E-learning in Commonwealth Asian Countries 47 slides ppt

  • 447 views
Uploaded on

The Study entitled E-learning in Commonwealth Asia 2013 presents the current scenario of e-Learning in 8 Commonwealth Asian Countries i.e. Bangladesh, Brunei, India, Maldives, Malaysia, Pakistan, …

The Study entitled E-learning in Commonwealth Asia 2013 presents the current scenario of e-Learning in 8 Commonwealth Asian Countries i.e. Bangladesh, Brunei, India, Maldives, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore and Sri Lanka.

More in: Education , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
447
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. By S K Pulist, Ph D Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi, INDIA
  • 2. eLearning • completely online, • blended learning (mix of face-to-face and online), and • use of online tools as supplementary to face-to- face for some activities. 2
  • 3.  How is eLearning doing?  How are different activities managed?  What are the challenges and opportunities? 3
  • 4. Commonwealth Asian countries • • • • • • • • Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, India, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Singapore and Sri Lanka 4
  • 5.  To compile eLearning country profile;  To review growth and development of eLearning programmes;  To identify nature of programmes offered through eLearning;  To identify the policy initiatives 5
  • 6.  To identify the eLearning policy for people with disabilities;  To find out the measures to maintain quality; and  To analyse use of technologies and pedagogical practices. 6
  • 7.  Online Survey (7600)  Responses Received = 221  Relevant Responses = 211  Descriptive analysis and interpretation  Secondary Data: Reports, Websites, articles 7
  • 8. Focus on Commonwealth Asian Countries No response from Brunei Email - only channel of contact Not good response (221/7600-2.7%) Limitation of data which has been analysed 8
  • 9.  Respondents Malaysia (52%) India (25%) Pakistan (14%) 3% 3% 2% 1% Malaysia 14% India Pakistan 52% 25% Maldives Bangladesh Singapore Sri Lanka 9
  • 10.  Major Roles performed Teachers (76%) eContent Developers (32%) System Administrators (16%) 76% 32% 1% As Camp us Mana… 9% Others 1% Facult y Develo per eLearn ing system admi… eConte nt devel… 2% Coordi nator 16% Teach er 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10
  • 11.  Programme Disciplines Social Sciences (24.1%) Sciences (13.3%) Engg. & Technology (10.3%) 8.4% 3.0% 21.2% Social Sciences Sciences 8.9% Engineering and Technology Medicine and Health Humanities 9.4% Commerce and Management 24.1% Agriculture Others 10.3% 13.3% 11
  • 12.  eLearning used for Blended mode (50.4%) Face-to-face (26.5%) Completely online (23.1%) 60.0% 50.4% 50.0% Completely online 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 23.1% 26.5% Blended mode (mix of faceto-face and online components) Face-to-face with some online components 0.0% 12
  • 13.  Adoption of eLearning Policy Yes (54.1%) No. (20.7%) Not Sure (25.2%) Not sure; 25.2% Yes; 54.1% No; 20.7% 13
  • 14. Others Research and development Training and staff development Quality assurance Incentive/appreciation Content development Copyright /Licensing Ethical issues Assessment Management 4.4% 45.6% 64.7% 50.0% 23.5% 61.8% 45.6% 36.8% 58.8% 63.2% 47.1% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Governance  eL Policy Provisions Trg & Development (64.7%) eL Management (63.2%) Content Development (61.8%) 14
  • 15.  eL Policy implementation Through specific Unit (91%) Centralised budget (80%) Autonomy (66%) 100% 91% 90% 80% 80% 66% 70% No Yes 60% 50% 40% 34% 30% 20% 10% 20% 9% 0% The e-learning policy is implemented through a Specified Unit The policy provides for autonomy to all Units to manage their programmes The budget for e-learning activities is centralised 15
  • 16. 8% 7% 6% Software procurement/… Training programmes 91% 67% 33% 14% 9% 80% 85% 20% 15% Maintenance/troub leshooting 86% Revision of econtent 94% e-Content development/… 93% System development/… 92% Research and development 94% Consultancy service charges 6% Hardware procurement/… 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Physical infrastructure…  eL Budget provides for Training & Dev (94%) Infrastructural purchases (94%) Software (93%) 96% No Yes 4% 16
