THE DISRUPTIVE POWER OF

ONLINE EDUCATION
This page intentionally left blank
THE DISRUPTIVE POWER
OF ONLINE EDUCATION:
CHALLENGES,
OPPORTUNITIES,
RESPONSES

EDITED BY
ANDREAS ALTMANN
MCI Management Center Innsbruck, Austria

BERND EBERSBERGER
University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany

CLAUDIA MÖSSENLECHNER
MCI Management Center Innsbruck, Austria

DESIREE WIESER
MCI Management Center Innsbruck, Austria

United Kingdom North America Japan India Malaysia China

Emerald Publishing Limited
Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK

First edition 2019

Copyright r 2019 Emerald Publishing Limited

Reprints and permissions service

Contact: [email protected]

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in

any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence
permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency
and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the
chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the
quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or
otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties,
express or implied, to their use.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-1-78754-326-3 (Print)

ISBN: 978-1-78754-325-6 (Online)
ISBN: 978-1-78754-327-0 (Epub)

ISOQAR certified
Management System,
awarded to Emerald
for adherence to
Environmental
standard
ISO 14001:2004.

Certificate Number 1985

ISO 14001
Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude for the support through the Tyrolean
Science Fund.
We would like to thank our Graphic Designer, Nikoleta Grozdanova, for her
inspiring ideas in the design of the book cover.
This page intentionally left blank
Contents

List of Figures ix

List of Tables xi

About the Editors xiii

About the Authors xv

Introduction: The Disruptive Power of Online Education:

Challenges, Opportunities, Responses
Andreas Altmann, Bernd Ebersberger, Claudia Mössenlechner and
Desiree Wieser 1

PART I: ONLINE PROGRAMMES AND

PROGRAMME DESIGN

Chapter 1 Scaling Online Learning: The Case for a

Programme-level Approach
Regina Obexer 7

Chapter 2 LOGIC LEADS LEARNing: MOOCs in the

Middle East
Yusuf M. Sidani 27

Chapter 3 The Power of Technology in Customised Executive

Education
Lynette J. Ryals, Ruth Bender and Toby Thompson 43

Chapter 4 Internationalisation of Online Learning: A Double

Degree Model
Charles Krusekopf 63
viii Contents

PART II: CHANGING CLASSROOM DYNAMICS IN

THE DIGITAL TEACHING SPACE

Chapter 5 Engagement in Online Learning:

It’s Not All About Faculty!
Kathy Bishop, Catherine Etmanski and M. Beth Page 83

Chapter 6 Social Collaborative Learning Environments:

A Means to Reconceptualise Leadership Education for
Tomorrow’s Leaders and Universities?
Anja P. Schmitz and Jan Foelsing 99

Chapter 7 Online, Not Distance Education: The Merits of

Collaborative Learning in Online Education
Desiree Wieser and Jürgen-Matthias Seeler 125

Chapter 8 Disrupting Higher Education in Alaska:

Introducing the Native Teacher Certification Pathway
Paul Berg, Kathryn Cruz, Thomas Duening and
Susan Schoenberg 147

Chapter 9 Academic Rigour and Video Technology:

A Case Study on Digital Storytelling in Graduate-level
Assignments
Eva Malisius 167

Chapter 10 Game-based Learning as Education Method in the

Digital Age: Experiences at the Highest Military Education
Institution in Germany with Online and Offline Game Formats
Related to Developing Competencies
Ronald Deckert, Felix Heymann and Maren Metz 185

Index 205
List of Figures

Chapter 2
Figure 2.1 LOGIC LEADS LEARNing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1 Co-creation at Each Stage of the Process . . . . . . . . 51
This page intentionally left blank
List of Tables

Chapter 3
Table 3.1 Contextual Differences between Customised Executive
Education and MOOCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table 3.2 How Client and Academic TEL Skills Influence
Course Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Chapter 7
Table 7.1 Overview Key Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Table 7.2 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Study Programme . . . . . 139
Chapter 9
Table 9.1 CAM ‘My Digital Conflict Story’ Assignment . . . . . . . . 176
Table 9.2 CAM ‘My Digital Conflict Story’ Learning Outcomes . . . . 177
Table 9.3 MAGL ‘Presenting a Community in Conflict’ Assignment . . 179
Table 9.4 MAGL ‘Presenting a Community in Conflict’ Learning
Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Chapter 10
Table 10.1 Description of the Competencies Based on HRK, KMK
and BMBF (2005); World Economic Forum (2015, 2016);
Tenberg (2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Table 10.2 Comparing Digital and Non-digital Game Settings with
Regard to Competencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
This page intentionally left blank
About the Editors

Andreas Altmann studied Business Administration and Economics at the

Universities of Linz and Innsbruck, and International Relations at the Johns
Hopkins University, SAIS Bologna. He received his doctoral degree in Public
Finance from the University of Innsbruck in 1993 and entered his academic car-
eer as a Postdoctoral Researcher, first at the Department of Finance and later
on at the Department of Strategic Management. There he got involved in build-
ing up a new school from scratch, now known as MCI Management Center
Innsbruck The Entrepreneurial School®. He became its founding Director
and Rector in 1995 and has successfully led MCI to an internationally acknowl-
edged autonomous university institution with currently 3,300 students, 1,000
full-time and adjunct faculty, 250 partner universities and numerous successful
alumni from around the world. His research focuses on university regulation,
governance and management, including the competitive environment and mar-
ket behaviour in the higher education and research sector.
Bernd Ebersberger is Professor for Management of Innovation with the
University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany. Previously, from 2007 to 2018
he has been with MCI Management Center Innsbruck. From 2004 to 2006,
Ebersberger was with the Innovation Systems and Policy Department of
Fraunhofer ISI in Karlsruhe, Germany. From 2002 up until 2004 he was Senior
Researcher and Team Leader at VTT Technology Studies, Espoo, Finland, at
the same time Visiting Researcher at Statistics Finland, Helsinki, Finland. From
1997 to 2002, he was a Researcher at the University of Augsburg. His current
research interests focus on management of innovation, entrepreneurship, and
management of higher education. Bernd has authored and co-authored numer-
ous books and more than 30 papers published in international peer-reviewed
journals.
Claudia Mössenlechner, in her current function as a Head of MCI Learning
Solutions, is responsible for developing e-learning solutions and products. She
has conceptualised MCI’s first online programme and courses for tertiary educa-
tion as well as for private and public companies in Austria and Italy. In add-
ition, she has extensive experience as an examiner and accreditor (European
Higher Education Space). Claudia has lead and coordinated ‘quality in online
teaching’ approaches at Management Center Innsbruck and serves as Deputy
Head of the MCI Academic Council. Her research focus lies on the implications
of online teaching and online business models.
Desiree Wieser is a Research and Teaching Assistant at MCI Management
Center Innsbruck, and a PhD Student in Management at the University of
Innsbruck in Austria. Her main research area focuses on higher education man-
agement, in particular on online education and the successful implementation of
xiv About the Editors

online education in higher education institutions. At MCI, Desiree works in the

Department of Research, Innovation and Entrepreneurship and coordinates dif-
ferent publication and research projects. At the moment she is responsible for
the research projects ‘Virtual Campus’ and ‘The Disruptive Power of Online
Education’. Together with her team, she is currently also participating in the EU
project ‘Embedding Entrepreneurship Education’, an initiative to foster entre-
preneurship education throughout Europe. Next to her engagement in research
and the coordination of different projects, Desiree also acts as junior faculty and
teaches in different management study programmes at MCI.
About the Authors

Ruth Bender is Professor Emerita of Corporate Financial Strategy at Cranfield

University, UK. Ruth started creating and using technology-enhanced learning
in 1996 for both MBA courses and executive education. Much of her work is on
blended courses. Ruth chairs The Case Centre, a not-for-profit organisation pro-
moting the case study method in education.
Paul Berg has worked in the field of cross-cultural education as a Teacher in
public and private schools, an educational specialist in the Alaska Department
of Education, a Professor with the University of Alaska and as a Cultural Edu-
cation Specialist for an Alaska Native Educational Foundation.
Kathy Bishop is Associate Professor and Program Head for Royal Roads Uni-
versity’s Master’s of Arts in Leadership, one of Canada’s largest graduate
programmes promoting leadership development. She completed her PhD in
Interdisciplinary Studies (Leadership Studies and Theatre) at the University of
Victoria (2015). She can be reached at [email protected].
Kathryn Cruz of ansrsource, USA, serves as an Educational Specialist for a tri-
bal non-profit and has co-taught and designed several culturally responsive uni-
versity courses in collaboration with local elders, universities and school
districts. Kate recently wrote a short story addressing historical actions and
trauma affecting today’s Alaskan Native communities.
Ronald Deckert is Dean of Faculty and Professor for Business Administration
and Engineering. His research focuses on the topics of Digitalisation and
Industry 4.0. He has been also involved in projects for federal state ministries
and institutions in Germany in the areas of research, strategy, education and
logistics.
Thomas Duening is the El Pomar Chair for Business and Entrepreneurship, and
Associate Professor of Management in the College of Business at the University
of Colorado. Duening is a leader of online education in the College and is an
early adopter and tester of many distance education technologies.
Catherine Etmanski is a Professor and Director in the School of Leadership
Studies (SoLS) at Royal Roads University. She received her PhD from the
University of Victoria in 2007 with a focus on leadership, adult education and
participatory engagement. She can be reached at Catherine.Etmanski@royal-
roads.ca.
Jan Foelsing is a ‘Learning and NewWork Designer’ who is passionate about
modernising our education system and the way we learn and work together in
organisations. At the University of Pforzheim, he is responsible for research
xvi About the Authors

regarding social collaboration tools and ways to use these tools for modern
learning arrangements.
Felix Heymann is a career Soldier and holds a diploma in Education. He is also
a Certified Business Coach. He is an expert in serious gaming and its implemen-
tation and application in the field of instruction on the Leadership Academy of
the German Army.
Charles Krusekopf is a Professor in the School of Business at Royal Roads
University. He has published papers and book chapters on topics in inter-
national economics and business. He has a PhD in Economics from the Univer-
sity of Washington, and a MA in International Relations from Johns Hopkins
University SAIS.
Eva Malisius is an Associate Professor in the School of Humanitarian Studies
at Royal Roads University, Canada. She is a conflict engagement specialist,
educator and scholar-practitioner. Her research interests focus − among other
topics − on constructive conflict engagement and transformative learning and
teaching in online and face-to-face classrooms.
Maren Metz is a Graduate Psychologist, Coach and Communication Trainer
who has academic interests in learning via online media. Her work centres on e-
coaching and the use of serious gaming. She is currently a leader of two distance
study programs, psychology and business psychology in a private school in
Hamburg.
Regina Obexer is a Senior Lecturer at Management Center Innsbruck, Austria.
She has worked in the field of Digital Education and eLearning in Higher
Education for nearly two decades and has held various management and leader-
ship positions at universities in Austria and Australia.
M. Beth Page owns Dream Catcher Consulting and serves as Associate Faculty
at Royal Roads University, Canada. Beth holds degrees from Pepperdine
University, Western Illinois University and Carleton University, and she com-
pleted her PhD at the University of Victoria. She can be reached at beth@
dreamcatcher-consulting.com
Lynette J. Ryals is Pro-Vice Chancellor and Dean of the School of Management
at Cranfield University, UK. Her focus is on how education should evolve to
meet the needs of the future workplace. This includes developing ‘learning path-
ways’ to support people as they progress through their careers.
Anja P. Schmitz is a Professor of Human Resources Management/HRM and a
member of the Human Resources Competence Center of the Pforzheim Univer-
sity of Applied Sciences (HRCC). Her research interests include Personnel and
Organizational Development, Employee Experience, Social Collaboration in
organisations and education, as well as HR processes.
Susan Schoenberg of ansrsource, USA, is passionate about educational technol-
ogy. She graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University and began her
 About the Authors xvii

career as a software engineer creating learning games and interactive media for
K-12 math and science learners. She has worked in numerous learning compan-
ies writing experiential educational software for all ages.
Jürgen-Matthias Seeler is Professor and Head of Department and Studies at
Management Center Innsbruck, Austria. He introduced MCI’s first academic
Online Programmes ‘Business Administration’ Online (BA) and ‘Corporate
Governance and Finance’ Online (MA). Previously, he was consultant in
Central Africa, where he worked in the field of Governance and Anti-
Corruption.
Yusuf M. Sidani is Professor of Leadership and Business Ethics at the Olayan
School of Business, American University of Beirut, Lebanon. His research,
which appeared in several leading international peer-reviewed academic jour-
nals, focuses on business ethics, gender and diversity, and employee behaviour
with special attention to the Middle East.
Toby Thompson is the Networked Learning Director at Cranfield University,
UK. Toby consults with clients on designing and implementing networked learn-
ing interventions appropriate to their context. His PhD is in the philosophy of
executive education. His research interest is in how time and temporality are
conceived in executive education and development practices.
This page intentionally left blank
Introduction: The Disruptive Power
of Online Education: Challenges,
Opportunities, Responses
Andreas Altmann, Bernd Ebersberger, Claudia Mössenlechner
and Desiree Wieser

By the end of this decade, more than half of the world’s population will be digit-
ally connected (Kraft & Jung, 2016). The internet and technology are changing
social norms and societal structures as well as corporate values (Holladay, 2017)
bringing about transformations that are hard to discern in their overall global
impact at this point in time (McAfee & Brynjolfsson, 2015).
Worldwide, the higher education sector is seriously being disrupted through
the effect technological innovations have on markets and the way they work
(Christensen & Eyring, 2011). Traditional, on-site education is enhanced, sup-
plemented or even replaced by teaching and learning in the digital space. As
digital technologies are spreading rapidly, higher education institutions must
embrace these developments to meet the needs of their learners (Delich, 2005),
who are deeply embedded in the digital world, and to adapt their programmes
to increase the impact regarding the curriculum taught, in terms of teaching
formats and design and in relation to the overall impact of their business
model.
Additionally, competition in the educational market is growing in that new
third-party competitors like EduTech companies and online educational provi-
ders have entered the market. Even twenty years ago, information technology
and competition in higher education have been described using the metaphor of
dancing with the devil (Katz, 1999). The situation has certainly not improved, as
these new competitors operate in more independent and profit-oriented frame-
works that are not necessarily primarily addressing the higher education market
but are attractive for exactly that market.
In higher education, we observe disruption through, what Christensen
and Eyring (2011) call, online universities. These online universities challenge

The Disruptive Power of Online Education: Challenges, Opportunities, Responses, 1 4

Copyright r 2019 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISBN: 978-1-78754-326-3
2 Andreas Altmann et al.

traditional universities that adopt a Harvard model of teaching, research and

outreach. Subsequently, we see traditional universities respond on two levels:
First, on a programme/product level with programmes including some elements
of online education or online formats. And second, we observe a change trig-
gered by shifting the teaching environment to the digital space, which calls for a
different balance of teaching interventions and pedagogy.
In an attempt to address these challenges, universities identify and use differ-
ent windows of opportunities by applying their expertise in research and teach-
ing, by adjusting their systems and organisational structures, by adapting their
products and services and by truly putting their learners in the centre of the
frameworks they operate in.
This book explores how higher education institutions across the globe
respond to and address the necessary changes in regard to both programme
design and pedagogy. It offers a view on upcoming challenges as well as giving
an insight into ways how institutions deal with online education in practice.

I.1. Online Programmes and Programme Design

Regina Obexer opens the discussion and explores the topic of eLearning and
online programme development by describing and discussing the ‘whole-of-pro-
gramme approach’ regarding the design and implementation of an online degree
programme.
Yusuf M. Sidani then looks at Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) by
describing a joint project between a traditional university in the Middle East
and a MOOC provider as a new form of partnership. When presenting his case
study, the author also presents a framework to operate in (LOGIC LEADS
LEARNing) during such endeavours in order to address the issues and needs of
key partners and stakeholders involved and make the project a successful one.
Lynette J. Ryals, Ruth Bender and Toby Thompson focus on online pro-
gramme design in the context of executive education programmes, a ‘competi-
tive landscape’ that finds itself on a completely different territory than for-credit
university programmes or, for example, providers of MOOCs. First, the authors
look at collaborative course design involving the client and then look at the
impact technology-enhanced learning has on course design, delivery and evalu-
ation in customised settings. The authors conclude with some observations of
what they call ‘considerable institutional disruptions’ as far as the expectations
concerning the business models for higher education are concerned.
Charles Krusekopf, by embracing the internationalisation of online learning,
introduces a case study on a blended double-degree Business Master’s pro-
gramme. Thereby he highlights the insufficient attention that has been paid to
how online learning and internationalisation can be combined to enfold mutu-
ally supportive powers, and provides suggestions on how such powers can be
exploited efficiently.
 Introduction: The Disruptive Power of Online Education 3

I.2. Changing Classroom Dynamics in the Digital

Teaching Space
As key educational services, i.e. teacing, change, not only the nature and the
design of higher education programmes are affected, but also classroom dynam-
ics and teaching activities as such. Roles of faculty change through the use of
technology. In their chapter, Kathy Bishop, Catherine Etmanski and M. Beth
Page claim that student engagement is the vital element for student learning also
in an online environment and when teaching adults. Hands-on and drawing on
their own teaching experience, the authors creatively present and literally show a
diverse range of student-centred activities and scenarios they use to build online
communities as a base for student engagement. By way of example; i.e. by using
dialogue scripts, they discuss the teaching principles they apply, at the same time
giving the reader an insightful impression of teaching moves that intentionally
disrupt the role of the teacher and create space for student engagement and com-
munity building.
A strong student community and space for student engagement is the ideal
ground for social-collaborative learning. Anja P. Schmitz and Jan Foelsing argue
that personalised and social-collaborative learning processes enabled through
Social Collaboration Platforms, used as primary learning environment, hold the
potential for dealing with the challenges faced by traditional universities and their
business models. The authors introduce a case study of a total reconceptualisation
of a Bachelor’s course in leadership that is enhanced by social collaboration ele-
ments and supported by a technological learning environment. On the basis of
the illustrated case, they show how a redesign of traditional teaching settings that
considers the expectations of the new student generation becomes possible, and
develop a flexible framework that captures how learners can be prepared for the
new demands in the business world, profiting from sustainable communities of
practice and how this will open up new business models for universities.
Collaborative learning approaches might also help to overcome social isola-
tion phenomena, an often cited as a hurdle for students in online education.
This is an aspect co-editor Desiree Wieser and Jürgen-Matthias Seeler focus on
in their chapter. They see the merits of collaborative learning in the fact that stu-
dent collaboration is a major factor in overcoming what they call a ‘key disad-
vantage’ in online education, namely geographical distance. In a practical case
analysis, they outline an example of the implementation of a blended online pro-
gramme that has been designed using a mix of teaching and learning formats.
The question of geographical distance and possible social isolation effects in
teacher training and development is addressed by Paul Berg, Kathryn Cruz,
Thomas Duening and Susan Schoenberg when they describe an innovative con-
cept based on a competency-based, bilingual online programme for teacher certi-
fication in rural Alaska. The proposed project is a perfect example of how
teaching in the online space can help overcome geosocial and cultural divides
and significantly increase both the educational and societal impact.
In her chapter, Eva Malisius shows that video technology and digital story-
telling can be used without compromising academic rigour and as a way to
4 Andreas Altmann et al.

assess students in graduate-level courses. At the same time, her chapter is a

valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion on assessment methods for the
twenty-first century, and prove for the impact the use of technology in itself
can have on students and the generic skills they develop through online
programmes.
Ronald Deckert, Felix Heymann and Maren Metz look at the game- and
simulation-based learning and the impact especially serious games can have for
the development of social and management competencies in students. While the
field of digital serious games and simulations for learning is still very young,
the authors contribute a valuable discussion to this book by looking at some of
the major concepts in the field and matching competency tables for management
students with the possibilities game- and simulation-based learning offers.
The ongoing rapid development of information technologies and new media
will further and distinctively change higher education programme design as well
as the teaching and learning environments of the future. We hope that the chap-
ters of the book will both inform and inspire teaching professionals and leaders,
managers and administrators; in other words, all those involved in strategic
decision-making and the design and implementation of online educational offers
in higher education.
Together, the chapters of this book provide a base for discussion that needs
to be led to further develop or establish online learning in an organisation. It
is our hope that The Disruptive Power of Online Education: Challenges, Oppor-
tunities, Responses will help to spark, inspire and inform these discussions in a
positive way.

