E-Learning: The Partnership Challenge (Education and skills)

Citation preview

«

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

E-Learning

E-Learning THE PARTNERSHIP CHALLENGE

THE PARTNERSHIP CHALLENGE

Are the new information and communication technologies transforming education and learning in OECD countries? There is certainly an upsurge in investigations and inquiries into e-learning by all kinds of parties and interest groups — governmental, professional, commercial — and from education communities. The universal “mega-trends” associated with globalisation mean that partnership in providing e-learning material is needed to manage cost and complexity in the face of competition that may come from any part of the world. This raises important questions about the public interest and the public good especially in school education which find different responses in different OECD countries; yet increased public-private sector partnering appears a well-nigh universal phenomenon.

www.SourceOECD.org

www.oecd.org

ISBN 92-64-18693-X 96 2001 06 1 P

-:HSTCQE=V][^XY:

THE PARTNERSHIP CHALLENGE

All OECD books and periodicals are now available on line

E-Learning:

This publication explores closely the e-learning developments respectively in the school and in the higher education sector in terms of market prospects and partnership creation. The fastest developments are seen in post-secondary and corporate education. However, technology alone does not deliver education success. It only becomes valuable in education if learners and teachers can do something useful with it. There is now a definite shift of focus from technology to content and people in several OECD countries.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

© OECD, 2001. © Software: 1987-1996, Acrobat is a trademark of ADOBE. All rights reserved. OECD grants you the right to use one copy of this Program for your personal use only. Unauthorised reproduction, lending, hiring, transmission or distribution of any data or software is prohibited. You must treat the Program and associated materials and any elements thereof like any other copyrighted material. All requests should be made to: Head of Publications Service, OECD Publications Service, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France.

CENTRE FOR EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

E-learning The Partnership Challenge

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: – to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; – to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and – to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries became Members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996), Korea (12th December 1996) and the Slovak Republic (14th December 2000). The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD (Article 13 of the OECD Convention). The Centre for Educational Research and Innovation was created in June 1968 by the Council of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and all Member countries of the OECD are participants. The main objectives of the Centre are as follows: – analyse and develop research, innovation and key indicators in current and emerging education and learning issues, and their links to other sectors of policy; – explore forward-looking coherent approaches to education and learning in the context of national and international cultural, social and economic change; and – facilitate practical co-operation among Member countries and, where relevant, with non-member countries, in order to seek solutions and exchange views of educational problems of common interest. The Centre functions within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in accordance with the decisions of the Council of the Organisation, under the authority of the Secretary-General. It is supervised by a Governing Board composed of one national expert in its field of competence from each of the countries participating in its programme of work. Publié en français sous le titre : CYBERFORMATION Les enjeux du partenariat © OECD 2001 Permission to reproduce a portion of this work for non-commercial purposes or classroom use should be obtained through the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC), 20, rue des GrandsAugustins, 75006 Paris, France, tel. (33-1) 44 07 47 70, fax (33-1) 46 34 67 19, for every country except the United States. In the United States permission should be obtained through the Copyright Clearance Center, Customer Service, (508)750-8400, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 USA, or CCC Online: www.copyright.com. All other applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this book should be made to OECD Publications, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France.

Foreword There is a continuously growing scale of and rise in demand for education and training in response to the requirements of the knowledge society. This has been summarised as a transition from “just-in-case” – traditional education to “just-intime” and now to “just-for-me” – customised education. This report examines aspects of the impacts of new information and communication technologies (ICT) on education and training in OECD countries, what is broadly referred to as elearning. Technology alone does not deliver educational success. It only becomes valuable in education if learners and teachers can do something useful with it. There is now a definite shift of focus from technology to content and people in several OECD countries. To develop policies and strategies in the area of e-learning, OECD countries need to understand the way that changes in public and private sector roles and responsibilities affect education and training. Public-private partnerships have become an important form of development in education and training. The sheer cost, scale and complexity of e-learning make partnerships all but inevitable. Firstly, this publication analyses the major ICT trends and the market opportunities for e-learning. The conclusion is that neither “cyberbole” nor complacency on developments in e-learning is well advised. It is continuously necessary to study, monitor and evaluate the shift to e-learning, much more than it has been done, and to take a well-calculated risk in making the massive investments required. Secondly, the report explores closely the e-learning developments respectively in the school and in the higher education sector in terms of market prospects and partnership creation. The fastest developments are seen in postsecondary and corporate education. The number of cross-border public-private alliances in post secondary education is rising rapidly, to match growing competition in an increasingly global e-learning market. In the school market, the partnerships are often national and concentrate on high-quality software development. Thirdly, the report does provide some practical advice especially to business and education institutions about how to go about creating and managing partnerships. Finally, the publication highlights some of the policy issues that require attention when promoting e-learning. For example how can the economics of scale be conciliated with the need for and fact of diversity, when upfront investment cost can

© OECD 2001

3

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

be very high and technological change implies fast obsolescence of infrastructure and learning materials; whether there is a “global” e-learning market; what are the long-term consequences for education and training of the rising number of publicprivate partnerships; and the social and distributional effects of promoting elearning. The analysis in this book derives partly from two OECD fora that brought together developers from the software and hardware industries, publishers, schools, and policy-makers, which took place in respectively London jointly organised with Oxford University Press and in New York jointly organised with the American Publisher Scholastic Inc. This publication results from a collective effort by consultants and the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation at the OECD and is part of the CERI project on “ICT and the Quality of Learning”. International consultant Anne Leer, author and editor, Financial Times Prentice Hall and consultant to the OECD (Chapters 1, 2, 3 and 5), and Professor Chris Duke, University of Auckland (Chapters 4 and 6), have drafted this report with the assistance of Principal Administrator Kurt Larsen, OECD/CERI. The book is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD.

4

© OECD 2001

Table of Contents Introduction.................................................................................................................................

7

Chapter 1. ICT Trends and Opportunities for E-learning.....................................................

11

The Internet comes of age ................................................................................................ The next generation of ICT................................................................................................ The impact of the Internet on different sectors of the economy ................................. Investment in ICT in education ........................................................................................ What is the potential impact of educational technology? ............................................ From carrier to content: the innovative sequence......................................................... Key issues ...........................................................................................................................

11 14 16 18 22 24 26

Chapter 2. The Market for E-learning......................................................................................

29

Markets and lifelong learning ........................................................................................... Drivers of change in the education and training industry ............................................ Clienteles and markets...................................................................................................... The emerging value Web ..................................................................................................

29 32 36 41

Chapter 3. E-learning, Partnership and School Education ..................................................

45

Prospects for e-learning developments and markets at K-12 ...................................... The United States .............................................................................................................. The European Union.......................................................................................................... The United Kingdom ......................................................................................................... Other examples ..................................................................................................................

45 48 55 57 60

Chapter 4. E-learning and Partnerships in Higher Education .............................................

69

Main clienteles or markets................................................................................................ Different partners and contributors................................................................................. Development of e-learning and higher education ........................................................ Some policy issues and problems ...................................................................................

69 71 74 75

Chapter 5. The Nature of Partnership and its Place in E-learning.....................................

81

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ Different modes and models of partnership ..................................................................

81 81

© OECD 2001

5

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

Categorisations of partnerships in e-learning................................................................ The drivers of partnership ................................................................................................ Managing partnerships......................................................................................................

84 85 91

Chapter 6. Between Complacency and Cyberbole – Striking a Balance .......................... 101 References .................................................................................................................................. 107

List of Boxes 1. 2. 3. 4.

How ICT can be used to deliver benefits ....................................................................... Managed services in a nutshell........................................................................................ Various dimensions of partnerships in e-learning ........................................................ Costs and benefits of partnerships .................................................................................

23 61 82 91

List of Tables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Industries embracing the Net economy ......................................................................... Possible impact of consolidation on the education and training industry ................ Possible outsourcing: impact of privatisation on the education and training industry .. Synthesis of market development factors ...................................................................... Two paths to improving schools ...................................................................................... Key drivers for partnership ..............................................................................................

17 33 35 47 50 88

List of Figures 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Average PC installed base per 100 inhabitants and share in the home and education in the OECD area, 1992 and 1997 .......................................................... Hours per week spent on various media among Internet users in the US................. Growth in broadband Internet access in US households ............................................. Internet media development over time ......................................................................... Expected percentage of revenues moving online by 2002 .......................................... Home and school access to computers in OECD countries, 1998 ............................... The new emerging value Web .......................................................................................... Public-private partnerships: to partner? Or how to partner? A decision cycle .........

13 14 15 17 18 20 42 93

6

© OECD 2001

Introduction This report examines aspects of the impact of new information and communication technologies (ICT) on education and training in OECD countries. In particular it addresses what is broadly referred to as e-learning, in the context of the rapid changes in ICT technologies, which are fuelling transformation in the world of industry and business generally, and referred to as electronic commerce or e-commerce. The impact of new ICT in education is linked to several other significant changes in the world of education and training. It is the interplay and synergy between these, which makes the subject of this report both complicated and important. These other changes include the continuously growing scale of and rise in demand for education and training in response to the requirements of the “knowledge society” and the “knowledge economy”. Here rates of obsolescence continue to accelerate and the demand for new knowledge, skills and competences increases. This has been summarised as a transition from “just-in-case” – traditional – education to “just-in-time” and now also to “just-for-me” – customised – education. Universal primary and secondary education with rising and often now very high upper secondary retention are being followed by a shift from mass into universal post-secondary or tertiary education, raising acute questions about the nature and distinctiveness of higher education in such systems, as well as about the cost and efficiency of educational delivery on such a scale. The most strident and compelling demand for more, and more efficient, education and training is without question driven by economic considerations, and by a desire to contain the cost of education and training. The need is also expressed for more education and training to address social equity issues and to combat social exclusion. The rising demand and the rising cost raise policy issues about the way costs and benefits are shared between the public sector (through taxation in a national interest), employers (mainly for post-school education and training) and the individual, and/or the individual’s family. There is an increasing recognition that the education industry as it is now commonly described is divided between an initial (pre-school to university) phase and an adult phase of more or less continuous

© OECD 2001

7

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

renewal, retraining and updating required for an increasingly large proportion of the adult population in technically and economically advanced societies to remain effective in the workforce and able to cope in modern complex society at large. The concept and term “lifelong learning” has gained wide currency as a policy issue or imperative. In the main it is addressed to the second, adult, phase of life and learning, and to the adult learning market. In this phase most learners are principally engaged in other social, domestic and economic roles so that studying is spasmodic, often incidental and secondary, although of increasing importance. Thus the 18-24 years educational market has been labelled as “learning and earning”, while the twenty-five plus phase is called “earning and learning”, in acknowledgement of the mixed time-use but different balance within each phase of life. In this arena of accelerating growth especially in post-experience education and training, which is often described in such terms as the continuing education bonanza or the multi-billion dollar lifelong learning business, new ICT or electronic learning (e-learning) is becoming a major preoccupation. Much hope and trust is pinned on it: by governments as a way of seeing a nation of lifelong learners brought into being in affordable ways; by business interests seeing potential to make profit through the new means available to meet an apparently insatiable demand; by employers anxious to update their workforce in times and ways which they can afford; and by at least some individuals cognisant of the need for continuing study but unable to achieve this through older routes. An immense amount of hope is pinned on what in this report we refer to for simplicity as e-learning. There is a great deal of unsupported hyperbole about to its potential. Much of the development is very recent indeed. Much of the promise is as yet untested in market terms, as well as in terms of pedagogical research and evaluation which can tell us what kinds of learning support, educational modalities and arrangements of curriculum materials are successful and cost-efficient for which kinds of learners. The exponential development of e-learning thus raises important issues of value for money and return on investment for all stakeholders, not least for the planning and delivery of affordable and reliable educational services by the governments of the OECD Member States.

8

To develop policies and strategies Member States also need to understand the way that changes in public and private sector roles and responsibilities affect education and training. Public-private partnerships have become a major form of development in sectors, which in recent times were largely the preserve of the State in many countries. The sheer cost, scale and complexity of e-learning make partnership all but inevitable if nations are to make progress in lifelong learning, and not find themselves rapidly left behind in an arena where the general wisdom

© OECD 2001

Introduction

is that the main benefit will come to the early adopters or innovators, while at the same time risk and uncertainty are very high. The education and training sector is by no means alone in turning to various forms of partnerships as a way of developing and delivering services. Partnerships have become a general trend throughout the global economy and continue to grow rapidly across the private and public sectors. Convergence and consolidation of industries and new market demands mean that no one company or organisation can go it alone. People and organisations need to reach outside their own core competence and skill-sets to deliver the products and services required in a global networked environment. Schools, universities, and libraries, publishers and broadcasters are partnering with telecommunication and software providers to take advantage of the new business opportunities in the educational market. Different organisations are combining their resources to deliver networked education, and previously distinct technologies, industries and markets are coming together in an entirely new commercial context (OECD, 1998). The need for often complex private-public sector partnership, as well as the dramatically fast changes of scale and state-of-the-art require governments to have clear understanding and purpose as to the issues and the options. Among the less obvious policy issues that require attention are these. • How far is there really a “global market” for e-learning products? • How far does local content matter, both because the subject-matter – such as the practice of a profession or of commerce requires “grounded-ness” in the local context to be relevant and successful? • How do governments and their societies feel about this possible new form of “cultural imperialism”? • What is the impact in terms of social exclusion and a widening gap between the information rich and the information poor of moving from conventional towards e-learning (a phenomenon known as the digital divide)? • How can the economies of scale be reconciled with the need for and fact of diversity, when upfront investment cost can be very high and technological change implies fast obsolescence of infrastructure and learning materials? • What new forms of research and development, and what modes of continuous formative evaluation and feedback, should Member States be requiring in order to address these challenges and to extract the fullest value out of emergent e-learning partnerships for their societies? Chapter 1 of the Report examines trends and possibilities in the new information and communication technologies (hereafter referred to as ICT) themselves. The second chapter considers the nature of the need and opportunity to use these technologies, called hereafter e-learning for electronic learning. Here the

© OECD 2001

9

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

concept of markets is accepted and four broad market segments are distinguished. Chapter 3 attempts to scan the range of markets, needs and opportunities, paying particular attention to the phase of initial education from kindergarten to completion of upper secondary education (K-12) which is approaching universal participation and is largely compulsory. This raises some questions, which do not apply so sharply to other later-life elements of lifelong learning. Chapter 4 looks more briefly at the post-secondary sector, both the established higher education system and newer phenomena such as virtual and corporate universities. This is followed in Chapter 5 by a full discussion of partnership, a crucial dimension of business organising for complex global society, which has become central to the development of e-learning for education and training. Finally Chapter 6 draws together the main threads and suggests some policy issues for OECD countries.

10

© OECD 2001

Chapter 1

ICT Trends and Opportunities for E-learning The Internet comes of age The phenomenon of the Internet is without parallel in the history of technological innovation. Whether one takes growth in access, rate of penetration, diffusion across different settings or changes in usage patterns, the indicators demonstrate the remarkable adoption and take-up of the Internet as a powerful new means of information transmission and communication. Its power extends beyond accessing information. The new technologies enable the faster conversion of information into knowledge as well as the generation and more rapid diffusion of new information and knowledge. There is a preference in the European Union for talking about learning technologies when there is a truly pedagogic goal, rather than just information and communication technology. The exponential growth already achieved is forecast to continue and accelerate when the infrastructure is in place for widespread broadband access by consumers, making it easier and simpler for late adopters to incorporate the Internet into daily life. The hitherto pivotal role of the personal computer (PC) in providing access to advanced ICT will be extended to a multitude of devices including television sets, telephones, integrated computing appliances and wearable wireless devices. The US is clearly leading the way, with wide variation among other countries on most measures of information technology capacity and take-up. These developments in information and communication technologies have profound implications not only for economic development but also for the nature of culture, social life and education itself. Whether or not all such changes are desirable, they have become defining realities of contemporary life. Global growth in access Published figures estimating the number of people using the Internet can scarcely keep up with the rate of growth and are evidently at best very approximate estimates. In September 1999 it was estimated that 201 million people

© OECD 2001

11

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

worldwide had access to the Internet. According to International Data Corporation (IDC), Internet access is forecast to grow to 320 million users in 2002. However, higher numbers are put forward in the December 2000 US Report of the WebBased Education Commission, chaired by US Senator Kerrey. This estimated that 377 million people were already currently using the Internet, half of them in the United States. Clearly there are fast-moving and uncertain statistics. According to Alta Vista and Cinnet.com, the Internet grew at a rate of 1 000% from 1990 to 1999. Jupiter Communications projects that US Internet users will grow at 15% Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) over the next three years. Outside the United StatesS, Jupiter projects that users on the Internet will increase dramatically, growing at 33% CAGR, and mirroring the previous growth rates in the US. By 2002, Jupiter projects that over 15 million US households will access the Internet through non-PC devices such as “Net-Top” devices, Games Consoles, and Digital Set-Top devices. Furthermore, IDC projects that global shipments of “Internet Appliances” including Net TV’s, Internet Screenphones, Internet Gaming devices, and Hand-held Internet devices will exceed 50 million by 2002. Other OECD nations are following the same trends as in the U.S., albeit with major catch-up yet to be achieved. IT capacity and take-up is however predicted to rise rapidly over the next few years. Figures for the UK reveal that 29% of the population owned a home computer in 1997/98. By the third quarter of 1998, 15% of the adult population had used the Internet compared to 37% in the US (Office of National Statistics, 1999; UK DTI, 1998). Recent estimates suggest that e-commerce as a percentage of GDP amounts to only 0.05% in the UK (comparable to Germany and Japan, but behind the United States on 0.35%, 1998). Once again, predictions are positive, with a suggested growth rate of at least one hundred and 20% per year until 2002 (UK Department for Trade and Industry, 1998). Diffusion across different sectors So far, technology penetration has been greatest in the workplace, although other sites such as homes, schools and community centres including libraries are increasingly being wired up, as we see below (Figure 1). One issue for the attention of OECD countries is the predominant market preoccupation with workplace, higher education and post-experience education and training, whereas there is a broad consensus that it is in the school years, and especially in the early years of education and learning, that the greatest gains can be made towards achieving educational objectives.

12

OECD countries greatly increased their PC base between 1992 and 1997 (measured as installed PCs per 100 inhabitants), with an average number of PCs installed per 100 inhabitants in the OECD area rising from 10 to 24. In 1997, the

© OECD 2001

ICT Trends and Opportunities for E-learning

Figure 1. Average PC installed base per 100 inhabitants and share in the home and education in the OECD area,1 1992 and 1997 PC installed base per 100 inhabitants, 1997

PC installed base per 100 inhabitants, 1992

Of which installed base of PCs in the home and education, 1997

50

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

10

0

0

U

ni

te

d

St a N tes or w Sw ay e D de e Sw nm n itz ark er A lan N ust d et ra he lia rla n Fi ds nl a C nd a U O na ni E da te C d D Ki 2 ng 7 G dom N er ew m Ze any al a Au nd st r Ja ia p Fr an an Ire ce l Be and lg iu m Ko C re ze a ch R Ital ep y ub li Sp c Po ain rtu H ga un l ga G ry re e Po ce la M nd ex i Tu co rk ey

50

1. Total PC installed base divided by total population. For some countries, 1994 instead of 1992. Source: OECD (2000).

Nordic countries, Switzerland, Australia and the Netherlands had a higher ratio than all G7 countries but the United States (OECD, 2000). The combined share of the installed base of PC in the home and education has increased from around one-third to almost 42% between 1992 and 1997 but varies among OECD countries (from 11% to 52%). Countries with the highest shares of PCs in the home and in education are (in descending order): the United Kingdom and Switzerland (both with more than one-half of the installed base), followed by Belgium, Italy, Japan and the United States. Reasons for the growth in the home include declining costs, increasing use of the Internet, and professional and educational demand. Nonetheless, the business and government sectors predominate, with close to 60% of the total installed base (OECD, 2000). Competing for time Increasingly, the Internet is winning the battle for consumer time and attention. A survey by Jupiter Communications found that the average Internet user spends 10.8 hours per week online (Figure 2). This is somewhat less time than is

© OECD 2001

13

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

Figure 2. Hours per week spent on various media among Internet users in the US Hours per week

Hours per week

18

18

16

16

15.6

14

14

12.6

12

12

11

10

10

8

8

7.1

6

6 4

4

4

3.4

et

nl

in

In

e

te

19

rn

es

O

N

M

ew

ag

sp

az

ap

in

er

io ad R

98

0 s

2

0 TV

2

Percentage of Internet users reporting a decrease in time spent on various media due to Internet usage

TV Magazines Newspapers Radio

0

10

20

30

40

50

% reporting a decrease in time spent

Source: Jupiter Communications from Merrill Lynch (2000).

spent watching TV or listening to the radio, but more than double the time spent reading newspapers and magazines. More importantly, 45% of the Internet users surveyed reported a reduction in the time spent watching TV due to their usage of the Internet. The next generation of ICT

14

ICT is under continuous development. Technological and communication advances hold the promise for a new generation of network applications that can provide qualitative leaps beyond what is possible using today’s Internet technology. Trends already in evidence amply demonstrate the potential for powerful new Internet resources and applications to be widely and equitably available and

© OECD 2001

ICT Trends and Opportunities for E-learning

affordable. The December 2000 Report of the Web-Based Education Commission in the US (Kerrey, 2000) highlights a number of the more important trends. The first trend is toward greater broadband access and better data packet handling capabilities, allowing for the transmission of large amounts of data, whether through wire or wirelessly. Broadband access today is fifty to several hundred times more powerful than its precursors, making possible continuous Internet connectivity, more interactive experience and a richer delivery of content than simple text. Consumer access to broadband Internet connections is expected to show exponential growth over the next couple of years, affording easier access to the Internet (Figure 3). When the infrastructure is in place for widespread broadband access, Internet services will rapidly become a commodity and bandwidth is expected to be virtually free. This is likely to fuel the development of consumer broadband access technologies. By 2007, it is likely that over 70 million US households (80% of those online) will access the Internet through a high bandwidth connection. A second trend identified in the Kerrey Report (2000) is pervasive computing, in which computing, connectivity and communications technologies connect small, multi-purpose devices, linking them by wireless technologies. It is much cheaper to build cellular relay stations than lay miles of cable. Wireless solutions may enable underdeveloped and remote areas quickly to take advantage of the Web via wireless phones, two-way pages, and hand-held devices.

Figure 3.

Growth in broadband Internet access in US households

Millions of households

Millions of households

120

120

100

100 Total

80

80

60

60 Broadband

40

40

Dial-up

20 0 1996

20

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

Sources: Until 2002 – Jupiter Communications; after 2002 – Sentilhes/Davison Estimates.

