improvement of existing learning or learning approaches, where the
nature of the improvement was not always specified. ‘Learning more’ and ‘reinforcing
learning’ were included in this category.

In the next category, the focus was on students acquiring and applying skills (21 responses),
relating to Marton et al’s category of applying or acquiring facts, procedures, skills etc. for
later application. These skills could be generic (computing skills or problem solving skills) or
more specific practical and professional skills related to the discipline or field of practice.

The final three learning categories could be related to Marton et al’s two categories of
learning as understanding and learning as seeing something in a different way. They
focused on students developing understanding (27 responses), integrating knowledge from a
range of sources (9 responses) and becoming more selective and discriminating in their use of
knowledge (3 responses).

Clearly there was a wide variation in teachers’ thinking about learning, ranging from a
view that learning occurs if students are exposed to information, to a view that learning
is about understanding, or making sense of something.

In general, faculty who view learning as “increasing knowledge” or “learning more” were
more likely to develop collections of multiple media. At the other end of the spectrum, faculty
who viewed learning as “understanding” were more likely to plan and develop strategies such
as simulations and problem based learning activities. The latter were more successful in
achieving those learning outcomes, although some failed for many of the reasons identified
elsewhere in this paper. For example where the students were not amenable to activities that
were different from those they had experienced previously, the project did not achieve the
desired learning outcomes.

9
This highlights the absolutely critical importance of supporting faculty as they increase their
understanding of student learning.

Teaching/learning context
Clearly, from the issues highlighted above, for any e-learning initiative to be successful, a
number of support mechanisms must have been developed. The most sophisticated learning
design will not help students to learn if the technology does not work, if faculty are
overloaded and cannot or do not know how to provide support to students, if the students have
a negative experience of working in groups, or the students do not value the opportunity to
participate in qualitatively different learning experiences.

What should institutions do to develop a system to support e-learning?

Firstly, they need a plan for e-learning development, a plan that clearly identifies the reason/s
for embarking on e-learning development. Without this, faculty are likely to “second guess”
the reasons for the initiative which may lead them to by-pass the significant phases of
thinking about learning and what it means for their students, as they move straight to the
teaching strategies they believe will address the concerns of the university. For example, a
university which simply announces that all of their courses will be taught online may cause
faculty to simply place all of lecture notes online and call it an online course. Gone are the
phases of thinking through the context, the ways in which students learn the content and so
on.

As noted earlier, a reliable technology system is critical to the success of e-learning

initiatives. This system not only includes the technologies themselves, but also the support for
staff and students as they learn to use the e-learning projects. Students will readily give up on
a course if they cannot get the technology to work, and they do not receive support.

Back to the beginning

The good news is, that when the right balance of the above factors is achieved, there is
evidence of positive learning outcomes for students. The Alexander & McKenzie (1998,
p244) study summarised the benefits of the successful projects for students as being of four
kinds:
• improved quality of learning;
• improved productivity of learning;
• improved access to learning; and
• improved student attitudes to learning.

More specifically, the study found a range of positive learning outcomes that resulted from
students’ use of e-learning products, including (p. 232):
• the opportunity for students to interact with others internationally and gain a more
sophisticated and global understanding of complex international political issues, while
gaining information technology literacy in the process;
• improved understanding of concepts which students are known to have difficulty with in a
range of disciplines, through the use of interactive multimedia animations, simulations
and microworlds;

10
• the development of information and technological literacy in the context of learning to
solve real-world problems through the use of databases and e-mail;
• enhanced communication between part-time students and their lecturer, through the use of
a computer-based conferencing tool over the Internet;
• the acquisition of information such as language learning, where a high component of
factual recall is required;
• learning the skills and knowledge of a particular discipline in the culture of its use in a
working organisation, through participation in a simulation over the internet;
• the facility for students to assess their own learning of concepts, through computer-based
qualitative and quantitative assessment modules.

Some of the case studies from the study also showed the following evidence of improved
productivity in learning and teaching:
• decreased time to learn through the use of animations;
• increased content of learning in a given time through the availability of multiple
representations;
• increased interaction between academic and students through the use of a computer-based
conferencing tool on the Internet.

Unfortunately, these positive outcomes represent only a small proportion of the e-learning
projects investigated in the study. Some of the projects failed to deliver an outcome at all,
while others failed to achieve any evidence of learning outcomes for the variety of reasons
outlined elsewhere in this paper.

Conclusions
If higher education is to meet the forecast challenges of this century, initiatives in e-learning
will need to encompass more than the current focus on teaching strategies. This paper has
described a framework for developing the capacity to deliver e-learning courses as
summarised in the table below.