References
Christensen, C., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the
DNA of higher education from inside out (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Wiley.
Delich, P. (2005). Pedagogical and interface modifications: What instructors change
after teaching online. Malibu, CA: Pepperdine University.
Holladay, P. (2017). Pedagogy for online tourism classes. In P. Benckendorff &
A. Zehrer (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and learning in tourism (pp. 141 153).
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Katz, R. N. (1999). Dancing with the devil: Information technology and the new com-
petition in higher education. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publisher.
Kraft, P., & Jung, H. H. (Eds.). (2016). Digital vernetzt. Transformation der
Wertschöpfung.: Szenarien, Optionen und Erfolgsmodelle für smarte Geschäftsmodelle,
Produkte und Services. München: Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH Co KG.
McAfee, A., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2015). The digitization of just about everything.
Rotman Management Magazine, Fall, 39 42.
PART I
ONLINE PROGRAMMES AND
PROGRAMME DESIGN
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 1

Scaling Online Learning: The Case for a

Programme-level Approach
Regina Obexer

Abstract
Whilst online and blended learning approaches are now widely used by
many higher education institutions, the extent and depth of eLearning
implementation often depend more on the efforts of enthusiastic individual
lecturers rather than effective institution-wide strategies. Innovation is thus
frequently restricted to local settings and the enrichment of existing educa-
tional approaches rather than radically questioning current paradigms and
creating new ways of delivering education. In recent years, there has been
more urgency in calling for a deeper re-thinking of how higher education
can be made more flexible, scalable and individualised not only at the level
of courses but in a systemic and strategic way. This article describes a stra-
tegic approach to implementing blended learning at Management Center
Innsbruck in Austria. I argue that the whole-of-programme approach taken
in this case is an effective way to strategically introduce sustainable and
scalable blended learning, and thus not only respond to but actively shape
the disruption brought about by online education.

Keywords: Online learning models; programme development; sustainable

innovation; scalability; systems approach; eLearning implementation

1.1. Introduction
After nearly three decades of innovation and gradually increasing use, online
and blended learning approaches have entered the mainstream, and some argue
that the mere concept of eLearning will be obsolete in the near future as there
will be no learning without technology (Cavanagh, 2012). However, the extent
of eLearning implementation both in terms of breadth and depth varies

The Disruptive Power of Online Education: Challenges, Opportunities, Responses, 7 25

Copyright r 2019 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISBN: 978-1-78754-326-3
8 Regina Obexer

significantly across the higher education landscape. Countries with a long trad-
ition of distance education (Australia, Canada, USA) and highly developed
technological infrastructure have embraced eLearning as the next step in pro-
viding educational opportunities to those not able to participate in traditional
learning programmes, and to enhance and expand learning for all students
(Brooks & Pomerantz, 2017; Gunn & Herrick, 2012). The UK, given its cultural
closeness to those nations, has developed equally advanced eLearning strategies
(Walker, Voce, & Jenkins, 2016). Nations with significant unmet needs in educa-
tion, such as India, China, countries in Africa and South America, are looking
to eLearning as the means that will provide their people with the education they
seek (Murphy, Farley, Dyson, & Jones, 2017; Pulist, 2013; Rivers, Rivers, &
Hazell, 2015), and some are already leapfrogging in terms of the development of
new and efficient technologies and methods to fill those unmet needs (Biswas &
Hazra, 2016; Ng’ambi, Brown, Bozalek, Gachago, & Wood, 2016).
In Germany and Austria, however, things seem to be taking a slower pace,
despite significant investment in eLearning initiatives both at national and at
European Union level over the past two decades (Bratengeyer et al., 2016;
EACEA, 2014. e-teaching.org, 2017; Gaebel, Kupriyanova, Morais, & Colucci,
2014). The reasons for this lag are multi-layered, and it would go beyond the scope
of this paper to discuss them. Instead, what is presented here are two forward-
looking propositions: the first is that the current status and pace of digitisation does
not suffice anymore in the face of economic, technological and social developments,
and the second is that eLearning development and implementation at the pro-
gramme level is an effective approach for Higher Education institutions to fast-
track eLearning adoption, make it more sustainable, and create a better experience
for stakeholders. A case study of Management Center Innsbruck, where such an
approach was implemented, illustrates the programme-level approach as a practical
example.

1.2. Setting the Scene: Where Are We?

During an initial period in the late 1990s, eLearning projects and initiatives were
supported by significant government funding across the developed world.
Projects mainly involved the implementation of various eLearning technologies
(with a strong focus on Learning Management Systems) as well as specific, often
course based eLearning content and tool developments (Euler & Seufert, 2011).
After the various project funding sources had dried up in the early years of the
new millennium, it proved to be challenging for many institutions to continue
the innovations and achievements of these early projects, and to embed the
changed practices into everyday teaching and learning in a systemic way. Most
universities in Austria, for example, have now implemented an institution-wide
Learning Management System and sometimes a handful of other centrally sup-
ported tools and systems that enable various eLearning activities (Bratengeyer
et al., 2016). Generally, there is some degree of support for teaching staff, mostly
in the form of technical support (including basic training) and to a varying
 Scaling Online Learning 9

degree and in various forms, didactic support to assist in the development of

learning resources and in approaches to designing online teaching and learning
as well as assessment strategies. eLearning at an institutional level means for
many universities that they make resources available online, that there is some
degree of communication with students via electronic means, and that
eAssessment is carried out, particularly through online quizzes in large classes.
However, despite significant investment and efforts at institutional, national
and European levels, the progress made in implementing online education
approaches across the Higher Education sectors in Austria can at best be
described as incremental and evolving rather than strategic and systemic. Whilst
there is some evidence of efforts to embed strategic approaches to eLearning at
an institutional level, and there are indications that the shift towards more
student-centred learning approaches is gaining wider traction, the existing educa-
tional paradigms are mainly unchallenged by and at best augmented with tech-
nologies. Many enthusiastic and engaged teachers are trialing various innovative
eLearning and eTeaching approaches and are often successful at the level of
their particular course or group of students. However, many of these individual
successes have little or no effect beyond the local level, and evidence of systemic
approaches to implementing eLearning or blended learning at a wholeof-
programme level is sparse (Germ & Mandl, 2009; High Level Group on the
Modernisation of Higher Education, 2014). A more systemic approach as
described in the following is starting to emerge as an important aspect. For
example, a recent strategy paper developed by the German initiative Hochschul-
forum Digitalisierung notes:

In the current phase of digitalising academic programmes, the use

of digital teaching and learning formats should only be promoted
as an integral part of complex study programmes. This suggestion
involves abandoning the exclusive promotion of special digitalisa-
tion projects in favour of supporting complete study programmes
relating to specialist areas or faculties. (Hochschulforum Digitali-
sierung, 2017, p. 19)

So far, however, the discussion about strategic measures necessary to achieve

institution-wide adoption of eLearning use seems to have failed to translate into
practice at a wider scale.

1.3. Strategic Imperative: Why We Need to Go Beyond

Gradual Adaptation
While the lack of strategic and systemic adoption may not have been seen as
problematic so far, even as eLearning was considered by many to reach maturity
during the turn of the decade, the tone in the discourse about technology innov-
ation in education has changed radically in recent years. Especially the hype
around Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) has put into question the very
10 Regina Obexer

nature of Higher Education, and other developments (Open Educational

Resources or OER, Learning Analytics, adaptive learning, etc.) are widely
debated as game changers (Christensen & Eyring, 2011; Oblinger, 2012). Com-
mercial providers are aggressively pushing into an exploding online higher edu-
cation market. Industry demands for graduates with a range of evolving skills
are putting pressure on education and training systems worldwide, whilst in
developing countries such as India and China, the new middle class is clamour-
ing for education at a scale that is impossible to realise with traditional educa-
tional models. At the same time, it is recognised that the need for lifelong
learning has to move beyond political rhetoric in the face of an ageing demo-
graphic, rapidly changing technology developments and the ever-increasing
amount of information we have to deal with in this century’s knowledge society
and economy. These aspects require people to be engaged in continuing educa-
tion while they are working, be it in formal degree programmes or in more
modular and tailored professional development opportunities, including social
and informal learning.
We are currently experiencing a confluence of factors that seems indeed to
become a catalyst for the long-awaited transformation of Higher Education
through technology. Barber, Donnelly, and Rizyi (2013) describe the main
drivers for this increased urgency, arguing that higher education must change
due to a number of economic pressures. These include a changing global econ-
omy, the global financial crisis and its consequences, the rising costs of educa-
tion, but at the same time the falling value of a degree, and the fact that global
competition in the higher education sector is rising significantly. According to
Barber et al. (2013), the changes ahead are significant and will overhaul the
existing sector in such a way that institutions that are not prepared risk becom-
ing obsolete in the face of a diversified higher education sector, in which each
institution will need to find its particular niche, be clear about their target stu-
dent population, and articulate clearly their value proposition. In a similar vein,
Christensen and Eyring (2011) argue that higher education is facing what other
industries have already been going through disruptive innovation through
digitisation. They list a number of examples which illustrate how existing busi-
ness models were completely transformed through the availability of new tech-
nologies or digitally enabled processes. In this scenario, it is mostly new
competitors in the market who succeed by employing radically different and
new business models rather than existing (and often well established) businesses
who may find it difficult to completely change their approach to a new mindset.
Christensen and Eyring (2011) maintain that Higher Education is now at a point
where the services it offers (or, in the authors’ words, ‘the job to be done’) can
be delivered in a much cheaper and more accessible way through online educa-
tion. The quality may not be as good, but it is good enough and certainly better
than the alternative for many, which is no education or training at all.
Oblinger (2012) argues that educational technology can play a significant role
in changing education and that in this changed and significantly accelerated
environment, more radical strategies are necessary to cater for the needs of
higher and further education of today and tomorrow:
 Scaling Online Learning 11

Information technology can be a game changer in higher educa-

tion, as it has been in other sectors. […] Information technology
enables new models. It can disaggregate and decouple products
and processes, allowing the creation of new value propositions,
value chains, and enterprises. These new models can help higher
education serve new groups of students, in greater numbers, and
with better learning outcomes. (Oblinger, 2012, p. 11)

Many other voices agree. The mere ‘enrichment’ character of eLearning in

higher education, i.e. the use of technologies to augment existing teaching and
learning, will need to morph into the ‘new normal’ (Cavanagh, 2012). New
forms of learning and teaching (not those mirroring the current paradigm) are
emerging and will partly need to be invented to truly cater to the needs of this
millennium. Indeed, a changed frame of reference is necessary that does not
simply attempt to improve current models of delivering education but re-invent
them based on the affordances of the digitalisation taking place in the 21st
century. This requires a shift from integration to digitisation and serious
re-consideration and exploration of how new models of education enabled by
technology can work, and what they mean in terms of our existing systems,
including institutional and sectorial culture, process and practice, legal and regu-
latory frameworks, (changing) roles of the various stakeholders (in particular
the academic workforce) and others (Boud & Brew, 2013; McFarlane, 2011).

1.4. Strategic Scope: Online Learning Is Not a

One-(wo)man Show
Given this degree of disruption and transformation, it is important that higher
education institutions have a strategic approach to dealing with the challenges
described above, and proactively participate and shape the transformation pro-
cesses and strategic development required to create the higher education model
of tomorrow (Bischof & Stuckrad, 2013; Seufert & Meier, 2013).
In order to be able to achieve this transformational shift, it will be necessary
to start with bolder experiments beyond those occurring in individual class-
rooms, taking into account that the transition from traditional models of teach-
ing to new paradigms is complex and requires significant institutional vision,
support and investment.
Many higher education institutions understand that there are changing
demands on them which result in requirements to fundamentally rethink their
offering, however, there are few institutions that are able to approach this chal-
lenge strategically and with confidence. For example, a recent study of
eLearning at Austrian Universities shows that whilst the technical eLearning
infrastructure is implemented across most if not all institutions, only very few
organisations have a specific online learning strategy (Bratengeyer et al., 2016).
The study shows that there is an investment in online learning and an under-
standing that it is important to move towards more digital offerings. Beyond the
12 Regina Obexer

technical infrastructure, many institutions have implemented various support

measures and structures such as eLearning support centres, staff development
programmes for online learning, technical support, and various incentives.
However, these initiatives are generally geared to support early adopters those
enthusiastic individual teachers who want to experiment with various technolo-
gies to enhance their teaching. When driven by this group of early adopters,
innovation is usually based on the objectives, interests and abilities of the
teacher, very much tailored to their teaching approach and subject area, and it
rarely goes beyond their individual courses. Many of the projects funded during
the early years of eLearning introduction in Europe were of this character.
While some of the projects resulted in innovations and improvements to practice
and processes, there were also many that had to be abandoned when project
money dried up, or when key individuals left the project or organisation
(Haug & Wedekind, 2009; Singh & Hardaker, 2014). A report to the European
Commission on new modes of learning and teaching in higher education states:

There remains a culture of conservatism within European higher

education which needs to change. […] While a broad range of
good practice is already emerging across Europe, this is happen-
ing to a large degree in an uncoordinated bottom-up approach.
(High Level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education,
2014, p. 11)

This has been one of the issues with eLearning implementation in Higher
Education and is one of the reasons why despite significant investment sus-
tained and deeply embedded digitisation is still the exception rather than the
norm. This model of the individual teacher implementing isolated digital innova-
tions in their courses termed the ‘Lone Ranger’ approach by Bates and Sangrá
(2011, p. 138), is problematic in several respects.
Viewed from a student’s point of view, at best they conceive the new
approach as interesting, innovative, and as an opportunity to enhance their
digital skills. At worst, students are confused about what to do and how to do it,
why they are using the technology or study online, and where to get technical
support when needed. Online learning also requires a change in learning the cul-
ture and the different skills, which students often do not have, and in an individ-
ual course, approach will find more difficult to gain without support.
From the teacher’s point of view, whilst this approach provides freedom in
terms of how, in what depth, and with what tools online learning is implemen-
ted, it also means that individual teachers often work in isolation, as lone ran-
gers, without much opportunity to exchange ideas, challenge existing policies
that might be obstructing their plans, or view their course and their students’
needs in a wider context, both in terms of the curriculum and of the overall
student experience. Additional workload is often not seen by the institution and
can lead to frustration and overwork in the long term.
 Scaling Online Learning 13

From the point of view of the institution, this approach is generally quite
resource-intensive in that it either requires the teacher to do it all by themselves
(which is often the case, and it should be mentioned that this also often happens
in the enthusiastic teacher’s own time), or support services such as instructional
design, staff development, and technical support for students is provided to the
individual on a singular needs basis rather than as part of an overall framework
of larger scale implementation and development. In addition, innovation result-
ing from these inputs seldom spreads to other contexts and is frequently lost
when the individual leaves the organisation, or loses interest or energy for their
novel approach (Bates & Sangrá, 2011).

1.5. Beyond a Lone Ranger Approach: Programme-level

Development and Implementation
1.5.1. What Is a Programme-level Approach to Online Learning
Development and Implementation?
So what can universities do to accelerate innovation in this space, and to create
more sustainable models of online learning implementation? Based on the short-
falls of an individual course development approach discussed above and the
urgency caused by swiftly changing demands on higher education, it is proposed
here that in order to be successful, consistent and sustainable, the introduction
of online strategies is best planned and implemented at programme level; i.e. at
the level of the curriculum and as an integral part of the planning and review
process of a new or existing programme. Programme-level eLearning develop-
ments and implementations have the following characteristics:

• They are developed by a team, including the programme head, teaching staff,
if appropriate administrative support staff from the academic area or depart-
ment, and staff from support services such as eLearning support centres, the
library, and IT services.
• They plan for consistent technology use across the programme.
• They plan for consistent and appropriate online teaching approaches across
the programme (with appropriate variation to suit learning requirements and
specific competency development in various subjects).
• They plan for quality assurance across the programme.
• They consider staff development requirements for both teaching and support
staff, and plan for (team) development of the competencies and skills required.
• They consider student (online) learning development needs, and ideally
include these as part of the curriculum.
• They plan for student and staff just-in-time support.
• They plan for consistent strategies to develop or acquire online learning con-
tent and resources, and integrate these with the teaching approaches.
• They take into consideration and plan for necessary changes to institutional
policies and processes.
14 Regina Obexer

• They take a project management approach to the development of the pro-

gramme and employ project management tools and methods.

1.5.2. Advantages of a Programme-level Approach: An Overview

Considering the drawbacks of individual developments as described above, the
advantages of a successful programme-based implementation include the following:

1.5.2.1. For Students

Students in holistically designed and developed study programmes generally
appreciate the predictability and consistency in experience at several levels. If
implemented well, there is easy-to-use and functional technology, well-organised
student support, consistent communication and clear expectations, streamlined
processes, and digital skills development to enable them to fully participate in
the programme. This is often included in an online orientation phase or offered
through support materials provided at various and appropriate stages during
their studies. If all these prerequisites are in place, students know what they sign
up for, they have the technology to participate fully, and they receive the neces-
sary support and training to do well in their online studies.

1.5.2.2. For Teaching Staff

Although teaching staff involved in developing and teaching an online pro-
gramme in a team rather than an individual approach may lose some autonomy
in terms of their own course or subject, they gain many advantages. On the one
hand, working in a team which is ideally supported by other professionals such
as instructional designers, multimedia developers, graphic designers, or library
professionals, they enjoy ongoing support and commitment from the institution.
Engaging in joint discussion and development of the curriculum and pro-
gramme, they will develop a better understanding of their own contribution to
the whole (which in turn often improves the quality and consistency of the pro-
gramme). Participating in skills development together with their colleagues in
the context of their own programme development will enable them to build com-
petencies together, trial new technologies and approaches in a safe space, and
immediately apply what they have learned together with their peers. Programme
development approaches often also have the effect that departments or pro-
gramme teams become more cohesive and get to know each other better, thus
often leading to deeper and ongoing collaboration and exchange. What is
more, additional workload often seen as a hidden barrier to eLearning
implementation becomes more transparent and one of the issues to be consid-
ered, rather than something that just has to be accepted as is often the case
when individuals embark on online learning activities on their own.

1.5.2.3. For the Institution

From the point of view of the organisation, the advantages in taking a pro-
gramme development approach are significant in many ways. The shift to online
 Scaling Online Learning 15

or blended learning is a considerable investment for higher education institu-

tions, and there should be a focus on their sustainability and ideally their scal-
ability. Scalability is often referred to in relation to growing student numbers in
this context. Another aspect of scalability relates to the possibility to transfer the
models, approaches and processes developed for one programme to others, thus
making the implementation of programme transformation more scalable by
reducing effort and risk and increasing efficiencies.
Programme-level development is efficient in that it provides central services
such as staff development, instructional design, resource development or selection,
and student supports for groups of people rather than individuals. A team
approach to skill development not only reduces the demand on support providers,
but also enables a different outcome as skills are developed in a context of real
needs, with immediate applicability, and in exchange with peers who work in the
same context. Instructional design support can be provided more efficiently when
considering the whole programme and will result in better outcomes if designing
high-level learning outcomes, assessment and knowledge and competency devel-
opment across the programme rather than the individual course.
Programme-level approaches are not always easy to implement, and their
success depends on several dimensions and conditions. The remainder of this art-
icle describes the different facets of a programme-level approach, including the
key aspects to be considered by institutions choosing this approach as well as
the necessary conditions and challenges associated with this method. In order to
provide concrete examples of how this approach can work, the case of online
learning implementation at MCI Management Centre Innsbruck (Austria) will
be used to illustrate a successful programme-level implementation.