© OECD 2001

2008

0 2010

15

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

Another trend is digital convergence: merging the capabilities of telephone, radio, television and other interactive devices. The ubiquitous infrastructure of television will be significantly enhanced by conversion to digital transmission, mandated in increasing numbers of OECD countries. Through this increased capability, stations can offer dramatically enhanced programming by “datacasting” a wealth of supplementary information to accompany the regular broadcast. This may include course materials, software and reference guides delivered via text, video, or audio formats. Direct satellite connections to the home offer another pathway for rich content. A fourth trend is the dramatic drop in the unit cost of bandwidth. Bandwidth will decrease in cost and increase in power more rapidly than the advances in chip technology described by Moore’s law. Ubiquitous Internet access can become a viable option for all, rather than for a privileged few. Other trends observed by the Web-Based Education Commission have particular relevance for the education sector. These include the emergence of agreement on technical standards for content development and sharing, which are expected to advance the development of web-based learning environments; and the emergence of adaptive technology – technology that combines speech recognition, gesture recognition, text-to-speech conversion, language translation and sensory immersion to change the very substance of network-enhanced human communication. The impact of the Internet on different sectors of the economy The Internet is perhaps the most transformative technology in history, reshaping business, media, entertainment, and society in astonishing ways. But for all its power, it is just now being tapped to transform education (Kerrey, 2000). Broadband access is expected to have a significant impact on the development of the knowledge economy by making the Internet a main vehicle for education, business and communication. It will also enable effective online delivery of mixed media content, and allow for more interactivity and faster and easier access to Internet. The rollout of broadband and wireless Internet technology will profoundly change entertainment, information and education services.

16

Broadband and wireless communication technologies will most likely lead to a re-invention of all existing media from print to broadcasting, film, multimedia CDs to online information and communication such as Internet chat/discussion forums, telephone and video-conferencing (Figure 4). One of the immediate needs to ensure the success of broadband and wireless Internet is new and innovative forms of content and communication.

© OECD 2001

ICT Trends and Opportunities for E-learning

Figure 4.

ASCI

Internet media development over time

HTML

1980-1990

1995

AUDIO

1997

VIDEO

1999

WAP

Broadband and wireless

2000

Source: Leer (2000a).

The Internet has already brought change to many industries, and more changes will occur in the next few years. Three waves of industries embracing the Net economy have been identified (Table 1). Industries immediately affected by the Internet include all forms of information access and communication, many retail sectors, as well as many business-tobusiness services. In addition, the networked economy has given birth to a new breed of Internet companies, which do web design, web marketing, e-commerce, traffic and audience measurement, and user profiling. Consumer retail segments such as books and music were among the first wave of industries to exploit the new networked economy successfully. These markets continue to expand and develop online, with a larger and larger portion of their revenues projected to move online by 2002 (Figure 5).

Table 1.

Industries embracing the Net economy

First wave

Second wave

Third wave

Books Music Travel Software Hardware Discount brokerage News

Automotive Apparel Banking Telecommunications Entertainment Recruiting Health care Software subscriptions

Insurance Law Real estate Group purchasing Market research Education Food and cosmetics

Source:

Sentilhes/Davison.

© OECD 2001

17

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

Figure 5. Expected percentage of revenues moving online by 2002

35.3%

Software 13.3%

Hardware

11.3%

Books 9.2%

Music

8.2%

Air tickets

7.0%

Ticketing 4.5%

Specialty gifts 1.6%

Clothing

Grocery 0.1%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

% of revenues online in 2002

Source: Jupiter Communications (1999).

Most OECD nations are now in the middle of the second wave, as industries such as automotive, banking, and healthcare embrace the Internet. Very soon, industries such as insurance, law, and last but not least education will follow. Investment in ICT in education Investment by governments in ICT in the education sector has principally been of two kinds: • investment in proven stable technologies, mainly hardware and infrastructure; • investment in piloting and developmental activities, much of it focused on advanced technologies and applications which represent state-of-the-art but whose potential contribution to learning is yet to be established. More recently, OECD Member States as well as the European Commission have earmarked and redirected considerable development funds to boost the content industries and for the development of e-learning content.

18

There is also a growing private sector interest in the education sector, fuelled by the high market evaluations among investment communities, which have identified education as an attractive sector with high growth expectations in the years

© OECD 2001

ICT Trends and Opportunities for E-learning

to come. Interest is particularly high in the US where there is a fairly well established industry index. Key aspects of the education market are discussed in Chapter 2 below. Government investment in ICT: stable technologies OECD countries have invested massively in ICT in education over the past four years. “Over OECD as a whole, approximately US$16 billion was invested in 1999 – still only 1-2% of all education spending, yet a huge resource (OECD, 1999)”. Most of the investment has so far been in hardware and infrastructure. Figure 6 presents the percentage of households possessing a personal computer (PC) and the ratio of students per computer in upper secondary education for various OECD countries in 1998. As shown in the top half of Figure 6, the percentage of households with a computer varies from a high of 63% in Denmark to a low of 20% in the Italy. The bottom half of the figure shows that the number of upper secondary students per computer ranges from 4 in Norway to 35 in Portugal. So, although investment in hardware, software and telecommunication links in families and educational institutions has been growing fast in all OECD countries, resources remain unevenly distributed across OECD countries. Moreover, Figure 6 reveals that there is not a positive correlation in some countries between high coverage of PCs in homes and coverage of computers in upper secondary schools. Countries like France and the United Kingdom have a below-average studentcomputer ratio (relative high coverage) in upper secondary education, and a below-average of PC’s in homes. For the Netherlands, the opposite is the case. Schools and education authorities are well aware of the importance of integrating ICT into teaching and learning, both to prepare students for the information society and to make the most of new learning tools. Policy-makers are encouraging schools, libraries and learning centres to invest in computers and access to the Internet in order to reduce the disadvantage of those who have no access to ICT in their homes, by enabling them to access learning and information resources at a public institution. Figures provided in the Kerrey Report of the Web-Based Education Commission (2000) underline the rapidly rising levels of school connectivity to the Internet. In the US this grew from 65% in 1996 to 95% in 1999. Classroom connectivity over the same period has increased from 14% to 63%. The report draws attention however to marked differentials between wealthy and poor schools. In the post-secondary sector, the penetration of the Internet is even more marked. Figures available for 1998 (Merrill Lynch, 2000) reveal that more than 50% of US college students will have Internet access from their dorm rooms in 1999 and virtually all will have access from some campus location. Over 90% of college students access the Internet, with 50% accessing the web daily. At faculty level, nearly

© OECD 2001

19

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

Figure 6. Home and school access to computers in OECD countries, 1998 80 70

80 A. Percentage of households possessing a PC

70

60

60

50

50 Unweighted average

20

10

10

0

0 Ita ly

Fr an ce

C an ad a G er m an y1 Fi nl an d1 Be lg iu N m ew Ze al U an ni te d d Ki ng do m H un ga ry 1

1

20

Sp ai n

30

Ic el an d N et he rla nd U ni s te d St at es 2 Au st ra lia 1

40

30

D en m ar k2

40

40 35

40 B. Students per computer in upper secondary education

35

30

30

25

25

20

20 Unweighted average

15

15

10

10

5

5

0

0 c

b

a

a

a

a

b

b

b

b

a

a

a

a

b

a

Ita N ly et he rla nd s Be lg Ko iu m re a (F r. C om . Po ) rtu ga l

b

N or w ay C an U ad ni a te d St at es Fr an ce Fi nl an d Ire la nd D en U ni m te ar d k Ki n C gd ze o ch m R ep ub lic Ic el an d Ja Be p Lu an xe lg iu m m bo (F ur le g m .C om .)

b

1. 1999. 2. 2000. a) OECD (1999). b) IEA/SITES (1999). c) NCES (2000). Source: OECD (2001).

40% of all college courses are using Internet resources as part of the syllabus in 1999, compared with 25% in 1997 and 15% in 1996. 20

Data provided in The Knowledge Web (Merrill Lynch, 2000) indicate that in 1998, higher education institutions in the US spent approximately US$3.1 billion on all

© OECD 2001

ICT Trends and Opportunities for E-learning

information technology. Of this amount, approximately US$305 million, or 9.8%, was spent on support for distance learning. This figure includes spending on hardware, software, communication products and services, and excludes staff salaries. State and other (co-) investment in R&D advanced technologies Significant ICT investment in the education and training sector has taken the form of close-to-market research and development (R&D), with large-scale testing, deployment and development of high performance Internet technologies required to enable a new generation of network applications. Developing and using ICT for education and training purposes has been an important plank in the European Union’s successive Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. The Telematics for Flexible and Distance Learning Programme (DELTA) initiative in the Third Framework Programme, and the Telematics Application Programme in the Fourth Framework, co-funded some 50 trans-European education projects which sought both to develop stateof-the-art technologies and systems and to demonstrate their potential contribution to learning through pilot applications. A main focus of these initiatives has been on trying to achieve a Europe-wide education and learning system and a diverse European market for technology-based education and training. Over 200 organisations participated in the consortia projects co-funded under DELTA (1992-95), with the European Commission contributing 62 million ECU. In the United States, Internet2 and the Next Generation Internet (NGI) are examples of partnership initiatives between academic institutions, government and industry. Internet2 is a consortium led by over 180 US universities working with over 70 leading companies to develop and deploy advanced network applications and technologies for research and higher education. Internet2 members work closely with agencies participating in the NGI. Of major significance for K-12 (kindergarten to year 12) education, States and districts with existing networks will be able to apply to the NGI to participate in the vast opportunities provided by Internet2 access. Another initiative led by the US Department of Defence in co-operation with other federal agencies, academic institutions, the private sector and the technology industry, is the federal Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) initiative. Groups are working together to develop technical standards for interoperability known as the Sharable Courseware Object Reference Model (SCORM). The standards provide a foundation for the Pentagon to build the learning environment of the future. Similarly, the Schools Interoperability Framework (SIF) is an industry initiative to develop an open specification to ensure that K-12 instructional and administrative software applications can work together. Close to 100 hardware and software companies and school districts are involved in this effort. Their objective is to improve the management and accessibility of data within schools and school

© OECD 2001

21

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

districts, enabling diverse applications to interact and share data efficiently, reliably, and securely, regardless of platform. For example the SchoolTone Alliance, a global partnership of over 25 leading education service providers, is developing a framework for web-based portals that build on this model. What is the potential impact of educational technology? To unravel the meaning of the ICT opportunity for education, the key question to ask is what parts of teaching and learning processes can be most usefully enabled by technology and digital media. Technology enables information, knowledge and experience to be presented in new ways, so that new learning outcomes can be defined and achieved. ICT has a very broad and pervasive impact on the entire education process – on the learning environments, on the content of learning, on the empowerment of the learner and on the forms of communication used. ICT has an impact in the following ways. On learning environments The environments in which learning takes place have traditionally been thought of as a set of options between the classroom, the library, the laboratory, the home and the workplace. The arrival of ICT however is blurring these distinctions. It enables learning to take place in a variety of different places, both physical and virtual. Learners now have a choice and increasingly wish to combine the options, choosing when and where they study and learn. For education providers, the preparation and integration of materials and services become a challenge since it fundamentally changes and extends the learning environment. On the content of learning It is useful to distinguish between “fixed content” and “fluid content”. For instance, fixed content is that which trainers, teachers, syllabus designers and authors determine to be part of the curriculum to be learnt. However, with the implementation of ICT, learners have increasingly easy and independent access to vast amounts of information and communication activity of potential relevance, for example via the Internet. These less controlled sources of knowledge may be referred to as fluid content. The challenge is to find ways of mediating this by developing comprehension strategies, task-based approaches and dedicated software “intelligent agents” which for instance will select Web sites according to predetermined criteria so as to fit a learner’s profile. On the empowerment of the learner

22

ICT can empower the learner by offering choice and potentially more engaging and effective means of learning. ICT can accommodate a whole range of different learning styles and learning preferences. Individuals differ markedly in their apprecia-

© OECD 2001

ICT Trends and Opportunities for E-learning

tion of and ability to learn from different types of communications, learning processes and materials. Interactive multimedia and the opportunity to combine various media resources, styles and methods are a key feature of ICT-enabled learning. On communication ICT enables communication to happen one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-many and many-to-one. Education providers involved in ICT projects across the world are busy exploring the strengths and weaknesses of each of these modes in order to find meaningful ways of encouraging teachers and learners to make use of the options. In order to manage the return on investment in ICT, it is vital that the benefits, risks and cost-effectiveness of using new technology and new media are well understood. An effective approach is clearly to establish how ICT can be used to deliver benefits, which can only be achieved, or can be achieved better, through specific investment in educational resources in digital form (Box 1). In other words what can be achieved only by using technology and what can be done better by using technology?

Box 1. How ICT can be used to deliver benefits Things that cannot be done without the technology • the dematerialisation of time and space – learning any time anywhere; • mass-education – access to leaning for everyone; • Internet access to ever growing collections of educational resources and services; • input for task-based learning using fast search and retrieval software, or for research work; • learning on demand; • peer-group teaching/learning through distance learning via ICT. Things which can be done better with technology • • • • •

the choice of learning style; customised and personalised learning materials and services; individualised tracking and recording of learning processes; self-assessment and monitoring of learner performance; interactive communications between participants and influencers in the learning process; • interactive access to educational resources. 23

© OECD 2001

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

The promise of ICT in education can be described in brief as an opportunity to provide better education to more people cost effectively. After some six years of substantial investment in ICT throughout the OECD Member States, what has been achieved? Many projects and programmes have been carried out, some successful, others not. Much experience has been gained on many levels and valuable lessons can be learnt. In spite of having spent US$16 billion in 1999 in OECD countries on ICT, there is little evidence that ICT meets the original promise of better education for more people at less cost. As a result there are now concerns over the return on ICT investment. There are exceptions: isolated projects or pockets of activity have been able to demonstrate improvement in learning outcomes and in reaching learners who would not have been able to participate without the use of ICT. There are a few examples of corporate training where companies have been able to use ICT to automate and cut training costs. Although up to now there has been a broad failure to measure and quantify the return on ICT investment in education, few will argue against such investments. It is broadly assumed that ICT is essential in today’s competitive environment. Many practitioners using ICT in education are convinced of its benefits and could not imagine going back to a learning environment without it. There is however no clear evidence that ICT investments made by the public sector have resulted in improved performance of teachers and/or learners, nor that it has improved the quality and access to educational resources on the scales predicted. Nonetheless, there is a general consensus that the ICT opportunity is still valid, and an acceptance as fact that ICT is part of daily life, forever changing the way people learn, work and play. A multitude of stakeholders need to move up the learning curve before the new education market will take off, and successful educational applications appear in the market place. Only then may it be possible to measure the impact of ICT on educational outcomes. Policymakers, funding bodies and budget managers need to know what return can be achieved on which ICT investment. While the quest will continue to measure the impact of ICT, whatever the outcome ICT has become a permanent expenditure item in the education budget, much as it has become a permanent overhead for every business. Most other industries have in fact been similarly unsuccessful in quantifying the return on investment in ICT or measuring the impact on business outcomes. From carrier to content: the innovative sequence

24

There are real concerns over the return on investment in ICT in terms of educational value. Technology alone does not deliver educational success. It only becomes valuable in education if learners and teachers can do something useful

© OECD 2001

ICT Trends and Opportunities for E-learning

with it. There is now a definite shift of focus from technology to content and people in several OECD countries. It is a classic chicken and egg problem. The infrastructure, personal computer penetration and Internet connectivity must be in place for the software and applications to work. On the other hand just having the pipes in place with little or no educational software available generates disappointment and puts many teachers and learners off the online experience altogether. Enhancement requires effective and engaging online content. Furthermore, effective teacher training in ICTenabled learning will not happen either until appropriate content and applications are both available. The problem is compounded by confusion about ICT investments – especially in educational software and educational services as distinct from other types of generic software, IT and communication services. The infrastructure and the underpinning software and tools to make internet and computing work can be produced on a global scale more or less independent of local differences, language and culture. This is not the case with educational content and e-learning services. These need to be tailored to local needs and cultures. The tension between global infrastructure and local content is a growing problem for improving the supply of e-learning services. Global suppliers of ICT infrastructure are far removed from the business of creating and delivering effective educational software and services crafted to fit local learning requirements. Many partnerships between ICT companies and educational content/service providers have failed as a result. Another aspect of the “global chicken and local egg” problem is that educational content does often not travel well across borders. What is appropriate and works in one culture does not necessarily translate to another. A large proportion of the educational available commercially has been produced by US software companies. It is not generally proving successful as a global market. Lack of effective online learning materials and resources is one of the main reasons for early market failure. Although the situation is improving as more content is now rapidly being developed, lack of good content still remains a significant barrier to market growth. To remedy this situation several of the OECD Member States as well as the EC have earmarked and redirected considerable development funds to boost the content industries and the development of elearning content. Although it is not possible to measure the “size” of the Internet exactly, it is estimated that by June 1999, there were more than 3.6 million Web sites worldwide, and the number has been nearly doubling every year (OECD, 2000). Nations have to invest in content to be competitive and get a return on their ICT investment. What will determine success is the level at and the competence

© OECD 2001

25

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

with which continuous investment in content, ICT and training in the use of online teaching and learning is funded, targeted and managed as an ongoing concern. Throwing money at something broadly labelled ICT or e-learning without having a keen understanding of what is to be achieved with the new media and technology is futile. Clear objectives are essential to success in any type of partnership (see Chapter 5). A big mistake when developing online education services is to imitate the analogue environment, and simply digitise and duplicate courses and processes designed for the classroom or taken from old style university lecturing. Online education should be about reinventing education and using the powerful new media which Internet, digital television and electronic publishing are. The book is a perfect medium, which does not rarely work on the screen. However, with the screen and with interactive computing one can do much more than the book can. Combining the features of the analogue and digital media could eventually make online education a remarkable success. Educators have tended to dislike television, seen as a top-down non-interactive and linear medium, at best only to be used to supplement the core resources of teaching and learning. In the digital television age television will no longer be top down or linear, but open for all kinds of forms and interactive journeys. The convergence of television, the Internet and mobile phones represents a quite different kind of opportunity. Key issues Despite the substantial level of expenditure and investment on ICT in education in recent years, there is little or no evidence that ICT yet meets the original promise of better education for more people at less cost. There are now serious concerns over the return on ICT investment. Among the reasons for this are the following: • The development of sophisticated educational software that exploits the potential of high performance technologies has not kept pace with technological advances. The lack of high quality educational software serves to generate disappointment, and deter teachers and learners from making effective use of ICT.

26

• The Kerrey Report (2000) and OECD (1999) draw attention to the inadequacy of professional development among teachers for technology use. Of the US$4.2 billion that K-12 schools spent on technology in 1996 in the United States, for example, only 6% were for training. In the 1999-2000 school year however, this had risen to 17% of public school technology spending on teacher training, according to an annual survey conducted by Market Data Retrieval. Today, NEA recommends that schools devote 40% of

© OECD 2001

ICT Trends and Opportunities for E-learning

their technology budgets to teacher training. The training teachers do receive is usually too little, too basic, and too generic to help them develop real facility in teaching with technology: 96% reported that the most common training received was on basic computer skills. But teachers need guidance in using the best tools in the best ways to support the best kinds of instruction. They also need release time outside the classroom to learn, practise or plan ways to use computers and the Internet. • The low transferability from the US context of much of the educational software currently available commercially. Little has been produced to be used in other cultural settings. Effective global products are very rare in the education market. • Lack of good content in effective online learning materials and resources. • The tendency to imitate the analogue environment rather than to capitalise on the opportunities and potential offered by the powerful new media a digital environment, or to combine the features of the analogue and digital media. Some of these issues will be taken up in succeeding chapters.

27

© OECD 2001

Chapter 2

The Market for E-learning Markets and lifelong learning We turn now from the new technologies to the learning needs, which they do, can or might serve. The cost and complexity of the technologies and of their application to education and training mean that many kinds of players and prospectively partners are involved. The importance of partnership is such that we devote a separate discussion to it in Chapter 5. The cost, and the potential huge size of the total e-learning market and of its different segments, mean on the one hand that governments are generally unwilling and probably unable to take an exclusive or even a leading part. On the other hand, there is massive potential business to attract private capital and entrepreneurs. Public-private sector partnership for co-investment and co-production is therefore necessary in most e-learning initiatives. This raises different orders of political sensitivity depending on the particular learner groups – for instance as between early-years school children and corporation executives learning on the job. The concept of the market is itself quite problematic. We need to “problematise” it in order to identify policy issues in this very dynamic and high-stakes arena. In a simple and conventional sense the market for e-learning is all those people who might benefit from the use of new information and communication technologies to help them learn, whether as formally enrolled students or as “informal learners” at home, in the community, or most often in or for the workplace. In fact e-learning allows work-related learning to take place at home and in one’s own time, pointing up issues as to who the “end-user” or client really is – the company or the learner. Learners may not feature at all in analyses of e-learning, which tend to look at markets in terms of kinds of companies and institutions such as colleges and schools, or even more broadly in terms of big social sectors like business or government. Our whole understanding of and discourse about the market have altered and become more sophisticated in recent times. This is well illustrated by developments in many Member States in mixing and melding public and private sectors and modes. This contributes to creating complex systems of internal markets, sup-

© OECD 2001

29

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

ply chains and charging, notably within the health and education sectors as well as within private sector corporations. Many players in the world of e-learning may take multiple roles as suppliers, users, markets or brokers, in a kaleidoscope of dynamic relationships. Uncertainty and vulnerable high hopes about the size of markets to justify and support innovation add pressure. Much of the educational market for e-learning, formal and informal, is actually highly context-specific, embedded in particular circumstances and, in the case of formal education, in a wider total curriculum. Generalised stand-alone courseware packages may therefore be of limited utility. The closer one moves to true end-user (student and learner) needs and satisfaction, the more uncertain may appear some of the mega-markets for e-learning, ambition for which fuels the current wealth of interest, investment and innovation. Hyperbole about new ICT and its markets is matched by rhetoric about lifelong learning. Developed at the beginning of the final third of the 20th century this concept fell somewhat into dis-use before resurfacing with a vengeance to become flavour of the decade in the nineties and a brand “feel-good” label to attach to almost every form of education, training and information-giving venture. Meanwhile scholars and in some OECD countries policy-makers sought to explicate its operational meaning and to find means of putting it into effect. Naturally the steadfastness with which Member States have taken hold of “lifelong learning” varies with their different policy orientations, including their views about the proper sharing of individual, private and public sector investment in education. Its main driver is a desire to compete and excel in the globalised economy. It is important neither to turn away from the insights and the “grand design” of the “lifelong learning project” nor to get bemused by its rhetoric. Lifelong learning is however an inevitable imperative of the 21st century. It is a useful compass to check direction at more piecemeal and practical levels (OECD, 2001). It can neither be ignored nor treated as providing simple answers to questions about the exploding market for e-learning. We suggest below a simple four-way break-down of what is loosely called the “lifelong learning market”. The potential and mode of take-up of e-learning opportunities vary from one to another: 1. the early years and compulsory school cycle (primary and secondary education) where e-learning may bring significant changes to an established business in terms of unit cost, efficiency and reach, perhaps thereby addressing intransigent questions of quality and standards, diversity, and social inclusion (transformation of existing business);

30

2. the initial tertiary and higher education level usually regarded as ages 18-24, where still-rising participation rates following rapid recent expansion have moved most Member States from elite to mass systems. Continuing growth

© OECD 2001

The Market for E-learning

in demand and in policy aspiration for still higher participation rates put most systems under great stress to do with cost containment, the maintenance of quality and standards, and wider participation through a centrally oversighted but diverse HE system. One consequence of these pressures is to alter the character of the student population further away from the – possibly assumed and idealised – ideal type of residential full-time college student (according to Kerrey only 16% of college students in the US now fit the traditional 18-22 full-time and live on campus profile) to a learning and earning clientele where many are studying part-time (formally or de facto) and are also in full- or part-time employment (transformation and extension of existing business); 3. the adult or continuing education (CE) clientele now identified as the multi-billion dollar CE – or less accurately lifelong learning – market, or bonanza, where massive growth is already occurring and further exponential growth is widely predicted. Here many new players and stakeholders, providers often offering special expertise of one kind or another, form partnerships some with ambitious plans to serve huge global markets. New supply may capture and redirect existing education and especially training business, and also create new demand and new markets. Because most people in this adult market have prior and dominant roles in employment (as well as the family and the community) this market is characterised as earning and learning, reversing the order of the 18-24 year age cohorts (massive growth of new business in new e-learning modes); 4. a fourth market or clientele, ultimately possibly the most important but also the least tangible and predictable, is the whole-of-society learning nation. The ultimate vision of lifelong learning and the learning society would in effect replace “education” with “learning”, dissolving education-aslearning-support society wide through all its component sub-systems. Self-administered assessment captured in personalised “smart cards” might allow all citizens to demonstrate their continuously updated lifelong learning portfolio of knowledge, competences and skills as may be required by the economy and the State for both employment and civic purposes. This scenario is a remote and visionary touchstone not explored in this report. However, the rapid development and adoption of diverse modes of e-learning pave some steps towards this ultimate vision by enabling lifelong, life-wide, self-directed and flexible learning supports. The changes already showing up in provision for the adult learning market and facilitated by new ICT partnerships offer pointers along this road and may begin to suggest how far different Member States may move or seek to lead in this direction (diffuse, intangible market and vision not yet in focus).