University context
Provision of the following support and development mechanisms constitute an integral part of
an e-learning initiative:
1. a vision for e-learning at the institution;
2. development of technology development plan;
3. development of faculty workload policies which relate to e-learning;
4. maintenance of a reliable technology network;
5. facility for providing technology support to staff and students;
6. market research support;
7. faculty development opportunities in:
• student learning;
• good practice in course design, development and implementation;
• project management;
• team work;
• evaluation; and
• time management.
8. provision of time release for faculty engaged in e-learning developments;

11
 Teacher thinking
Faculty are strongly encouraged to make use of staff development opportunities which
encourage them to reflect on their views of learning and the ways in which those views
impact on the planning of learning, and the use of particular teaching strategies. It is only
through increased understanding of how students’ learn, that high quality e-learning
opportunities are made possible.

Teacher planning
At the planning phase of e-learning, faculty must pay attention to:
9. developing an increased understanding of the students;
10. design of the assessment of e-learning activities such that they complement the aims and
objectives of the course;
11. mechanisms for providing useful and timely feedback on students’ work;
12. preparation of students for qualitatively different learning activities;
13. preparation of students for working in groups;
14. embedding time management skills in the learning activities of courses;
15. planning for the particular context of implementation;
16. obtaining copyright clearance on all materials used.

Teacher strategies
Faculty are encouraged to provide:
17. feedback to students which is timely and informative;
18. opportunities for students to come to understand the learning process prior to engaging
them in learning activities which they may not have previously encountered;
19. activities which assist students to develop their skills in group work.

This combination of factors will enhance the student experience of e-learning, and ultimately
enable the institution to realise its particular vision for e-learning.

REFERENCES
Alexander, S., & Blight, D. (1996), Information Technology in International Education. IDP
Australia.

Alexander, S. & McKenzie, J. (1998). An Evaluation of Information Technology Projects in

University Learning, Department of Employment, Education and Training and Youth Affairs,
Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Services.

Bates, A.W. (1997), ‘Restructuring the university for technological change’. Paper presented
at What Kind of University?, 18-20 June, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching, London, England. Available at: http://bates.cstudies.ubc.ca/carnegie/carnegie.html.
Accessed 6th April, 2001.

Daniel, J.S. (1997), ‘Why universities need technology strategies’, Change, Vol 29,No 4, pp.
11–17.

12
Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Shea, P. Pelz, W., Swan, K. (2000), Student Satisfaction and
Perceived Learning with On-line Courses: Principles and Examples from the SUNY Learning
Network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Vol 4, Issue 2 – September. Available
at: http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/Vol4_issue2/le/Fredericksen/LE-fredericksen.htm
Accessed 6th April, 2001.

Green, Kenneth C. and Steven W. Gilbert. (1995), "Great Expectations, Content,

Communications, Productivity and the Role of Information Technology in Higher Education."
CHANGE, March/April.

Hara, N. & Kling, R. (1999). Student Frustrations with a web-based distance education
course. First Monday December. Available at:
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_12/hara/index.html

Johnstone, D.B. (1992), ‘Learning productivity: a new imperative for American higher
education’, Studies in Public Higher Education, State University of New York, NY. Available
at http://www.educom.edu/web/pubs/pubHomeFrame.html . Accessed 17 March, 1998.

Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G. & Beaty, E. (1993), ‘Conceptions of learning’. International

Journal of Educational Research, Vol 19, pp. 277-300.

Mason, R. (2001), Time is the New Distance? An Inaugural Lecture. The Open University,
Milton Keynes, 14 February. Webcast available at:
http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/stadium/live/berrill/robin_mason.html

Meyertons, J. (1999) Thoughts on what has worked and what hasn't for me as an online
student. Available at: http://www.irn.pdx.edu/~meyertj/resources/what_works.html
Powers, S.M. & Mitchell, J. (1997), Student Perceptions and Performance in a Virtual
Classroom Environment. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Rossman, M.H. (1999) Successful Online Teaching Using An Asynchronous Learner

Discussion Forum. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3 (2). Available at:
http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/Vol3_issue2/Rossman.htm

Trigwell, K., (1995), Increasing Faculty Understanding of Teaching. In W.A. Wright (Ed.)
Successful Faculty Development Strategies. Anker Publishing Co, pp76-100.

Twigg, C.A. & Oblinger, D.G. (1996), The Virtual University. Report from a joint
Educom/IBM roundtable, Nov 5–6. Washington DC. Available at:
http://www.educom.edu/nlii/VU.html Accessed 15 March, 1998.

Weller M. J. and Mason, R. D. (2000), Evaluating an Open University Web Course: Issues
and Innovations in Asensio, M., Foster, J., Hodgson, V. and McConnell, D. (Eds)
Proceedings of Networked Learning 2000, Lancaster, April 2000.
Available: http://www-tec.open.ac.uk/tel/people/weller/martin/lancs.html

13
[HREF 1] RMIT Information Technology Alignment Program Available at:
http://www.online.rmit.edu.au/main.cfm?code=ia01. Accessed 5th April, 2001.

[HREF 2] The Use of Multimedia and Educational Technology in Teaching and Learning.
Available at: http://ditam.meu.unimelb.edu.au/ Accessed 5th April, 2001.

[HREF 3] Cisco’s Quick Study. Available at:

http://www.fastcompany.com/online/39/quickstudy.html Accessed 5th April, 2001.

14