1.6. A Short Profile of Management Centre Innsbruck (MCI)

The MCI Management Centre Innsbruck was founded in 1995/96 and has
grown over the years to accommodate over 3,400 students at the time of writing.
Focusing on disciplines relating to business and society as well as science and
technology, the MCI offers a range of undergraduate and postgraduate degrees
both in German and in English, including offerings in the area of executive edu-
cation and customised programmes.
Until a few years ago, the MCI was fairly typical in its national and regional
context when it comes to the use of technologies in learning and teaching to pro-
vide added value within existing paradigms. Whilst innovation was occurring,
particularly with regards to new resource formats and in terms of encouraging a
more active role of the student in the learning process, these did not disrupt the
existing model of higher education as such but were rather incremental improve-
ments of the existing model.
In 2014, the MCI decided to extend its existing, face-to-face model of delivery
and after a period of intensive market research and planning started its first
undergraduate business degree in blended learning mode, a bachelor in business
administration offered in German. In 2016, the second track in English was
16 Regina Obexer

introduced to extend the market reach and to provide an additional trajectory

for students who are more internationally oriented. At postgraduate level, an
online MBA in international business was first offered in 2015 as part of the
executive education portfolio, and a Master in Corporate Governance and
Finance started in fall 2017.
Traditionally, the MCI has a strong philosophy of excellent student services,
highly personalised student support, innovative, highly applied, current and
practical teaching approaches and low student to staff ratios. The new online
programmes need to be designed to live up to these expectations associated with
the strong MCI brand. Considering this context and the culture of the institu-
tion, the MCI decided to opt for a blended learning mode rather than fully
online programmes. It should be noted that this does not change in principle the
design and development parameters, as both blended and online programmes
require similar considerations.

1.7. eLearning Implementation at Programme Level: Key

Aspects to Consider
The following section explains in more detail the key aspects that require consid-
eration when planning for a programme-level approach to eLearning implemen-
tation. It should be noted that the aspects described here are not exhaustive and
that a range of institutional characteristics and contexts (e.g. organisational cul-
ture, the rationale for eLearning implementation, available resources and exist-
ing infrastructure) will have an impact on how these play out. However, the
aspects discussed in this section can be seen as the backbone of a systemic,
programme-level implementation of online and blended learning programmes.

1.7.1. Strong Leadership and Institutional Commitment

The arguably most important aspects in implementing eLearning at a higher
education institution are strong leadership and institutional commitment. This
presupposes that the organisation has thought strategically about the value of
introducing eLearning, and can articulate a clear reason why this investment is
necessary, which goes beyond the mere mantra that ‘digitisation is upon us’.
Ideally, there is a clearly articulated strategy that lays out the motives and dri-
vers for implementing eLearning and explains how the institution will enact this
strategic intent. This strategy should be visibly aligned with the vision and the
mission of the institution and reflect its culture and spirit. How this strategy is
developed will depend very much on the culture of the organisation, on the lead-
ership style of university management, the nature of faculty engagement and
involvement, and also on the circumstances and drivers that determine why
eLearning is being implemented (Valente, 2018).
At the MCI, there was clear strategic reasoning for introducing the blended
learning programme: firstly, to provide more flexible and accessible programmes
for prospective students with work and family commitments; secondly, to
 Scaling Online Learning 17

increase the MCI market reach to students who live too far away to travel to
Innsbruck regularly; and thirdly to create an incubator that introduces
eLearning at the institution and accelerates innovation.
The institutional commitment was initially clearly visible through significant
resource investment in the new programme, including hiring several academic
staff experienced in online delivery to lead the programme and an explicitly
articulated view by university leadership that the change was important for the
MCI’s future development. The establishment of a central support service, the
Learning Solutions Team, was a cornerstone of the strategy, designed to both
support the new programme, and to drive, increase and sustain the development
of blended learning approaches in other programmes across the institution. In
addition, a broad information campaign was rolled out across the institution to
create a shared language and understanding about the new approach a key
initial strategy to carry innovation beyond the borders of the programme and
expand cultural change across the organisation.

1.7.2. Supporting and Developing Teaching Staff in the Transition

Developing online programmes is different from preparing for teaching face-to-
face. Many teachers coming from a traditional, face-to-face environment do not
have the skills to teach online. The question of how to best support staff in the
transition to blended or online learning depends to a certain extent on the cul-
ture of the institution. At the MCI, where there is only a small body of tenured
teaching staff, and a large number of sessional staff, it was decided to hire sev-
eral new teaching staff with extensive online experience who spearheaded the
first offering of the blended learning programme. Together with the internal,
existing planning team (who had developed the curriculum), an instructional
designer and the multimedia team, they developed the first iteration of the offer-
ing, and in the process brought other teaching staff along with them.
One of the most important success factors in online programme implementa-
tion is the capability development of staff teaching in the programmes. Staff
development needs for online teaching range from an expanding set of technical
skills in using the available technology to didactical skills in reframing teaching
and student learning for an online learning environment. Capability develop-
ment in this space has been discussed extensively and can take on a range of for-
mats and approaches (Herman, 2012; McQuiggan, 2012).
At the MCI, a staff development programme was implemented that covers
core skills and competencies both in terms of technology use and in terms of
didactic strategies in alignment with and geared towards the programme-level
teaching approach. It was decided to offer both group workshops and individual
coaching sessions. The core staff participated in an introductory workshop on
blended learning, where different teaching formats, learning designs as well as
approaches to resource development were discussed. In addition, workshops
were offered on the use of the Learning Management System and the web-
conferencing platform Adobe Connect used in the programme. Learning
resources such as handbooks and user guidelines were also developed and made
18 Regina Obexer

available to the teaching team, including an introduction to blended learning,

guidelines on planning and delivering webinars and moderating online discus-
sions, and various user handbooks for the tools available. For staff joining the
core team after the initial phase, the Learning Solutions team offered individual
coaching sessions where the programme approach and didactical options were
discussed in addition to an in-depth introduction to the technology used. The
coaching sessions were offered both face-to-face where teachers were onsite and
online for those not able to come to the campus. Over time, more informal sup-
port mechanisms have emerged in addition to the institutional offering, with
peer support between more experienced staff and their colleagues new to teach-
ing online becoming increasingly common.
In addition to internal faculty development programmes, it is also important
to look beyond institutional boundaries and engage with and learn from profes-
sional discourse and development opportunities in higher education at national
and international level. This should occur for all stakeholders involved in
blended learning programme implementation, including the leadership team,
faculty, support services and administration teams. There are many networks,
conference, special interest groups, and professional associations which can pro-
vide a wealth of knowledge and information, and can be accessed through a var-
iety of channels, be it online or face-to-face. The same is true for online learning
opportunities such as MOOCs, Webinars, discussion groups, email lists, Twitter
chats, etc., which are abundantly available in the area of digital learning.
Encouraging staff to participate and contribute to these networks, e.g. through
conference attendance and presentations, engagement in networking events and
knowledge exchange, social network use and contributions to various initiatives
not only allows for deepening and extending stakeholder awareness, knowledge
and know-how but also increases the visibility of the own institution in the aca-
demic community.

1.7.3. Supporting Students in Adapting to a New Way of Learning

Support for students must be a focus when introducing online and blended learn-
ing programmes, especially in part-time programmes where the student popula-
tion is more diverse and has different needs. At the MCI, it was found that this
support impacts directly on students’ success in the programme. As online pro-
grammes are often designed for students who work and have family or other com-
mitments, the target group has typically not engaged in formal education for
some time. The average age of MCI students in blended learning programmes is
around 28 years, and students self-report that they have concerns both about their
ability to ‘get into studying again’ and about using learning technologies
(Mössenlechner, Obexer, Sixl-Daniell, & Seeler, 2015). Despite all the talk about
‘digital natives’, many students clearly need support in using learning technology,
particularly when it comes to participating actively in webinars.
The support provided at the MCI includes an intensive orientation course as
an integral and compulsory first part of the curriculum in blended learning
programmes. This covers technology use as well as learning support, time
 Scaling Online Learning 19

management and general study skills. The course includes both face-to-face and
online components and is delivered over a two- to three-week period. Students
are also encouraged to form self-organised support groups amongst themselves,
for example through WhatsApp groups, but also by organising social events
during residencies. A buddy system between second-year students and first-year
students complements the support provided.

1.7.4. Technology Use at the Programme Level

Whilst Learning Management Systems (LMS) are often criticised for not being
user-friendly, for stifling innovation and putting the straight-jacket on teacher
creativity (Brown, Dehoney, & Millichap, 2015; Dahlstrom, Brooks, & Bichsel,
2014), they are nevertheless still an important component of systemic online pro-
gramme development. An LMS makes available both a set of tools and a structure
for programme teams to design online courses and does so consistently across a
programme. In most cases, it will not be up for discussion on what system to use
at programme level as many organisations have implemented a particular LMS at
the institutional level. What can and should be discussed, however, is:

• how individual course sites are designed and used;

• what tools within the LMS are useful for the particular programme and
should, therefore, be available as a standard in each individual course;
• what tools are useful only for particular courses and should be added on an
individual basis; and
• if there are any requirements the LMS cannot fulfil that need to be met. If
this is the case, there are a range of external tools that can be made use of.

At Management Center Innsbruck, the open community LMS Sakai is being

used, and in addition the web-conferencing software Adobe Connect. From the
start, a common design and look and feel were developed for the Sakai course
websites in each blended learning programme. Individual lecturers are able to
use additional tools for a range of purposes, however, there is a clear standard
for communication between lecturer and student, for assignment submission via
the LMS assignment tool, and in parts also for content provision. Whilst some
may perceive this standardisation as limiting and against the spirit of freedom of
teaching, it is essential for online programmes to provide and implement a cer-
tain degree of structure and to also expect each lecturer to follow the given stan-
dards. Where this is not the case, students are likely to be confused, to complain
about having to re-orient themselves in terms of navigation, the location of
resources, communication procedures, etc. each time they start a new course.
They are also likely to waste much time in simply finding things (out) rather
than actually studying. This can result in increased support requests, frustrated
students, and in the worst case, higher attrition over time.
Where individualisation and variation are of course possible, and in some
cases necessary, is in the way each lecturer uses the tools available (and possibly
builds in additional ones) to meet the needs of their individual teaching styles
20 Regina Obexer

and their students’ learning requirements. For example, in several online classes
at MCI additional, freely accessible collaboration and communication tools are
used to augment learning. However, the cornerstones of the virtual learning
environment remain stable in each course.

1.7.5. Learning Resources

Learning resource development and selection (e.g. developing new resources,
using textbooks or open educational resources, etc.) is another area that requires
joint deliberation and a common direction to ensure consistency for students
and in many cases cost-effectiveness. Here, organisational culture, support
resources and availability of existing materials play a role and require careful
planning. Important aspects to consider when making these decisions include
investigating what Open Educational Resources could be used, the availability,
quality and affordability of commercial materials, and the availability of online
library resources. If existing materials are not a feasible option and materials
need to be developed, factors such as required formats (print, online, video,
audio, etc.) as well as the capacity and capability of staff (both content experts
and development specialists if required) need to be considered. What is also
important in this context is that lecturers are aware of and understand what they
can and cannot do with regards to copyright and fair use (another important
topic for capability development).
At MCI, it was decided that lecturers in the programme would develop con-
sistently formatted course readers which were made available online in each
course. The variation between programmes here depends on the availability
and accessibility of teaching materials for each programme area. Where materi-
als were developed in-house, a clear policy determining intellectual property
rights, compensation for development efforts and re-use of materials was
implemented.

1.7.6. Institutional Change, Administrative Processes and

Policy Development
eLearning implementation always involves institutional change, and that comes
with challenges and opportunities. The first challenge is to create a common
understanding and shared language to enable the community to understand and
discuss what is happening and what this concept of online education is actually
all about. Ideally, this occurs throughout the institution, or at least at the pro-
gramme level. At MCI, this first stage was supported by engagement of the
senior leadership team as a first step, followed by a series of information sessions
for all staff that explained different concepts, terminology and models related to
online learning as well as the MCI’s plans in this space. Thirdly, a coherent staff
development programme was launched to allow everyone, also staff in pro-
grammes that were not online or blended, to gain new skills in teaching online.
After one semester of running the first programme, lecturers and other staff in
 Scaling Online Learning 21

that programme were able to start sharing their experiences and learnings with
colleagues in other programmes.
eLearning implementation at scale also requires significant change with
regards to administrative processes and policy. Some of the questions that tend
to come up very quickly include:

• How do we deal with student attendance requirements (if any), especially in

blended learning programmes?
• Is teaching online different from face-to-face teaching with regards to assign-
ing load or (for external staff) remuneration?
• How is additional staff investment in resource development and other activ-
ities compensated?
• What are the regulations with regards to intellectual property rights of materi-
als developed for online programmes?
• Will I (the lecturer) make myself redundant over time?

These and related questions need to be tackled transparently, and even if set
policies are not evident from the start, staff need to have a sense of their con-
cerns being heard and considered.
At MCI, the first set of policies and practices around these and similar ques-
tions have been established, and new blended and online programmes being
developed can be based on these. However, as programmes become more
sophisticated and are scaled to accommodate higher numbers of students, new
and different questions emerge, which need further development of the institu-
tion as a whole.

1.7.7. Quality and Quality Assurance

Ensuring and maintaining quality in online programmes should be a strong
focus from the start. Quality aspects include amongst others quality of teaching,
quality of student support, quality of learning outcomes and quality of institu-
tional support and development.
There are various processes and practices that can assist in measuring, main-
taining and continually improving quality, and it would go beyond the scope of
this paper to discuss these in detail. At MCI, it was decided not to treat blended
and online programmes as a different category when it comes to quality assur-
ance. These programmes undergo the same procedures and are measured
according to the same standards in terms of teaching evaluation. They also
undergo the same quality assurance processes when it comes to various accredi-
tations (e.g. AACSB, FIBAA). Certain special aspects of online and blended
learning programmes are quality assured through internal processes (e.g. course
templates are provided at course level, course materials developed undergo a
rigorous quality assurance process through the programme’s department and the
learning solutions team) and through regular exchange between those respon-
sible for quality in the departments (especially programme directors and/or
heads of department) and the learning solutions team. Benchmarking with
22 Regina Obexer

national and international partners is another instrument employed (currently

informally) to measure and continually improve the quality of the MCI blended
learning programmes.

1.7.8. Systemic Innovation and Sustainability

As argued throughout this article, programme level implementation of online
and blended programs has many advantages, and is a significant lever in scaling
online learning implementation up and out. A team approach to programme
development, shared planning and implementation of the curriculum, and
institution-wide commitment to new formats are the basis for making innovation
more sustainable and systemic. Rather than taking a ‘slow and emergent conver-
sion’ approach to eLearning implementation; i.e. leaving it up to motivated indi-
vidual teachers to introduce eLearning components to their courses, a
programme level approach may seem radical and ‘top down’ to some. However,
it is an effective approach to making innovation happen at the speed that
today’s rapidly changing environment requires. By approaching online learning
implementation at programme rather than course level, new practices, processes
and skills are developed collaboratively, are shared across the programme team
if not further, and are thus made more sustainable, even when key individuals
leave the organisation or focus on other areas. Addressing and planning for the
key aspects discussed above in a coherent, systemic manner will ensure that there
is a shared understanding of the processes, practices, resources, skills and
requirements across the programme team and that these are also appropriately
documented and made transferable to other contexts.
New online or blended learning programmes implemented in this manner can
be catalysts for change across the institution as they function as incubators for
new ways of teaching, and they also highlight emerging issues at administrative,
HR, policy, technology and resource level as discussed above.
Finally, a holistically designed and developed online or blended learning pro-
gramme will benefit students most in the end in that they can enjoy a coherent,
well-designed and professionally facilitated the learning experience.

1.8. Conclusion
In summary, programme-level design and development approaches view online
learning deployment as a systems issue, where changes are required in many if
not all parts of the organisation.
As such, their implementation requires institutional commitment, the pre-
paredness to question and change existing processes and practices, and invest-
ment in change management, skills development and adequate support for
students and staff. It requires commitment from the members of the programme
team, including teaching staff, but also administrative staff and support services,
as well as the necessary physical, technical and human resources.
In contrast to more individual, uncoordinated and bottom-up approaches,
which are valuable at some level but arguably less effective, it is argued here
 Scaling Online Learning 23

that programme-level approaches are more efficient and sustainable. They are
organised at team level including all relevant stakeholders, take a project
approach and take into consideration aspects such as faculty development, tech-
nology and resource deployment, and deep embedding of the new approach in
the overall system of the institution. They allow for a more consistent student
experience across courses, for continuity beyond individual teacher engagement,
and for strategic development of an institution’s educational offering towards
more flexible approaches to teaching.
The disruptive effect of digitisation on higher education may be seen as a
threat to some. Employing the approach described here will enable higher edu-
cation institutions to become active shapers of their own future rather than
victims of disruption.