© OECD 2001

31

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

Drivers of change in the education and training industry The education sector, like other industries, is being reshaped by broad technological and social processes. The Merrill Lynch report identifies six megatrends driving the education market forward and reshaping its contours: technology (Internet), globalisation, consolidation, demographics, branding and outsourcing (Merrill Lynch, 2000). The impacts are evident in the many new players coming into the education market, the dynamics of how they interact and form new partnerships, the way in which services are provided to the diverse customer base of groups of learners, and the changing financial basis and cost systems of educational provision. Thurow’s (1996) analysis of the economic forces that are shaping a new economic order provides an even broader context within which to view the changing education market. These include a technological shift dominated by “brainpower industries”, a new demography, emergence of a global economy and an era where there is no dominant economic, political or military power (cited in CVCP, 2000). Technology The technology megatrend was the focus of the first chapter of this report. It is reflected in the rates of penetration of PCs, the growth of Internet usage, the proliferation of high performance networking applications, and the rapidity with which homes, public institutions, libraries and community facilities are being wired-up and connected to the new generation of ICT devices. Looking ahead to 2020, it is likely that insights into physics and physical structure, biology and the new generation of machines and systems that appear to think, will open up very broad horizons that take us well beyond current capabilities and envisaged futures. Consolidation Consolidation of companies and industries in the market place is a strong global trend, as merger and acquisition activity reaches record levels. According to Merrill Lynch, in 1998 mega-mergers in the financial services, automotive production, pharmaceuticals and oil industries drove the total volume of mergers and acquisitions to upwards of $1.7 trillion in the United States, or not quite 20% of GDP. The largest seven 1999 deals were the seven largest of all time, with nine of the Top 10 largest deals of all time occurring during that year.

32

These mergers happen for both strategic and financial reasons. They open up new markets and provide greater services to customers and more leverage in research and development and marketing functions. At the same time, most seek to reduce overhead costs – everything from top management to back-office jobs

© OECD 2001

The Market for E-learning

that can, for example, be more effectively conducted using one merger partner’s IT system. While consolidation used to be the hallmark of a mature industry, this is no longer the case, particularly in technology, where small start-up companies are acquired for technology and just as importantly, talented people. Consolidation can also provide scale, and in the education industry, scale matters. The most visible example of this is Apollo Group, whose margins shot up from 2% in 1993 to nearly 20% in 1998 starting when revenues reached a critical mass of $100 million. The ICT industry is mirroring other industry sectors in the trend towards consolidation. Convergences of technologies and networks have brought about considerable volatility resulting in a number of corporate mergers, take-overs and strategic partnerships. Traditional distinctions between “hardware” and “software” are being challenged. Vertical integration is a phenomenon affecting parts of the education market as much as the media markets (CVCP, 2000). Merrill Lynch identifies some of the potential impacts, which are possible to follow as the consolidation megatrend starts to make an impact in the education and training sector (Table 2).

Table 2.

Possible impact of consolidation on the education and training industry

Sector

Impact

Early education

As parents shift their children to center-based care, choosing providers with high-quality educational content and brand names, we believe consolidation will finally come to the highly fragmented child care industry.

K-12 education

The challenge of developing an effective sales channel into schools will be an asset and barrier to entry that will drive consolidation in this segment.

Post-secondary education

The ability to access “best in class” education from anywhere at anytime will challenge existing colleges and universities. Look for more specialisation and consolidation as a result.

Corporate training

The ability to offer a complete training solution to corporations taking a more comprehensive and proactive approach to training will encourage consolidation.

Consumer

Competition for retail shell space and consumer mindshare will drive consolidation and partnering in consumer products and services.

Source:

Merrill Lynch (2000).

© OECD 2001

33

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

Outsourcing In the contemporary highly competitive and complex environment companies are increasingly focusing on their core competence, partnering with other companies where this is needed to accomplish business objectives. Outsourcing is a popular option. Nearly 90% of multinational firms outsourced some business in 1995 compared with only 60% in 1992. According to Merrill Lynch, total revenues in the outsourcing market are expected to grow from $100 billion in 1996 to nearly $300 billion in 2001. De-regulation is also a major driver for outsourcing. Major industries have been opened up to competition including the airlines and other transport services, financial services, telecommunications, cable TV, the electric utilities and natural gas distribution. In most cases, the result of deregulation has been more innovation, better service and lower costs. There are many examples in the US economy of the way that the discipline of the market has increased the dynamism, and improved the products, of an industry. K-12 schools in the United States may be one of the few remaining institutions that have not undergone this change. Advocates of deregulated market forces would like to see the opening up of that education market also. Such a move would however be highly contentious and in some countries, particularly in Europe but also in Japan, may appear to be an unthinkable option. Outsourcing of some selected services has however been a feature of higher education for many years, and there appears to be an increasing trend in this direction. For examples, residences, maintenance, catering and telephone systems are being managed by the private sector in different places. In recent developments, major functions such as academic computing have been outsourced, as for example to UNISYS, while network designers such as Cisco Systems and SAP look set to build a global system that can be customised for different countries and institutions (CVCP, 2000). The different impacts that may possible follow the trend towards outsourcing and privatisation in the education and training industry are summarised by Merrill Lynch (Table 3). Globalisation

34

For businesses, globalisation is described as “world-wide economic integration through trade financial flows, technology spillovers, information networks and cross-cultural currents (IMF)”. As noted in The Business of Borderless Education, it carries with it certain consequences including a requirement for standardised products and services in general markets and for technical and human resource infrastructures that can support these requirements (CVCP, 2000). One impact on

© OECD 2001

The Market for E-learning

Table 3. Possible outsourcing: impact of privatisation on the education and training industry Sector

Impact

Early education

As the knowledge worker is increasingly freed from the corporate organisation companies seeking to attract and retain the mobile knowledge worker by providing family-friendly benefits such as corporate-child care.

K-12 education

Schools will increasingly look to outsource a portion of services as quality providers begin to other measurable educational results at the same cost. Private management of public schools and charter schools should prompt a rethinking of what schools must do.

Post-secondary education

These institutions will need to become more nimble and customer responsive perhaps increasing the degree of specialisation and partnering with other universities as well as corporations to develop needed curricula. Students will increasingly demand relevant workrelated skills.

Corporate training

As corporations focus on core competences, we expect training will be increasingly outsourced to one or a few high-quality solutions providers.

Consumer

Busy working parents are outsourcing a portion of children’s education to private providers.

Source:

Merrill Lynch (2000).

the higher education sector of the globalisation trend, the report’s authors suggest, is the growth of corporate universities in large multi-national companies, particularly where higher education providers do not offer an integrated international product or service. Globalisation is also seen as increasing demand for top quality, and specifically US-based, education (Merrill Lynch, 2000). For every foreign student studying in the US, there are three to five students who would do so if they had the resources or the access. The likely impact, as seen by the authors of this report, is the creation of virtual global universities. In US analyses emanating from the commercial arena, the impacts of globalisation are likely to be presented as opportunities for growth in an open market environment. Analysis that comes out of the research community on the other hand, for example in the United Kingdom, is minded to problematise globalisa-

© OECD 2001

35

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

tion, noting the downside of moves towards standardisation and the implied homogeneity of content which can only too easily become a form of cultural imperialism. Demography Changing demographic profiles carry immense implications for the education market. In many OECD Member countries, especially the UK and some other parts of Europe such as France and Germany, the balance between young and old is changing significantly. Very soon, for the first time in history, over-sixties will outnumber the under 20s (Age Concern, 1998). This trend may well herald a more vociferous demand for tailored educational services among the “third age” group as well as signal a shift from welfare and collective support towards self-help, using the resources of the Internet (see discussion of the fourth distinct market clientele, later in this chapter). Another demographic trend is the phenomenon of the “global teenager”. In 2001, there will be over two billion teenagers in the world. As Ratcliffe comments in his study of global trends (quoted in CVCP, 2000) “connected, communicating, concerned, cynical, idealistic ambitious – global youth could exercise enormous social, economic and political power – but in what direction?” The ageing profile of the population is not reflected in other parts of the world. In many developing countries, the average age in 2015 will be around twenty. Clienteles and markets End users of educational services The market for education and training is multi-faceted and highly fragmented. Many of the players eager to enter the education market make the mistake of assuming an undifferentiated global market. They fail to appreciate the strong bedrock of traditional market segments, which is overlain by emergent niche markets and clienteles. Even policy-makers and educators themselves are prone to woolly thinking about the components that make up the education market, especially in the wider framework of lifelong learning. From an e-learning perspective, four main clienteles or markets have previously been identified (see pp. 30-31). Together these comprise the total “education and learning enterprise” within a lifelong learning framework. The four are as follows: 36

1. the early years and compulsory school cycle (representing opportunity for transformation of existing business);

© OECD 2001

The Market for E-learning

2. the initial tertiary and higher education level usually regarded as ages 18-24 (opportunity for transformation and extension of existing business); 3. the adult or continuing education (massive growth of new business in new e-learning modes); 4. a fourth market or clientele, ultimately possibly the most important but also the least tangible and predictable, is the whole-of-society learning nation (a diffuse, intangible market and vision, not yet in focus). Most attention has centred on the second and third markets. Although they are often run together, the distinction between initial post-secondary education mostly for young people, and post-experience education for the adult “earning and learning” market is an important one. These represent significantly different market opportunities for online services and products. Market size and market value Many analysts have produced figures on the burgeoning education and training market, at national and global levels. In the United States it is fairly easy to get an overview of market developments, and a growing number of investment companies compile data on market size and growth expectations. Gathering and analysing data on the European or Japanese lifelong learning market is more difficult compared to the US market, not least because it appears to be much more fragmented. The heterogeneity of information and data sources, and the often imprecise terminology, compounds the problem. One thing we can say with complete confidence is that the US is significantly ahead of the rest of the world in terms of market size and valuation. In the United States alone the education market is valued at over $735 billion in 2000. The online component is expected to grow from $9.4 billion in 1999 to $53.3 billion by 2003, a 54% CAGR (Merrill Lynch, 2000). The US higher education population spends $250 billion annually, with $1.2 billion being online. The online higher education market in the US is predicted to grow to $7 billion by 2003. By virtue of its leadership role the US market is highly significant, both in immediate volume terms but also as a pointer to likely global trends in ICT adoption, and in the expansion of e-learning markets in other Member States and beyond. The picture across other OECD countries is far from homogeneous, and Internet connectivity varies greatly (see Chapter 1, p. 11). The US schools segment has the advantage of a large internal market of 53 million school children, 3 million teachers and 23 million families. As to the scale of new business, the growth of demand in the post-secondary sector is seen as quite massive. West (1997) estimates global (degree) student numbers to rise from the 42 million in 1990 to 97 million in 2010 and 159 million by 2025. This refers mainly to the second market category above.

© OECD 2001

37

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

In terms of the third category Peter Drucker is quoted by the Merrill Lynch report (2000, p. 254) as describing online continuing education specifically as creating a “new and distinct educational realm” and being the future of education: “There is a global market here that is potentially worth hundred of billions of dollars”. The Merrill Lynch report also refers to the multiplication of corporate universities from 400 in 1988 to 1 600 in 2000 compared with the United States total of 3 700 post-secondary institutions, and including 40% of the Fortune 500 companies. The Kerrey Committee has the number of corporate universities outnumbering traditional universities in the United States by the year 2010 (Kerrey, 2000). Global demand for higher education is expected to reach up to 180 million students by 2025. The question is how many of these students will be online students. Estimates vary from 30 million to 80 million. The huge variation is in part explained by lack of consensus as to what constitutes an online student. Increasingly, all students are likely to experience on-line learning as part of their education along with more traditional face-to-face learning, and for a rising proportion their experience of higher education will be entirely through e-learning (see also Chapter 4 below). In the US today, according to the On-line Learning Supplement (Fortune, 1999), almost half of the academic institutions in America currently offer on-line learning as part of their curriculum. A recent IDC market research report predicts that 85% of these schools will have some form of on-line learning in place by the year 2002. New media markets Technological developments are eroding the boundaries of previously separate sectors and businesses, creating new markets, new combinations of products and services and potentially new competitors, and partners, for education. Cunningham et al. (1998) draw attention to three areas where traditional media, and related products and services, are being challenged by new and hybrid forms. The first is the challenge faced by print newspaper or academic textbook in the face of competition from online new services, interactive CD-ROMs and information from the Internet. The second is the development of interactive multimedia forms of traditional media to create new hybrid formats. This includes, for example, the CNN web site and the Microsoft/NBC alliance that has produced a webcasting service, which can be delivered via television and the Internet.

38

The third is the transformation of media in ways that widen the scope for interactivity, customisation and two-way communication. These possibilities suggest a move away from “mass media” towards “personalised media”, placing at risk the more “industrial” approaches of traditional distance education providers.

© OECD 2001

The Market for E-learning

Major publishing companies are taking advantage of these developments, extending the range of media used to match client needs. McGraw Hill for example set up the McGraw-Hill Lifetime Learning Unit in 1998. It aims to be the premier provider of learning resources to the individual and the organisation in developing skills and knowledge for optimum performance in today’s global economy. Another example is the recently reported teaming up between the US arm of MacMillan Publishing and Sylvan Learning systems, whereby MacMillan will provide “the printed material, web-based instruction, software and instructors; while Sylvan will market and deliver the provision across its existing adult education network (Times Higher Education Supplement, 30.7.99, p. 6)”. The educational software market It is difficult to gather and present consolidated figures on the worldwide educational software market. What data are available suggest that the consumer educational software market is now growing rapidly, having been off to a very slow start compared to other software markets. In the higher education sector, the emergence of a “global economy” in electronic materials akin to that which exists for textbooks is likely to be facilitated by moves towards the creation of standards for developing, cataloguing and packaging educational materials through the Instructional Management Systems initiative which was started in the US through EDUCAUSE1 and is now supported by JISC2 in the UK. Market demand is being stimulated by the rapid uptake of educational services on the Internet, the great improvements in PC processing power and multimedia capability, and the speed of Internet access and downloads. Current figures generally relate to the “shrink-wrapped” software market and do not cover the online licensing of courseware and other new online products. Many content providers however expect that the latter will be a far bigger market in time. The only country to break down current market data in software sales into different educational categories seems to be the US. A few analyst/consultancy companies are collecting data on multimedia and educational CD-ROMs. However this will only be a small part of what really ought to be included in estimating the educational software market. There is clearly a great need for informed market research and financial data collection outside the US market to enable a proper evaluation of the non-US educational software markets. In the United States, Merrill Lynch estimates the consumer software market at approximately $7 billion (up from $6.5 billion in 1997), with continued growth of 14% for the next four years. The educational software share of this market is estimated at $700 million. Other consumer software categories such as “personal productivity” and reference add an additional $125 million and $550 million, respectively, to that total.

© OECD 2001

39

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

The educational software market is highly fragmented and lacking in economic scale (OECD, 1998). This has been and still is a barrier to market growth. It is, even so, quite typical of an emergent market. In recent times there has been a trend towards consolidation, with software companies being pulled into mergers and acquisitions. This is having a discernible impact on the educational software market. For instance in 1996 the US retail market share of the two largest educational software companies was 42%. With The Learning Company and Cendant Software leading a consolidation charge that share is now over 70%. These two companies have however since in turn fallen prey to the same trend, both being acquired by larger partners. Cendant’s acquisition by Havas, and TLC’s by Mattel, have created a new competitive environment in the consumer software market. New markets for “soft skills” training products A burgeoning market is opening up for what is commonly described as “soft skills e-learning”, targeting mainly the “earning and learning” clientele in the corporate sector. Its potential extends to a wider “learning and earning” clientele, where post-secondary institutions are under pressure to develop a range of generic soft skills and capabilities in their graduates. Analysts are all but unanimous in forecasting that e-learning’s biggest impact will come from the development and adoption of software in this non-technical, soft-skills content area. There are acknowledged limitations to the size of the market however. “Soft skills” tend to be culturally embedded, reducing the scope for reaching overseas markets where different cultural norms make it much harder to adapt content to those audiences. As a result, soft-skills content providers are unlikely to enjoy the same multiplier effect that IT content providers have achieved in international e-learning markets (Barron, 2001).

40

Soft skills e-learning includes management education, sales training, compliance-related topics such as sexual harassment training, other employee skills such as project management and customer service, and team work and interviewing skills. Products of high quality are made possible by technological advances that permit use of bandwidth heavy graphics, animations and streaming video, considered vital to teaching behavioural skills. There is also room to improve content quality by making soft skills e-learning more interactive, engaging and sound from an instructional design standpoint. Loyola Marymount University (LMU) in the US for example recently introduced a web-based course on interviewing skills for LMU students, that relies on video and a simulation approach to illustrate how best to handle interview questions. In the UK, under the Higher Education Funding Council’s Teaching and Learning Technology Programme, pilot projects have

© OECD 2001

The Market for E-learning

experimented with courseware aimed at the development of generic core skills among the undergraduate student population. There is growing sophistication among off-the-shelf courseware products, more of which are employing simulation methodologies, as well as technological advances that open up new possibilities for web-based soft-skills training. Many of the e-learning content providers that made their names in the IT sector, including SmartForce, NETg, and DigitalThink, have begun pursuing the soft-skills market. The marketing director for SkillSoft, the largest producer of off-the-shelf softskills competence sees an expanding market as new generic workforce competencies are defined, and the notion of lifelong learning reaches deeper into organisations. One other phenomenon said to be helping to propel soft-skills content is the growth of so-called blended approaches to delivering behaviour-related learning. This combines e-learning with instructor-led training, in either a real or a virtual classroom. The best examples of blended approaches are still in the customised e-learning domain, but it is predicted that off-the-shelf content vendors will move quickly to embrace the blended model (Barron, 2001). The emerging value Web A key feature of the e-learning market is the diversity of new players involved in the education business. On attempt to represent the diversity of players, albeit incomplete, is provided by Hancock. Figure 7 identifies and attempts to draw together many of the different ICT industries and their occupational representatives, which play a part in the value creation process. The figure employs a “value web”, which has been adopted in recent years in succession to a “value chain” and then a “value star” to convey the process and relationships. It makes the assumption that each player does indeed add value. This may not always be the case. For example more sophisticated software may create new or shorter-cycle markets in terms of product renewal, but at the cost to the end-user of driving up the requirement to replace other components. Obsolescence is thereby accelerated to achieve a level of sophistication, which may not be required, and may not therefore really add value beyond keeping the market buoyant. This raises questions about the functioning of the market, the process of innovation, which may be a means of driving down cost and so of widening access. At the main interface with the end users or clienteles are the representatives of the industry activities to do with creating, connecting, aggregating, interfacing and hosting. Beyond this inner group are the professional services and the enabling technologies and services. Finally, there are the environmental enablers, which include financial capital, security and payment infrastructure, logistics and the legal and regulatory frameworks. Together, they contribute to the delivery of

© OECD 2001

41

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

Figure 7.

The new emerging value Web

Security and payment infrastructure

Core industry activities Device and user interface technologies Logistics

Authoring and content management technologies

Other interfaces

Legal/ Regulatory

Personal computers

Authors

Creating Artists

Residential

Business

Standards organisations

TVs

Interfacing

Merchants News organisations

Telephones

Enabling technologies and services

Local access Connecting Long Haul

End users

Software programmers

Education

Networking technologies

Financial capital IP Transport

Government

Aggregating

Business and transaction systems

Community builders

Referencers

Advertising Publishers

Content hosting Transaction services

Hosting Hosting technologies

Professional services

Environmental enablers

Source: Randall Hancock, Gemini Consulting, Masters of the Wired World, Leer (1999).

innovative on-line learning to the diverse clienteles in the domains of business, education, home, community and government.

42

The limitation of such a model is that it focuses on a product, rather than conveying adequately the dynamic nature of new combinations of partners to change the market. Some players or partners are not included, such as the brokers and the providers of educational services by players outside the education sector itself (see for example the Merrill Lynch and CVCP reports). In fact the situation is highly dynamic and the landscape is changing all the time, as new roles and relationships are formed. Finally, the diagram highlights an issue raised at the beginning of this chapter, namely the problematic nature of the idea of the market in the world of e-learning. While the end-users of e-learning are identified as govern-

© OECD 2001

The Market for E-learning

ment, education, etc., in another and more “real” sense they are the individual learners. This new web of relationships, and the changing value-creating process, has implications for all the players. Old established relationships and routines, built on a much simpler value-creation process around existing technologies, need to be reworked or to give way to new partnerships and patterns of relationships. Chapter 5 on partnerships examines some of the cultural and social processes at work here.

Notes 1. EDUCAUSE is a mainly US-based non profit association whose mission is to help shape change in higher education through the introduction, use, and management of information sources and technologies in teaching, learning, scholarship, research, and institutional management. 2. The Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) promotes the innovative application and use of information systems and technology in Higher and Further Education across the UK.