  • 17.  Copyright over eContent Institutions (67.3%) Faculty/developer (10.2%) Joint Copyright (9.2%) 8.2% 5.1% Institution 9.2% Individual Shared/joint 10.2% 67.3% e-content is released under OER license Others 17
  • 18.  OER Policy Not sure (61.2%) No OER Policy (20%) No rights reserved (5.9%) OER Policy adopted (3.6% 1.2% 9.4% Not sure 2.4% No OER Policy adopted yet 5.9% No rights reserved CC-BY 20% 61.2% CC-BY-NC-ND Others 18
  • 19.  Policy on Differently abled Yes (28% No (35%) Not Sure (35%) Not sure; 35% Yes; 28% No; 37% 19
  • 20.  Programme QA Through committees (31.7%) Individual Units (22.8%) Set quality indictors (19.8%) 7.9% 31.7% 12.9% Advisory/Monitoring Body/Committee is appointed Some outside agency is engaged to monitor this aspect Quality indicators are set and individuals maintain them Individual functional e-learning units have their own standards No such activity is undertaken 22.8% 5.0% Others 19.8% 20
  • 21.  eContent QA Individual teachers (40%) Quality Control Unit (28.4%) Quality Assurance Group (18.9%) 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 37.9% Quality control unit 28.4% 18.9% Quality assurance group 9.5% 5.3% Individuals are responsible No mechanism Others 21
  • 22.  Coordination of eL activities Designated unit (36.1%) Central committee (30.9%) Functional unit (26.8%) 6.2% 30.9% 26.8% 36.1% Coordinated through a central committee/body Specified unit coordinates the e-learning activities All eLearning functional units are responsibility Others 22
  • 23.  Widely used LMS Moodle (46.2%) Own LMS (9.9%) Not Sure (13.2%) 8.8% Moodle 13.2% Inhouse developed Blackboard 2.2% 46.2% WebStudy ATutor 3.3% iFolio 3.3% Clarolin 5.5% Not sure Others 7.7% 9.9% 23
  • 24. 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Others 37.8% Search tools (like search engines, etc) 54.4% Teaching/ presentation tools (like… 68.9% e-Content / files uploading tools (like server, video… 42.2% Editing tools (like screen capture, flash… Assessment tools (like quiz makers, rubrics, et… 56.7% Calendar 58.9% News and Social Forums Administrative tools (like databases, payme… 60.0% Student collaborative tools (like Wiki, google… Navigation tools (like buttons, pointers, ico ns, URL, mind… Communication tools (like chat, email, instant…  LMS tools used Communication tools (86.7%) Assessment tools (68.9%) Content uploading tools (68.9%) 86.7% 68.9% 54.4% 37.8% 7.8% 24
  • 25.  Place to access LMS Home (84.6%) Computer Lab (78%) Access points (31.9%) 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 78% 84.6% 31.9% 17.6% Computer laboratories on the Campus Home Designated TeleLearning Centres/Hot Spots/Access Points Others 25
  • 26. Field visits Working projects Assignments Group discussion Quizzes Simulations Video/audio programmes 1% 1% 2% 4% 26% 17% 19% 66% 57% 42% 57% 50% 48% 80% 69% 63% 48% 49% 33% 49% 44% 31% 19% 12% 5% 7% 3% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% e-Content available on the LMS Printed reading material  Components of ID Assignments (80%) Projects (57%) Quizzes (49%) None Optional Compulsory 26
  • 27.  Video Conferencing tool Skype (41%) Adobe Connect (18.8%) Google+/Hangout (16.7%) 45.0% 41.7% 40.0% 35.0% 29.2% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 18.8% 16.7% 15.0% 10.4% 10.0% 12.5% 4.2% 5.0% 0.0% Skype Google+ /Handouts Google Open Meeting WizIQ Adobe Connect A-VIEW Others 27
  • 28.  Dissemination of eContent Through LMS (77%) Through Web (61%) Printed books (57%) 90% 80% 77% 70% 61% 60% 57% 50% 41% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Learning Management System Downloadable from web Printed books USB/Pen drive/CD 28
  • 29.  C0mmon file format pdf (88.3%) ppt (67%) doc (56.4%) 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 88.3% 67.0% 56.4% 21.3% 2.1% pdf ppt doc xls 5.3% odf Others 29
  • 30.  Multi-media file format mpeg (52.6%) mp3 (42.1%) wmv (39.5%) 60.0% 52.6% 50.0% 42.1% 40.0% 39.5% 34.2% 27.6% 30.0% 20.0% 6.6% 10.0% 0.0% mpeg mp3 wmv mp4 avi Others 30
  • 31.  Image file format jpeg (86.3%) gif (35%) png (21.3%) 100.0% 86.3% 80.0% 60.0% 35.0% 40.0% 20.0% 21.3% 16.3% 5.0% 0.0% tiff gif jpeg png Others 31