References
Barber, M., Donnelly, K., & Rizyi, S. (2013). An avalanche is coming: Higher educa-
tion and the revolution ahead. Institute for Public Policy Research. Retrieved from
http://www.ippr.org/assets/media/images/media/files/publication/2013/03/avalanch
e-is-coming_Mar2013_10432.pdf
Bates, A. W., & Sangrà, A. (2011). Managing technology: strategies for transforming
higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Bischof, L., & Stuckrad, T. V. (2013). Die digitale (R)evolution? Chancen und
Risiken der Digitalisierung akademischer Lehre. Gütersloh: CHE. Retrieved from
http://www.che.de/downloads/CHE_AP_174_Digitalisierung_der_Lehre.pdf
Biswas, S., & Hazra, S. (2016). Digital India: A unique step towards E-learning in
India. International Research. Journal of Interdisciplinary & Multidisciplinary
Studies, 1(7), 64 70. ISSN: 2394-7950.
Boud, D., & Brew, A. (2013). Reconceptualising academic work as professional prac-
tice: Implications for academic development. International Journal for Academic
Development, 18(3), 208 221.
Bratengeyer, E., Steinbacher, H., Friesenbichler, M., Neuböck, K., Kopp, M.,
Gröblinger, O., & Ebner, M. (2016). Die österreichische Hochschul-E-Learning-
Landschaft. Studie zur Erfassung des Status quo der E-Learning-Landschaft im
tertiären Bildungsbereich hinsichtlich Strategie, Ressourcen, Organisation und
Erfahrungen. Verein Forum neue Medien in der Lehre Austria. Norderstedt:
Books on Demand.
Brooks, C., & Pomerantz, J. (2017). 2017 Student and faculty technology research
studies. Educause Center for Analysis and Research. Retrieved from https://
library.educause.edu/resources/2017/10/ecar-study-of-undergraduate-students-and-
information-technology-2017
Brown, M., Dehoney, J., & Millichap, N. (2015). The next generation digital learning
environment: a report on research. Educause Learning Initiative White Paper.
Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2015/4/eli3035-
pdf.pdf
24 Regina Obexer

Cavanagh, T. (2012). The postmodality era: How online learning is becoming learn-
ing. In Oblinger, D. (Ed.), Game changers: Education and information technologies
(pp. 215 228). Washington, DC: EDUCAUSE.
Christensen, C., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: changing the DNA
of higher education from the inside out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. ISBN-10:
1118063481.
Dahlstrom, E., Brooks, C., & Bichsel, J. (2014). The current ecosystem of learning
management systems in higher education: student, faculty, and IT perspectives.
Research report. Louisville, CO: ECAR. Retrieved from https://library.educause.
edu/~/media/files/library/2014/9/ers1414-pdf.pdf
EACEA. (2014). Lifelong learning program. statistics. Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.
europa.eu/llp/results_projects/statistics_en.php
e-teaching.org. (2017). E-learning-förderung in Deutschland. Retrieved from https://
www.e-teaching.org/projekt/politik/foerderphasen
Euler, D., & Seufert, S. (2011). Change management in der Hochschullehre: Die
nachhaltige Implementierung von e-Learning-Innovationen. Zeitschrift für
Hochschulentwicklung, 5(4), 3 15. ISSN 2219-6994. Retrieved from https://www.
zfhe.at/index.php/zfhe/article/view/187
Gaebel, M., Kupriyanova, V., Morais, R., & Colucci, W. (2014). E-learning in
European higher education institutions. Brussels: European University Association
(EUA). Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publication/e-learning_survey
Germ, M., & Mandl, H. (2009). Warum scheitert die nachhaltige Implementation
von eLearning in der Hochschule? In U. Dittler, J. Krameritsch, N. Nistor, C.
Schwarz, & A. Thillosen (Eds.), E-Learning: Eine Zwischenbilanz. Kritischer
Rückblick als Basis eines Aufbruchs (pp. 275 290). Münster: Waxmann.
Gunn, C., & Herrick, R. (2012). Sustaining eLearning innovations. A research study
report. Australian Council of Open, Distance and eLearning. Retrieved from
http://www.acode.edu.au/pluginfile.php/160/mod_resource/content/1/Sustai
ning_eLearning_Innovations_Report.pdf
Haug, S., & Wedekind, J. (2009). Adresse nicht gefunden auf den digitalen Spuren
der e-teaching-Förderprojekte. In U. Dittler, J. Krameritsch, N. Nistor, C.
Schwarz, & A. Thillosen (Eds.), E-Learning: Eine Zwischenbilanz. Kritischer
Rückblick als Basis eines Aufbruchs (S. 19-37). Münster: Waxmann.
Herman, J. (2012). Faculty development programs: The frequency and variety of
professional development programs available to online instructors. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(5), 87 106.
High Level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education. (2014). Report to the
European Commission on new modes of learning and teaching in higher education.
Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/
library/reports/modernisation-universities_en.pdf
Hochschulforum Digitalisierung. (2017). The digital turn pathways for higher edu-
cation in the digital age. Arbeitspapier Nr. 30. Berlin: Hochschulforum
Digitalisierung.
McFarlane, D. (2011). Are there differences in the organizational structure and
pedagogical approach of virtual and brick-and-mortar schools? Journal of
Multidisciplinary Research, 3(2), 83–98.
McQuiggan, C. A. (2012). Faculty development for online teaching as a catalyst for
change. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(2), 27 61.
 Scaling Online Learning 25

Mössenlechner, C., Obexer, R. Sixl-Daniell, K., & Seeler, J. M. (2015). E-learning

degree programs a better way to balance work and education? International
Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning, 8(3), 11 16. doi:10.3991/ijac.v8i3.4844
Murphy, A., Farley, H., Dyson, E., & Jones, H. (Eds.), (2017). Mobile learning in
higher education in the Asia-Pacific Region. Harnessing trends and challenging
Orthodoxies. Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and
Prospects 40. Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-4944-6_18
Ng’ambi, D., Brown, C., Bozalek, V., Gachago, D., & Wood, D. (2016). Technology
enhanced teaching and learning in South African higher education a rearview of
a 20-year journey. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(5), 843 858.
Oblinger, D. (2012). IT as a game changer. In D. Oblinger (Ed.), Game changers:
Education and information technologies (pp. 37 51). Washington, DC: EDUCAUSE.
Pulist, S. K. (2013). eLearning in Commonwealth Asia 2013. New Delhi: CEMCA.
Rivers, P., Rivers, J., & Hazell, V. (2015). Africa and technology in higher educa-
tion: trends, challenges, and promise. International Journal for Innovation
Education and Research, 3(5), 14 31. Retrieved from http://www.ijier.net/ijier/art-
icle/view/354
Seufert, S., & Meier, C. (2013). E-learning in organisationen. Nachhaltige Einführung
von Bildungsinnovationen. In M. Ebner & S. Schön (Eds.), Lehrbuch für Lernen
und Lehren mit Technologien (L3T). Retrieved from http://l3t.eu/homepage/das-
buch/ebook-2013/kapitel/o/id/124/name/e-learning-in-organisationen
Singh, G., & Hardaker, G. (2014). Barriers and enablers to adoption and diffusion
of eLearning: A systematic review of the literature—a need for an integrative
approach. Education and Training, 56(2), 105 121. doi:10.1108/ET-11-2012-0123
Valente, A. (2018). Leading the implementation of a successful community college e-
learning program. In A. A. Pina, V. L. Lowell, & B. R. Harris (Eds.), Leading and
managing e-learning. What the e-learning leader needs to know. Educational
Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations (pp. 351 367). Cham,
Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61780-0_3
Walker, R., Voce, J., & Jenkins, M. (2016). Charting the development of technology-
enhanced learning developments across the UK higher education sector: a longitu-
dinal perspective (2001 2012). 24(3), 438 455. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.
1080/10494820.2013.867888
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 2

LOGIC LEADS LEARNing:

MOOCs in the Middle East
Yusuf M. Sidani

Abstract
This chapter presents a case study of a ‘Massive Open Online Courses’
(MOOCs) structure that is offered through an agreement between a trad-
itional university and a MOOC provider. This arrangement has been
helping in reaching very large numbers of learners in the Middle East.
In implementing this agreement, I categorise the concerns of three key
stakeholders (administrators, faculty and students) regarding this mode
of instruction. A framework (abbreviated as LOGIC LEADS
LEARNing) is proposed that could be of use to higher education institu-
tions when they embark on non-traditional education. A common
concern among the primary stakeholders was the issue of legitimacy of
such an education. I argue the MOOCs so far do not represent a substi-
tute or a threat to traditional face-to-face education. In addition, there
are no foreseen reputational risks for universities if MOOCs are included
as a mode of education. The value from MOOCs needs to be seen from
the perspectives of students and other stakeholders. MOOCs have the
potential to lead to positive consequences for the university − as a
whole − and other relevant stakeholders as well. However, MOOCs in
the Middle East are not likely to operate under a workable business
model, at least not in the short run. As MOOCs rise to make more sense
to students, their disruptive power would become more tangible. This,
however, will take some time and will only be threatening if educational
institutions become complacent in response to the novel ways by which
the new generation is approaching learning.

Keywords: MOOC; Lebanon; Arab world; Edraak; American University

of Beirut; legitimacy of online education

The Disruptive Power of Online Education: Challenges, Opportunities, Responses, 27 42

Copyright r 2019 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISBN: 978-1-78754-326-3
28 Yusuf M. Sidani

2.1. Introduction
The last couple of decades have witnessed an explosion in unconventional teach-
ing opportunities. This has been facilitated by technological advancements, most
notably the internet revolution. One of the unconventional teaching technologies
has been the growing interest in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs),
(Liyanagunawardena, Adams, & Williams, 2013). This chapter represents a case
study about a MOOC experience emanating from an agreement between a trad-
itional university and a MOOC provider. This experience has allowed educa-
tional access to large numbers of students from across the Arab world. Beyond
the particulars of this case study, a framework is proposed (abbreviated as
LOGIC LEADS LEARNing) that is argued to be of use to higher educa-
tion institutions as they embark on non-traditional education.
The current trend in MOOCs emerged in 2011 when three computer science
courses were offered by Stanford University (Vardi, 2012). Since then, there has
been a phenomenal growth in MOOC initiatives provided both by universities
and independent providers. Although many definitions of MOOCs are continu-
ing to emerge (e.g. Daniel, 2012; Kolowich, 2013), one common understanding
of a MOOC is that it represents a course which offers wide participation to
members of the public who have an online access:

A MOOC integrates the connectivity of social networking, the

facilitation of an acknowledged expert in a field of study, and a
collection of freely accessible online resources. Perhaps most
importantly, however, a MOOC builds on the active engagement
of several hundred to several thousand ‘students’ who self-
organise their participation according to learning goals, prior
knowledge and skills, and common interests.
(McAuley, Stewart, Siemens, & Cormier, 2010, p. 5)

MOOCs, by definition, can accommodate large numbers of individuals.

While some MOOCs that target very specialized audiences (such as a class in
medieval history within a specific narrow context) may attract relatively lower
numbers, the general rule is that MOOCs draw very large numbers of students
often numbering in the thousands and more. In addition, MOOCs are not neces-
sarily tied to a specified formal academic degree. Accordingly, they mostly
attract those who want to know more about a specific subject without commit-
ting to a long academic journey.
MOOCs utilise the internet to reach students, so they do not require the usual
face-to-face meetings. Thus they offer the opportunity to transcend geographic
borders so learners can be enroled in a course irrespective of where they are
located. In most cases, all that is needed is a willing student who has an online
connection. With such an approach, a lot of flexibility is built into the teaching
experience. Students can log from home, work, a public library or any place that
has an online connection.
 LOGIC LEADS LEARNing: MOOCs in the Middle East 29

Many approaches have been suggested to build a workable sustainable model

for MOOCs at universities (Burd, Smith, & Reisman, 2015; Daniel, Cano, &
Cervera, 2015; Dellarocas & Van Alstyne, 2013; Kalman, 2014). The prevalent
‘business model’ for the MOOC is generally based on a no-fee structure or a
low-fee one. In some cases, such as for Coursera (Coursera, 2018), many courses
are offered for free, but students have to pay if they want a certificate. For some
other MOOC providers, such as Edraak (Edraak, 2018), all courses are offered
for free with a certificate upon completion. For universities, some suggested that
one option is to move from a ‘freemium’ to a ‘premium’ mindset (Daniel et al.,
2015). Others suggested that workable business models could be implemented
through tuition, governmental subsidies, employers, or sponsors (Dellarocas &
Van Alstyne, 2013). Yet, some MOOC providers seem to have decided that the
only available route is the non-profit one relying mainly on grants and similar
avenues of funding (Korn & Levitz, 2013). In the US, there are many examples
of what appears to be business models for MOOCs that have started to appear;
this is not the case in Europe (Epelboin, 2017). The issue becomes even harder
in many developing countries where there is a lack of funding and the potential
tuition fees could be prohibitive. The case for a sustainable business model thus
becomes harder. For many universities in many parts of the world, there appears
to be no workable ‘business model’ for MOOCs.
Some MOOC providers offer students the chance to get an online certificate
when they take a series of courses. MOOCs have also been used towards a fully
recognised academic degree. The Gies College of Business at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, for example, offers a completely online MBA
degree (iMBA) which is comprised of two components. The first is based on self-
paced MOOC classes through Coursera. The second is done through the Illinois
online platform (iMBA Program Overview, 2018). The case remains, however,
that in most cases, MOOCs are not part of a standard degree programme. They
generally have no or low admission requirements, especially when compared to
traditional university education. Many universities are still exploring and experi-
menting with including a form of MOOC offering in their standard educational
system.
The question of whether MOOCs will present a case of a disruptive power is
an interesting field of enquiry. Within the disruptive technology discourse, a suc-
cessful new technology is the one that replaces the existing technology after a
point-in-time; usually, it doesn’t happen immediately (Bower & Christensen,
1995; Christensen, 1997; Tellis, 2006). It may take some time for the disruptive
technology to be able to be perfected and made cost-efficient before it becomes
attractive to the mainstream market (Christensen & Overdorf, 2000). To address
whether MOOCs can have a disruptive power, some questions need to be
addressed. One key question is: Is the MOOC methodology just another way of
transmitting education (that is, another delivery mechanism), or does it present
an alternative mode of learning that threatens traditional education?
Based on earlier research on disruption, one may conclude that a method-
ology becomes disruptive to a traditional university when an incumbent fails to
allocate the necessary resources needed to tackle the new technology. Another
30 Yusuf M. Sidani

threat is that when incumbents become too focused on a certain class of custo-
mers thus failing to be sensitive to changing customer demographics.

In higher education, online courses now typically offer lower-end

and more convenient access to courses that can improve students’
credentials or help them switch careers, which is often precisely
what the student customers want to accomplish by enrolling.
(Christensen & Eyring, 2011, p. 47)

In this chapter, I am presenting the case of MOOCs as a disruptive technol-

ogy within the context of an agreement between the American University of
Beirut (AUB)-Edraak1, a MOOC provider. Some questions that I hope my ana-
lysis will uncover pertain to whether and how AUB, as a prestigious traditional
university, is allocating resources to alternative modes of education, specifically
MOOC arrangements. I am also interested in assessing the extent to which AUB
is aware of the changes that are happening in its potential ‘customers’. Finally,
I am curious as to the perspectives of the various stakeholders on the issue.
AUB is located in Beirut the capital of Lebanon in the Middle East. Lebanon
is an Arab country that has vibrant commercial and educational sectors with
strong ties to the Western world (Sidani, 2002). AUB is a prestigious institution
of higher learning in Lebanon which celebrated its 150th anniversary in 2016. It
has more than 8,500 students distributed across more than 130 programs in the
undergraduate and graduate levels. Its mission is ‘to provide excellence in educa-
tion, to participate in the advancement of knowledge through research and to
serve the peoples of the Middle East and beyond […]’ (American University of
Beirut, 2018).
In 2014, AUB launched its first MOOC in collaboration with Edraak.
Edraak, an Initiative of the Queen Rania Foundation for Education and
Development, is a MOOC platform headquartered in Amman Jordan with a
partnership with edX. It offers original courses in Arabic, in collaboration with
carefully selected Arab-speaking professors from all over the world. Edraak has
offered MOOCs in collaboration with a number of Arab institutions of higher
education and other educational organisations across a number of disciplines
including entrepreneurship, business communication, nutrition and health, com-
puter science and programming, graphic design and filmmaking. The AUB-
Edraak agreement emerged after negotiations between the two parties which
had to be reviewed and updated in 2016. The range of courses that have been
offered under this agreement is still very limited and till now none can be used
to pursue a degree programme.

1
Despite the fact that data was collected through facilitation from both parties, all
opinions and analysis found in this chapter unless otherwise indicated are the
author’s and do not necessarily represent either those of AUB or Edraak.
 LOGIC LEADS LEARNing: MOOCs in the Middle East 31

This case study provides a window into this initiative and how it is unfolding.
In seeking feedback from the most relevant stakeholders, this case study explores
AUB’s embryonic journey thus far into this type of non-traditional education.
In doing this, I uncover some of the best practices that institutions of higher edu-
cation can implement as they explore non-traditional routes for the delivery of
quality education. In addition, common pitfalls in such initiatives are explored
with hopes that future initiatives would evade unnecessary effort and time.

2.2. Methodology
This case study first emerged out of a personal experience in designing and deli-
vering a MOOC through the AUB-Edraak agreement. I was involved in a
course titled ‘Success skills’ which was produced in 2015 and offered twice. The
course proved to be very successful, drawing thousands of students; it is now
part of the permanent self-paced courses at the Edraak platform. This means
that the course can now be taken anytime and anywhere by anybody who has
access to an internet connection. This experience provided the opportunity to
have access to student feedback from hundreds of students. With the help of
Edraak executives, I also had the opportunity to get access to feedback to other
courses at Edraak. The author also participated in sessions targeting faculty
members from across the university in various disciplines, where he addressed
questions and concerns about MOOCs. A 2017 regional conference hosted by
Edraak in Amman (Jordan) about ‘Reimagining Education in the Arab World’
was instrumental in completing the picture. The author’s notes during meetings
with faculty members of the Olayan School of Business at AUB also provided
significant insights into this topic. Moreover, the Edraak team, including the
Chief Executive officer Mr Nafez Dakkak, were specifically interviewed for
the purpose of this study. Those multiple opportunities provided insights into
the potential that MOOCs offer, in addition to expectations and concerns. The
information was corroborated and complemented through a thorough review of
other non-traditional modes of education currently underway at the university.
AUB has been allocating resources to blended-learning approaches which also
provided some key information about the direction that AUB is heading into in
regards to integrating more technology in its programs. All of those variant
sources provided ample data regarding the potential of MOOCs and online edu-
cation in advancing or constraining the accomplishment of learning objectives in
the context under study.

2.3. MOOC Key Issues

Based on all the data collected so far, I present the key issues, expectations and
concerns raised by the various stakeholders in regards to MOOCs. I am going to
concentrate on three key parties; administrators, faculty members and students.
Understanding the positions of those primary stakeholders vis-à-vis MOOCs
32 Yusuf M. Sidani

also illuminates on the issues that could be raised by other secondary stake-
holders such as parents, technology providers, donors and alumni.
In categorising the concerns of those three key stakeholders I have used a
mnemonic/acronym (LOGIC LEADS LEARNing) to reflect a framework
for issues that are of importance to higher education institutions when they
embark on such education (Figure 2.1). A common concern among the primary
stakeholders was the issue of legitimacy or credibility of such an education.
That’s why all the three mnemonic words start with the letter ‘L’ to denote the
legitimacy concerns raised by all parties.

2.3.1. Key Issues Raised by Administrators

The framework uses the acronym LOGIC to summarise the administrative con-
cerns about MOOCs as they were discussed: ‘L’ stands for legitimacy, ‘O’ stands
for ‘our’ name and reputation; ‘G’ stands for the guiding principles behind such
education, ‘I’ stands for influence and ‘C’ stands for competition.

2.3.1.1. ‘L’: Do MOOCs Represent a Legitimate Way of Delivering Education?

While some administrators were quite knowledgeable about MOOCs, there is
still some ambiguity about what does a MOOC really mean, and whether it is a
legitimate way of educating students. Among the team that negotiated the deal
with Edraak, there were administrators who very well understood how it gener-
ally worked and the model on which such a mode of education is based. Yet
when the discussion reached a more extensive network of administrators, it was
clear that some had some concerns about its credibility as a mode of education
for the university. A good response for this concern came from the Edraak team
who indicated that ‘online education will improve education both online and off-
line, while increasing access to education to learners of all ages.’ In other words,
MOOCs are not there to replace but to improve a university’s educational offer-
ings. This question about legitimacy often led to the next question.

Figure 2.1. LOGIC LEADS LEARNing. Source: The author’s representation.

 LOGIC LEADS LEARNing: MOOCs in the Middle East 33

2.3.1.2. ‘O’: Why Should We Do It? What Are the Implications

on Our Brand Name?
AUB has always been a centre of excellence for many generations in the region.
It is often ranked among the very elite universities. In 2018 it ranked 235 at a
global level and thus positioning itself among the top 250 universities in the
world (AUB Office of Admissions, 2018). In 2017, AUB was ranked the number
1 university in the Arab region as per QS university rankings (AUB Press
Release, 2017). Part of the attractiveness of AUB relates to its legacy of quality
education that has mostly been traditional quality education. Its beautiful cam-
pus provides students with the opportunity to get involved into a captivating
student experience. This campus has been ranked among the most attractive
campuses in the world, ranked the 18th most beautiful in the world (Rami,
2016). There is a lot of tradition and a lot of legacies, some of it tied to its loca-
tion, its historic buildings and its heritage. So the natural question that is raised
relates to whether the university would be compromising part of its brand name
by engaging in a type of education that requires less physical presence? What
would make this institution given its history, culture and prestige enter into
an arena with all that comes in terms of suspicious standards and ambiguity?
This question is usually handled by referring to recent experiences among top
North American and European universities, with lots of heritage, which have
nevertheless entered into that field. Concerns relating to legitimacy and reputa-
tion are usually satisfactorily tackled when the names of Harvard, MIT and
Oxford are put forward as universities that have been involved in this type of
non-traditional education.

2.3.1.3. ‘G’: What Are the Guiding Principles?