43

© OECD 2001

Chapter 3

E-learning, Partnership and School Education Prospects for e-learning developments and markets at K-12 We consider in this chapter the prospects for a growing e-learning market through developments in information and communication technology in the school years and the changing school systems of different countries. What is the potential for take-up of the new technologies in the mostly compulsory phase of K-12 education where participation rates are rising to approach the universal in most Member States? How fast and far will public-private sector partnerships develop in this arena? What are the likely barriers and problems? In Chapter 2 we used a simple four-way typology for education and training, or what is loosely called the “lifelong learning market”, noting that the potential and mode of take-up of e-learning opportunities varied from one to another. The first of these, and the main focus of this chapter is: the early years and compulsory school cycle (primary and secondary education) where e-learning may bring significant changes to an established business in terms of unit cost, efficiency and reach, perhaps thereby addressing intransigent questions of quality and standards, diversity, and social inclusion. Here it was suggested that transformation of existing business was to be expected rather than growth of an entirely new market or business mode. The fourth element was described as a diffuse, intangible market. This essentially non-institutional arena is furthest from the reach of education ministries and policy-makers. Here the lifelong learning vision is not yet well in focus, but there is much rhetoric, some of it quite utopian. There are also some strong and abiding traditions of adult and community education and development, non-governmental and not-for-profit work, much of it based in civic and social service rather than educational traditions. It is mentioned again here, since it is possible that the widening use of new ICT for e-learning will come to be of particular value for serving learning needs in this diffuse and dispersed community arena. It is the least tangible and manageable as a “market”. However, trends in institutionalised schooling, and the “breaking down of the walls” which distance and self-directed modes

© OECD 2001

45

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

allow, may open up new opportunities for learners outside institutional settings. The University for Industry (UfI) in United Kingdom referred to below provides one possible example. The market area was described thus in Chapter 2: a fourth market or clientele, ultimately possibly the most important but also the least tangible and predictable, is the whole-of-society learning nation. The ultimate vision of lifelong learning and the learning society would in effect replace “education” with “learning”, dissolving education-as-learning-support society wide through all its component sub-systems. Selfadministered assessment captured in personalised “smart cards” might allow all citizens to demonstrate their continuously updated lifelong learning portfolio of knowledge, competences and skills as may be required by the economy and the State for both employment and civic purposes. This scenario is a remote and visionary touchstone not explored in this report. However, the rapid development and adoption of diverse modes of e-learning pave some steps towards this ultimate vision by enabling lifelong, life-wide, self-directed and flexible learning supports. The changes already showing up in provision for the adult learning market and facilitated by new ICT partnerships offer pointers along this road and may begin to suggest how far different Member States may move or seek to lead in this direction. The end of the 1990s in particular saw phenomenal growth of new ICT projects and practices in many different segments of the broad lifelong learning market. It may be that this explosion of initiatives and projects world-wide means that the market is forming and beginning to take off. It is impossible to describe the full multitude of activities and participants in this process, or to include a comprehensive country by country description, which would do justice to the amount of work taking place. The European Community, the World Bank, UNESCO, the OECD and many of its Member States have previously produced numerous descriptions of ICT projects, which are available in other publications and on web sites. This report does not repeat this work. We may be moving beyond the early stages of market development where the case study approach is particularly useful. The challenge now is to move from pilot projects into full exploitation and implementation of ICT in education systems. This implies reinventing policy as well as practice and requires good models and tools for implementation and sustainable management.

46

Pilot projects and market developments of recent years suggest that multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral collaboration is essential. Looking at various leading national and local ICT initiatives around the world, a common feature is that they all involve partnerships between different types of organisations. Clearly, partnerships in various shapes and forms can provide both models and tools for solutions.

© OECD 2001

E-learning, Partnership and School Education

There are many worthwhile ICT partnerships and activities both within the OECD community and beyond. Web sites and other references provide access to a rich diversity of further information. The examples that follow are purposefully few and selective. It is broadly accepted that the United States is more advanced and ahead of other nations at least it terms of ICT markets and supply. However, it does not follow that developed countries are more sophisticated in the exploitation of ICT for educational purpose. Some of the most interesting examples of ICT usage and elearning partnerships come from the emerging economies in Asia and Africa. Also some of the most interesting models of partnerships come from the smaller countries, in particular Ireland, New Zealand and Sweden. One reason is that these countries have had no choice but to find partners, because of their small size and limited local supply of ICT resources and funds. Consequently several smaller countries have accumulated much partnership experience. Member States and other countries have different histories, cultures and traditions as well as size, wealth and existing IT infrastructure from which to build e-learning partnerships. The take-up and emulation of United States models and experience is likely to vary across these settings, balancing the forces of globalisa-

Table 4. Synthesis of market development factors

Australia Canada Denmark France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Japan Norway Portugal Spain Sweden United Kingdom United States

Penetration of technology

Quantitative development of supply

Use of ICT in education and training

Market mechanisms at work (info, prices, etc.)

High High High Medium/High Medium/high Low Low Medium/High Medium Low High Low Medium/Low High High High

High High Low High High Very low Very low Medium/High Medium Medium High Very low Medium/High High High High

High Medium/High High Medium Low/Medium Low Low High Low Low High Low Low High High High

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes (starting) n.a. Yes No Yes (starting) Yes Yes Yes

H = High; L = Low; M = Medium. Source: MESO (1998).

© OECD 2001

Overall

H H H M/H M/H L/M L/M M/H L/M L/M M H H H

47

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

tion for aggregation and expanded market scale. The openness to different kinds of public-private partnership may also vary, especially in respect of the “invasion” of the compulsory school years with particular sensitivities about children in their formative years by non-public interests. One indication of the differing potential for early adoption of new market opportunities is provided in Table 4 which synthesises market development factors with an aggregated propensity from low (but moving towards medium) to high in the case of several other Member States additional to the United States. The United States Given the leadership position of the United States we look in this chapter especially at developments in that country, making reference in particular to the Kerrey Report. This is balanced and authoritative about what it sees as key policy issues and problems to be addressed in looking at the school years and institutions as markets for partnership and business opportunities. Much of the literature about the business potential of new ICT appears very bullish about the market and naively unaware of practical and policy problems that may have to be addressed. Key observations about the United States are that: • the US has the advantage of being a market leader in ICT and having a large homogenous internal market; • effective government policy and investment are important; • education is largely defined as an industry sector and increasingly attracts private investment; • the private sector is in the driving seat in building the lifelong market. The US Government administration has consistently demonstrated a commitment to ICT investment as a key part of the overall political agenda for at least eight years. The nation has invested more than any other country in ICT developments. It is now at a considerable advantage, being able to reap the benefits and dominate the field. The US is well ahead of other nations in many areas of ICT exploitation and certainly the global market leader in the ICT industries. It currently enjoys up to two thirds of market share in the global software market.

48

The US public sector may have invested more money than any other country in ICT for education absolutely. The role and involvement of the private sector is substantial in the United States and in many ways it is the private sector which is in the driving seat, encouraged by government to take a lead. The United States and Canada have advanced free market economies and are accustomed to economic development being shaped by market forces. North America also has a very different policy and regulatory history from that of other countries. The principles

© OECD 2001

E-learning, Partnership and School Education

of self-regulation and minimal government interference in private enterprise are well established. An exception is K-12 education. This remains highly regulated and protected in the US as other countries, although there are signs of this changing as more partnerships are set up between the public and private sectors. Privatisation and deregulation of the K-12 market are expected and promoted by many interests. The K-12 sector is the largest part of the education market in the US in terms of education spend, which amounts to $375 billion on primary and secondary education. Removal of barriers to entry for private sector partners might allow significant growth over the next few years. The consolidation of the current ICT and educational software suppliers in the K-12 market is also creating economic scale that is having a positive impact on investment and partnership activity. The introduction of ICT in US schools is driving a comprehensive reform of K-12 education in which partnerships will have to play a crucial role at all levels, whether it is about building the infrastructure, connecting and equipping the schools, or reinventing the curriculum and developing new ways for learning and teaching. The US had reached 96% connectivity of all schools by May 2000. This would not have happened without joint collaboration between ICT suppliers and service companies, education providers, policy-makers and regulators. New models for partnerships and new ways for developing and implementing education reform are emerging. The charter school development is a prime example. 10% of charter schools in the US are operated by private companies (Table 5). Private money and involvement of commercial partners in school education is controversial, a challenge to manage for the public sector, but privately run education services are likely to stay and to grow in their impact. The successful growth of the Edison Project in the US provides one example. It is argued that there is no evidence that Edison schools deliver better performance in terms of educational outcomes than publicly run schools, even if Edison schools are financially more profitable. Special education is another area of fascinating development in ICT partnerships, providing evidence of what can be achieved by combining technological capability with pedagogical excellence. In special education, learning outcomes tend to be very clearly defined. This often enables smart use of ICT as well as successful partnerships, since the goals of collaboration tend to be clear, and shared by the partners. Around 10% of pupils in US schools have identified learning disabilities (compared to only 1.12% in Japan, illustrating the importance of different cultural settings in a policy area like this). In the United States special education enrolment has increased dramatically, rising to six million students by 1998. The proportion

© OECD 2001

49

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

Table 5.

Two paths to improving schools

Improve school management

Improve from within

Offer school choice

Magnet/Satellite schools

• Increase control of quality standards and • Increase number and diversity of specialised assessments at the school, district or state levels public schools offering unique programs (e.g., maths, science, arts) • Increase administration’s accountability for student test scores • Achieve financial and operational accountability through use of computer models

Privatisation/Contracting of services

Charter schools

• Contract out non-core services to outside firms, • State provides in most cases a limited number such as Operational Services (transportation, of charters that fund schools on a per pupil custodial, food), Specialised instruction (science basis and maths, arts, ESL,1 (remedial) or technology • Organisations establish entirely new schools (IT system design, installation and management) within the district that are free of most • Overall instruction responsibility not contracted bureaucracy out

Site-based management

Vouchers

• Parents, teachers and other school workers develop school improvement plan with school administration

• Issuance of vouchers that can be applied toward paying tuition at any school accepting them

• School site team given freedom from district’s direct control, but performance is accountable to school board

• In its most progressive form, allows private and parochial schools to compete for public funds

• Team acts within confines of state laws and regulations, district policy or union contracts

Private management of public schools

Home schooling

• Hire outside firm to manage instruction and administration

• The ultimate form of parental control – parents take direct responsibility for their child’s education.

• Private management able to infuse capital, leverage expertise of other companies through partnerships and utilise state-of-the art teaching concepts to energise schools

1. English as a Second Language (ESL). Source: Rand Corporation, as adapted by Merrill Lynch (2000).

of private sector spending on special education is growing. The current estimated amount is $2.3 billion of the entire $32.6 billion market (Merrill Lynch, 2000) 50

The US higher education, adult learning and corporate education markets do not have the same political and regulatory constraints as the K-12 market. Conse-

© OECD 2001

E-learning, Partnership and School Education

quently these are forging ahead principally through a multitude of strategic alliances and partnerships. It is also getting increasingly difficult to maintain the traditional distinctions of these market segments. They are to some extent converging and spilling over into each other’s territories. Universities and other educational organisations and companies are increasingly working together in partnerships and joint ventures to deliver higher education as well as business education, vocational training and adult learning. The reorientation of higher education away from traditional suppliers is in its early stages (see Chapter 4). Perhaps only 2% of the post-secondary education market currently belong to distance providers. However, according to the American Association of Community Colleges, the number of community colleges actively seeking to provide training for companies has increased from approximately 50% in 1990 to 90% today. Similar trends are found in other countries such as the UK (further education) and Australia (technical and further education). According to Merrill Lynch, post-secondary schools are well positioned to benefit from growing partnerships with corporations, as many have the flexibility to provide corporations with convenient, inexpensive, career-oriented curricula that can complement the degree-focused studies of their workforces. Content providers including publishers, broadcasters and educational software producers are increasingly seeking partnerships with technology providers and vice versa. Both are looking for ways to deliver new education services. For example, Pensare, a leading provider of engaging, interactive intranet-based courses in performance improvement, has partnered with universities such as Harvard, Wharton and the University of Southern California in giving companies access to best-in-class content from top universities delivered directly to employee desktops. A whole range of for-profit and not-for-profit organisations has been appearing in the North America as alternative education providers, or as organisations set up to give more traditional providers wider reach. An oft-quoted statistic is that Wall Street has seen $3.4 billion raised in support in education and training since 1994. Report of the Web-based Education Commission, December 2000 The Web-based Education Commission was established by the United States Congress to examine ways in which the Internet is changing the delivery of education. Chaired by Senator Bob Kerrey and reporting in December 2000, its membership included senators, education and business leaders. The Commission’s mandate embraced lifelong learning from pre-kindergarten through high school, at post-secondary colleges and universities, and in corporate training. The potential of the Internet for transformation of the K-12 sector features strongly in the report.

© OECD 2001

51

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

The central thrust of the Commission’s report is the articulation of an e-learning agenda and a “call to action” to make the best use of the Internet’s power for learning. Affirming its belief that “the nation should embrace an ‘e-learning’ agenda as a centrepiece of our federal education policy”, the report outlines the domains of policy where action is needed to address the barriers that frustrate learning in this new environment. National mobilisation, it recommends, should be aimed at supporting bottom-up, interconnected grass-roots efforts. In terms of policy-making the Web-based Education Commission strongly advocates partnership as the central strategy for “moving from promise to practice”. Those who must be involved for positive change to be realised include: policymakers at the federal, state and local levels; students and educators; parents; communities; and the private sector. Key areas identified in the report as the basis for a set of recommended actions are as follows: 1. The extension of broadband access for all learners as a central goal of telecommunications policy A positive initiative in this area, and a possible model for other complementary efforts, is the E-rate programme, enacted as part of the Universal Service Programme of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It provides discounts to public and private schools, libraries and consortia on the costs of telecommunications services, Internet access, and internal networking. E-rate discounts do not currently reach various places where many others could benefit from the learning opportunities of the Internet – from daycare centres to senior centres, and from adult literacy programmes and community centres to museums, and other venues for both formal and informal learning. 2. The provision of continuous and relevant training and support for educators and administrators at all levels Not enough is currently being done to equip today’s educators with the skills and knowledge needed for effective web-based teaching. A primary target must be teacher education programmes. Most teacher education institutions now offer a standard and basis course in information technology itself. Providing a stand-alone course about IT is not the same as ensuring that courses in teaching methods integrate technology as a way of building understanding or assessing learning.

52

The current training which teachers receive is usually too little, too basic, and too generic to help them develop real facility in teaching and with technology. Teachers need more than a quick course in basic computer operations. They need guidance in using the best tools in the best ways to support the best kinds of instruction. They also need release time outside

© OECD 2001

E-learning, Partnership and School Education

the classroom for learning, practice and to plan ways to use computers and the Internet. Partnerships that bring together the federal government, state and local agencies, the private sector, and educational institutions are seen by the Commission as offering the best promise of assuring continuing teacher empowerment and growth with technology. 3. The development of high quality online educational content that meets the standards of educational excellence The content available for learning on the Web today is variable: some is excellent, much is mediocre. Traditional content providers – publishers and software developers – are increasingly joined by new providers of online content including museums, teachers and students themselves. Challenges await content developers and educators in producing, distributing, cataloguing, indexing and evaluating good online content. There are problematic issues here of quality control and intellectual property rights. The market for online education materials produces its own distortions. Because the market is highly fragmented (products and services are targeted by age, grade and subject matter) and finite (demand tends to be limited to the number of students taking any given class at any given time), the cost to compete in the specialised sub-markets is high, forcing many providers to produce big-ticket general studies content, usually in the K-6 range. Much of the content is produced to match state academic standards or the assessments of major testing programs. As a result there are areas where online content produced by the private sector is of limited quality or quantity; gaps persist in specific subject areas where markets are thin; there is limited emphasis on inquiry learning, project based activities, or collaborative learning models; and much of the content fails to address the interests of different cultural and ethnic groups. On the positive side, some States are beginning to respond by investing in approaches that provide web-based content for education. Two recent initiatives mentioned in the report, the VES and the VHS projects, originated in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts’ Virtual Education Space (VES) will provide every K-12 student, teacher and parent with a personal “workspace” which they can log onto with an Internet browser and personal password. Students will have access to assignments, content linked to their specific learning objectives, works-in-progress, and portfolios of completed work. Parents too can access their children’s assignments, work to date, and teacher evaluations of progress. Teachers will be able to access State and district curriculum standards related to their teaching areas, and a database of content and

© OECD 2001

53

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

lesson plans linked to the standards. Collaboration, planning, administration and assessment tools will also be accessible. The Virtual High School (VHS) Project, operated by the Concord Consortium, offers over 156 courses to some 32 States and 13 countries. Many of these courses are taken as electives rather than core curriculum requirements. At VHS the per-student tuition fee can be waived if a school creates an online course or facilitates a section of a course that students in any participating school can take. Course design is structured around VHS guidelines and practices taught to teachers through their required participation in the year-long VHS teacher development course. The Commission recommends that Congress articulate content development priorities, provide seed funding for high need areas, and encourage collaboration and partnerships between the public and private sectors in the development and distribution of high quality online materials. It further recommends that the convention of state and regional education accreditors and organisations build common standards and requirements for online learning programmes, courses and certification. 4. Revision of the legal and regulatory framework, designed for an earlier model of education in which all learners are expected to advance at the same rate, despite varying needs or abilities The granting of credits, degrees, availability of funding, staffing and educational services are governed by time-fixed and place-based models that need to be replaced with approaches that embrace anytime, anywhere, any pace learning. The Kerrey report identifies particular areas of the K-12 regulatory environment, which present a special challenge in the Internet era. Many are grounded in the tradition of State and local control of education, and have become a source of concern as educational content and services are increasingly delivered across state lines. These are paralleled in other federal systems, whether national or cross-national, for example, the European Union, although the particular regulations and restrictions will vary. Areas include: • credit policies, including the difficulty of credit transfer across state lines and the problem of aligning curriculum standards; • financing policies, involving inflexible budgeting processes and the inability to redirect resources to support distance learning on a per student basis; 54

• quality assurance issues;

© OECD 2001

E-learning, Partnership and School Education

• attendance policies that set the number of hours and days in the classroom as defining measures of achievement alongside other indicators of academic progress; • teacher certification policies that prohibit transfer of credentials from state to state, thereby inhibiting the growth of online delivery of instruction beyond state lines. The report calls for increased co-operation between national, State and regional education policy-makers to increase cross-State regulatory and administrative co-operation in web-based education. Confusion over the use of digital copyright is also identified as problematic for K-12 educators. Schools are in a position of potential liability if a teacher of student fails to understand or appropriately apply copyright law, and posts material on a school web-site. Concern about inadvertent copyright infringement appears to limit the effective use of the Internet as an educational tool in many school districts. The publishing industry is also concerned that the confusing landscape and consolidation of non-profits and for-profit providers of educational content make policy based on public versus private good difficult, if not impossible, to define. The report concludes: “It is clear that a radical rethinking of the relevant body of regulation and law is in order. Otherwise the Internet will remain more a province of auction and games, than a place for genuine learning.” The Commission endorses a US Copyright Office proposal to convene education representatives and publishers to build greater consensus and understanding of the “fair use” doctrine in its application to online learning. 5. Protection of online learners’ privacy and security Students need protection from harmful or inappropriate intrusions in their learning environment. Privacy can be endangered when data are collected from users of online materials, and advertising can interfere with the learning process and take advantage of a captive audience of students. The Report recommends that developers and educators be encouraged to collaborate in creating non-commercial, high quality educational “safe zones” on the Web, and that schools, districts and states develop and promote programmes for the safe, wise, and ethical use of the Internet. The European Union The e-learning initiative On 9th March 2000 the European Commission launched a major e-learning initiative with the objective to “speed up the adjustment of education and train-

© OECD 2001

55

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

ing in Europe to the digital age”. The EC is acutely aware that overcoming the skills shortage and making use of ICT are fundamental steps to strengthen the EU economy: “The global economy is gradually moving towards an innovation and knowledge society, which has enormous growth and employment potential. But I find that Europe is not making full use of this potential, in particular because it does not have enough people skilled in the information and communication technologies a recent study puts this skills deficit at 1.6 million people in 2002 and because it is not moving fast enough into the digital age as is shown by the slowness of the introduction of the Internet in most of our Member States (Viviane Reding, Commissioner for Education and Culture).” This provided the impetus for the e-learning initiative, part of EC President Prodi’s broader “e-Europe” strategy. This is premised on successful partnerships between public and private sectors at both national and international levels. The e-learning initiative has four main components: to equip schools with multimedia computers; to train European teachers in digital technologies; to develop European educational services and software; and to speed up the networking of schools and teachers. Most of the resources to be mobilised will be national, but it is also proposed to add the resources of a European Structural Fund to assist eligible regions, and to mobilise EU programmes to promote ICT and the development of partnerships between public authorities and industry. The EU e-learning initiative has set the following objectives: • by the end of 2001 all schools to have access to the Internet and multimedia resources; support services, including information and teaching resources on the web, to be accessible to all teachers and pupils; and all young people to have access to the Internet and multimedia resources in public centres, including least-favoured areas; • by the end of 2002 all teachers to be equipped and skilled in the use of the Internet and multimedia resources; and all pupils to have rapid access to the Internet and multimedia resources in their classrooms; • by the end of 2003 all pupils to be digitally literate by the time they leave school.

56

Thus the European Union has seen a proliferation of ICT in Education initiatives across the lifelong learning market, largely as a result of government initiatives and public funding being available at national as well as EU level. Typically these projects have a time frame of 1-2 years, although there are larger projects, which has received further funding such as the European Schoolnet (EUN).