  • 32.  Streaming file format flv (47.5%) wmv (45.9%) swf (29.5%) 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 47.5% 45.9% 29.5% 18% 11.5% 6.6% 6.6% 1.6% swf flv asf 1.6% rm wmv wma mov ogg Others 32
  • 33. 17.8% 3.3% Others Activity is completely outsourced Students (their work is shared as part of case studies or in any other form) 25.6% e-learning management system administrators Institutional Teachers 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Outside content developers  Source of eContent Dev In-house teachers (77.8%) System Administrators (33.3%) External developers (25.6%) 77.8% 33.3% 10.0% 33
  • 34.  Authoring tools MS PowerPoint (22.2%) Camtasia Studio (15.6%) Flash (13.3%) 66.7% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 22.2% 20.0% 15.6%13.3% 10.0% 8.9% 8.9% 6.7% 6.7% 6.7% 8.9% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% Others No idea Raptivity Moodle interface Hot potatoes Dreamweav er Office HTML Articulate Word Captivate Flash Camtasia PowerPoint 0.0% 34
  • 35.  eContent development Team Subject experts (88.1%) Authoring expert (52.4%) Educational Technologist (50%) 88.1% 42.9% 42.9% 50% Simulation/a nimation experts Educational technologist Graphic designer Language editor Authoring expert 21.4% 10.7% Others 52.4% Subject expert 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 35
  • 36. 13.8% 7.5% 5.0% Other 12.5% Some money put at the disposal for discretionary use Preference given in other development… Purchase of additional books 27.5% Preference given in career advancement… 27.5% No provision of special incentive/appre… 33.8% Monetary incentive Weightage in performance appraisal 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Appreciation letter/ award  Form of appreciation Appreciation letter (45%) Weightage in Appraisal (33.8%) Monetary incentive (27.5%) No provision (27.5%) 45.0% 23.8% 36
  • 37.  Formative/Summative Eval Only Summative (18%) Only Formative (14%) Both (68%) 100% 85% 82% 68% 50% 0% Summative Summative Formative Formative Both Both 37
  • 38.  Evaluation System Continuous Eval through LMS (83%) Term end Exam through LMS (64%) Paper based continuous Eval (78%) Paper based Term end Exam (83%) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 83% 83% 78% 64% No 36% 17% Continuous evaluation through LMS Yes 22% Term End Examinations through LMS Paper based Continuous evaluation 17% Paper based Term End Examination 38
  • 39.  Eval system components Multi Choice questions (92%) Short answer questions (84%) Essay type questions (73%) All the above (38%) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 92% 84% 73% 62% 38% 27% 8% Multi-choice questions No Yes 16% Short answer questions Essay type questions All types 39
  • 40.  Evaluation tools Written assignments (92%) Projects (87%) Quizzes (71%) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 92% 87% 71% 63% 36% 43% 47% 6% Written assignments Projects Quizzes Term Paper Online presentation Field work Audio/Video Presentations Others 40
  • 41. Emphasis on eLearning (78.8%) User friendly LMS (65%) Emergence of eL culture (58.8%) Motivated faculty and staff (55%) Increasing interest in eL(47.5%) Availability of eContent (46.3%) Optimal technical support (45%) 41
  • 42. Workload on teachers (56.1%) Lack of training (41.5%) Financial constraints (40.2%) Inadequate facilities (39%) Non-tech savvy persons (37.8%) Much involvement in F2F(34.1%) Lack of relevant content (34.1%) Lack of incentive (32.9%) 42
  • 43. More eLearning programmes (80%) Diversification of eL programs (56.3%) Updating LMS (56.3%) Integration of social media (55%) Use of mobile technology (53.8%) Intelligent tutoring (38.8%) Geographical expansion of eL (37.5%) New eL support centres (36.3%) 43
  • 44. eLearning on moving trend Lot of challenges Offered in blended mode Strong case for fully online programmes 44
  • 45. Explore online programmes Need to create awareness Efforts for inclusive growth Development of quality parameters Ensure parity/mobility in online programmes 45
  • 46. Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia (CEMCA), COL, New Delhi (INDIA) 46
  • 47. 47