This dimension reflects on the impact of a MOOC on the university resources.
Once the ‘why’ and ‘should we’ questions are settled, questions arise regarding
the guiding principles by which MOOCs are run. From an administrator per-
spective, one needs to know what an involvement in MOOC means for univer-
sity resources. What type of investment would this require both in terms of
financial budgeting and faculty/staff allocation? ‘What sort of financial resources
would that require?’ is a common question. ‘Should we invest in such new tech-
nology and at what level of priority?’ is another key question. Those questions
are usually handled by noting that under agreements such as the AUB-Edraak
agreements, universities provide the course content and subject-matter expertise
and the MOOC partner provides the platform and all the technological under-
pinnings required, including any sophisticated media-related resources. This
means that a university does not have to substantially invest, at least in the short
run, in the technical aspect of this endeavour. Once this new technology is tested
and feedback is assessed, the university would be in a better position to judge
how to go forward with such technologies.
A related question pertains to faculty workload. Sometimes universities
reduce the teaching loads of instructors who are involved in course design. In
addition, extra support could be given to faculty; this is not generally perceived
34 Yusuf M. Sidani

as too costly for the university. AUB leadership has publicly announced that
online education is something that is seriously studied and continuously assessed
given the competitive context in the higher education landscape (Khuri, 2017).
This is a clear indicator that the university is willing to allocate the necessary
resources into various modes and forms of education after careful analysis and
study.

2.3.1.4. ‘I’: How Can We Measure Our Instructional Effectiveness?

Like any other credible institution of higher learning, AUB always assesses
instructional effectiveness through various means of assessment. In traditional
education, those include student assessments of performance through the typical
evaluation forms, peer and chairperson evaluations and accreditation mechan-
isms related to the assessment of learning outcomes. A question raised pertained
to ‘how can the institution reasonably be able to assess the effectiveness of its
instructors?’ There was a concern that some of the traditional ways of assessing
teacher performance are not available in an online environment.
What is usually noted in response to this concern is that actually technology
provides universities with a vast even wider means of assessing teacher and
instructional effectiveness. For example, in the course that I delivered, the course
management team was able to collect specific, relevant and often detailed quan-
titative and qualitative feedback from more than 800 students. Understandably,
this number only represented a portion of those who took the course as filling
the evaluation forms was voluntary. Yet the number is quite large compared to
classes that I usually deliver in traditional face-to-face education. Such a number
actually provides a broader opportunity to give instructors the sort of compre-
hensive feedback that would be less available in smaller classes.

2.3.1.5. ‘C’: Would We Be Able To Compete? How Can We Scale This Up?
One of the concerns that were raised pertained to the ability of the institution to
compete given the fact that big names, on a global scale, are already in this
market. Some key universities many of which are involved in MOOCs −
already have presence in the Arab Middle East region, through affiliations, satel-
lite campuses and other strategic educational ventures. From an administrator
perspective, the game is global. So, looking at other players in the educational
field, there could be hesitancy to enter into an arena when the likes of Harvard
and MIT are already there. Another related concern pertains again to the costs
involved, from a competitive perspective. Producing MOOCS and other forms
of online educational presence requires a set of skills and resources that could be
expensive to acquire or build in-house. ‘If we as an institution are not able to
enter ‘big’ into a certain market, then isn’t staying outside the arena at least in
the foreseeable future a better alternative?’
The AUB-Edraak arrangement actually helps satisfy this concern. Edraak
has developed a set of resources that could be used in a win-win arrangement
with AUB. The courses developed so far have proven to be very well done where
AUB and its professors were able to concentrate on what they know best, the
 LOGIC LEADS LEARNing: MOOCs in the Middle East 35

art of teaching, not only in English but also in Arabic. The technical develop-
ment and hosting of the MOOCs have been delegated to Edraak which has
performed an equally impressive job. Another issue is that AUB is perfectly situ-
ated to compete with big names in some disciplines, given its legacy and posi-
tioning in the region. For example, AUB is in an excellent position to deliver
courses in the humanities and social sciences that have regional implications.
Courses such as ‘Middle Eastern politics’ and anything related to Arabs or
Muslims is something that AUB has a competitive advantage in. This also
includes courses in the sciences of regional relevance such as ‘Public Health in
the Middle East’ or gender studies.

2.3.2. Key Issues Raised by Faculty

The framework uses the acronym LEADS to summarise faculty/instructor con-
cerns about MOOCs as they were discussed: ‘L’ stands for legitimacy, ‘E’ stands
for ‘effort’, ‘A’ stands for appreciation expected, ‘D’ stands for discipline and ‘S’
stands for sense.

2.3.2.1. ‘L’: Do MOOCs Represent a Legitimate Way of Delivering Education?

Faculty members often raised the issue of the legitimacy of this form of educa-
tion. There were some qualms as to the value of this mode of education. Some
raised the issue that MOOCs would dilute ‘real education’. One faculty member
noted that ‘parents are paying a lot of money for their kids to be educated by
experienced and knowledgeable scholars. They are not paying money for tea-
chers to delegate teaching to an intelligent machine.’ Some instructors worried
whether it would be legitimate to offer courses with lower expectations from stu-
dents? They noted, for example, that they require three major work-load items
for a traditional face-to-face 3-credit course. A student work-load item is any
major aspect of assessment including a major test, a major project, or a bunch
of other work assignments. This is usually not expected in some online courses
and thus the opportunity for better assessing learning outcomes becomes more
limited. This brings to question the credibility of this approach.
An obvious response to this concern − that was specifically corroborated by
Edraak executives − is that MOOCs or other forms of online education are not
there to replace traditional education. This form of education caters to the vary-
ing needs of learners. Learners learn differently and such type of teaching caters
to the various abilities and preferences of many learners, especially among the
younger generations who are more used to technology, often better than their
instructors. ‘The abundance of data generated by online education allows us to
better understand the needs of learners and tailor content to them’ (Edraak
team).
Another response to this concern is the fact that MOOCs under the agree-
ment are delivered in Arabic and most learners may not qualify to be admitted
to AUB given the language barrier (the teaching language at AUB is English).
So the objective is to reach a large number of students across a wide geographic
area in the Arabic language. This could be seen as part of increasing the ‘brand
36 Yusuf M. Sidani

equity’ and the reputation of the university. Yet, it could also be seen as part of
the social responsibility of the institution to non-traditional learners who cannot
join AUB due to economic (they cannot afford), geographic (they are outside
Lebanon), or admissibility (they cannot properly converse in English and thus
cannot join AUB) reasons. This helps make institutions more inclusive and wel-
coming to a broad section of potential learners.

2.3.2.2. ‘E’: How Much Effort Does It Require?

Another main concern among faculty members was the intensity of effort
required to participate in such a teaching endeavour. This is a serious and valid
concern. MOOCs and other forms of online education require significant
amounts of work and time investment from faculty members. Once faculty
members realise this, a related question is raised pertaining to the support that
they will get in return for such investment. Teachers who are developing MOOC
teaching materials usually get a certain level of support in terms of reduction in
other teaching assignments and assistance. They still have to balance between
the support that they are getting and the final outcomes of such endeavours.
In my own experience, the amount of reduction in teaching given to me to
prepare for the MOOC was perhaps less than the amount of effort expended.
Yet, looking back at the final outcome and the student reach that my course
had, I would not hesitate to do it all over again. In my meetings with faculty
members, I usually explain to them that the intangible reward received is often
more important than the tangible support given. This links back to the earlier
question as to why faculty members do that. As corroborated with the Edraak
team ‘Most of the academic instructors that have worked with Edraak have done
so to increase their impact/reach to more students and to experiment with the
future of education’.

2.3.2.3. ‘A’: What Sort of Appreciation and Acknowledgement Would I Get?

Teachers ask about how their employer would recognise their efforts in develop-
ing the online course. This question is the other side of the earlier one. Teachers
wonder whether the efforts they put towards developing a course are justified
given the support that they get and the potential pay that they receive. Natur-
ally, universities recognise the efforts put into such endeavours in annual assess-
ments and promotion decisions as ‘teaching excellence and innovation’ are part
of the criteria by which all faculty members are evaluated against.

2.3.2.4. ‘D’: Do MOOCs Work in My Discipline?

This was raised by two groups of faculty members. The first group belonged to
disciplines that are quantitatively oriented such as those in the sciences or engin-
eering. A typical question is: ‘It is well-understood that an online delivery could
work in the humanities and the arts, but would it work in engineering and the
sciences?’ The answer is in the affirmative. Edraak, and of course other MOOC
providers, have a wide array of courses that are given, including courses in the
 LOGIC LEADS LEARNing: MOOCs in the Middle East 37

sciences and in engineering. Many of Edraak’s successful MOOCs are in such

quantitative fields of study.
The second group that questioned whether there were any disciplinary con-
straints came mostly from faculty members in such fields as sociology and polit-
ical science. The question particularly related to whether there were limits on
academic freedom. In a traditional classroom, instructors are not hesitant to
raise sensitive, yet relevant issues. In good higher institutions of learning, the
freedom of instructors and students to engage in healthy and relevant conversa-
tions and debates is, not only respected but actually encouraged. The objective
of institutions like AUB is to graduate thinkers with critical minds who do not
object to challenge − or be challenged by − others on controversial issues as
long as this is done in a civilised manner relevant to the topics under discussion.
But what about an online course about sensitive issues such as ‘women’s rights
in the Middle East’ in a sociology class, or ‘political rights and situation of
minorities’ in a political science class? Would there be censorship on the type of
ideas that instructors can raise?
This is again a very important and relevant question. What I can say so far
that I am neither aware of any idea presented by an instructor that has been cen-
sored nor has there been any case of an instructor being encouraged not to raise
an issue or delve into a specific topic. It is also not expected that this would be
an issue for institutions which do not compromise on the value of academic free-
dom. For the wider Middle Eastern educational landscape, this is a challenge
that has to be addressed within each specific context.

2.3.2.5. ‘S’: Does This Make Sense for Me Personally?

The final concern, which was shared among many faculty members, pertained to
whether MOOCs make sense for them personally. Given what they know in
terms of effort, support, credibility of such programs, they wondered whether an
involvement in MOOCs is something that they want to do given each person’s
specific situation and in line with their unique career positioning at a certain
period of time. The answer would obviously differ from one person to another
and is best addressed by the person involved.

2.3.3. Key Issues Raised by Students

The framework uses the acronym LEARNing to summarise student concerns
about MOOCs as they were discussed: ‘L’ stands for legitimacy, ‘E’ also stands
for ‘effort’, ‘A’ stands for the expected attention that they would get from their
instructors, ‘R’ stands for the type of recognition they would receive (certificate
or diploma) and ‘N’ stands for the net outcome they would get from such an
education.

2.3.3.1. ‘L’: Do MOOCs Represent a Legitimate Way of Delivering Education?

Various discussions with students and looking into their feedback about their
involvement in a MOOC, the issue of legitimacy is also a recurring question.
Compared to traditional face-to-face education, they would ask, to what extent
38 Yusuf M. Sidani

do MOOCs represent a legitimate way of getting an education? Reading through

the hundreds of students’ feedback statements, this seems to be a recurring one.
Yet, it seems that student legitimacy concerns are lesser than those raised by fac-
ulty members. Many students seem to be satisfied by the opportunity to learn
new things from professors who are considered to be among the best in the Arab
world. Definitely, AUB’s name and reputation play a role in disseminating the
view that what is being offered is real, sound and credible knowledge delivered
by people affiliated with reputable credible institutions.

2.3.3.2. ‘E’: How Much Effort Does It Require? How Much Time Should
I Invest?
In most cases, MOOC learners are not full-time students at the institution offer-
ing the MOOCs. Most are either students at other institutions in their home
countries, or are employed with fulltime or part-time jobs. Yet some are not
employed. MOOCs present an opportunity for all of them to be exposed to a
new body of knowledge or learn a new set of skills. They cannot usually allocate
a full-time schedule for a MOOC.
Course instructors are aware of this fact and usually have varying time
requirements for each MOOC that are sometimes modest and can be as low as
two hours per week but could be much longer. This allows learners to assess
which MOOC to take given their specific time commitments.

2.3.3.3. ‘A’: Will I Get Individual Attention from My Instructor?

Students require attention from their instructors in terms of addressing their spe-
cific questions and needs. The discussion available within the MOOC platform
allows them to post various questions to their professors. Due to a large number
of students enroled, it is often the case that course instructors cannot individu-
ally attend to each student’s request or question. This is one of the disadvantages
of a MOOC compared to traditional education which usually has a substantially
lower number of students. Nevertheless, as course instructors and administrators
become more familiar with various students’ requests, it becomes apparent that
many such questions are in fact similar, and thus they would be able to generally
address many such common questions or concerns. I had about 3,000 active stu-
dents in my course out of which hundreds contributed each week. While my
assistants and I tried our best to address every concern and question, the number
of questions was overwhelming the first time the course was offered. The second
time the course was offered, we were able to anticipate for common issues and
pre-empt many questions. The number remained, however, extremely high for
us to categorically conclude that we were able to address individual learning
points to maximum effectiveness.

2.3.3.4. ‘R’: What Sort of ‘Recognition’ Will I Receive?

Students often ask whether they would be able to get a diploma or a certificate
after they complete a specific MOOC. They also ask whether the MOOC course
can be made equivalent to university credits if they decide to join the university.
 LOGIC LEADS LEARNing: MOOCs in the Middle East 39

As it stands now, AUB students get a certificate from Edraak with the profes-
sor’s name on it. Yet this is not an AUB diploma nor can it be used for credit at
the institution. Still, many employers may look positively at a certificate, even if
it is not within a for-credit programme if they realise that this is linked in some
way to a subject-matter expert from a credible institution. As the brand recogni-
tion of Edraak increases, such certificates would have even a higher value in the
marketplace. Thus, beyond extending their knowledge about specific topics of
interest, this certificate will increase the skillset of students making them more
relevant in the workplace.

2.3.3.5. ‘N’: What Is the Net Outcome for My Enrolment in A MOOC?

At a global level, some MOOCs are free. Others require learners to pay a regis-
tration fee. Edraak, by definition and in line with its motto ‘knowledge for those
who seek it’, offers free education to anyone seeking to be educated. Accord-
ingly, enrolment under the AUB-Edraak agreement is free. This makes it much
easier for potential students to decide which courses to be enroled in as the mon-
etary investment is zero.
In terms of whether a MOOC is worth the time invested, this is not very dif-
ferent than traditional face-to-face education. Some MOOCs are very successful,
and students sense the value that they are receiving. The feedback provided by
many students for successful MOOCs leads to the conclusion that they saw their
time investment worthwhile. In other less successful MOOCs, more students
would question the futility of registering in such a course as the net outcome was
negative in that case. More research would be needed to assess whether there
has been an increase in the employability of students because of the various
MOOCs provided.

2.4. Conclusion
The above themes reflect the major issues, fears, challenges and hopes associated
with this educational approach. In my opinion, this agreement adds tremen-
dously to the visibility of the institution across the whole Middle East region.
This extends the reach of the university to audiences that it never reached before.
Those places include places in North Africa − from Morocco to Egypt − and as
far as Yemen and Oman in Western Asia. Yet if any university jumps too soon
on the opportunity without adequate preparation, it risks tarnishing its institu-
tional image in an enormous manner. Institutions like AUB are aware that there
are big players in the online education business. Some realise that the market
now is globally accessible with a cost structure that is not easily met by smaller
local players. What is of concern is that smaller players would not be able to
compete. In this case, the disruptive power of MOOCs may be more felt by
those smaller institutions.
MOOCs have the potential to impact students in many ways. The AUB-
EDRAAK agreement has the potential to support them with their current aca-
demic coursework by leveraging the MOOC as supplementary/remedial
40 Yusuf M. Sidani

material. In addition, according to Edraak’s experience so far, MOOCs would

help in improving their job prospects. Finally, beyond employability, MOOCs
especially those designed in this context help students in gaining life skills that
are not otherwise available in traditional education. As MOOCs rise to make
more sense to students, their disruptive power would become more tangible.
This, however, will take some time and will only be threatening if educational
institutions become complacent in response to the novel ways by which the new
generation is approaching learning.
MOOCs and similar approaches to education could contribute in an instru-
mental way to the struggling educational system in Lebanon and the Arab world
(Sidani & Thornberry, 2010). The key learning points for AUB and, in effect,
every institution of higher education in a similar context, includes realizing the
following:

(1) MOOCs represent a mode of teaching not a substitute for the traditional
face-to-face programs. So the disruptive power of MOOCs does not mean
that traditional instruction would cease to exist at any time in the foresee-
able future. As such MOOCs do not yet meet the test of a disruptive tech-
nology that is going to replace an old technology (face-to-face education).
Currently, MOOCs do not represent good substitutes for traditional educa-
tion nor are they expected to be in the near future, at least not in the context
under study.
(2) If done right, there are no reputational risks associated with MOOCs being
offered as a mode of education. There is actually a risk if a university
chooses to ignore this trend. This is where online education, as a disruptive
technology, would become threatening to a university’s reputation and
image. A university needs to have a clear vision and buy-in from relevant
stakeholders in the university, otherwise MOOCs or any other form of
online education will not work. A university needs to adopt a daring and
innovative entrepreneurial spirit, not afraid to take reasonable risks and
capitalise on the technologies available.
(3) MOOCs in the Middle East are not likely to operate under a workable busi-
ness model, at least not in the short run. This type of education requires
investments, and there could be significant financial and human resources
that need to be put in place without expecting direct financial returns. From
a disruptive technology point of view, the lack of a workable ‘business
model’ is actually good news to private universities. It is unlikely, in the con-
text under study, that a business model for MOOC delivery will create an
institution (a non-university) that would drive traditional educational insti-
tutions ‘out of the market’ or significantly threaten their presence. From a
strategy perspective, this acts as a barrier to entry into the educational
market.
(4) The value from MOOCs needs to be seen, not only from a student perspec-
tive but also how it works for other stakeholders. Teachers specifically are
particularly positioned to benefit a lot from the MOOC experience both in
 LOGIC LEADS LEARNing: MOOCs in the Middle East 41

terms of tangible and intangible outcomes. They would add a lot to their
skill sets in terms of getting acquainted with new modes of teaching. They
will also be able to reach students much beyond what they ever imagined,
thanks to advanced technology and online presence. This would almost
invariably lead to positive consequences for the university -as a whole- and
other relevant stakeholders as well.

The AUB-EDRAAK agreement has helped in reaching vast numbers of lear-

ners all across the Arab world. AUB’s brand recognition across the Arab region
has certainly improved as the MOOC experience allowed AUB instructors to
reach various corners of the Arab world, audiences it would rarely reach under
traditional modes of education. Taking this route, higher education institutions
are expected to use the disruptive power of the online technology to their benefit
rather than suffering its negative consequences.