© OECD 2001

E-learning, Partnership and School Education

The European Schoolnet The European Schoolnet (EUN) is an example of multiple partnerships in action, and a main vehicle for the networking of schools throughout Europe. It is a joint initiative of the EC and twenty Education Ministries in the European Union, the EFTA countries and certain acceding countries. In recent years the EUN has given schools the possibility of working together on European projects, and access to a large volume of information on educational networks in Europe. EUN has also set up a network of over 500 schools (European Network of Innovative Schools) through which they can compare notes on experiments in using new technologies to improve teaching and learning. The objective of the EUN web site is “to offers educators, learners, researchers and decision-makers the learning materials, collaborative tools, news and information they need in a user-friendly, interactive environment”. It may as yet be too early to say what the EUN actually does for the Schools of Europe, beyond providing web links and contacts. (For further information, see their web site: www.en.eun.org). The EUN is also a network of networks, providing access to a growing family of educational networks around the world. There are then many examples of successful projects and ICT strategies being implemented through a variety of joint efforts by partnerships and/or groups of organisations. Even less than the United States, Europe is not a homogeneous internal market: the state of lifelong learning and the implementation of ICTenabled education vary considerably from region to region. The differences between on the one hand the Scandinavian countries and the United Kingdom and on the other hand the rest of Europe are very significant in ICT strategy, and in particular for public-private sector partnerships. In Germany the picture across the Länder is again very different. While most EU member States have set themselves the target of providing all schools with an Internet connection by 2002, the US is a couple of years ahead. Investment requirements are increasing, and there is a mismatch between available funds, policy, and strategic ambition. This offers a complex challenge for governments and public authorities wanting to strengthen social cohesion and ensure the provision of equal opportunities. EU member states are increasingly working together and forming partnerships to overcome this challenge and work towards the same levels of performance. The United Kingdom The UK was one of the first OECD countries to recognise the need to invest in ICT and lifelong learning initiatives. Much valuable experience has been gained over recent years. In particular, the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) launched two major programmes aimed at exploiting ICT in education, as part of the overall strategy for Lifelong Learning and developing the UK into a

© OECD 2001

57

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

Learning Society. These were the National Grid for Learning (NGfL) and the University for Industry (UfI). Another initiative, launched in 1999, was Individual Learning Accounts (ILAs), a new concept for funding and encouraging lifelong learning. The National Grid for Learning (NGfL) The National Grid for Learning is “a framework for a learning community designed to raise standards and improve Britain’s competitiveness, and which embraces schools, colleges, universities, libraries, home and the workplace” (BECTA, 1998). The following targets were set: • by 2002 all schools, colleges and libraries and as many community centres as possible should be connected to the Grid; • by 1999 all newly qualified teachers to become ICT literate and by 2002 serving teachers to be confident and competent to teach using ICT within the curriculum; • by 2002 most school leavers to be ICT-literate based on prescribed standards; • by 2002 the UK to become a centre of excellence in the development of network-based software content for education and lifelong learning, and a world leader in the export of learning services; • from 2002 general administrative communications to schools by UK education departments, OFSTED, and non-departmental public bodies, and the collection of data from schools, should largely cease to be paper-based. In 1998-99 alone the UK Government allocated £100 million for schools to spend on ICT. An additional fund of £300 million from National Lottery money was announced in 1998 to be spent on ICT training of teachers and librarians, and on the digitisation of educational content. A further £450 million was announced to support the NGfL in 2000-2002. Although the initial focus of the NGfL is the school sector, there are plans to expand the Grid to embrace home-based learning, higher education and learning in the workplace. Thus the Grid should become relevant to all four market sectors identified throughout this report. The University for Industry (UfI)

58

The University for Industry is an example of government kick-starting a development and incubating a new operation, which can be run and exploited by the private sector. The UK Government provided initial funding of £20 million, and a conceptual framework for a new organisation which was intended to respond to the changing educational needs of industries and enable existing education providers to develop new educational products and services. After two years of plan-

© OECD 2001

E-learning, Partnership and School Education

ning and development under the management of the DfEE transition team the UfI was incorporated as a private enterprise in 1999. It is charged with the expectation of becoming a key player in the UK education market “within five years we intend the University for Industry to play a leading role in the learning revolution – and we intend it to be a respected part of national life” (David Blunkett’s speech at the launching of the University for Industry, March 1998). Two of UfI’s main strategic objectives are to stimulate demand for lifelong learning amongst businesses and individuals; and to promote the availability of, and access to, relevant high quality, innovative learning opportunities, in particular through the use of Information and Communications Technology. In the words of the Chief Executive Anne Wright: “When it is fully operational in Autumn 2000, UfI will be at the heart of innovative learning, helping to create an inclusive learning society that encompasses individuals, commerce, industry and the public sector at all levels. The need is great. It has been estimated that over seven million people in the UK have a significant skills deficiency when compared with other European countries.” Based on experience gained working with partners during the first phase of development it was decided to add three more priorities for UfI activities: • develop more “bite-sized learning” and deliver resources in components and flexible modules; • accelerate the development of on-line learning services; • grow world-wide strategic partnerships and win leverage from the firstmover advantage of having set up the UfI learning network. UfI is thus intended to achieve significant sales abroad through international partnerships. The University for Industry demonstrates the vigorous modernising ambition of the UK Government and its willingness to foster public-private partnership. It also shows in a salutary way the difficulty and delay in developing and carrying forward a visionary idea to full operation. A study by the Further Education Funding Council reported in January 2001 found unacceptably low achievement rates among distance learning students, and lack of understanding about costs in staff time and materials associated with such modes. “The findings present a daunting challenge to the government’s electronic flagship, the University for Industry, whose learndirect service will work in partnership with further education colleges to deliver courses.” The report continues that the Learndirect IT-based learning materials were criticised by colleges, while inspectors found colleges’ electronic materials “fairly unsophisticated” with fewer than expected colleges using the new technologies (The Times Higher Education Supplement, January 5 2001). On the other hand the UfI well illustrates a point made earlier in this chapter: that some of the more interesting e-learning partnership

© OECD 2001

59

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

ideas may not be confined to one or another “market sector” but may spill across all parts of our typology. Individual Learning Accounts (ILAs) The idea of ILAs is that any individual citizen can open a savings account with a bank, and accumulate money to be spent only for learning. The account-holder is given access to career guidance and information about educational opportunities through a network of advisers attached to the participating bank. The accountholder will be able to purchase learning materials, courses and other educational services through accredited education providers, for instance through the UfI or the NGfL or direct from universities and educational publishers. Initially the government is spending £150 million on a pilot scheme involving one million employees who each receive £150 in their ILA, provided they contribute £25 of their own money too. The scheme is managed by local training councils and chambers of commerce and depends on a partnership model between industry and government. There are also plans to implement smart card technology to enable account holders to monitor credit and learning progress. BECTA and the DfEE concept of managed services The British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA) seeks to play a key role in the development of ICT-enabled education in the UK. BECTA is an independent agency funded by the UK Government. It describes its work as “often advisory, developmental and based on partnership with others. Partnership is key to the future success of ICT in education, and Becta’s priority is to work closely, where appropriate, with the government, local education authorities (LEAs) and the commercial sector.” BECTA is also responsible for developing specifications for the NGfL’s managed services, and for the certification of managed services suppliers. (For more information see the BECTA web site: www.becta.org.uk). The concept of “managed services” is central to the UK strategy for implementing ICT-enabled learning and the NGfL. It is premised on partnerships across the public education sector and collaboration with the private sector. The objective is to use managed services to achieve a sustainable model and practice for ICT investment and use (Box 2). Other examples

60

In Australia key features affecting growth and prospects of e-learning partnerships include the variations between regions caused mainly by the federal constitution and the shared responsibilities between federal government and the

© OECD 2001

E-learning, Partnership and School Education

Box 2.

Managed services in a nutshell

An NGfL Managed Service is made up of six core elements which are mandatory: • provision of equipment and local networking (workstations, servers, network equipment); • Internet access provision; • operational software; • delivery, installation and set-up services; • servicing and technical support services; • training in network administration and use. The key aspects of each mandatory element are as follows: Equipping and local networking: • all equipment and cabling meets recognised applicable standards; • all networks supplied will allow the connection of a wide range of peripheral devices; • each workstation includes appropriate facilities for users to access the NGfL; • all workstations meet minimum functional specifications; • contracts provide clear opportunities for reviewing and upgrading. Internet access provision: • Internet access is provided at each workstation; • NGFL Managed Services Internet access is based on at least 128kbps ISDN2 and is speedy, reliable and secure; • access is provided to the NGfL, other educational Web sites as well as to a range of other Internet services, including email and access to appropriate newsgroups; • Internet access provision includes filtering services that help to prevent access to undesirable material. Operational software: • each workstation comes with basic application software such as a word processor; • institutions may choose additional software in conjunction with Certified Service Providers; • each workstation comes with Internet access software; • all workstations support the same specified types of files. 61

© OECD 2001

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

Box 2.

Managed services in a nutshell (cont.)

Installation, testing and certification of readiness for use: • all equipment, software and services supplied as part of a NGfL Managed Service are delivered, installed and tried to the satisfaction of the institution. Servicing and technical support: • support services are available via e-mail and telephone (at local call rates); • telephone support lines are available for standard specified hours; • support is provided via a single point of contact (there may be a separate contact for Internet access); • on-site support is provided for network and multiple system failures. • response times are guaranteed; • all NGfL Managed Service providers offer an optional monthly preventative maintenance and back-up service. Training and commissioning: • the service includes initial training for system administrators and endusers; • all training is delivered by suitably qualified personnel; • ongoing training is offered at clearly stated costs.

States; the strong experience of distance education; and the success of private partnerships in vocational training. The Australian approach to ICT in education has been to delegate decisionmaking and ICT spending to the States and even down to individual schools. In some cases this has led to a much higher degree of control of ICT exploitation at the local level, for instance providing schools and teachers with the opportunity to decide how they want to use ICT. There is local ownership of budget decisions to do with ICT, which has proved effective when it comes to making good use of ICT.

62

Another consequence of this distributed approach is that there are big differences in the penetration and use of ICT across Australian States and even within each State from community to community. A school located in New South Wales may be very well equipped and experience in ICT, whilst one next

© OECD 2001

E-learning, Partnership and School Education

door will not be depending on their local budget decisions. The Australian market is far from homogeneous; there will be pockets of very advanced and successful ICT activity in one region and very little in the next. However, much is being done to overcome these discrepancies and to stimulate a more equal distribution of ICT use and lifelong learning opportunities across the nation. Partnerships within the public sector and between public and private sectors represent a vehicle for development in this process. The history of local decision-making appears likely to continue to lead to different models and practices co-existing. For instance in New South Wales the State negotiated a deal with Aussiemail to be the Internet Service Providers to all their schools, while the State of Victoria chose to give each school a grant to manage its own investment. Australia has a long tradition of distance education and much experience of using communication technology to deliver education to geographically dispersed communities and learners. The size, geography and demographic make-up of this huge country lend itself to the use of ICT-enabled education. There is a wellestablished market for distance education, now being reinvented with the growth of Internet, and dramatic changes in the formal education sector. New partnerships have sprung up between technology and service providers, between companies, schools and universities. An example of how to extend distance education into a model for lifelong learning enabled by ICT is OTEN-DE (Open Training and Education NetworkDistance Education), the largest provider of online learning programmes in Australia. The organisation is owned by the NSW Government. It was set up “to provide, support and enhance distance and flexibly delivered education and training programmes from kindergarten to advanced diploma level”. With over 32 000 students enrolled in 250 courses throughout Australia, OTEN-DE is premised on partnerships and co-operative arrangements with educational communities in Australia and internationally as well as with ICT suppliers and other private companies (see web site for further details: www.tafensw.edu.au/oten). Other education providers have formed alliances to achieve scale and critical mass. The Open Learning Agency (OLA) is owned by seven universities and based in Melbourne. It was originally set up with federal funding in 1994 but now has to be self-sufficient and operate on market terms, which it struggles to do. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), a public service broadcaster, has traditionally been an important provider of educational content. However, like many other educational broadcasters it has seen the public funds available for programmes reduce. The ABC’s educational services now pursue a range of licensing deals and partnerships with Internet and telecommunication providers to generate the income for educational programming.

© OECD 2001

63

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

In New Zealand key features include the demonstrated benefits of putting teacher training first. New Zealand shows how being a small nation can stimulate international collaboration, and also how government and the private sector can work in new ways. New Zealand did something very few countries had done in embarking on ICT infrastructure investment in schools. Education Department policy required all head teachers and teachers to undergo some basic ICT training before they could apply for ICT funding for their schools. They developed a comprehensive training programme for administrators and for teachers, as well as detailed guidelines and procedures for making good use of ICT investment. Instead of being driven by technology, they had the clever strategy to see that administrators and teachers had to be trained to enable them to make decisions about ICT and how it would be used to underpin the educational process. As a result, New Zealand is now the only country where more than 90% of teachers have had some training in ICT. Another positive effect of New Zealand’s teacher-centred ICT policy is that teachers have on the whole it is reported embraced the opportunities offered by ICT, and are actively engaged in developing the use of ICT in their learning environments. Being small and remote, New Zealand has no choice but to collaborate internationally if it is to grow the lifelong learning market. The supply of educational content and ICT is dependent on scale and critical mass. New Zealand alone is simply too small a market. The provision of educational services also has to be bi-lingual in English and Maori, which adds to the cost of creating and delivering learning materials and services. New Zealand also has a very innovative model for implementing its ICT strategy for schools, which was released in October 1998. The Minister for Education put the initiative out for tender in May 1999 and the result is an Internet portal and website called Ye Kete Ipurangi – the Online Learning Centre. The aim of the site is to be the primary point of reference for New Zealand educators, and a first stop online access point for quality learning materials, online information, services and resources (see web site: www.yki.org.nz). The tender was won by the Learning Centre Trust, which is developing and managing the portal and online service provision. The Learning Centre Trust is a new not-for-profit organisation. The beneficiaries of the trust are the schools of New Zealand.

64

In Mexico key features include the way that television and ICT can be combined to provide mass-education, and the importance of using appropriate and available infrastructure technology. International collaboration is growing across Latin America. Mexico also shows how private initiative and philanthropy can make a difference.

© OECD 2001

E-learning, Partnership and School Education

Mexico is a pioneer in the use of communication technology for educational purposes. It has been developing its technology infrastructure as well as educational content for many years. There are currently three main service strands to the Mexican Government’s lifelong learning strategy: Telesecondary, EDUSAT Network and Schools Network. In 1968 the government set up Telesecondary as an academic public service for the National Education System. Telesecondary works in collaboration with preschool and elementary school levels. The main purpose is to provide basic education to learners living in rural and under-privileged parts of the country: “Today, Telesecondary seeks to reconcile learning with the needs of the students, the families and the communities where they live, as well as to ensure a link between the content of current study plans and programmes, and the environment.” Telesecondary has traditionally combined the use of printed materials and televised material. Typically, groups of 25 learners with assigned teacher support are linked up via a satellite communication network at purpose-built Telesecondary schools or classrooms around the country. The Television Education Satellite Network (EDUSAT) was launched in 1995. It marks the beginning of a new chapter for distributed education not only in Mexico but also across Latin America. EDUSAT coverage extends into the southern US as well as Central America. EDUSAT has a signal broadcasting system, satellite reception equipment at schools and other learning locations. By the end of 1999 33 500 locations had been connected. The EDUSAT network comprises six channels each providing educational programming and teacher support. The programming and broadcasting of the EDUSAT Network are delivered with the support of the Education Television Unit (UTE) and the Latin American Institute for Educational Communications (ILCE). In 1999, more than 4 000 hours of educational programmes were produced. Altogether 25 000 hours of educational programming were broadcast. UTE is part of the Mexican Ministry of Public Education (SEP). ILCE is an independent non-profit agency working closely with SEP on the National Distance Learning programme and on issues to do with the implementation of lifelong learning services. ILCE plays a key role in vetting the quality of content and services for the Ministry of Education. ILCE describes itself as an international organisation dedicate d to improving education throu gh the use of electro nic communications media, and to producing and distributing mixed media content adapted to the needs of local regions. Like many other OECD nations, Mexico has also set up a network of schools linked via Internet. The Schools Network, known as Red Scholar, was launched as a pilot in 1997 and is focused on encouraging the use of Internet, electronic information and new channels of communications in elementary and secondary schools

© OECD 2001

65

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

and teacher training colleges and centres. “The Schools Network intends to continue generating the culture of new technology demanded by today’s world and to become an effective method for modernising and improving the teaching profession since it provides teaching staff with access to worldwide advances in the field of knowledge and education.” By 1999 around 3 300 schools around the country had been linked up to the Schools Network and more than 9 000 PC’s were installed. A series of partnership initiatives was launched to stimulate the involvement of parents as well as private companies and other organisations. The objective is to extend the benefits of the Schools Network into the community, and to attract funding and support to secure the continued supply and development of ICT. With the arrival of internet and other forms of ICT-based learning, the Mexican Government’s response has been to build on the strength of established distance learning infrastructure, and gradually to extend and combine the respective services to embrace internet and new media across the lifelong learning market. ILCE plays a proactive role in developing and bringing together the various activities and services. The institute was also instrumental in setting up an innovative organisation called the National Union of Entrepreneurs for Educational Technology (UNETE), a non-profit organisation set up to promote and support the use of educational technology in schools. The mission statement reads as follows: • contribute to elevating the educational level by providing computers, Internet and educational television to primary and secondary, as well as teaching schools throughout the country; • provide children and young people with new tools to help them develop their human potential and allow them to get ahead in an increasingly competitive environment; • distribute educational opportunities in our country in a more equitable fashion; • call upon all the members of society, in the public and the private sectors, to join in a national crusade to incorporate electronic technology for the benefit of basic and middle education. UNETE has formed a public-private partnership model described as “a creative inter-sectoral alliance between schools and parents, entrepreneurs and society, federal government and state government”. It combines philanthropy, charity and public service with business and sponsorship in a unique blend, to attract resources and secure investments for ICT-enabled education. 66

In many respects, Mexico is a role model for other countries in Latin America. Cross-border collaborations are well established. A common language creates an

© OECD 2001

E-learning, Partnership and School Education

internal market in the Spanish-speaking regions for educational content and services, witness the popular coverage of the EDUSAT Network across Central America. The Mexican Ministry of Public Education has also signed a number of agreements to adapt the Telesecondary service in other countries, including Costa Rica. El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, Belize and the southern United States. Mexico may thus provide some pointers as to the ways in which e-learning partnerships may develop beyond the OECD Member States of the North.

67

© OECD 2001

Chapter 4

E-learning and Partnerships in Higher Education On the face of it the most revolutionary changes to established education systems to be brought about by the new e-learning ICTs will occur in post-secondary including higher education. We refer here to all the educational provision, which occurs after completion of the secondary cycle, often known as tertiary, alternatively as post-secondary, and including higher education. We should bear in mind throughout that, in the words of the British Council “the main concept behind distance learning is moving education rather than learners”, but there are other powerful ambitions and drivers which intervene, such as concern for value added, cost saved, and return on investment. Main clienteles or markets A four-way division of the total “education and learning enterprise” within a lifelong learning concept framework was suggested earlier in this report. This chapter is concerned with two of these. The four, set out in Chapter 2 and reproduced for convenience here, are as follows: 1. the early years and compulsory school cycle (commonly called K to 12) where e-learning may bring significant changes to an established business in terms of unit cost, efficiency and reach, perhaps thereby addressing intransigent questions of quality and standards, diversity, and social inclusion (transformation of existing business); 2. the initial tertiary and higher education level usually regarded as ages 18-24, where still-rising participation rates following rapid recent expansion have moved most Member countries from elite to mass systems. Continuing growth in demand and in policy aspiration for still higher participation rates put most systems under great stress to do with cost containment, the maintenance of quality and standards, and wider participation through a centrally oversighted but diverse HE system. One consequence of these pressures is to alter the character of the student population further away from the – possibly assumed and idealised – ideal type of residential full-

© OECD 2001

69

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

time college student (according to Kerrey only 16% of college students in the US now fit the traditional 18-22 full-time and live on campus profile) to a learning and earning clientele where many are studying part-time (formally or de facto ) and are also in full- or part-time employment (transformation and extension of existing business); 3. the adult or continuing education (CE) clientele now identified as the multi-billion dollar CE – or less accurately lifelong learning – market, or bonanza, where massive growth is already occurring and further exponential growth is widely predicted. Here many new players and stakeholders, providers often offering special expertise of one kind or another, form partnerships some with ambitious plans to serve huge global markets. New supply may capture and redirect existing education and especially training business, and also create new demand and new markets. Because most people in this adult market have prior and dominant roles in employment (as well as the family and the community) this market is characterised as earning and learning, reversing the order of the 18-24 year age cohorts (massive growth of new business in new e-learning modes); 4. a fourth market or clientele, ultimately possibly the most important but also the least tangible and predictable, is the whole-of-society learning nation. The ultimate vision of lifelong learning and the learning society would in effect replace “education” with “learning”, dissolving educationas-learning-support society wide through all its component sub-systems. Self-administered assessment captured in personalised “smart cards” might allow all citizens to demonstrate their continuously updated lifelong learning portfolio of knowledge, competences and skills as may be required by the economy and the State for both employment and civic purposes. This scenario is a remote and visionary touchstone not explored in this report. However, the rapid development and adoption of diverse modes of e-learning pave some steps towards this ultimate vision by enabling lifelong, life-wide, self-directed and flexible learning supports. The changes already showing up in provision for the adult learning market and facilitated by new ICT partnerships offer pointers along this road and may begin to suggest how far different Member States may move or seek to lead in this direction (diffuse, intangible market and vision not yet in focus).

70

It is with the second and third markets that this chapter is concerned. Although they are often run together it is helpful to keep the distinction between initial post-secondary education mostly for young people and post-experience education for the adult “earning and learning” market. The latter “market” however extends beyond those in employment. It already includes significant number of “intrinsically motivated” students, especially among the older already well edu-

© OECD 2001

E-learning and Partnerships in Higher Education

cated, for whom there is a lifestyle, cultural and intellectual rather than any economic pay-off. Member States may wish more deliberately to take note of this in considering the “softer” areas of social policy, especially in light of demographic trends to longevity combined with early retirement, portfolio later-life careers and active citizenship. As to the scale of new business in this market, the growth of demand, and of response in terms of higher education, is seen as quite massive. West (1997) estimates global (degree) student numbers to rise from the 42 million in 1990 to 97 million in 2010 and 159 million by 2025. This refers mainly to the second category above. In terms of the third category Peter Drucker is quoted by Merrill Lynch (2000, p. 254) as describing online continuing education specifically as creating “a new and distinct educational realm” and being the future of education; “there is a global market here that is potentially worth hundred of billions of dollars”. Merrill Lynch also refers to the multiplication of corporate universities from 400 in 1988 to 1 600 in 2000 compared with the United States total of 3 700 post-secondary institutions, and including 40% of the Fortune 500 companies. The US Kerrey Committee has the numbe r o f corporate un iversities o utnumbering traditional universities in the United States by 2010. Different partners and contributors We have seen in earlier chapters the different specialisms called for to exploit new ICT and deliver e-learning opportunities. The implications for higher education as it is known and established in the different Member States today are far from clear. Different policy, legal and financial environments and regimes may materially alter the impact on the shape of tertiary and higher education provision. Detailed country studies are required to investigate this State by State (see for example the December 2000 report of the Kerrey Committee in the United States). The new technologies are by no means deterministic, nor, frequently, predictable in impact and outcomes. Attempts to create typologies for higher education and e-learning show how shifting are the sands, and how fast-moving the constellations of providers and partnerships. See in particular Section A of the United Kingdom CVCP and HEFCE report on borderless education for its consideration of typologies and discussion of their rapid evolution (CVCP, 2000). The term “virtual university” dissolves under analysis to become a dimension of the activity of the majority of existing as well as new higher education providers. Moreover, the virtual university, while “a potent vision of the future of higher education” does not lead to the breaking up of the traditional university. Rather, “the new technologies are requiring a re-institutionalisation of the University, such that the virtual university is a far more concrete organisation than the traditional university (Goddard, 1999)”.

© OECD 2001

71

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

All “conventional” universities are becoming mixed-mode, that is to say both face-to-face and distance mode. In the late nineties the Vice-Chancellor of the UK Open University observed how, over a decade, distance learning had moved from obscurity to the height of fashion. The borderless education report reviews the convergence of distance and conventional education. This convergence is both prompted by and reflects a convergence in the technology itself. Dual mode institutions are emerging in many countries and the distinctions between traditional and distance providers will disappear, replaced by “mixed-mode education, substantially centred on communication and technology (CVCP, 2000)”. More problematic is the means by which and the rate at which they remake themselves, not just to be able to exploit new pedagogies but fully to exploit the power of new ICT to become in a deep and transformative sense e-learning institutions. There are pedagogic as well as organisational challenges of the kind alluded to by Goddard. According to Merrill Lynch “leading e-learning companies will truly leverage the power of the Internet, reconceptualising learning and the dramatic improvements that motivation could allow”, rather than simply repurposing or posting content on the HTML page. “The leading e-learning enterprises of tomorrow that ultimately realise the gigantic opportunity will be those that create a truly unique learning experience leveraging the power of the new medium.” However, many corporations “want the flexibility of asynchronous learning, but additionally want the interactivity and the added human component of a synchronous solution (CVCP, 2000)”. At the level of individual academic and professional staff, there is the problem identified in both British and Australian studies of loss of academic autonomy as individual scholar-teachers become members of teams with more specialised and complementary roles, and as courses become the property of institutions, or even global consortia, rather than individual academics. Merrill Lynch sees course tools as empowering faculty members “as they can actually design and repurpose the content themselves. Teaching is a very personal trade, with style and technique being unique to the instructor. Course tools put the instructor in the driver’s seat (…) because the content remains in the faculty’s control, the ownership of intellectual property is never in question”. In reality matters are already experienced as highly problematic and conflictual. Established universities realise that they are unable single-handed to exploit new ICT possibilities to reach global or even national markets cost-effectively, but the kinds of partnerships they enter, and the roles they play within these, vary considerably. Consortia may comprise for example: 72

• traditional providers only, consorting together in groups nationally or internationally;

© OECD 2001

E-learning and Partnerships in Higher Education

• individual universities consorting with one or more employers or industries to meet their organisational and/or individual employee adult learner needs, possibly through one faculty or discipline area such as business or engineering, rather than institution-wide; • traditional providers individually or collectively entering into business partnerships with commercial companies offering a platform, software, courseware, or markets through ICT, where the partner’s expertise might be in the carrier, packaging or marketing of knowledge content from the “traditional academy”; • partnerships with governments to develop and perhaps jointly fund new ICT capabilities which may benefit other learners and providers beyond the immediate target groups. The borderless education report identifies these four forms of consortia: • cross-national partnerships between public universities; • cross-national franchising of programmes between public universities; • cross-national between public and private providers or distributors; • national or cross-national collaboration between public providers and corporate universities (CVCP, 2000). Increasingly partnerships may include three or more kinds of partners, since no one institution or company spans the range of expertise required for effective, valued and profitable, e-learning. Thus the international Universitas 21 group of (18) universities sought a partnership in 2000 with Murdoch’s News Corporation and Microsoft, moving when negotiations with News Corp broke down to an agreement instead with Thomsons. “Realising the enormous potential of online learning, some of the most traditional non-profit academic organisations have created for-profit arms specifically designed to capitalise on what we believe in an openended opportunity (Merrill Lynch, 2000, p. 199).” The University of Melbourne for example, a leading Universitas 21 institution, has also done this via Melbourne University Private. The “open-ended opportunity” is exemplified by the estimate (for the United States) that skilled labour will shift from 20% of all jobs in 1950 to 85% by 2005. Whereas many universities, like other corporations, are seeking to outsource various non-core functions which can be provided more cheaply and efficiently by specialist firms, they are coming into the new e-learning business on a basis of interdependent partnership from the outset. Classically an established university brings content (subject expertise) along with a brand name into a partnership where others provide infrastructure (platforms, maybe courseware, tools and systems for corporations to operate e-learning initiatives). Merrill Lynch characterises the “Corporate e-Learning Competitive Landscape” as a duality of Infrastructure Pro-

© OECD 2001

73

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

viders – Learning Management Systems, Aggregators, Market Places and Exchanges, and Authoring Tools and Interactive Communications; and of Content – classified as Comprehensive, Vertically Focused, and University Content (Merrill Lynch, 2000). Development of e-learning and higher education At this early stage of partnership development and of the exploitation of fastevolving e-learning technology itself, most partnerships are still very new and highly volatile. The borderless education project “sought to get beyond the marketing hype that is a feature of the borderless domain”. A substantial study of provision and partnership in 2000 shows how many of these companies and partnerships including corporate and “virtual” universities are only a year or so old (Merrill Lynch, 2000). The volatility of the e-learning (and broader e-commerce) sector was displayed at this time also in the volatility of the high-tech NASDAQ index. Whereas most of the enthusiastic literature about e-learning and the multibillion dollar continuing education business uses terms like explosive and exponential, the unpredictability and volatility of the sector is equally characteristic. On the other hand the rate of change is nothing less than dramatic, and the consequences are likely to be considerable and far-reaching. It is important to monitor and evaluate changes and innovations with disinterest, given the investment of hyperbole as well as resources in e-learning especially for adult higher education and training. The 2000 Merrill Lynch report, for example, is punctuated by amusing but stereotyping aphorisms portraying “traditional” higher education as non-utilitarian, inflexible and unbusinesslike, even while it is peppered with examples of vigorous commercial partnership and innovation, some of it on the part of the world’s most prestigious universities. The marriage of entrepreneurialism to win market-driven skill-giving business opportunity with the more measured intellectual delivery of more general and fundamental education and understanding will no doubt continue to present something of an ideological contest. Further experimentation will be required to devise stable forms of partnership where there is mutuality of interest and complementarity of expertise.

74

Many of the examples of successful partnership and provision by loosely described “virtual universities” such as Western Governors and Phoenix prove to be as yet on a modest scale, or to rely quite significantly on traditional campus support or the support of tutors or mentors in personal contact on the lines of long-established distance education provision (as in Australia) and more recently the British Open University and later Open University developments around the world (see for example CVCP, 2000, pp. 42-43, which lists nine reasons for the financial vulnerability of Western Governors University including problems endemic in the brokerage approach itself). Some well publicised innovations now attracting attention are fraught with start-up problems ranging from identity

© OECD 2001

E-learning and Partnerships in Higher Education

and credibility to marketing and resourcing: for example in Britain the University for Industry, the University of the Highlands and Islands, and most recently the e-University. Different countries have different cultures and traditions in respect of quality assurance, accreditation and control. Many place different relative value on tradition and established reputation compared with perceived utility and innovation. This makes it easier or less easy to win new business via e-learning in one country rather than another. Two significant studies published in 2000 counterbalance each other and between them nicely capture these issues and tensions: the optimistic, upbeat and very business-oriented Merrill Lynch report in the United States, and the more cautionary, analytical borderless education report in the United Kingdom. Some policy issues and problems Policy analysis is hampered by the newness and speed of change of many of the e-learning innovations; and by a related paucity of hard data, credible research and longitudinal evaluation. Little is yet known about full costs and real efficiencies. There are plentiful assertions of the “[unspecified] studies show” kind. For instance Merrill Lynch refers to one study where “students scored on average 20% better in a virtual class compared to a traditional class”; also “studies have indicated that retention of certain subject matter may be up to 250% greater with e-learning than with the classroom-based model”. On the other hand the Kerrey Committee also in the United States in 2000 has a whole chapter on “Correcting a Paucity of Research and Development” and the CVCP report finds a lack of empirical evidence and a need for further research (CVCP, 2000). Assertions about the research knowledge base, like many of the projections of market size and student numbers, must be treated with great caution. Apparently little is yet known about the relative success of different kinds of learners studying different kinds of subject-matter by means of different modes of learning and teaching support. The limited number of studies of student preference (as distinct from learning outcomes) is flawed by under-recognition of the diversity of learner types (workplace and study settings, available time, educational sophistication, subject-matter etc.). An impression is that supported or mixed mode learning is generally favoured over entirely e-driven independent study. A short and clear article from the American Society of Training and Development (ASTD) concludes that “blended” approaches drawing on more sophisticated and customised ICT supported by human contact and mentoring is the preferred direction and major near-future growth area for e-learning in the postexperience, employer-driven training field. Merrill Lynch prefers to speak of “hybrid” approaches.

© OECD 2001

75

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

This tends to lead us in the dominant direction towards mixed-mode delivery via partnerships, which exploit complementarities, and away from a pure or “idealtype” virtual university or training company. It is probable that a major shift will occur in company-based training in the immediate future, as more sophisticated software enables the bulk of instructor-provided training to become web-based and self-directed, and so freed up in terms of time and place with different kinds of (“hybrid” or mixed-mode) learner support. There are big cost savings to companies in this, both instructor and travel costs. “Employees can access learning 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, around their work, family and personal schedule. No longer do employees need to take time away from their busy work week (…) (Merrill Lynch, 2000).” The costs are however transferred to the individual learners in their own time and the spin-off social and loyalty benefits of company training away days are lost. The economics of education and training for the employer improve at the expense of social and domestic cost, as family Sundays and evenings become invaded by near-mandatory “just-for-you” work-related updating in “free time”. More sophisticated software may also suggest a practical way forward in terms of global as distinct from national and more local markets. Some subject-matter, notably training in IT itself, lends itself to globalisation, just as e-commerce can use the world map to meet its labour force requirements. European call centres and data analysts can export work to India rather than importing skilled immigrant labour to work in Europe. Other areas of knowledge beyond IT itself are much less universal, much more context-specific. As more sophisticated e-learning technology comes to allow more diversity and customisation as well as blended activity and plural forms of interactivity, the subject and skill reach of e-learning will increase – from IT itself out into the “harder” and then the “softer” areas of management and possibly soon into still more nuanced and pedagogically challenging areas such as the humanities. As one moves into the “soft skills” area as Tom Barron describes it for ASTD, context and local cultures become more important, and partnership as well as customisation become necessary if overseas markets are to be created. The more “sensitive” the subject-matter becomes the more important becomes adaptation, and the further a truly mega-world market recedes. At a certain point, which will vary from country to country, local content may become a political as well as a pedagogic issue. This occurs most obviously with media broadcasting – New Zealand is squeezed in Australia in the name of local content and Malaysia’s resistance to cultural imperialism is well known. While these are larger issues confronting globalisation and e-learning they clearly arise in some manifestations of the attempted globalisation of higher education through e-learning partnerships. 76

They are also important to hold in mind in face of very hyped up commercial approach to mega-markets and multi-billion dollar business opportunities. These

© OECD 2001

E-learning and Partnerships in Higher Education

are based on the high penetration of the United States, and especially its student population, by e-learning technologies and ICT generally, then projected on to the growth trends in countries following the same routes to high tertiary participation and modern ICT penetration. Merrill Lynch sees the global higher education opportunity as very large since “the United States is already a higher education powerhouse and the engine to the world”, with 15 million students already enrolled in higher education. An enormous global online learning market is therefore projected as other nations approach the States’ level of web-connectedness, and given the existing demand abroad for US-based higher education. It is hypothesised that many more students in other countries would be taking US degrees online if they had access, and that conservatively 45 million of a projected 160 million students worldwide in 2025 will be online higher education users. It would however be naïve to suppose that as China moves its current 3% of the 18-22 age cohort in higher education to a predicted 20% in 2020, these 240 million university students will constitute an automatic e-learning market for present providers and consortia. Member States tend to think for policy purposes in terms of tertiary or higher education systems, and of system-wide issues of demand, diversity, utility, quality assurance, standards and accreditation, as well as accountability, cost and costsharing on a national basis. This system is normally made up of a more or less homogeneous range of public and increasingly in more countries now of private universities or HEIs. Indeed, diversification of mission, role and contribution may be achieved through the shift to a mixed public-private model rather than within the public or publicly supported sector, where quality assurance and benchmarking have an unintended conforming influence. For the State, the impact of e-learning on higher education requires consideration of the longer term shape and capability of the sector, assuming that this remains a policy issue for the nation state despite globalisation. For instance what research and innovation capability is sustained in areas of importance to the nation, as e-learning transforms the sector? For individual universities there are questions about retaining a distinct identity, having distinctive competence, and increasing market share and the proportion of non-government income without jeopardising future health. Without exception in terms of size, wealth and prestige, leading universities now realise that they cannot do it alone. Substantial e-learning initiatives (with an eye to large regional or global markets in distance modes, whether web-based or, increasingly, through new broadcast capabilities) require partners with complementary resources and skills. These include mass market reach and experience, as well as capital to invest in the high upfront costs.

© OECD 2001

77

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

The main assets established universities bring include content expertise (to be “repackaged” and presented in user-friendly form for e-learning) and established “brand” reputation. “Online learning has the opportunity to create an experience that combines the richness of an elite institution with the global reach facilitated by the Internet” (Merrill Lynch, 2000). One question which highly prestigious universities appear not to have addressed very clearly as yet is the longterm price of widening their reach and increasing their market share through e-learning partnerships. Will a Harvard or Oxford degree retain its value if tens of thousands rather than a few hundred are taken out each year? One solution to avoid diluting the brand name may be to limit offerings to continuing education and non-degree courses for working adults; or as Universitas 21 is apparently planning, to offer new U 21 degrees drawing on but not carrying the name of the U 21 members themselves. For Member States these are not irrelevant considerations. They will be located in the broader question what kind of HE system the nation wants and chooses, including diversity and capability to meet different national and local needs across a spectrum of provision and activity. HE is seen as a main “export industry” in Australia (notwithstanding that the dominant mode is still the physical import of students rather than offshore and “virtual” provision). Is it also seen as an engine of economic and national development, with significant IP and commercial-in-confidence dimensions valued in national economic competitive terms? Is there the likelihood that the energies of leading universities, such as Monash University in Australia, Harvard and Cambridge, will take them to the situation and character of “denationalised” international corporations with the benefits of investment going to other nations’ development and commercial profits taken offshore? How important does it remain to have control over a national higher education system in an age of e-learning-driven borderlessness? At a still broader level, is it a priority for the Member State to invest in ICT capability to reduce the cost, enhance the quality and expand the scale of either or both initial and post-experience tertiary education? If so will it attempt this by leverage and investment partnership through and with private providers and private capital? Or is it a higher priority to invest its “learning nation” assets in raising the quality and reach of K-12 and general community education, probably by fasttracking investment in broadband capability, and bringing the power of modern convergent information and communication technologies within the reach of every member of the society?

78

Other important issues will arise for Member States’ consideration, some mainly legal, others broadly social and civic. A driver for some e-learning partnerships with HE is to win and hold client loyalty; not so much as learners as in their present and future capacity as leading credit-card-holding consumers. Merrill Lynch (2000) is explicit: “Once a company has established itself within a commu-

© OECD 2001

E-learning and Partnerships in Higher Education

nity, it can migrate its affiliation into other areas to monetise the total opportunity. One critical focus is to control the email, which is the gateway to the student market and the link to keeping students once they graduate. Students keep the same credit card carrier that they used in college for an average of 15 years. Higher education e-hubs provide advertisers and e-commerce companies access to a significant and attractive demographic – college students and their credit cards.” There is a frankly non-educational market motive here, which may connect with privacy issues as electronic mailing lists are bought and sold. More benignly e-learning expands the capacity for other HE system changes sought by those who advocate “lifelong learning” and one form of a “learning society”. According to this the finite “terminal” degree (a bachelor or master for example) would give way to something more like a lifelong learning contract for periodic updating and even employability (see for example the keynote paper give n by Jamil Sa lmi t o th e IMHE Ge ne ra l Co nfe re nce a t t he O ECD in September 2000). Alumni affiliation would thus acquire an altogether stronger meaning. Realistically such a lifelong relationship with an alma mater is only likely to be substantiated through e-learning. It is not inconceivable that Member States will come to see their HE systems and institutions as bearing such a national responsibility over time. In conclusion, partnerships are increasing and will further increase as e-learning further invades higher and post-secondary education. They will take a variety of forms, some within established (mainly publicly funded) higher education but a majority as private-public partnerships in one form or another. The scale of private sector HE provision will continue to rise, perhaps exponentially, including especially corporate universities as well as for-profit private institutions, probably outnumbering public universities and with a larger student enrolment, mainly in the adult continuing education market sector. There will be much instability and significant perturbations as these new-sector institutions spring up, merge and coalesce, close down, change their business identities and partnerships etc., but the resulting face of higher education, its configuration accessibility, identity and financial base will be significantly different as a result, and probably far more diverse and market-responsive overall. Member States will wish to monitor and probably influence if not steer these developments, mindful to avoid unintended and undesirable consequences and to advance both economic and social policy objectives such as reducing social exclusion along the way. They may wish to sharpen their attention to the relationship and balance between two desirable strands: the traditional, generally deeper and longer-term investment in “just in case” (the more liberal, general and generic skills) education, “just-in-time” provision (increasingly through e-learning partnerships in the future), and the more individually customised but possibly very functional, specific and short-horizon “just-for-me” emergent forms mainly of training.

© OECD 2001

79

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

In terms of political economy there may be differences between systems, which favour employer-driven “just-for-you” directed training and those, which incline to equally flexible portfolio-based “just-for-me” approaches. Broadly Member States may expect to continue to contribute significantly to “just-in-case” initial higher education; to encourage employers to meet just-in-time costs; and to expect individuals (and employers as appropriate) to meet “just-for-me” (or “justfor-you”) education and training. They will also wish to encourage their institutions and their own planners to steer a pathway between complacency on the one hand and hyperbole or panic on the other.

80

© OECD 2001

Chapter 5

The Nature of Partnership and its Place in E-learning Introduction Partnership is a central theme of this report. Many different kinds of partnership have been referred to in earlier chapters. Partnership, understood in the broadest sense of inter-organisational networking, is not a new phenomenon. It is however new in strategic terms, and in the scale of activity. Inter-organisational networks are multiplying and taking on a qualitatively different form. Industry has led the movement away from vertical integration towards inter-organisational networks in such sectors as the auto industry, aerospace, bio-tech, information and computer technology. The second and third wave industries, education among them, are now following this trend. There are macro forces at work here, as well as more specific drivers operating at industry level. Some of the key drivers behind the push to partnership in education have been mentioned in earlier chapters of this report. They are discussed further below. Partnership is a central term in the lexicon of educational institutions at the beginning of the 21st century. It takes a variety of forms, depending on the degree of integration, interaction and inter-dependency between the collaborating organisations. Joint ventures, alliances, networks and clusters, as well as looser or more informal modes of collaborative linkage, are all subsumed under the partnership umbrella. Outsourcing or subcontracting is sometimes presented as an element in the evolution of the partner system. Different modes and models of partnership Partnership has acquired something approaching motherhood status. It is rarely problematised. Even the research literature on industrial collaboration has tended to overlook the difficulties of developing and sustaining the benefits of networking arrangements. The assumption is that collaboration through partnership must lead to positive sum gains, in other words, that the partners can and will obtain mutual benefits that they could not have achieved independently.

© OECD 2001

81

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

There are however many cases where partnerships have failed, or not lived up to expectations; or where the benefits are outweighed by the costs involved in collaborating. This can be true as much for the mega-alliances between the superstar corporates as for partnerships among smaller companies and organisations. A series of articles in The Economist in 2000 looked at “mergers gone wrong”. Doz and Hamel (1996) found that successful networks and partnerships were highly evolutionary, going through a sequence of interactive cycles of learning, re-evaluation and readjustment. Failing partnerships, conversely, were inert, with little learning or divergent learning between understanding and behavioural adjustment; or they experienced frustrated expectations. There is a prevailing view that partnership is the way of the future, and that those institutions wanting to take advantage of e-learning opportunities will do well to make the strategic decision to move into alliances with others. Such a view was articulated by the UK Secretary of State for Education, David Blunkett in his warning to universities that they have no choice but to be involved in web-based alliances and online activities. Universities are autonomous institutions, and rightly so. But in the knowledge economy, entrepreneurial universities will be as important as entrepreneurial businesses, the one fostering the other. The “do nothing” universities will not survive – and it will not be the job of government to bail them out (Blunkett, 2000). Partnerships in the global arena of e-learning are multi-dimensional phenomena (Box 3). They vary along such dimensions as:

Box 3. Various dimensions of partnerships in e-learning Scope No. of partners Sector Commitment Voluntarism Control Governance Scale Extent of co-operation

Local, regional, national through to transnational Single or limited partners to multiple partners Same sector membership or cross-sector membership Time bounded or long term commitment Voluntary association, forced merger or acquisition, imposed partnership From organic to distributed authority to formal hierarchy Loose association to well defined and regulated association Whole institution/organisation to narrower, defined area of joint working From low level exchanges and transactions through to high levels of integration and interaction

82

© OECD 2001

The Nature of Partnership and its Place in E-learning

It helps to define different models of partnerships according to the degree of vertical and/or horizontal integration. At one end of the scale we find partnerships that have been set up as informal organic co-operative associations, such as the loose alliance of school nets around the world. At the other end we have the explosive activities of mergers and acquisitions, currently at an all-time high in the US education and training market. Far from being static, partnerships are by nature dynamic. They typically evolve over time as the needs of the partners and the demands of the market place change. Partnerships may start of as informal collaboration to execute a project and end up at the other end of the scale as a separate company or acquired asset. For instance the UfI initiative in the UK started as a loose idea of networking learning resources and opportunities for industry, and has grown into a national limited company with learning centres set up across the country. At each stage of an evolving partnership there should be a corresponding strategy for managing and growing it. Partners therefore need to be clear about where they fit on this scale, and precisely what models are being used to ensure the performance of the partnership. Efficient partnerships will typically combine different models and strategies according to their stage in a life-cycle. In other words, it is not a matter of picking a model for a partnership and sticking with it, but of understanding how to move the partnership forward by applying a variety of different models at appropriate times. Analysts and researchers of emergent partnerships in the broad education domain discern a number of key trends. The first is simply the increased activity among educational institutions in developing alliances and networks, which is found even among traditional schools and universities. A second trend is the move away from simple forms of single or limited partnerships to multi-organisational partnership forms. Educational institutions, faced with the strategic choice of putting all their eggs in one basket or spreading the risk, are tending away from partnership with one company, one initiative and one technology to a spread of activity with different partners. In many cases there is a also a change from partnerships and mergers among similar kinds of organisations (same sector) towards more complex kinds of partnerships and alliances (cross-sector) i.e. between educational institutions, media and corporations/corporate universities on a transnational level. This trend is accelerated by the blurring of boundaries between sectors, most starkly evident in the area now often called info-tainment. Dussauge, Garrette and Mitchell refer to these kinds of partnerships as scale and link alliances respectively. They report that the fastest growing type of alliance is “the highly volatile link alliance in which partners each contribute different types of resources to a partnership”.