References
American University of Beirut. (2018). Facts and figures. Retrieved from http://
www.aub.edu.lb/aboutus/Pages/facts.aspx. Accessed on February 28, 2018.
AUB Office of Admissions. (2018). QS World University Rankings. Retrieved from
http://website.aub.edu.lb/admissions/applications/Pages/ApplytoAUB.aspx
AUB Press Release. (2017, October 17). For the first time: AUB no. 1 university in
the Arab region as per QS university rankings. Retrieved from http://website.aub.
edu.lb/communications/media/Documents/Oct-17/AUB-Ranking-First-in-QS-Rank
ing-EN.pdf#search=ranking
Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1995). Disruptive technologies: Catching the
wave. Harvard Business Review, 73(1), 43 53.
Burd, E. L., Smith, S. P., & Reisman, S. (2015). Exploring business models for
MOOCs in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 40(1), 37 49.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause
great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA
of higher education from the inside out. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Christensen, C. M., & Overdorf, M. (2000). Meeting the challenge of disruptive
change. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 66 77.
Coursera. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.coursera.org/
Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox
and possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, (3), Art. 18. doi:10.5334/
2012-18
Daniel, J., Cano, E. V., & Cervera, M. G. (2015). The future of MOOCs: Adaptive
learning or business model? International Journal of Educational Technology in
Higher Education, 12(1), 64 73.
Dellarocas, C., & Van Alstyne, M. (2013). Money models for MOOCs. Communica-
tions of the ACM, 56(8), 25 28.
Edraak. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.edraak.org/en/. Accessed on January 2,
2017.
42 Yusuf M. Sidani

Epelboin, Y. (2017). MOOCs: A viable business model? In M. Jemni, K. Kinshuk, &

M. Koutheair (Eds.), Open Education: from OERs to MOOCs (pp. 241 259).
Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg.
iMBA Program Overview. (2018). Retrieved from https://onlinemba.illinois.edu/get-
info-contact-form/
Kalman, Y. M. (2014). A race to the bottom: MOOCs and higher education business
models. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 29(1), 5 14.
Khuri, F. (2017). AUB in its 150th anniversary. Harvard Business Review Arabia.
Retrieved from https://hbrarabic.com
Kolowich, S. (2013). The professors who make the MOOCs. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 18.
Korn, M., & Levitz, J. (2013, January 2). Online courses look for a business model.
The Wall Street Journal, B8.
Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: A
systematic study of the published literature 2008 2012. The International Review
of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 202 227.
McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for
digital practice. Retrieved from www.elearnspace.org/Articles/MOOC_Final.pdf
Rami. (2016). AUB chosen among the most beautiful universities in the world. Blog
961. Retrieved from http://www.plus961.com/2016/01/aub-chosen-among-the-
most-beautiful-universities-in-the-world/
Sidani, Y. (2002). Management in Lebanon. In M. Warner (Ed.), International
Encyclopedia of Business and Management (2nd ed., pp. 3797 3802). London:
Thomson Learning.
Sidani, Y. M., & Thornberry, J. (2010). The current Arab work ethic: Antecedents,
implications, and potential remedies. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(1), 35 49.
Tellis, G. J. (2006). Disruptive technology or visionary leadership? Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 34 38.
Vardi, M. Y. (2012). Will MOOCs destroy academia? Communications of the ACM,
55(11), 5 5.
Chapter 3

The Power of Technology in Customised

Executive Education
Lynette J. Ryals, Ruth Bender and Toby Thompson

Abstract
Customised executive education, designed for and delivered to individual
client companies by Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), differs in
important ways from award-bearing courses. One area in which these
differences are surprisingly extensive is in the use of technology. We explore
the impact of technology-enhanced learning (TEL) on course design, deliv-
ery and evaluation of customised executive education. In doing so, we con-
trast this form of learning with MOOCs, which use TEL in a different way,
for a different audience.
We begin with the ‘two-client’ problem. In customised executive pro-
grammes, course design is done collaboratively between the HEI and the
corporate client, reflecting the particular learning needs of the selected
participants as perceived by the commissioning client. We find that the level
of TEL in any programme will reflect the learning needs, and also the level
of TEL sophistication, of both client and academics.
We then consider the successful integration of TEL into customised execu-
tive education. TEL can enrich a course great, but will also mean a loss of
academic control, as a significant amount of the learning will be peer-to-
peer, and much of the information-gathering can take place outside the
classroom.
We conclude with the outcomes and success measures of customised execu-
tive education. The institutional disruption of TEL to the HEI is consider-
able, as their traditional business model is based on rewarding academics
for research and for classroom-hours. This needs to be rethought where the

The Disruptive Power of Online Education: Challenges, Opportunities, Responses, 43 62

Copyright r 2019 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISBN: 978-1-78754-326-3
44 Lynette J. Ryals et al.

classroom element is reduced, but there is constant online interaction with

participants.

Keywords: Executive education; executive development; customised

executive education; technology-enhanced learning; andragogy; course
design

3.1. Introduction
This chapter examines the disruptive impact of technology on non-award-
bearing customised executive education which is designed with, and tailored to,
the specific needs of individual companies or organisations. This type of educa-
tion is typically aimed at developing middle to senior managers and improving
their role performance. It consists of closed courses, available only to designated
employees of that organisation and occasionally to members of their supply
chains. Such courses may contain high levels of proprietary information such as
financial and management reports, or case studies or projects based on the par-
ticular organisation. We consider how the adoption of technology-enhanced
learning (TEL) has fundamentally changed the way in which this type of educa-
tion is designed and delivered, either as a Small Private Online Course (SPOC)
or, more commonly, in a blended learning environment. We contrast this type
of course, highly tailored to a client context, with Massive Open Online Courses
(MOOCs), which by their nature occupy a position at the other extreme of the
spectrum of online courses.
Reflecting the chronological sequence of these educational interventions we
consider the teaching and learning process in three stages: course design; course
delivery; and evaluation and outcomes. We outline how TEL affects the discus-
sion between university and corporate client on course design prior to delivery;
how it impacts on course delivery; and how the impact on client companies and
on participants1 can be assessed. We conclude with some observations on the
business model for universities wanting to offer online and blended executive
education and some inhibitors that they might face.
Our paper makes several contributions to the field. We discuss how TEL has
changed executive education, showing how it differs from MOOCs, and how
technology plays an active part in course design as well as delivery. We explore
the necessary three-way liaison between learner, university, and corporate client
and consider how to reconcile the sometimes conflicting goals of these three very
different stakeholders. In addition, we make observations about the specific busi-
ness model issues and what this might mean for Higher Education Institutions

1
In the context of client-defined executive education courses, learners are generally
referred to as ‘participants’ or ‘delegates’, distinct from the ‘students’ who attend for-
mally accredited courses.
 The Power of Technology in Customised Executive Education 45

(HEIs). Furthermore, we comment specifically on the objectives and success cri-

teria for corporate executive education.

3.2. Customised Executive Education: The Context

The context in which this chapter is set is the provision of what the market calls
‘executive education’ to the middle and upper echelons of executives within
multinational companies. These companies may have a European or North
American head office but have multinational operational sites, from whose
regions our provision is often commissioned and, in the case of blended courses,
delivered. The authors carry out related functions in this context: client manage-
ment and business development; education delivery; and education technologist.
As we will discuss later, there is considerable overlap between these roles. All
three also work closely with the Executive Development Directors (EDD) for
these programmes. EDDs are responsible for the whole client relationship. They
orchestrate the design of programmes, select and brief the appropriate academics
and liaise with the learning technologist on the requirements for the learning
management system and all online aspects of the programme. Acting as a bridge
between client, participant and academic, they lead the webinars, attend most
classroom sessions and provide relevant feedback to all parties involved in the
intervention.
The purpose of these courses of education (often termed ‘development’ or
‘training’ programmes by the commissioning companies) is defined principally
by the commissioning client often an executive or group of executives within
the Human Resources (HR) or related functions. This is done in conjunction
with those responsible for customising the executive education provision within
the HEI. As such, the provision is commissioned on behalf of a specified popula-
tion of executives, rather than by individuals in search of a personalised develop-
mental provision. The end purposes of such courses will vary considerably, but
could include knowledge transfer; in situ development of a company’s top team;
exposure to new thinking and new business approaches; the enactment of new
behaviours; or full-scale organisational development for entire executive popula-
tions in support of a strategic corporate imperative.
The fact that the commissioning client is not the eventual programme partici-
pant leads to a ‘two-client problem’, which is a feature of corporate executive
education that has no parallel within the student or MOOC environment. The
commissioning client will have a very strong influence on the course content and
delivery modes, but this team will be commissioning the course(s) for others, so
there are also the interests of the individual participants themselves to consider.
A factor influencing the design and delivery of executive education is that the
two parties’ interests may not coincide. One example is a tension between what
the HEI regards as an essential component to the education or development of a
participant given the HEI’s andragogic expertise, allied to their specialist
fields of research and what a particular corporate client regards as essential,
given the contingencies of the corporate’s immediate needs. Resolution of this
46 Lynette J. Ryals et al.

tension is one of the hallmarks of successful university-based customised execu-

tive education.
Another, surprisingly common problem in corporate executive education is
that the course content or delivery method originally specified by the commis-
sioning client might not always match that desired by the participants. This
problem may arise because the commissioning client has misidentified the execu-
tive education need, or at least misattributed its cause. The problem may not
manifest itself until delivery starts, at which point the ‘participant client’
becomes more influential than the ‘commissioning client’. Post delivery, focus
swings back to the commissioning client as the effectiveness of the education is
considered, thereby introducing into the mix the mediational skills required of
the HEI educational technologist to ensure the skill (and comfort) gap does not
affect the quality of the outcome.
Another contextual difference from student courses and MOOCs is the com-
petitive landscape. Competition in award-bearing courses, whether online or
traditional, is largely between universities. In the executive education context,
the competitive landscape is much more intense, including traditional univer-
sities, independent universities, consultancies and increasingly the client com-
pany’s own training and development team or corporate university (UNICON,
2014). The competition will be based on multiple criteria including course design
and technology, the pricing model, contextual appreciation of the organisation,
region, or market and the profile of academic faculty delivering the programme.
Aside from the non-massive and non-open constraints that are a consequence
of supplying multiple single-clients with a bespoke education provision, there
are further contextual differences between executive education and the MOOC
environment.
Firstly, the client expectation is of 100% completion. Participants may have
been specifically selected to attend the course. This is often a sign of esteem
within the client company, and participants may need corporate sponsors.
Dropping out of an executive education course provided by your company is
not generally acceptable and may even have career-limiting implications. In this
respect, executive education has more in common with a selection of students
for award-bearing courses than it has with MOOCs2.
Secondly, individual executive participants are not generally expected to
return for further courses (although the corporate client may); so, executive edu-
cation is purely about education and training, and, from the point of view of the
institution, does not contain a marketing element. This contrasts sharply with
MOOCs, often positioned as ‘tasters’ leading to further study.
Thirdly, executive courses are distinct from MOOCs in that with corporate
courses the participants have a common corporate background, and might be
working with each other now or in the future. On these courses, whether

2
It has been shown that overall, only 5 6% of those enroling for a MOOC actually
complete the course although completions rise to 22 24% for those who enrol
intending to complete, rather than just to browse (OCR, 2016; Reich, 2014).
 The Power of Technology in Customised Executive Education 47

delivered in a traditional manner or with TEL, participants enter into a relation-

ship with their own corporate peers on the course, their HR departments and
those above them within corporate hierarchies sponsoring the course, and with
the faculty and support staff of the HEI itself. Aggregating these relationships
allows the impact that the overall programme has on the corporation to be mea-
sured, which is not possible with a more individualistic and self-selected MOOC.
Table 3.1 sets out these contextual differences.

Table 3.1. Contextual Differences between Customised Executive Education

and MOOCs.

Aspect Customised Executive Education MOOCs

Origination Commissioned by the client’s HR Developed by faculty for a
department (or equivalent) for wide, self-selected audience
delivery to a selected group of
executives
Tailoring Highly tailored in terms of the Generic, determined by the
tools and technologies used, faculty
delivery method and content
Relationship An ongoing relationship with the No parallel to this
client’s commissioning team, with
the possibility of generating
future revenue from the company
Pricing Significant fees charged to the Generally, no fee for the
corporate client, which may then course, although participants
be passed down to the can pay for add-ons
participant’s budget code
Motivation Individuals attend the Individual participants make
programme as part of their job their own choice to attend the
course
Completion Completion is compulsory for the Traditionally high drop-out
participant rate
Network Peer-to-peer interaction with Peer-to-peer interaction,
people from the same company, generally transient, with
with whom participants can strangers
expect the ongoing contact
On-selling No ongoing commercial Possibility of on-selling
relationship with participants qualifications or more courses
after the programme (although to generate revenue
there could be ongoing contact)
48 Lynette J. Ryals et al.

3.3. The Role of Technology in Course Commissioning and

Design
It is now taken for granted by corporate clients that any course will include ele-
ments of TEL. At the very least, participants will access administrative details
through a bespoke portal; however, the vast majority of programmes are
blended, with some being totally online.
Chronologically, customised executive education begins with the request to
tender, but the main impact of technology is at the design stage. Here, the differ-
ence to MOOCs is very clear. In MOOCs, the participants could well have very
different levels of aptitude with technology, but this is not necessarily known
beforehand and may not influence course design or delivery. By contrast, in the
customised executive education world, courses are co-created with clients to
achieve the agreed contractual, learning, behavioural and/or organisational
development outcomes for the target participants, with the extent of TEL inte-
gration in the course design subservient to these outcomes.
Course objectives and design reflect contextually dependent variables such as
aptitude with technology, client (and HEI) preference for technology platforms,
client policies with regard to bring-your-own-device, and internet access regula-
tions (and availability) for internet-connected devices: overall, this presents a
highly ambiguous starting point. This technology-related ambiguity is amplified
when set against the ideological contrasts inherent in the respective end-goals of
a corporation versus an HEI, such as between the priority of earning over learn-
ing, for instance. Given this complex set of variables, working with clients with
different levels of sophistication and with lecturers who may be more or less
comfortable with TEL creates a number of challenges in co-creation, as illu-
strated in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 focuses on the individual academic rather than on the institutional
level of TEL ability. This illustrates another facet of the customised executive
education world. In the MOOC environment, academics largely self-select to
deliver online education because of their interest, prior experience and level of
comfort with the technology. However, in the customised environment, the
client company may select a specific academic or team on the basis of profile or
subject expertise, and may then ask for online delivery modes. It could be that
the requested academic, whilst an expert in their field, is less familiar or
comfortable with the technologies and techniques required for online learning.
Another important consideration that will affect the individual academic’s
participation is the HEI’s cultural norms regarding attitudes to the displacement
of physical teaching time-space towards virtual teaching time-space. For
example, systems of faculty reward based mainly on classroom-hours could dis-
courage all but the most ardent devotees of TEL from designing more creative
learning programmes. We discuss this later in the chapter.
Choices made at the institutional level may also affect the corporate online
environment, as the platform tech tools available may be predetermined by insti-
tutional choices made elsewhere in the university. In this respect, these choices
 The Power of Technology in Customised Executive Education 49

Table 3.2. How Client and Academic TEL Skills Influence Course Design.

Academic TEL skills high Academic TEL skills low

1 Mutual High Tech 2 Client Lead

Client TEL High TEL ‘conciliation’ means In a sophisticated client

sophistication increased productivity in design environment, low-tech delivery
high and delivery, as the available may lack credibility with the
tools are well-understood and commissioning client and the
the focus is on the most participants.
appropriate TEL and design. The client will push for more
The danger is that design and relevant TEL and academics
execution may suffer from may face an uncomfortably
TEL ‘whizz bang’ at the steep learning curve. This
expense of desired outcomes could limit some academic
participation

3 Academic Lead 4 Mutual Low Tech

Client TEL Course design process is driven Education solution is most

sophistication by the academic, who might likely to be traditional face-to-
low need to educate the client on face. A blended or online
what is possible and course could be designed and
appropriate. The outcome delivered, but it is unlikely to
could be a move towards box be effective. Often, it will not
(1) or, if not successful, closer even be considered as an
to box (4) option

become ‘external factors’ (Whitaker, New, & Ireland, 2016) since the individual
academics have little or no influence over them.

3.3.1. Co-creation of Course Design

Course design is an iterative process in the executive education world, and par-
ticularly so when considering online or blended provisions. Customised online
executive education courses are co-designed with the client (and often with the
participant), who may or may not make explicit their company’s technological,
ideological and cultural variables. To support andragogic learning (Knowles,
1990) in post-experience executive learners, we advocate constructing online or
blended executive education in several modules with inter-module work that
may include project and group work as well as coaching or other inputs from
the teaching team.
Typically, content and course design discussions will involve several key
stakeholders, such as the client company’s HR team and technical experts and/or
the company’s finance director or CTO. Considerations will include whether or
50 Lynette J. Ryals et al.

how client experts should co-deliver part of the course, or how the organisation’s
bespoke versions of models can be introduced and used. The ‘textbook’ exam-
ples employed in MOOCs are often rejected early in the design stage, even if
they are the academic’s preferred choice.
During this co-creation process, the consideration of which mode of TEL is
most appropriate for that client and context plays an active part in course
design. Discussions will take place around how various elements of the curric-
ulum can be rendered and delivered in an online format. For instance, how lear-
ners are expected to collaborate online with each other, and with the HEI; what
form learner support should take within the course; and the role that the cor-
poration’s own learning management systems, enterprise social media and dedi-
cated learning support systems have in mediating the eventual course design.
Case study 3.1 illustrates two different clients and their approach to co-creation
with us.

Case Study 3.1. Co-Creation in Course Design

Co-creation works differently depending on the client experience and need:
Mutual High Tech: In Client 1, a multinational company for whom we had
been running courses for many years, the brief was very specifically to bring
in TEL as a substitute for face-to-face delivery. The driver for this was not
educational but, rather, to minimise travel time and cost for the partici-
pants. Here, the client was technically adept and the long-standing relation-
ship meant that we understood the participant needs and skills very well.
Consequently, the co-creation focused on exploring the most appropriate
delivery methods for the different types of content. The danger was that
some outcomes might have been compromised by the client’s insistence on
TEL for non-educational reasons; many of the discussions were about how
to avoid that.
Academic Lead: For Client 2, a new client in the public sector, the emphasis
was more on the content than the delivery methods. The client commission-
ing team believed that the organisational culture meant that target partici-
pants would be unwilling to accept much TEL. So, despite the academic
lead having strong TEL skills, the client sought a course design that focused
mostly on classroom delivery. Here, therefore, both the perceived sophisti-
cation and the appetite for TEL on the part of the client were relatively low
and the danger was that the client would be uncomfortable with the pro-
posed TEL components. The co-design team agreed to test these percep-
tions, so the brief was received from the commissioning team and then
tested with potential participants in detailed interviews and focus groups to
ensure relevance of content and delivery method.
 The Power of Technology in Customised Executive Education 51

3.3.2. Roles in Executive Education Course Design

Up to this point, we have considered the role of technology in the course design
process as though the course were designed by a single academic. Whilst this
might be true in a classroom-only context, it is not so in the online education
world where course design is carried out by a combined team of academic and
education technologist. In the customised executive education field, course
design is also influenced by two sets of clients: the commissioning client (espe-
cially in the design stage) and the participant client (during each delivery iter-
ation). Some universities, our own included, have a business development team
who may also be involved in course design. Figure 3.1 illustrates the involve-
ment of the various parties.
The HEI academic delivery team will comprise education technologists and
academics: each role is necessary and neither is privileged. If the academic team
is accustomed to working with TEL, they might have clear ideas on what will
work and will discuss with the education technologists the most effective way to
deliver. In other circumstances, the design process is driven by the education
technologist, continually questioning and challenging the academic about learn-
ing objectives and content, to establish the most appropriate learning structure.
For example, in Client 1, the case study above, the course design process was
led by the education technologists, with the academics being guided through the

Figure 3.1. Co-creation at Each Stage of the Process.

52 Lynette J. Ryals et al.

large range of technologies available and encouraged to think more widely

about how the learning objectives could be delivered. In Client 2, the design
process was led by the academic team, with input sought from the education
technologist at specific points. These examples illustrate the difficulty of charac-
terising technical sophistication in TEL at the organisational level (c.f.
Table 3.2), when it might well differ markedly between different parts of both
the client and the academic partner organisation.

Case Study 3.2. TEL is Not Always the Solution

The matrix in Table 3.2 suggests that the combination of sophisticated client
and sophisticated academic will lead to a course rich in TEL. However, this
is not always the case.
Client 3 is a UK-based multinational. The brief was for an extensive and
transformational leadership development programme for middle and senior
managers. The client was highly sophisticated in respect to TEL, and most of
the participants were equally TEL-savvy, a fluency which arose from the
nature of their work. To complement this, the academic team responsible for
design and delivery were experienced in this area.
In the design stage, the commissioning client placed considerable
emphasis on building and maintaining a sophisticated online platform to
support and to run the programme. This included an online component to
provide expert knowledge between face-to-face sessions, programme
overview webinars run at the start of each cohort, and online coaching
sessions delivered by Skype, to maintain development momentum.
As it turned out, contrary to the client/HEI expectation, the online aspects
of the programme became increasingly occluded as the true benefit of the
eventual programme design came to prominence: namely the deeply
personal, highly impactful ‘realisations’ that emerged, for each participant,
from the developmental exercises on each module. The commissioning client
benefited enormously from the exercises and projects framed by the
individual participants and from the positive impact that the transformed
middle managers had on their direct reports.*
Several conclusions can be drawn from this. Firstly, that a reconciliation
of high TEL sophistication in both the client and HEI is no prima facie
guarantee of eventual enhancement of the learning on a customised executive
development programme via technology. Secondly, neither is the commissioning
client’s expectation of inclusion of TEL mediation a guarantee of TEL
inclusion on the programme. Thirdly, it is not possible to attribute purely
learning intentions or outcomes to the so-called ‘enhancements’ via
technology, not when cultural, organisational and contextual forces i.e.
non-learning forces are at play.
*The revised programme was a great success, winning for Cranfield the 2016 Excellence in Practice Gold Award
for Executive Development, run by the European Foundation for Management Development.
 The Power of Technology in Customised Executive Education 53

It is worth noting that sometimes the co-creation process drives the pro-
gramme in the opposite direction to that expected. Case study 3.2 provides such
an instance.

3.3.3. Course Design TEL or Don’t TEL?

As discussed earlier, although it doesn’t always work as anticipated, corporate
courses which until comparatively recently might have been delivered in the
classroom now routinely adopt TEL. There is no simplistic dyad of either face-
to-face or online delivery in this market; instead, there are complex design con-
siderations that are influenced by the commissioning and participating clients,
the academics, the academic technologists and possibly by other contextual
factors such as chosen technology platforms, academic workload and recogni-
tion, and client costs and culture.
We do not start with the assumption that 100% online delivery will be the
right answer. Unlike MOOCs, which are designed for purely online delivery,
customised executive education is rarely just online but includes a blend of deliv-
ery methods reflecting its complex balance of contextual variables. Course
design includes several different considerations:

(1) Which elements of the jointly designed curriculum would best be delivered
in the classroom and which would work online?
(2) Which aspects of the course should be presented by the academic and which
should be done peer-to-peer?
(3) Which are best done synchronously and which can be done asynchronously?
(4) Which learning is appropriate for the individual, and where might group
learning be more appropriate?
(5) For all course elements, which, if any, technology(ies) might be the most
appropriate to use?

The primary driver for selecting any particular TEL component comes from
the learning aim(s) moderated by contextual factors such as client sophistication.
Our university espouses the blended method for executive education, adopt-
ing different techniques for different aspects of learning.
For skills where repetition and private practice are useful, or where ability
and familiarity vary substantially from participant to participant (e.g. finance
and accounting skills for managers), we advocate the use of TEL and flipped
classroom. However, skills that benefit from interaction (such as problem-
solving and project managing) are best delivered through small-group working,
projects and classroom sessions. Finally, in the development of personal and
leadership skills (e.g. mindfulness), we urge our clients to use coaching, facilita-
tion and consultancy-type interventions, some of which may be online and some
of which may be face-to-face.
Of course, many of these decisions had their counterparts in executive educa-
tion even before the regular use of TEL, but TEL, as we will discuss later,
54 Lynette J. Ryals et al.

provides an exciting flexibility that can enhance the learning and engage the
learner. A simple example of this is the learning teams that we set up, to work
on specific issues or projects within their organisation. Setting these up as private
groups online with shared virtual whiteboard and document sharing facilities
now enables internationally mixed groups to work together with ease. This facil-
itates learning projects that are far more complex and potentially more useful to
the client organisation than was ever possible in the face-to-face environment.
Another feature of customised online executive education at the pre-delivery
phase is the ‘freeze point’ both of learning-material production and of the design
process. Online executive education tends not to have content strongly frozen in
advance. Given the multiple stakeholders who may comment on the content, re-
engineering of the course continues up to and beyond the course launch point:
otherwise, the promise of a ‘customised’ course becomes mere rhetoric. For this
reason, we advocate ‘pilot’ versions of each component (both material and the
TEL), where we positively invite clients to comment and critique; and we com-
mit to detailed pre-launch testing and discussion with clients and to in-course
adjustments if required by participants. This is another point of contrast with
MOOCs, as we prefer to sacrifice consistency between cohorts in the interests of
tailoring to each cohort as we go. Indeed, with many of our clients, the course
development process continues throughout the whole engagement (as illustrated
by Client 3). Building this into the education culture means that our academic
and technology teams learn to expect and accept change and respond to partici-
pant feedback.
Timing is another factor that differentiates customised executive education.
Blended courses involve face-to-face elements, which need to be diarised rigor-
ously. In theory, dates are co-determined based on client, participant and aca-
demic availability. In practice, corporate clients tend to expect their academic
providers to ‘flex’ in response to their changing needs. Inevitably, this leads to
tensions where the client’s preferred academic(s) have long-established commit-
ments for other teaching. Where TEL has been disruptive is in the way it can
ease this tension, allowing flexibility to be built in pre- or post-launch for on-
demand learner support from academics, or ad hoc virtual collaboration tool
sessions involving academics or other support staff involved in the customised
online executive education course. Examples of this include ‘out of office-hours
consultations’ or ‘project team webinars’, enabling coaching and consultation
internationally but requiring flexible hours of the academics involved.

3.4. The Role of Technology in Course Delivery

The discussion so far has demonstrated that the design phase of an executive
education course is not clearly separated from its delivery. However, once deliv-
ery starts, there are some additional uses of technology that may disrupt the
‘standard’ educational model. In this section, we consider the disruptive impact
of participants’ experience with technology, collaborative learning and learner
engagement.
 The Power of Technology in Customised Executive Education 55

3.4.1. Participants’ Experience with Teaching and Learning

Corporate executive education is characterised by participants who commonly
have at least 10 years’ managerial experience, often within a variety of corporate
contexts, from a range of sectors. As such they are highly confident with respect to
their fields of expertise, but may not have recent (or any) experience of formal or
HEI-based courses of learning. Also and perhaps related to this they will
have different levels of prior experience and commitment to the education process.
Furthermore, they may be less than confident with the modes of teaching and
learning delivered via contemporary educational technologies. In theory there is
huge diversity of ways in which learners and lecturers can interact and engage
with each other (for example: e-learning, Google hangouts and webinars, instant
messaging, eBooks, virtual business simulations, online peer-assessments).
However, in practice, the lecturer may need to adjust their delivery using these
mechanisms to a point that is comfortable to a ‘digital immigrant’ learner. One
way to do this is to include short tutorials or crib sheets on ‘how to use XYZ’ in
the pre-course preparation and on the course portal, so that learners who may be
in senior roles but struggling with new (to them) technologies can inform them-
selves privately. It is also wise to consider phasing the introduction of new tools if
the participant sophistication is low, rather than introducing an avalanche of new
technologies up front, which could overwhelm and disengage participants.
Gamification can be useful, here learning to use a new tool in a fun game situ-
ation, rather than formally, can work well. We routinely use a gamified learning
management system (LMS) on our customised programmes as a means to man-
age the online aspects of the programme, for the benefit of both the participants
and the commissioning client. Alongside all the quantitative benefits of such a sys-
tem, the LMS uses the more qualitative gamification function to encourage parti-
cipants to engage both with the material-downloads from the programme, as well
to engage in the chat and collaborative portions that constitute the ongoing
‘developmental conversations’ that take place throughout the programme.

3.4.2. Tailoring to Learning Styles

Education theory advocates that delivery should be influenced by the learning
styles of the participants. In face-to-face classroom teaching the styles may not
be known in advance, but in executive education environments where the parti-
cipants are known in advance, their learning styles can be profiled (possibly in a
pre-course assessment centre) and this this information used to shape course
design and delivery.
Adjusting for different learning styles is arguably easier in a blended custo-
mised education context as more tools and techniques are available, and there is
much more flexibility.

3.4.3. Collaborative Learning

Unlike either the conventional classroom face-to-face environment or the
MOOC environment, the online or blended executive education context requires
56 Lynette J. Ryals et al.

multi-way collaboration between the lecturer, the participant and the corporate
sponsor and between participants. A commonly-used and highly effective
method of online collaboration is the web-based seminar, or webinar. The most
successful webinars are where the technology empowering the virtual collabor-
ation of the dispersed participants disappears into the background of the actual
content of the collaboration: this relegation demands higher levels of technology
fluency than the typical cultural norms encountered in business schools or HEIs,
but when achieved can become a significant differentiator between customised
online executive education and MOOCs.
In classroom delivery, time is an obvious constraint conventional lectures
have to be delivered within the scheduled time slot. Online, exercises can be
enriched by tasking the participants to search for additional resources. Interest-
ingly, this requires the lecturers to be confident enough and knowledgeable
enough to react to new materials that participants may bring to the discussions,
so there is less lecturer ‘control’ of the teaching experience than in classroom
delivery. This places greater demands on the lecturers themselves, a point we
return to later. Case study 3.3 gives an example.

3.4.4. Peer-to-Peer Learning

Peer-to-peer learning is not just a derivative benefit that emerges from inter-
action with the multiple TEL components but, as with MOOCs, becomes the
medium in which the learning takes place. The mutually supportive interaction
between learners and learners, and learners and lecturers, can be mediated via
text chat, FaceTime™, video, the business simulation platform and discussion
forums, as well as email, Skype, WhatsApp and phone and corporate

Case Study 3.3. Enhancing Learning Using TEL

In a face-to-face finance and accounting course this lecturer distributed
financial data and tasked participants, working in syndicate teams, to analyse
it and to report back to the rest of the class with their views. Taking this
finance course into the online arena, with virtual teams and asynchronous
engagement, provided an opportunity to enhance this exercise. The syndicate
teams are no longer restricted in the amount of data they access the whole
internet is available to them. Nor need they be constrained by the standard
timetable the report-back can be scheduled for any time in the future. And
they are no longer limited in their methods of report-back technology
enables sophisticated spreadsheets, slide packs or the creative use of videos in
the way they record and present their findings. This also means that the
findings can easily be preserved on a course portal for participants to refer
back to in the future.
Exercises like this can take place during the course itself or can be used as
inter-module work between different elements of a programme.
 The Power of Technology in Customised Executive Education 57

conferencing systems3. As such, in the online educational environment, the chan-

nels for feedback from learners to lecturers are rich and diverse. This becomes
particularly relevant when dealing with executive participants, whose experience
and contributions can, if handled correctly, be of great value to their colleagues.

3.4.5. Participation and Engagement

Levels of participation and learner engagement are more important in the execu-
tive education environment than in MOOCs. As we have mentioned, dropping
out of a client course could have a career implication for the participant. It
may also have an impact on the university, since the client may treat this as
poor delivery. Thus, lack of engagement by participants could have unfortunate
consequences.
In a face-to-face setting, the teacher has the luxury of being able to gauge
engagement by looking at body language and other signals. In many online edu-
cational channels, this is not normally possible (although new technologies are
beginning to change this). The fact that it is more difficult for teachers to judge
learner engagement and understanding in the online setting challenges the pre-
vailing ideology of teacher ‘control’ of the classroom, to which the academics
must adapt.
Some presenters rely on technology solutions to help evaluate whether the
learners are engaged with the learning intervention. For instance, in the case of
live webinars, technology solutions exist to show the lecturer whether or not the
learners have the appropriate screen open, or whether they are engaged with
other material on their devices. However, this is an unreliable indicator and one
that sits uncomfortably with the emphasis of andragogy on self-directed non-
didactic approaches (c.f. Jarvis, 1985). A better solution is for the HEI lecturer
to adapt their teaching/facilitation style to adapt to both the technology and the
learner’s attention span. This can be done, for example with icebreaker exercises
to promote cohort engagement and peer-to-peer learning at the start of live
webinars. It can be improved by promoting learner engagement prior to virtual
face-to-face webinars with self-testing; and the use and application of learner
analytics. (That said, learner analytics rely for their accuracy on larger numbers
of learners in replicated learning so may be considerably less reliable in small-
cohort adaptive executive education settings.)
The interaction between participants in executive education differs from the
MOOC environment in which students rarely know one another. In executive
education, participants may already know (or know of) one another but, even if
they do not, they share a common corporate history and context, as well as pos-
sibly having likely future interaction with respect to a (mostly homogenous)
corporate goal. For example, many tailored executive education courses are
aimed at developing the next generation of senior managers and leaders. The
participants may well know this and may use the courses and associated social

3
This is not an exhaustive list of examples.
58 Lynette J. Ryals et al.

interactions as an opportunity to build some useful informal networks as well as

to interact with and impress any leaders who are present. These effects frame the
interactions between them, and smaller cohort numbers mean that individual
participation is easier to judge and a lot more visible than on a typical high-
numbers MOOC.

3.5. Evaluation and Outcomes

Post-course evaluation and outcomes in executive education need to address
outcomes for both clients: the individual participants and the commissioning
company. The company, in turn, may frame its required outcomes in terms of
improvement in the performance or promotion potential of the individuals; or it
may consider outcomes in terms of organisational efficiency and performance;
or both.
Evaluation of individual benefits from executive education courses is fraught
with difficulties. Firstly, the company may find it difficult to articulate exactly
what it wants to achieve for individual participants. Careful scoping can take a
client requirement such as ‘we need more people who can run a business unit for
us’ and turn it into a suitable brief for use by an assessment centre, but effective
outcomes measurement is still going to need the client company to agree to and
fund, pre- and post-course assessment.
A second major issue with individual outcomes-based evaluation is a political
one about how the company intends to use individual outcomes data and what
the implications might be. During- and post-course, online and blended execu-
tive education may include both formative and summative assessment. The
former is largely self-testing for learner engagement and not reported to the
client; the latter may be for assessment, but there may be a substantial career
risk where a participant ‘fails’ an end-of-course assessment. The implications for
this need careful discussion with client companies, many of whom are keen to
build in assessment or even accreditation but are dismayed when the possible
downside risk is explained to them. We know of cases where very senior man-
agers have struggled with summative assessments for various reasons including
unfamiliarity with the assessment type, length of time out of formal education,
lack of time to prepare, dyslexia and overconfidence. High-profile failures by
senior people may have difficult consequences for the organisation; and failures
by more junior high-flyers may be damaging both to the view that senior man-
agers have of them, and to their own confidence. In one case, working with a
professional services firm, we had set a post-module summative assessment that
consisted of a planning exercise. We had agreed with the client that the feedback
would consist of a grade mark plus detailed qualitative feedback for each section
of the submitted document. The highest-marked plans would be the ones that
would be featured in future modules and used as exemplars for the company.
The grade mark caused furore amongst this group of ambitious high performers,
who all expected to achieve top marks in everything that they did. Eventually,
 The Power of Technology in Customised Executive Education 59

the client asked that we quietly drop the mark and provide purely qualitative
feedback.
As discussed above, learner analytics are less effective in measuring progress
here than they are in MOOCs or large-scale conventional award-bearing
courses. Often, smaller groups mean that informal rather than statistically reli-
able progress and attainment measures are all that are available. Informal mea-
sures might be perfectly acceptable if, for example, the education is about
developing a small cadre of managers or a top team where the core requirement
is behaviour or culture change, rather than knowledge transfer. If so, it is worth
making this explicit up front and also agreeing the appropriate time frames for
measuring outcomes. Knowledge transfer is reasonably easy to gauge by the end
of a module or course, but behavioural change may take some months to
become evident.
The second area of evaluation and outcomes that needs attention in deliver-
ing customised executive education is the possible impact of the education on
the company’s own performance. Organisational impact is notoriously difficult
to judge since there are so many other variables, both endogenous and exogen-
ous, that can affect it. Here, the use of inter-module and/or post-course project
work is a really valuable tool, since results such as cost savings or efficiency
improvements are more easily attributable to defined projects. One of our clients
works with us each year to define a number of profit improvement projects that
will be undertaken by their delegates during and after the course, supervised by
our academics. Money saved by these projects is reinvested in education and
development for the following year, and the net financial impact is reported to
the company’s Board. The company views the education we provide as ‘free’
because the identified project savings more than cover the cost of the courses.

3.6. Business Model and Inhibitors

We have established that online and blended customised executive education as
a context differs considerably from the more customary work of an HEI. In this
section, we consider some of the inhibitors to adopting this type of course, and
some of the ways in which the HEI business model needs to change to accom-
modate it.

3.6.1. Cross-functional Teams

The first issue challenging standard university business models is the need for
cross-functional teams, discussed earlier. In MOOC development, it can be the
case that the academic plans the course and content and then ‘throws it over the
fence’ to the TEL team to develop. In the executive education environment, suc-
cessful suppliers have cross-functional teams comprising academics and educa-
tion technologists who work together throughout the project. A challenge of this
model is the re-engineering of the power relationships within a university, which
have traditionally privileged the academic. For this business model to succeed, a
more equal relationship is required.
60 Lynette J. Ryals et al.

3.6.2. Cost
The high specificity of customised executive education, and the commercially-
sensitive content and difficulties in replicating it from client to client mean that
this provision is inherently more costly than ‘standard’ undergraduate or post-
graduate education. Furthermore, the need for cross-functional teams means
that course design using TEL becomes even more costly. And, unlike in the
MOOC environment, the material can rarely be re-used for different clients.
(Indeed, given the ongoing nature of tailoring, it is sometimes possible that the
TEL will need to be re-engineered between modules.)
This obviously increases the cost base of executive education, which has
implications for the business model, as more resources will need to be put into
course design and delivery, and this must be recovered from the client. Given
that the common perception of ‘online’ is that it can save costs, clients are not
always willing to accommodate this.

3.6.3. Academic Resistance

There are several reasons why academics may resist adopting TEL in customised
executive education, and these need to be addressed by the HEI.
One issue is academic attitudes and perception of risk. Many academics are
concerned about putting their educational collateral into an online format, as
they consider that this will lead to a loss of their intellectual property (Redpath,
2012). The HEI needs to have clear policies in place that will deal with this
equitably.
The second area of concern is how the academics need to adapt their delivery
mode. We argue that customised executive education already involves a very dif-
ferent mode of delivery to graduate teaching, but the use of technology disrupts
this further. For example, the academic will need to understand how to use the
different tools that might be needed (which could also differ between clients).
Also, as discussed earlier, they will have to develop skills to engage participants
in this new environment.
There is also the fact that delivery using TEL is more risky for the academic.
The example was given earlier of a finance and accounting course where partici-
pants could access and analyse corporate information from a wide range of
sources. This inevitably implies a loss of control for the academic. No longer are
they the sole source of information. Perhaps more worryingly, if the participants
access and analyse novel data, the academic will have to react very quickly to
put their findings into the course context: the first few times they have to do this
can be very stressful.
On top of all of these issues is the fact that in many cases, the HEI reward
model is inadequate in acknowledging and rewarding the commitment and effort
needed to create successful blended executive courses. Traditionally, universities
reward research and they reward classroom time. For this business model to be
successful and equivalence needs to be developed that incentivises client develop-
ment, course design and creation of TEL.
 The Power of Technology in Customised Executive Education 61

3.7. Conclusion
Customised executive education differs from the normal provision of univer-
sities, and the use of TEL makes it yet more different. The need to involve client
and participant in course design provides a unique context. Many of the per-
ceived advantages of TEL, such as its replicability and (sometimes illusory) cost-
saving potential disappear in an environment of extreme tailoring and perpetual
co-creation, with each course being unique.
The disruptive impact of TEL in these courses is seen in their design and deliv-
ery, but also in their impact on the client company. When properly designed,
online and blended courses can be highly tailored to achieve business outcomes;
they can also provide excellent value for money if suitable organisational impact
projects are incorporated into their design and delivery.
That said, HEIs participating in this market need to develop a culture and
processes which will encourage academics and technologists to work together.
They need systems in place to upskill the academics and they need reward sys-
tems that do not stand in the way of this. A substantial problem area remains
the lack of recognition that technology-enhanced learning is not cheap and that
it requires not just technology inputs but also considerable academic time and
development resource. Faculty workload management systems that still reflect a
traditional classroom-hours’ view of teaching may be holding back academics
from committing themselves to new blended learning approaches.
Ultimately, technology has the power to make in-company programmes
hugely rewarding for the client and for the contributing academic. We have
argued that maximising the positive impact that technology can have on custo-
mised executive programmes requires a systematic approach that ‘designs in’ the
appropriate use of technology from the outset. This, in turn, demands a vision
of the possible academic benefits of technology and a clear-sighted evaluation of
the technological capability of the client company, the delegates and the aca-
demics involved. Finally, this only works ‘on the ground’ if there is a close work-
ing relationship between the academic and the educational technologist and an
open and honest dialogue with the commissioning client.