© OECD 2001

83

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

The tendency for networks as alliances built on linkages among partners within one sphere to evolve so as to involve other sectors is an aspect of the maturing of inter-organisational forms. It may also reflect the development of collaborative know-how, and its progressive diffusion across all the organisational actors. Categorisations of partnerships in e-learning A simple classification of e-learning alliances is put forward by Byrkjeflot (2000), writing about business education in the context of higher education and developments in corporate learning more generally. He plots partnerships along two dimensions – the kinds of partners involved and whether they are same-sector or different-sector. This yields four distinct kinds of partnerships. Each is associated with a particular development dynamic. Similar partnership forms and dynamics can be found in recent developments in the school system, as e-learning takes hold. Many of these are strongly endorsed for the United States in the Merrill Lynch Report. While the Kerrey Report also advocates partnerships, it offers a clearer sense of strategic direction and purpose. Byrkjeflot’s four kinds of partnerships are as follows. Media-media alliances • for example the Reed Elsevier and Harcourt educational publishing alliance and the alliance in educational publishing between Simon and Schuster & Lighting Source. Education-education alliances • for example Universitas 21; • TRIUM EMBA: London School of Economics, Stern of New York, HEC Paris; • and the MBA courses partnership between Darden GSBA, Michigan Business School and UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business. Education-corporate universities • for example Ernst & Young Virtual Business School, and ABB Academy set up in co-operation with Henley College. Education + media + others

84

• Examples include Cardean University including UNext, London School of Economics, Stanford, Chicago and Columbia University for business and executive education;

© OECD 2001

The Nature of Partnership and its Place in E-learning

• Quisic; Financial Times knowledge; Pensare; Knowledge Planet and PricewaterhouseCoopers; University Army Access; • and very recently Universitas 21 and Thomson Learning. The UK Business of Borderless Education Report (CVCP, 2000) has an expanded list of the new players in the higher education sector, to be found in varying combinations with the more established players including principally the universities. These include: • Corporate universities. • For-profit education. • Media and publishing businesses. • Professional bodies and associations. • Educational services. • Educational brokers. Most of the new players at present are seeking to work with universities, but this may change. Davis and Botkin observe that education has moved progressively from the domain of the Church, to the family, to government, and is now moving into business. They predict that the privately driven media-based modes of learning will win out over traditional modes, since they offer 60-70% margins. In their view: the mega-industry created by the union of computers, communications, entertainment, media and publishing will deliver education and training in such new ways and vast amounts that it will parallel, rival, and in some instances, even displace schools as the major deliverer of learning (Davis and Botkin, 1995). The drivers of partnership In earlier chapters we identified various macro-level trends that are driving the uptake of ICT, and the dramatic increase in rates of Internet access. These same trends are also driving the partnership phenomenon across diverse industry sectors. Writing about higher education in particular, Byrkjeflot (2000) suggests that there are four reasons why media, education institutions and firms are developing closer relations and entering into alliances and partnerships with each other. These he labels convergence, structural holes, branding and globalisation. Convergence in learning markets is a consequence of the development of new learning and publishing technologies. Whereas the markets for entertainment and customer service, student learning, and employee and adult learning were quite distinct a few years ago, they are now rapidly converging. Whilst the domain of traditional education (student learning) may historically have been the most important, the fields of employee learning and “edutainment”

© OECD 2001

85

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

have grown much more during the last decade. The largest potential demand for e-learning is likely to be in the consumption and entertainment sector, with employee learning as a good second, and students as the third largest markets. Publishers, moving into the new media, play a key role here. Whereas they previously dealt mainly with individual consumers and authors, they now need to be constantly linking up with a broad range of knowledgeable people, content providers, editors and customers outside of the organisation. Many of their content relationships are now with institutions. Simon and Schuster, for example, were one of the early supporters of Western Governors University and now have alliances with Case Western, Harvard and Columbia, to name just a few. Structural holes emerge when actors see an opportunity to bridge the gaps between people who would otherwise remain disconnected. As Byrkjeflot explains it, this provides opportunities for brokerage across gaps for those not already involved in dense and overlapping networks, and for connecting up distant networks. There is a question which kinds of brokers or entrepreneurs are best placed to bridge across these holes. Branding is a third reason behind the development of e-learning alliances. Information technologies are instrumental in speeding up the transition towards brands and status hierarchies in education, conferring a competitive advantage on those with the most well-known and established names. Use of the term “university” still carries the image of high quality, integrity of services, products, processes and employees. Since brand names are linked to particular qualities and sectors it is likely that the highest ranked and most well known universities will be the key players in the branding of educational content in the age of e-learning. There is a limit to how far the media can go in exploiting well-known brand names in other sectors, or use their own brand names to attract higher education customers into new e-learning ventures. Universities, for the time being, carry the branding clout.

86

There is a strong push to globalisation in the field of higher education. Transnational ranking lists, accreditation agencies and alumni associations are emerging to assist students and governments in picking the winners. Such lists and agencies help establish the reputation and make the market value of the various programmes and schools transparent. These lists and institutions are becoming more transnational in content and scope. At the level of national government, universities are encouraged to involve themselves in web-based alliances and to compete globally with the major virtual universities being developed elsewhere. The British government presented a plan for a major international e-university in 2000. Early in 2001 the Labour Opposition in Australia proposed a similar initiative, should it win office.

© OECD 2001

The Nature of Partnership and its Place in E-learning

Whilst convergence, structural holes, branding and globalisation constitute the development dynamics at the macro level, there are other factors driving educational institutions towards partnerships. Nor should we overlook demand factors emanating from the customer side, whether they be student learners or companies. At the higher education end, many customers want mobility between institutions and companies. The big corporates for their part want tailored programmes that draw on the expertise of different institutions and have international currency. Educational institutions find themselves in an increasingly competitive environment. Competitive advantage is likely to go to those institutions able to function flexibly in a deregulated economy, to realise the benefits of scale and scope, and to respond rapidly to their student and industry customer base with educational products and services relevant to their needs and of high quality. E-learning in the context of lifelong learning offers enormous opportunities, especially for those who are at the leading edge. However, moving into this new market and business also carries high risks and costs. Push factors towards partnerships Despite the proliferation of ICT activities in education, it is a struggle to get beyond the pilot or ad hoc project stage and into sustainable services, with affordable and effective supply of content, services and equipment. One common response to this challenge is the quest for partnerships and collaborations, which can make the leap. It has become so fashionable to partner with others because the new market demands simply make any individual organisation unattractive and unable to deliver in stand-alone mode. Organisations have to work together to deliver the products and services of a digital economy. There is a set of generic socio-economic drivers behind the explosive development of partnerships and alliances in the market. These drivers are not exclusive to education. In fact the partnerships feature just as prominently on other public and private sector agendas. Partnerships are a major response to the megatrends of the new knowledge economy: rapid technological development, convergence, consolidation, outsourcing, deregulation, globalisation and changing demographics. These trends have an impact across society and the economy as a whole. They need to be understood and managed by public and private sectors alike. Key drivers for partnership include the following: • creating and exploiting new markets, especially among the new lifelong learning market possibilities; • providing a new or extended range of services; • adding value to existing services;

© OECD 2001

87

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

• sharing the costs of developing materials for e-learning; • spreading the risks between the partners; • multiple sourcing of materials and components; • leveraging a known brand or creating a new brand; • focusing on the core business, with consequent “unbundling” or disaggregating of functions and outsourcing; • efficiency gains. The key drivers for partnerships can be categorised in terms of investment, competence and opportunity (Table 6):

Table 6. Key drivers for partnership Investment

Competence

Opportunity

Access to funds Shared risk and responsibility Strong ownership

Access to knowledge and skills Access to products/services Innovation and talent growth

Economy of scale Critical mass Market growth

Source:

Leer (2000b).

Participants in the lifelong learning and e-learning supply chains come from many different backgrounds and organisational cultures, with their different skillsets and competence, perspectives, business model objectives. Take for instance the initiatives in Mexico described in Chapter 4. The delivery of lifelong learning and of online learning programmes in this country has brought together a multitude of stakeholders and even resulted in the setting up of a new organisation, which is a public private partnership in its broadest sense. The Union of Educational Technology Entrepreneurs encompasses parents and schools, a host of private technology, content and service providers, state and federal Government as well as various non-profit agencies and individual philanthropists.

88

For every partnership project the more that is known about the supply chain and the different partners’ role in the value creation process the better. It is typically a crowded and dynamic supply chain subject to constant change. Some of the partners may have very different operational methods, traditions and habits. A software company is typically used to entirely different business models from a book publisher. They may clash in their differing perspectives on cost, operational processes and time to market. A public service organisation is typically used to a culture of reporting, accounting and bureaucratic procedures which will clash with

© OECD 2001

The Nature of Partnership and its Place in E-learning

the way fast-moving private sector partners do business. These are common clashes which bring partnerships down. The more all the partners are aware of one another’s’ backgrounds and the need to adapt to the needs of the partnership the more likely the partnership is to succeed (see the section below on managing partnerships). Cost and risk assessment are also big factors. New educational technologies have always involved high development costs. Web-based tuition is no exception. John Daniel, the outgoing vice-chancellor of the UK Open University, thinks that universities that want to stay ahead have to develop common programmes and be involved in mega-universities. He estimates that programmes for distance learning have to serve more than 100 000 people in order to be sustainable (Blunkett, 2000). Costing work on e-learning is still in its infancy, but some data are available on the full cost of producing online degree programmes, and are cited in The Business of Borderless Education (CVCP, 2000). The figures from different sources show wide variation, at the lower end from around US 1 million dollars for a single course (Arizona Learning Systems, in 1998) to an estimate at the upper end of about 2 million pounds to rewrite an existing postgraduate course offered by a British university for web delivery. Outsourcing production to countries offering more competitive IT labour rates is still costly. An Indian open university is producing a two-year higher national diploma (HND) course for an English organisation at a contract price of US 1 million. A Canadian expert has commented that “estimates in the range of three to four million dollars to produce a course are not far fetched”. Such figures explain why many universities are seeking partnerships with other institutions in consortia-style arrangements, to share the time cost of materials development and broaden the home market base. A further option is the involvement of commercial partners to bring in technical management skills. Developing a global virtual product is a hugely complex task. It carries significant financial risk. It requires skills in project management and commercial negotiation, information technology, marketing and financing, technical expertise in intellectual property rights as well as a wide range of academic competences. The supporting infrastructure includes management of tutorial support functions in countries where courses are offered, quality assurance mechanisms, and continuing staff development for academic and tutors involved in course delivery. As The Business of Borderless Education (2000) notes, “given this catalogue of commercial and business skills (which do not always reside within institutions), it is not surprising that many universities seek private sector partnerships for such ventures”. An example of such an arrangement is the planned partner-

© OECD 2001

89

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

ship of the London School of Economics, Stanford, Columbia and Chicago University with UNext.com. Disaggregation of functions in teaching and learning appears to be an accelerating trend in higher education and may well be replicated within the K-12 sector. There is an argument for universities and schools doing what they are best at because they can create value in a certain way, or because it is highly cost effective in terms of their core competences. In the new educational models, a number of functions that have traditionally been part of the “education enterprise” are being split off and delivered by new players including education service providers, educational brokers and professional associations. Thus teaching and learning are disaggregated from the assessment and awarding function, and from marketing and student support. In some curriculum areas such as advanced IT, companies are seen as having more content competence than universities themselves. Recent examples of this kind of development include: • UNext.com where content suppliers are differentiated from assessors, tutors and the marketing function; • Financial Times Knowledge, which splits course design from delivery, assessment, marketing and student support; • OnlineLearning.net which selects prominent university partners and then helps them to produce and market their fully accredited courses and programmes to working professionals. In addition it provides students with an “online concierge” in every course, and has a unique online faculty and instructor development programme; • CISCO Systems has developed a number of educational programmes and is seeking to integrate its IT modules into traditional higher education programmes; • Western Governors University offers on-line courses developed and delivered by other institutions; assessment is contracted to Sylvan Learning Systems.

90

It would be a mistake, however, to view the push factors towards partnership as deterministic. Educational institutions, whether they be schools, colleges or universities, are faced with strategic choices. It may or may not make sense for a particular institution at a particular point in time to pursue an alliance with a particular partner. An institution needs to calculate the benefits of collaborative relationships and weigh these against the risk factors involved before committing to network co-operation and partnership arrangements. Alter and Hage (1993) iden-

© OECD 2001

The Nature of Partnership and its Place in E-learning

tify some of the key costs and benefits that feature in a calculus of this kind (Box 4):

Box 4.

Costs and benefits of partnerships

Costs

Benefits

Risk of losing competitive position

Opportunities to learn and adapt, develop competences, or jointly develop new products/ services

Loss of resources – time, money, information, Gain of resources – time, money, information, raw material, legitimacy, status raw material, legitimacy, status, utilisation of unused building/HR capacity Being linked with failure; sharing the costs of failing such as loss of reputation, status and financial position

Sharing the cost of product/market development and associated risks (such as failure to develop new courses quickly enough and with enough quality), risks associated with size of market share

Loss of autonomy and ability unilaterally to control outcomes; goal displacement; loss of control

Gain of influence over domain; ability to penetrate new markets; competitive positioning and access to foreign market; need for global products

Loss of stability, certainty; feelings of dislocation

Ability to manage uncertainty and solve complex problems; ability to specialise or diversify; ability to fend off competitors

Conflict over domain, goals, methods

Gain of mutual support, group synergy and harmonious working relationships

Delays in solutions due to problems in co-ordination

Rapid responses to changing market demands; less delay in use f new technologies

Source:

Alter and Hage (1993).

Managing partnerships Understanding when, why and with whom to partner A feature of successful partnership is that all are clear about the common goals and their respective objectives and expectations. Partners frequently make the mistake of assuming that their own objectives and expectations mirror those of the other partners. There should always be a common goal, but it is rarely the case that all the partners have the same objectives and expectations. The more aware they are of their common and respective objectives, the more likely the partnership is to succeed.

© OECD 2001

91

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

Three elements are particularly important: 1. Define the motives for all the partners’ participation This is all-important and should be openly discussed amongst the partners. Different motives do not matter as long as there is understanding and agreements about what the differences and what the common goals are. If it is a public-private partnership it is likely that the motives will be significantly different. A careful assessment should be made as to whether the motives of the public not-for-profit partners can co-exist with the for-profit private partners. 2. Establish the “strategic intent” of the partners It is quite common and acceptable for the strategic intent, motives and goals of the partners to be different. They must however be complementary for the partnerships to succeed. One partner may want access to a technology whilst the other seeks international market share. Together they may have both market reach and the technology required to serve their common customer base. The complimentary goals need to be addressed rather than the differences, once these are understood and appreciated. “Strategic intent” encompasses two dimensions according to Hamel, Doz and Prahalad, 1989: Strategic intent envisions a desired leadership position and establishes the criterion the organisation will use to chart its progress; Strategic intent also encompasses an active management process that includes: focussing the organisation’s attention on the essence of winning; motivating people by communicating the value of the target; leaving room for individual and team contributions; sustaining enthusiasm by providing new operational definitions as circumstances change; and using Internet consistently to guide resource allocations. 3. Make sure there is a “strategic fit” between the partners The strategic potential of the partnership should be made clear from the start. The partners need to be clear whether the different motives and strategic intentions fit together, and explicit about what contributions, strengths and weaknesses everyone brings to the table. What role will each partner play? How committed are they to making it work? Is the partnership core or peripheral to the respective portfolios? Why do they want to partner with you? Do their motives fit with yours?

92

What about the cultural make-up of the partnership? What are the cultural and organisational differences and similarities? Partnerships often break down because of culture clashes, or clashes between management style and personalities.

© OECD 2001

The Nature of Partnership and its Place in E-learning

There is a range of models and tools traditionally used in the private sector to assess the potential benefits and risks of partnerships, and tools to manage the partnership once embarked upon. Many of these tools can be adapted to the public sector as well. However, the often fundamental differences in strategic intent and motive between public and private partners need to be clearly defined. The private sector is usually focused on the short term and the need to make a financial profit, while the public sec-

Start (and restart)?

Figure 8. Public-private partnerships: to partner? Or how to partner? A decision cycle

Your organisation has all the resources (funding, skills, authority and credibility) that are critical to your goals.

OR

Don’t form a partnership.

You are reluctant to share authority and credibility, or change your operating style.

Your organisation lacks critical resources (funding, skills, authority or credibility).

Consider forming a partnership.

OR

Your can pay, or raise funds, for the missing resources, which are available in the marketplace (not usually true for authority or credibility).

Consider subcontracting rather than a partnership.

Your primary goal is to foster better understanding or relationships among contending groups.

Form a structured or long-term partnership.

You are trying to create, or gain recognition for a new common agenda.

Consider institutionalising the partnership, perhaps as a new single organisation.

OR

You are trying to maintain political pressure, provide oversight, or balance competing interests.

Consider a loose structure, to preserve the independent voice of each participant.

OR

Your primary goal is fundraising or a shortterm project (such as land acquisition).

Form an ad hoc or limited-term partnership.

Source: From the Web site of the Institute for Cultural Landscape Studies of the Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University. www.icls.harvard.edu/ppp/mgmt1.pdf.

© OECD 2001

93

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

tor looks longer term, with the task of providing a public service and looking after public interests. The when-to-partner chart below is an example, which works across the public sector (Figure 8). In a world of inter-organisational networking and partnership, schools, colleges and universities must become expert at identifying and selecting potential partners, at dealing with behaviour risk, and at managing ongoing collaboration. This means developing a variety of organisational capabilities. These include building trust, diagnosing important differences between partners, devising novel solutions to accommodate them, and resolving conflicts. These competences are what Simenon (1997) calls “collaborative know-how”, itself seen as a source of competitive advantage. Partnerships are often entered into without regard to the likely impact on the more immediate milieu in which the organisation operates. The status quo is assumed. Yet in a dynamic environment a new alliance or partnership impacts on existing competitive structures, and changes the relationships between all the parties in the relevant strategic group. Selecting the right partner The process of understanding when, why and with whom to partner is important. Extensive studies of successful strategic alliances in industry have revealed a number of critical factors in partnership choice. There is broad consensus on the importance of the following: • goal compatibility, both short and long term (similarity in strategic goals and complementarity in competitive goals); • synergy among the partners – one is strong where the other is weak – with the result that the partnership is more competitive compared to each partner performing similar tasks individually; • positive inter-partner attitudes and a clear understanding of what each will bring to the partnership, providing the foundation on which trust and relationships are built for future success; • shared perspectives and experiences, as well as differences that allow partners to learn from one another; • a balanced contribution between the partners so that no one partner dominates the alliance; • a commitment by each partner to intra- and inter-organisational learning.

94

Faulkner introduces the notion of strategic fit and cultural fit as keys to partner selection. Strategic fit involves partners of similar size with similar strengths of mutual resource or skill requirement. They should have congruent objectives, and possess such complementary assets and potential mutual synergies as are likely

© OECD 2001

The Nature of Partnership and its Place in E-learning

to enable them to achieve competitive advantage through optimal use of their joint value chains. Cultural fit entails an attitude of understanding of cultural differences; an eagerness to learn from a partner who has different procedures; a willingness to compromise in the face of cultural problems; and a strong commitment and mutual trust between the partners. Although cultural compatibility is rarely a major consideration in selecting a partner, sensitivity to culture at least has been found to be an important factor in predicting alliance effectiveness (Darmon, 1995). Dealing with risk and managing inter-partner relations Inter-organisational networks, whatever particular form they take, are considered to be an unstable form of organisation (Harrigan, 1984). Participants will inevitably be confronted with new situations and may have to revise their position regarding the partnership. Their interest may be enhanced or reduced, they may like to increase their stake and develop further the project, or they may wish to withdraw, or have new members join and others leave. One can never perfectly predict how other parties involved in the partnership will behave when facing a certain situation. There are many sources of vulnerability that may be “at risk” in collaborative situations, for example reputation, financial resources, self-esteem, conversations. Where tasks are interdependent and there are goods or things that one values, vulnerability and the need for trust are higher (Meyerson et al., 1996). “Behavioural risk” refers to the risk that an individual participating organisation will be selfishly opportunistic, inspired by its sole self-interest. Managing this risk is essential for the sustainability of the partnership. There are two main approaches to dealing with behavioural risk: trust-building, and formal contracts. A contract is an agreed framework for conducting transactions in a changing world. It embodies formal obligations on the part of the signatories. Contracts can have different degrees of formality and flexibility, depending on their scope and the characteristics of the situation. A classical contract attempts to specify what will be done in the event of each possible state. A relational contract is informed by new developments as they unfold and allows for the development of shared codes of conduct. It is underpinned by a belief that those others with whom one is working can be trusted to put in the effort necessary to complete the joint work. Only rarely will the contract itself be used to settle conflicts between the parties. A long-term strategic alliance would appear to call for a relational rather than a classical contract. Trust-building is seen as a cost-effective way of enhancing positive co-operative behaviour when confronted with the risk of opportunism. One can expect a reward from co-operation in the form of continuing business. From this perspective being

© OECD 2001

95

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

considered trustworthy is profitable. In an analysis of risk management in joint ventures, Gougeon (1998) draws attention to the distinction made by Lyons and Mehta (1997) between self-interest trust and social trust. Enhancing self-interest, he suggests, is a mechanism to build trust, but it only applies when the relation between the parties is expected to last. Partners need to find ways of fostering inter-dependency so that they can both benefit from self-interest trust. Social trust, on the other hand, comes from a common experience, a long tradition of exchange and co-operation, with reciprocity. It is accumulated, and can only be built over time. When starting a new venture, self-interest is frequently the only possible source of trust, but creating social trust should be an immediate concern. Research on inter-organisational networking has focused on the importance of integrating mechanisms for inter-organisational networks to be effective in co-ordinating the work of a diverse range of partners, and in developing trust. Grandori and Soda (1995) identify ten organisational co-ordination mechanisms that are employed in inter-organisational networks. These are: communication, decision and negotiation mechanisms, social co-ordination mechanisms, planning and control system mechanisms, incentive system mechanisms, selection system mechanisms, information system mechanisms and public support and infrastructure mechanisms. They argue that depending on the type of network, different combinations of co-ordination mechanisms are needed. They classify networks as social, bureaucratic or proprietary, depending on whether they are founded on social or contractual links among members. Social networks are based primarily on personal contacts and interpersonal exchange. In contrast, bureaucratic networks are underpinned by formal agreements and formally identified roles and co-ordination mechanisms. Proprietary networks are relatively formal and founded on some financial or intellectual property rights. Social networks have need of the fewest co-ordination mechanisms, proprietary networks the most. Indeed proprietary networks, they argue, need to use all of the ten different co-ordination mechanisms in order to ensure the high level of integration and trust necessary. Newell and Swan (2000) studied the evolution of trust within a particular inter-university network, exploring the way in which the integrating mechanisms can be used to encourage the development of different types of trust. Their findings suggest that an emphasis on formal planning and control mechanisms and formal hierarchy mechanisms is unlikely successfully to foster the development of trust, in the absence of informal mechanisms focusing on interpersonal integration.

96

Organisations working together thus bring to the task distinctive world views, orientations and “ways of doing things”. These derive from organisational histories, cultural values, leadership styles, structures and processes. The differences

© OECD 2001

The Nature of Partnership and its Place in E-learning

may impede the development of robust co-operative behaviours, especially in the absence of strategies designed to address likely areas of dysfunction. Strategic alliances and inter-organisational networks that are cross-sectoral or cross-cultural in nature pose the greatest challenge. Swierczek (1998) suggests four perspectives: • Managerial culture values. • Dimensions of culture. • Fundamental value processes. • Organisational cultural features. Managers in joint ventures and other international endeavours tend to be focused on their own mono-culture. It can be highly problematic when these taken-for granted mono-cultural value systems and assumptions interact in crosscultural situations. For successful joint ventures, participant actors need to know their own cultures, to have a fuller understanding of how cultural values influence their actions, and to build on this cross-cultural understanding to develop a unique blend of the national, organisational, managerial and professional cultures involved. Managing tensions between public and private objectives There is an acute shortage of funds in key sectors perceived to be the bedrock of the information society. Schools, universities, libraries, museums, hospitals, and social services struggle to fund their operations even in the analogue world, let alone in a digital world. The growth of public-private sector partnerships is evidence of the fact that governments are rethinking and reshaping the way public services operate. It is easy to blur the lines between what should be public and what is private with respect to roles and responsibilities and in terms of who should be doing and paying what. Sound models and guidelines are needed for public-private sector collaboration. Such partnership offers opportunities to stimulate the development of new products and services for the general benefit of all. Glenn Jones (1991) sees as unique to the knowledge age the emergence of hybrid public-private sector partnerships. He calls this model Free Market Fusion (for more information see his book of the same name). Successful business people, scientists, engineers and entertainment leaders are joining forces with nonprofit organisations to develop new products and services for education. According to Jones “Free Market Fusion” crosses the boundaries between corporate missions and public goals. It has arisen from a new understanding that resources available for scientific and commercial purposes can be joined with the less tangible assets of non-profit institutions to accomplish objectives beyond their sepa-

© OECD 2001

97

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

rate capacities. This may be where we need to search for new models to match the fast-changing lifelong learning market. Free market fusion is a far cry from the most common public sector approaches to partnerships today. Many public sector organisations tend to confuse partnership with outsourcing, and with new and clever ways of managing the procurement of ICT. This causes friction when the private sector partner expects the public sector partner to enter into a valid partnership with shared goals, then realises that the venture is not about working in a partnership, but is being redefined as a contractor or supplier under new rules for procurement. There is also confusion about what amounts to privatisation and what is a public-private partnership. For instance the Edison project in the US is not (as many claim) about privatising public schools but about a public-private partnership which is evolving towards a straightforward outsourcing deal. The local education authority still owns the schools and has ultimate responsibility for educational provision, but has chosen to contract out the management and operation of the schools. According to the Chair of the Edison project: “Privatisation means (…) the government decides to take something that has been in the government sector and actually turn it over to the private sector… That is not what Edison is doing. The government is not converting its schools to the private sector. These remain public sector schools in every way. They are simply asking a private company to come in and run the school, but the private company works for the government, and the government can fire the private company that doesn’t do a good job. So it’s not privatisation at all, it is a public private partnership in which the government, in this case the school district, believes it can fulfil its public responsibilities more efficiently and with higher quality, if it uses a private sector com pany to bring in a new innovative educational programm e (Schmidt, March 2000).” In the UK this concept of managed services has developed slightly differently. It is emerging as a nation-wide approach at least in the schools market and as a key approach to delivering services within the National Grid for Learning (NGfL). The UK definition of managed services is as follows: “A managed service is a combination of networking, hardware, software and content, training and support which gives an educational or learning institution access to a range of content and facilities. A managed service may be provided by a number of suppliers, combining the facilities offered by individual companies or organisations. A managed service functions as a one-stop shop’ for an educational or learning institution’s ICT requirements to provide a complete package of systems and services with one point of contact for support. They include all the necessary hardware, software, networking and technical support facilities to provide networked access to the Internet and the NGfL (BECTA web site, 2001).” 98

The UK Government has appointed BECTA to be responsible for the specifications of the managed services, and for managing the tendering and certification

© OECD 2001

The Nature of Partnership and its Place in E-learning

of managed services suppliers. The challenge is to agree on a process by which schools can purchase high quality technology and services that are relevant to educational needs. According to BECTA, part of this challenge will be met through managed services which they describe as follows: The managed services approach provides two key frameworks of support: firstly, it gives a purchasing framework that delivers a kitemarked assurance of quality and appropriateness of networked resources. Furthermore, this process simplifies the purchasing and accountability framework through a single point of contact for ICT advice, supply and support. Secondly, such a contractual framework provides schools and commercial communities with a clear and appropriate agreement, which will give them confidence in the nature of the obligations of both parties. Managed services will provide a framework that allows schools to focus on the educational issues of ICT use whilst encouraging the commercial world to develop better solutions and services for the technical infrastructure and the educational products which sit above that infrastructure. It is hoped that this process will also encourage an outcome whereby commercial providers reap the benefits of high quality service and long-term investment. Although there are many different types of public private partnerships it is possible to define some common critical success factors such as: complementary strategic intent, strategic fit, common understanding of motives and expectations, clear roles and contributions, ability to learn from and adapt to partners, openness and willingness to change and evolve. Successful partnerships and break-ups One characteristic of a successful partnership relationship is the acknowledgement on both sides that the arena of mutual co-operation and trust is bounded, and does not apply to all aspects of the relationship. The second has to do with recognising the distinctive competences of each party. Successful partnerships are only likely where both sides establish a firm and separate identity in terms of recognising each other’s legitimate spheres of knowledge. In similar vein Holti and Standing (1994/95) suggest that the real challenge facing a partnership is not about the trade-offs between arm’s length relationships and close integration. It is about how to manage the boundary relationship in such a way that it permits a high degree of permeability and reciprocal exchange of knowledge, and yet preserves the distinctive identity and core strengths of the different systems. Boundary-spanners have a role to play in managing such boundary relationships. These individuals operate on the boundaries of organisations to negotiate transactions, resolve problems, and manage information as well as attending to

© OECD 2001

99

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

intricate detail. A key part of their role is to handle the information flow and to build social bonds, thereby creating the conditions for trust and interdependency. Partnerships break up for a variety of reasons, both internal and external. Many of these have been alluded to in earlier discussion. Johri (1998) has identified some of the main causes for the failure or break up of joint ventures, most of which would seem to be relevant for other forms of inter-organisational networking. These are as follows: • the partners find their respective self-interests are not being served; • one of the partners is opportunistic and their action disadvantages other partners; • a partner tries to exploit loopholes in the agreement; • a partner fails to comply with commitments and agreed principles; • a partnership is hit by a sudden change in the government policy of one of the partners, or is penalised by an incoming government for being too close to the earlier government; • a major shift in demand pattern or loss of competitiveness; • a sudden increase in market competitiveness may motivate a partner to become independent; • a highly distorted cost structure may preclude the partnership from offering competitive prices to customers and thus lose market share; • the partners may disagree about the business strategy of the joint venture. Johri (1998) draws attention to the various warning signals of an impending failure or break up of a partnership as well as identifying the principles for withdrawal and a set of withdrawal strategies. This chapter has reviewed the nature and characteristics of partnerships in general, and examined ways in which partnership is emerging and being expressed in the rapidly changing world of e-learning. In the final chapter we draw together some of the main threads as they relate to policy issues and options for OECD countries.

100

© OECD 2001

Chapter 6

Between Complacency and Cyberbole Striking a Balance In drawing together the main threads of this report, this final chapter also attempts to strike a balance between two extremes. There are those who are uninhibitedly enthusiastic about the potential of new ICT to transform education, learning and social life more generally; some from sheer exuberance for the new technologies, some because of the massive business potential it is seen to offer. On the other hand there are those, not necessarily anti-technology Luddites, who hesitate to abandon established modes of teaching and supporting learning in favour of very costly investment on a still tenuous base of evidence, given that there is little research and limited experience of what can be achieved over time and beyond the pilot stages. The conclusion of this review is that neither “cyberbole” nor complacency is well advised. It is necessary continuously to study, monitor and evaluate the shift to e-learning, much more than we have; and to take well-calculated risks in making the massive investments required, alert to the policy issues and possible unintended consequences raised here. There is a quite sudden upsurge in investigations and inquiries into e-learning by all kinds of parties and interest groups, governmental, professional, commercial and from the traditional education communities. This suggests that our understanding of e-learning will accumulate rapidly in the early years of the 21st century, and that there will be a rapidly improving information and knowledge base for what will most likely prove to be a major change in the way education and training are delivered. This report makes no attempt to offer specific recommendations in the sense of advising one or another policy on ICT investment choice. The diversity of situations in different Member States would make this too inaccurate. At a level of generality Chapter 5 does provide some practical advice especially to business and educational institutions about how to go about creating and managing partnerships. The whole business of e-learning, investment, and partnership is so fastmovin g, especially with rapidly e me rging an d converging techno lo gies (see Chapter 1), that specific advice becomes obsolete and general advice will fall

© OECD 2001

101

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

down because of the diversity of national settings. The rate of change and the level of uncertainty are distinguishing features. On the other hand the universal “mega-trends” associated with globalisation (Chapter 2) mean that all sectors and policy arenas face similar issues. What in the UK is called joined-up government is a universal necessity with accelerating change and rising uncertainty. Partnership in the various forms reviewed in Chapter 5 is needed to manage cost and complexity in the face of competition that may come from any part of the world. The specific issues of partnership between public and private sectors, including co-investment, co-production and shared benefit, also arise much more widely – in transport, health, social welfare and even custodial services. They raise in acute form questions about the public interest and the public good which find different responses in different Member States; yet increased public-private sector partnering appears a well-nigh universal phenomenon. It may be going too far to call this unique to education, but the K-12 phase of mainly school education raises particular questions. The care and education of the young is something of a sacred site. So does national control of educational policy and direction. Governments may wish to ask how far the nation’s universities desirably retain a national identity and responsibility, as their historic commitment to universalism takes new form as multi-national corporations with investments around the world and a shift of business into worldwide agglomerations (compare Readings, 1996). It is also remarkable that institutions at the heart of knowledge-making and the knowledge society have generated so little researchbased understanding about the core processes of learning, and the efficacy of different modes now available electronically.

102

There are some issues which this report does not comprehensively cover: for example intellectual property rights, which are more complex and controversial than some bullish proponents of e-learning acknowledge. This is discussed at length in Chapter 6 of The Business of Borderless Education (CVCP, 2000) which looks at law and regulation more generally – an important area (see also Kerrey, 2000). Significant differences occur between OECD Member States. We tread lightly over the impact of these prospective changes on the internal life of the established university, and on the role of individual members of academic staff. Enthusiastic proponents of e-learning brush aside the loss of professional autonomy and intellectual control traditionally enjoyed as “academic freedom”. But partnerships lead to greater role specialisation in the production and delivery of knowledge and learning materials. Paradoxically, many academic staff will at the same time become members of complex interdependent teams in a longer, even global, production line, yet isolated and fragmented in terms of their working life, collegiality and job satisfaction, maybe working from home on a casual contract basis.

© OECD 2001

Between Complacency and Cyberbole Striking a Balance

In Chapter 5 we quoted a passage from Davis and Botkin (1995) to the effect that “the mega-industry created by the union of computers, communications, entertainment, media and publishing will deliver education and training in such new ways and such vast amounts that it will parallel, rival and in some instances, even displace schools as the major deliverer of learning”. Starting from where we are today, this report has used a four-way market typology. The first is schools (broadly, K-12). A second is formal established higher education and another the emergent continuing education post-experience area which in its various forms is set to outgrow the older higher education market. The fourth is the most diffuse and least well defined. It is the residual lifelong learning market, that which does not occur in schools and colleges, old and new. “Lifelong learning” embraces all levels, sectors and forms, and assisted by e-learning threatens entirely to break learning out of most of its inherited institutional boundaries. What new forms will evolve, no one can yet say for sure. The development of education or learning markets is related to the negotiations on trade and educational services, which is part of the current GATS* negotiations. Some of the big issues are to what extent will governments pursue further liberalisation in educational services and what might be the implications of such actions for the traditional public providers of education and the demand for their services. As yet, there seems to be a consensus that statutory schooling should not be included in the trade negotiations, whereas it seems likely that the third and fourth category in our four-way market typology will be influenced. However, so far, only a few countries have suggested further trade liberalisation within tertiary and adult education and learning. This report has been light in its coverage of the work evolving from and nowadays extending way beyond further education and technical type colleges, public and private – the broad vocational education and training (VET) sector, some of which is in our third and fourth categories. It has had little to say about adult and community education and learning, assigned to the fourth category but merging into health care and wellbeing, political lobbying and environmental action, the massive media and entertainment industries, and now into electronic commerce and shopping. Many of the e-learning innovations transcend and threaten to destroy these category boundaries, to breach and even demolish the walls and classrooms of schools and colleges. Davis and Botkin imply a different kind of “deschooling” from that proposed by Ivan Illich (Illich, 1972), one which still raises some of the philosophical issues that he addressed, while resolving some others. Students in the world of e-learning may no longer be imprisoned in the global classroom (Illich and Verne, 1976). But their learning, even if now in their own *General Agreement on Trade and Services, within the World Trade Organisation.

© OECD 2001

103

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

place, time and possibly chosen mix of modes, may be enabling and empowering, relevant and motivating, or alternatively more closed, conforming and instructional. Substantial claims are made for the potency of new interactive modes of elearning to engage people in their own unique ways and so to be highly active and relevant to them in their lives (see the reference to “soft skills” learning in Chapters 2 and 4). Much of the truth for individual learners will be in the detail of the new modes, and the handling of the content within them. The attractive individualisation and accessibility for all which e-learning promises (any time, any place) is captured in the aphorism that it takes education and training from “just-in-case” through “just-in-time” to “just-for-me”. The issue, which this does not address, where individualisation can turn into atomisation and a kind of exploitation, is who determines the content and the choice of learning. The huge predicted growth for e-learning is in vocational preparation and updating through corporate universities and other jointly developed training ventures. These shift work-related updating and some if its cost from company time and place to the individual. The global classroom may become the employee’s car, home, even pillow under some learning systems. The question then is who controls both the curriculum (content) and the on-off switch. Is the emergent idealtype “just-for-me”; or is it as determined by the company or indeed the public sector in the public policy interest “just-for-you” for the closely measured employee? “Global imprisonment” also acquires a similarly keener edge in terms of the “cultural imperialism” which it is suggested that globalisation and e-learning may imply. New ICT demands massive investment. Commercial interests naturally look for large markets to return yield on this investment. The United States leads the world in most aspects of new ICT and e-learning. Many of the market projections used to justify ICT investment and much of the ambition behind global alliances depend on big global markets. At their most naïve these simply project from country population sizes and the current rate of take-up by individuals and organisations in the United States, into the new opportunities to produce huge markets for the new partnerships. These projections beg a host of intermediary questions.

104

The need for local content may be acknowledged but trivialised as little more than the injection of some local examples within the software configuration, or through supplementary local tutoring. Another obvious issue is language of instruction. Early developments are largely in IT instruction itself, where language is less of an issue. It may just be assumed that English is already universal for such purposes. This approach risks understating the importance of deeper cultural diversities and value systems as between nations, as well as the different legal and regulatory systems and the different philosophies and attitudes of governments. Malaysia offers just one example of a leadership firm about national control and against cultural invasion. A widespread tendency towards more

© OECD 2001

Between Complacency and Cyberbole Striking a Balance

fundamentalist attitudes, Christian, Hindu and Islamic among them, may make it increasingly short-sighted to assume that material produced in the US with its cultural assumptions can easily capture other big markets, especially those of the emergent East and South, where from a business point of view the excitingly large populations are found. An important policy question related to the issue of whether local contact matters is the fact that so far no international quality assurance framework for post-secondary education has gained international consensus. However, students will increasingly be offered a range of post-secondary courses from unfamiliar providers operating outside their country’s jurisdiction. A critical issue for governments will be to find a balance between learner protection and facilitating access to less-costly e-learning options. The markets discussed in this report are therefore much more fluid and uncertain than our categories and typologies may appear to suggest. To take the “deschooling” line of reasoning a little further, the growth of activity labelled infotainment or edutainment breaks down the distinction between entertainment and study. We have also seen in Chapter 4 that some commercial interests may be approaching the more traditional student markets with e-learning as a loss leader, since they are actually investing to capture a future e-commerce market by winning and capturing customer loyalty at an early age. Member States will want to monitor these tendencies and decide what regulatory and permissive frameworks to create, which enable investment in desired ICT while ensuring net beneficial outcomes. A crucial challenge for policy-makers is to take measured risks and ensure rapid desirable benefit from the new technologies, while looking for and averting undesirable and unanticipated consequences where other parties have other priorities and maybe different values and accountabilities. Another a key issue for social and economic policy: the wide and apparently further widening gulf between the richest and poorest within and between nations. With care new ICT could “leapfrog” phases of “modernisation” and allow poorer countries and communities to catch up much faster. The possible flaw in this optimistic argument is not so much on the technical side, although often the leapfrogging will break down because the chain of requirements and consequences of introducing a new technology have not been thought through: from the loosely perceived cultural and educational context to such practical issues as reliable power and maintenance or replacement of parts. More disconcerting is the insight provided by the history of educational policy-making and the consequences of attempted change through this sector. Although there are exceptions, time and again the education (or school) system is seen as an engine of change, as a means of social engineering. In fact on the results it looks much more like a dependent variable. Time and again studies

© OECD 2001

105

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

have demonstrated its stronger capacity to replicate and reproduce the existing order, with its inequities, than to transform these. This is not to say deterministically that e-learning simply cannot help to equalise opportunity and ultimately reduce poverty and social exclusion. But the evidence so far is that unless both access and content issues are very strongly addressed by planners the results will be disappointing. Our state of knowledge about many aspects of this dynamic and explosive field is rudimentary, little more than speculative. It is seldom possible to know what the return will be on an investment in e-learning, and even what the true total investment cost will be including settling in and take-up costs and time (see also the five concerns listed at the end of Chapter 1). We still know remarkably little about different student and learner preferences for one mode of teaching and learning compared with another, and even less about the relative success rates of different modes and combinations – again for different student/learners types or clienteles. It might be in the interest of Member States to create collaborative monitoring and evaluation, research and development systems to work at this agenda. These would monitor and evaluate innovations and results across partnering nations, and feed new understandings back into practice, thus smoothing and accelerating the learning and innovation cycle.

106

© OECD 2001

References AGE CONCERN (1998), The Millennium Papers: interim reports, London. ALTER, C. and HAGE, J. (1993), Organisations Working Together, Sage Publications, Newbury Park. BARRON, T. (2001), “Trend Watch: E-Learning Goes Soft. Learning Circuits”. www.learningcircuits.com/2001/ jan2001/barron/html BECTA – British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (1998), Connecting Schools, Networking People. BECTA website: www.becta.org.uk/technology/faqs/manservices.html BLUNKETT, D. (2000), “Higher education and the challenges it faces in the 21st century”, Landmark speech at a visit to the University of Greenwich February 15. BYRKJEFLOT, H. (2000), “E-learning alliances. The new partnerships in business education”, Paper presented at CEMP conference on The role of media in the consumption of management ideas in Europe, 1-3 December, IESE, Barcelona. CALLAN, P.M. (1994), “Future Scenarios: Education and Work”, Future Directions Conference, Sydney. CASTELLS, M. (1998), End of Millennium, Vol III, Blackwell, Oxford. CUNNINGHAM, S. et al. (1998), New Media and Borderless Education. A Review of the Convergence between Global Media Networks and Higher Education Provision, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra. CUNNINGHAM, S. et al. (2000), The Business of Borderless Education (draft final report), Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra. CVCP – Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (2000), “The Business of Borderless Education: UK Perspectives”, Analysis and Recommendations, London. DARMON, I. (1995), “Research Action on Transferability of Training and Learning”, Transnational Partnerships and Transfer, Tavistock Institute, London. DAVIS, S. and BOTKIN, J. (1995), The Monster Under the Bed, Simon and Schuster, New York.

© OECD 2001

107

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

DELTA (1995), Deliverable 15, Tavistock Institute, London. DOZ, Y. and HAMEL, G. (1996), Alliance Advantage: The Art of Creating Value through Partnering, Hard Business School Press. FORTUNE (1999), On-Line Learning Supplement, Vol. 129 (10). GARRETTE, B. and DUSSAUGE, P. (1990), “Towards an empirically-based taxonomy of strategic alliances between rival firms”, Unpublished manuscript. GODDARD, J. (1999) “Universities and Regional Developments. An Overview”, in Klich, Z. (ed.), Universities and Regional Developments, Lismore Southern Cross University. GOUGEON, P. (1998), “Risk management in a joint venture”, in P. Gougeon and J. Gupta (eds), Managing Joint Ventures. A Euro-Asian Perspective, ESKA, Paris. GRANDORI, A. and SODA, G. (1995), “Inter-firm networks: antecedents, mechanisms and forms”, Organisation Studies, Vol. 16, pp. 183-214. HAMEL, G., DOZ, Y. and PRAHALAD, C. (1989), “Collaborate with Your Competitors to Win”, Havard Business Review, Jan-Feb, pp. 133-139. HARRIGAN, K. (1984), Managing for Joint Venture Success, Lexington Books. HOLTI, R. and STANDING, H. (1994/95), “Uncovering the Issues in Partnerships between Buyers and Suppliers: vehicles and health care”, The Tavistock Institute Review, pp. 22-26. IEA/SITES (1999), ICT and the Emerging Paradigm for Lifelong Learning: A World-wide Educational Assessment of Infrastructure, Goals and Practices, Twente. ILLICH, I. (1972), Deschooling Society, Calder and Boyars, London. ILLICH, I. and VERNE, E. (1976), Imprisoned in the Global Classroom, Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative, London. Internet2. www.internet2.edu JOHRI, L. (1998), “Breakup and withdrawal from a joint venture”, in P. Gougeon and J. Gupta (eds.), Managing Joint Ventures. A Euro-Asian Perspective, ESKA, Paris. JONES, G. (1991), Free Market Fusion, Cyber Publishing Group Dale ad Publication. JUPITER COMMUNICATIONS (1999) KERREY, B. (2000), The Power of the Internet for Learning: Moving from Promise to Practice, Chair of the Web-Based Education Commission, Washington DC. 108

LEER, A. (1999), “Masters of the Weird World”, Financial Times Management.

© OECD 2001

References

LEER, A. (2000a), “The e-Generation”, Financial Times, Prentice Hall. LEER, A. (2000b), The Role of Partnership in the Changing Education Market, Oxford University Press, Oxford. LEER, A. (2000c), “Education, Educators and Privatisation”, Financial Times, June. LORANGE, P. (1992), Strategic Alliances, Blackwell, Oxford. LYONS, B. and MEHTA, J. (1997), Contracts, Cooperation and Competition, Oxford University Press, Oxford. MERRILL LYNCH (2000), see Moe, M. and Blodget. H. MESO – Observatory of Multimedia Educational Software (1998), Final report 1998, Vol. 1 – Executive Summary. MEYERSON, D., WEICK, K. and KRAMER, R. (1996), “Swift Trust and Temporary Groups”, in R. Kramer and T. Tyler (eds), Trust in Organisations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, New York. MOE, M. and BLODGET, H. (May 2000), The Knowledge Web. People Power – Fuel for the New Economy, Merrill Lynch and Co., Global Securities Research and Economic Group. NCES (2000), “Quick Tables and Figures”. Available on-line: http://nces.ed.gov/quicktables. NEWELL, S. and SWAN, J. (2000), “Trust and Inter-organisational Networking”, Human Relations, Vol. 53(10), pp. 1287-1328. Next General Internet. www.ngi.gov. OECD (1998), “New Developments in Educational Software and Multi-Media”, document, Paris. OECD (1999), Education Policy Analysis, Paris. OECD (2000), Information Technology Outlook, Paris. OECD (2001), Education Policy Analysis, Paris. OFFICE OF NATIONAL STATISTICS (1999), Annual Abstract of Statistics, ONS, London. RATCLIFFE, J. (1999), Property Foresight: Scenarios for Global Real Estate, Institute of Technology, Dublin. READINGS, B. (1996), The University in Ruins, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass. SALMI, J. (2000), Tertiary Education in the Twenty-first Century: Challenges and Opportunities, Pris, IMHE, OECD, Paris.

© OECD 2001

109

E-learning: The Partnership Challenge

SIMENON, B. (1997), “The Importance of Collaborative Knowledge Know-how: an Empirical Test of the Learning Organization”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 1150-1174. SWIERCZEK, F. (1998), “Understanding Joint Ventures: The praxis of cross-cultural management”, in Gougeon, P. and Gupta. J. (eds), Managing Joint Ventures. A Euro-Asian Perspective, ESKA, Paris. THUROW, L. (1996), The Future of Capitalism, Penguin Books, New York. TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPLEMENT (30.07.1999 and 05.01.2001) UK Department for Trade and Industry (1998), Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge-driven Economy, The Stationary Office. Web-Based Education Commission (December 2000), “The Power of the Internet for Learning: Moving from Promise to Practice”, Chair: Senator Bob Kerrey, Washington DC. WEST, R. (Chair) (1997), Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy (Report of the West Review), Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra. WORLD BANK (1995), The African Virtual University, Etienne Baranshamaje, Africa Technical Department, Washington DC.

110

© OECD 2001

OECD PUBLICATIONS, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16 PRINTED IN FRANCE (96 2001 06 1 P) ISBN 92-64-18693-X – No. 51859 2001