References
Jarvis, P. (1985). The sociology of adult and continuing education. Beckenham:
Croom Helm.
Knowles, M. S. (1990). The adult learner. A neglected species (4e). Houston, TX:
Gulf Publishing.
OCR. (2016, August 1). State of the MOOC 2016: A year of massive landscape change
for Massive Open Online Courses. Retrieved from http://www.onlinecoursereport.
com/state-of-the-mooc-2016-a-year-of-massive-landscape-change-for-massive-open-
online-courses/
62 Lynette J. Ryals et al.

Redpath, L. (2012). Confronting the bias against on-line learning in management

education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11(1), 125 140.
doi:10.5465/amle.2010.0044
Reich, J. (2014). Reconsidering MOOC completion rates: The intention factor.
Retrieved from http://harvardx.harvard.edu/files/harvardx/files/reich_reconsidering_
moocs.pdf
UNICON. (2014). Minding their business by flexing our minds: A guide to corporate
university partnerships. Retrieved from http://uniconexeced.wpengine.com/wp-con-
tent/uploads/2016/04/Maybar-Plaxe_Allen_Renaud-Coulon-UNICON_Corporate-
Universities-2014.pdf
Whitaker, J., New, J. R., & Ireland, R. D. (2016). MOOCs and the online delivery of
business education: What’s new? What’s not? What now? Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 15(2), 345 365. doi:10.5465/amle.2013.0021
Chapter 4

Internationalisation of Online Learning:

A Double Degree Model
Charles Krusekopf

Abstract
Two of the most important trends in higher education have been the emer-
gence of online learning and efforts to internationalise the curriculum and
student body. While most universities embraced both these trends, insuffi-
cient attention has been paid to how the two approaches might be mutually
supportive. Online education offers the opportunity to bring together stu-
dents living in different countries in common courses and programmes, but
cross-border enrolments remain low and new models and approaches are
needed to build educational offerings that bring students and faculty from
different countries together in sustained educational engagement online.
This paper highlights a case study of an innovative blended double degree
business masters’ program between Royal Roads University (RRU) in
Canada and the Management Center Innsbruck (MCI) in Austria that
allows mid-career, blended learning students to build international compe-
tencies and networks while continuing to work full-time. Through this
double degree program, students can complete a Master of Global
Management (MGM) at RRU and an MBA at MCI in approximately
24 months. Mid-career students have traditionally had limited opportun-
ities to participate in an international education due to work and family
constraints, but the pairing of two blended programmes creates an oppor-
tunity for these students to engage in a rich cross-cultural learning commu-
nity. The paper highlights the challenges of integrating online learning into
internationalisation strategies and explains how double degree programmes
such as the RRU-MCI collaboration provide advantages that help over-
come the challenges associated with online programmes that enrol students
from different countries.

Keywords: Internationalisation; online learning; non-traditional students;

double degree; MBA; cross-border collaboration

The Disruptive Power of Online Education: Challenges, Opportunities, Responses, 63 80

Copyright r 2019 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISBN: 978-1-78754-326-3
64 Charles Krusekopf

4.1. Introduction
Two of the most important trends in higher education in recent years have
been the shift toward online and technology-enhanced learning and moves to
internationalise education (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2009; Sursock,
2016). Universities around the world have adopted globalisation strategies to
internationalise their curriculum, student bodies and staff (Altbach et al.,
2009; CBIE, 2016; Knight, 2012; Sursock, 2016). For example, 93% of
European universities surveyed have internationalisation strategies in place or
in development, and almost all have embraced online learning (Sursock,
2016). 87% of universities worldwide report that globalisation is included in
their institutional mission statement, with 78% reporting that globalisation has
been increasing in strategic importance (Green, Marmolejo, & Egron-Polak,
2012).
At the same time, online learning has been growing in importance but has
remained focused on domestic students. In 2015, 30% of higher education stu-
dents in the US took at least one distance learning class, up from less than 10%
in 2002 (Allen & Seman, 2013). Despite the potential for unlimited global access,
almost all online learning enrolments within university programmes and courses
come from students living in the country where the course is offered, with the
majority of students enrolled in the institution offering the course. For example,
studies show that less than 1% of students taking an online course from a US
university live outside the United States and global online programmes have
struggled to find a market (Seaman, Allen, & Seaman, 2018; Ziguras, 2018).
Online programmes that enrol students across borders remain relatively rare but
offer the potential to expand internationalisation efforts among university pro-
grammes and widen the set of students who can benefit from globalised learning
and interactions.
This paper offers an overview of an innovative blended learning double
degree programme launched in 2016 that allows mid-career students to earn an
MBA in International Business at Management Center Innsbruck, Austria
(MCI) and a Master of Global Management at Royal Roads University (RRU)
in Victoria, BC, Canada. The programme includes short residencies on both
campuses and online courses connecting students and faculty from both institu-
tions. It provides an example of how online education and internationalisation
can be mutually supportive, with each enhancing the other. The paper first
reviews how double degree programmes and online education can be combined
to expand access to international education to under-served populations. It then
provides an overview of the background and structure of the MCI-RRU double
degree program and its benefits to students, faculty and the institutions involved.
The paper discusses lessons learned and how a double degree framework, such
as the one adopted by RRU and MCI, can be used to overcome some of the
challenges that have limited the use of online education approaches within inter-
nationalisation efforts.
 Internationalisation of Online Learning 65

4.2. Internationalisation and Double Degree Programmes

Universities have pursued a variety of strategies to internationalise teaching,
learning and research in an effort to improve intercultural competence and
knowledge of international issues among students who will live and work in an
increasingly globalised world (Altbach et al., 2009; Green et al., 2012; Knight,
2012). Institutions have worked to internationalise ‘at home’ by expanding the
international content within courses and programmes, recruiting international
students and faculty and promoting international research and extra-curricular
activities with a global focus (Altbach et al., 2009). These internationalisation
efforts occurred on the university’s home campus and provided benefits by diver-
sifying the curriculum and population of students and faculty at the school.
Institutions recognised the need to extend internationalisation efforts beyond
the home campus, and therefore sought out partnerships and opportunities for
student and faculty outside their home country. These ‘cross-border’ internation-
alisation efforts have been increasing in scope and scale in recent years and
include efforts such as opportunities for students to study or complete intern-
ships or projects abroad, faculty exchanges, research partnerships, double degree
programmes and branch campuses (Green et al., 2012). Such programmes pro-
mote mobility among students and faculty, allowing them to have an immersive
experience in another country.
However, while short-term study abroad programmes allow students to build
their global knowledge and personal skills, visiting students often do not fully
integrate into the institution they are visiting and short exchange programmes
are less likely to lead to sustained cross-border institutional collaborations. Due
to these shortcomings, in recent years there have been a growing number of
collaborative degree programmes, such as double degrees, among institutions in
different countries (Council of Graduate Schools, 2010; Knight & Lee, 2012).
Double degrees allow students to earn two individual qualifications at equivalent
levels from partner schools, and allow deeper, more sustainable partnerships at
a student, faculty and institutional level (Knight, 2012). The MCI MBA-RRU
MGM partnership described in this paper is a double degree partnership as it
allows students to obtain two separate masters degrees, including a Master of
Global Management from RRU and an MBA from MCI.
Double degrees benefit students because they are able to complete courses
and programmes that may not be available at their home institution, connect
more deeply with international students and faculty as a regular student in a uni-
versity outside their home country, and obtain an international degree that will
enhance their career prospects (Corno, Lal, & Hassouna, 2016; Council of
Graduate Schools, 2010; Culver, Puri, Spinelli, DePauw, & Dooley, 2012). At
an institutional level, compared to short-term student exchange arrangements,
double degrees are seen as beneficial because they facilitate a deeper level of
commitment and interchange among faculty and administrators. Faculty have
the opportunity to work closely with counterparts at a partner institution to
develop new curriculum, to serve as visiting lecturers and to develop new
research programmes and resources (Hall, 2012). Schools see double degrees as
66 Charles Krusekopf

a way to support academic internationalisation while also enhancing their global

brand and aiding in the recruitment of international students (Henard,
Diamond, & Roseveare, 2012).
Government funded programmes, such as SOCRATES, the EU-US Atlantis
Program and Erasmus Mundi, played a key role in the development of double
degree programs, which are most common among European and North
American universities compared to universities in other parts of the world
(Kuder & Obst, 2009). A survey in 2008 identified 805 collaborative degree pro-
grams (primarily double degrees, but also including joint degrees) offered by
European universities, and 291 offered by US institutions, with business and
engineering the most common disciplines of focus (Council of Graduate
Schools, 2010). Most European double degrees were at a masters’ level with
partner schools in Europe or North America, while US schools most often part-
nered with European institutions and offered a mix of undergraduate and gradu-
ate double degrees (Obst, Kuder, & Banks, 2011).
Studies indicate a growing interest among universities in expanding double
degree programmes in the future, with over 85% of institutions in the US and
the EU planning additional collaborative programmes, with a focus on new
double degree offerings (Helms, 2014; Kuder & Obst, 2009). The growing inter-
est in double degrees has led to call for the development of new, innovative dou-
ble degree models that incorporate online learning, consortium-based
approaches and innovative program pairings (Knight & Lee, 2012). The increas-
ing number of online educational programmes creates new opportunities for
schools to explore cross-border partnerships that allow faculty and students to
engage in new international experiences, expand the range courses and pro-
grammes available and expand the number of students who engage in inter-
national education.

4.2.1. Expanding Access to International Education through

Online Learning
Despite university efforts to expand cross-border educational opportunities
through programmes such as study abroad and double degrees, overall partici-
pation in international education remains low. For example, only 2% of students
at US and Canadian institutions studied outside their home country in
2014 − 2015, despite the fact that 93% of North American academic institutions
indicated that it was a priority to promote out of country experiences for their
students (CBIE, 2016). In Europe, despite substantial financial support from
Erasmus + and other programmes and widespread participation among institu-
tions, in 2010 2011 fewer than 10% of students in EU universities spent all or
part of their studies outside their home country, well below the goal of 20%
adopted by the Bologna Mobility Strategy (European Commission, 2014).
While the numbers of students participating in cross-border educational
activities in almost all Western countries have been increasing in recent years,
the percentage of students participating has remained low overall and important
groups of students, including adult, working and low-income students, have
 Internationalisation of Online Learning 67

been excluded from most study abroad activities. Almost 90% of the Canadian
and American students who study abroad are undergraduate students participat-
ing in traditional face-to-face courses at a foreign university (CBIE, 2016).
Adult and working students have been consistently underrepresented in inter-
nationalisation efforts due to the challenges they face in terms of the financial
and time costs of most existing study abroad programmes (CBIE, 2016). On the
other hand, these students would benefit from greater exposure to the skills and
knowledge offered by international education due to their exposure to globalisa-
tion and cross-cultural interactions in their workplaces and communities
(Merriam & Bierema, 2014).
Online education offers a unique opportunity to increase the participation of
non-traditional students in international education because it fits the interests
and circumstances of this student group and makes international education
more accessible and affordable in terms of time and money (Green et al., 2012).
Adult and working students make up the majority of participants in online edu-
cation, and these students are looking to expand their skill sets and knowledge
in ways that can be directly applied in their careers and lives (Altbach et al.,
2009; Merriam & Bierema, 2014; Stavredes, 2011). Online learning can contrib-
ute to internationalisation at home for adult students who do not have the
opportunity to travel to other countries by introducing them to global topics
and issues, and by connecting them to information sources, teachers and stu-
dents abroad through courses or joint exercises that involve students in different
countries (Edwards & Teekens, 2012). This form of internationalisation offers
benefits because it is flexible and accessible to a wider range of students.
Concerns have been raised, however, about internationalisation efforts that
focus on one-time or short-term online interactions due to the lack of direct con-
tact and short duration that deprives students of sustained engagement with
international partners (Knight & Lee, 2012). Longer-term engagement, such as
through the completion of a series of courses or a full online degree program
that enrols students from a variety of countries, is seen as preferable to allow the
development of deeper understanding and sharing among students (Knight,
2012). However, while fully online degree programmes have been growing in
number in recent years, most online programmes enrol only students from the
country where the host university is located (Seaman et al., 2018). This is most
pronounced in the US, where only 37,788 of the 2.8 million students taking
online courses in 2014 were based outside the country (Merola, 2017).
The one country that has attracted relatively large numbers of cross-border
enrolments in online courses is the United Kingdom (UK), which utilises its net-
work of branch and affiliated campuses worldwide to attract international students
into online learning offerings from UK institutions (Merola, 2017). However, most
of the courses are supported and offered through local teaching institutions located
in the home country where the students reside and enrol only international students
(Ziguras, 2018). As a result, these programmes and courses are not well integrated
with internationalisation efforts that connect UK-based students and faculty with
counterparts in other countries. Online education itself has been growing in accept-
ance around the world, but cross-border collaborations in online education that
68 Charles Krusekopf

bring together students from different countries in one integrated program remain
rare. As highlighted in the next section, despite a number of benefits, several barriers
have hindered the development of cross-border collaborations in online education.

4.2.2. Benefits and Barriers to Cross-border Online Education

There is a growing recognition of the potential benefits of more closely aligning
online education efforts and efforts to develop students who are globally aware
and cross-culturally capable (Green et al., 2012; Sursock, 2016). Students who
have participated in online education courses together with students from differ-
ent countries gain an understanding and appreciation of other perspectives and
gain new knowledge and understanding of the context of issues in their home
country and abroad (Gemmel, Harrison, Clegg, & Reed, 2015). International
education also improves students’ ability to work well with people from other
countries and cultures, and which improves employment prospects and long-
term success in both business and social environments (Gemmel et al., 2015;
Leask & Carroll, 2011; Sanderson, 2011). Employers have highlighted global
awareness, cross-cultural capability and online proficiency as key skills in need
of development to meet twenty-first-century workplace demands, and the globa-
lised nature of business enhances the need to develop cross-border teams that
can work together in virtual formats (Fearon, Starr, & McLaughlin, 2011).
Despite these potential benefits, due to administrative barriers and personal
preferences students who study outside their home country almost always enrol
in traditional on-campus face-to-face programmes. As a result, cross-border
enrolments in online remain limited even in programmes designed to attract a
global cohort of students. For example, many top schools developed online
MBA programmes that were expected to attract a diverse cohort of students
from around the world. However, studies have shown that among universities
that offer a choice, the proportion of international students in online MBA pro-
grammes is much lower than the proportion of international students enroled in
that university’s on-campus programme (Ortmans, 2018). In the US, only 4% of
international students opt for online programmes, and worldwide less than 20%
of students in the top 20 online MBA programmes are international, much lower
than the proportion of international students in top on-campus MBA pro-
grammes (Ortmans, 2018).
Some educational offerings, such as MOOCs, have attracted significant
global enrollment, however the courses and programmes with the largest num-
bers of international enrollees tend to be offered on a non-credit or non-degree
basis (Online Course Report, 2018; Ziguras, 2018). International online colla-
borations within university courses and programmes have been focused on using
tools such as video conferencing or discussion boards to foster sharing of infor-
mation and views on global or cultural issues among students taking similar
courses at universities in different countries (Edwards & Teekens, 2012). These
international collaborations are often on a one-time basis, with no structure or
plan to sustain the cross-country engagement of students across several courses
or a full program. The collaborations often require a substantial commitment of
 Internationalisation of Online Learning 69

time to coordinate and administer as the students and faculty remain enrolled in
their home institutions and lack a common university platform where they can
connect. The interactions also lack depth as they typically last for just one ses-
sion or a few sessions during a course, and do not lead to deeper engagement
with peers from other countries across an extended time period or series of
courses.
Cross-border enrolments in online degree programmes offered by institutions
outside their home countries have been hampered due to concerns about degree
recognition, cost, technical and administrative challenges and issues related to
language and culture. For example, while online degrees have gained recognition
and large enrolments in certain countries such as the United States, a bias
against online learning remains among students, employers and governments in
many countries (Allen & Seman, 2013; Merola, 2017). This bias is often stron-
gest against online degrees offered by foreign universities because those univer-
sities may not be well known in the students’ home country or they may be
perceived as diploma mills (Shirvani, Scorza, Alkhathian, & Garcia, 2011;
Ziguras, 2018). Many governments, such as those in China and India, refuse to
acknowledge or accept online degrees taken at foreign institutions, limiting the
utility of such degrees for students who plan to work in their home country
(Allen & Seman, 2013; Merola, 2017; Ziguras, 2018).
Technical challenges and costs are also often cited by students as barriers to
enrollment in cross-border online education (Rye & Stokken, 2012). Online edu-
cation offered by foreign institutions is often as expensive as face-to-face offer-
ings from the same institutions, and significantly more expensive than online or
face-to-face offerings from universities in the students’ home country (Ziguras,
2018). Financial aid systems in most countries do not support cross-border
enrolments, and therefore students must bear the full costs of online pro-
grammes offered by a foreign university. Technical and administrative barriers
also create challenges for the enrollment of students from different countries in
online courses and programmes. For the course to work effectively, all students
must have access to the required equipment, a reliable, high-speed network con-
nection and be familiar and proficient with the learning platform. These issues
are of particular concern in developing countries, where online education has
been hampered due to technological challenges such as lack of affordable access
to computers and high-speed internet (Rye & Stokken, 2012).
Differences in culture, language and educational approaches across countries
have also created challenges for the full inclusion and integration of inter-
national students in online education (Rye & Stokken, 2012; Shirvani et al.,
2011; Simm & Marvell, 2017). Students often vary in learning style and back-
ground, leading to challenges with regard to expectations for participation by
students, differing understandings of academic standards and potential cultural
misunderstanding (Shirvani et al., 2011). Most cross-border programmes adopt
English as the language of instruction, which can create challenges in terms of
language fluency and the equal inclusion of students in course discussions and
activities (Simm & Marvell, 2017; Spiro, 2014).
70 Charles Krusekopf

Because of these challenges, students who want to take a study program from
a foreign university almost always opt to participate in face-to-face programmes
or courses on the home university campus. Online cross-border programmes
remain relatively rare but have been recognised to offer great promise to help
universities expand their internationalisation efforts and create new educational
opportunities for under-served populations including working and adult students
(Shirvani et al., 2011). The following section highlights an innovative cross-
border educational partnership between Canadian and Austrian universities that
utilises online education and a double degree format to enhance global aware-
ness and exposure for students working full-time in international business
careers. While the outlined approach is one of many potential models that might
be used to connect internationalisation efforts and online education, the lessons
learned from this case study can be helpful to practitioners and institutions that
are seeking to develop new programmes or partnerships.

4.3. RRU-MCI Double Degree

In 2015, Management Center Innsbruck and Royal Roads University began to
explore opportunities to create a double degree programme between two blended
degree business master’s programmes, the MBA in International Business at
MCI and the Master of Global Management (MGM) programme at RRU. The
programmes were offered in English and enroled mid-career students with a
strong interest in global business who were working full-time while completing
their academic studies. Both were offered in a cohort-based blended learning for-
mat, with a limited number of short residency periods on-campus and online
learning courses. The double degree partnership was embraced by both institu-
tions as a way to create richer and deeper international exposure for programme
students, to differentiate and promote the programmes to prospective students
and to build stronger institutional ties between RRU and MCI. This section
offers an overview of the two institutions, a description of the double degree pro-
gramme and its benefits to students, faculty and the institutions and a discussion
of how online double degree partnerships such as the RRU-MCI arrangement
offer a viable model to expand cross-border online education opportunities.

4.3.1. RRU and MCI Profile

Royal Roads University (RRU) was a Canadian public university founded in
1995 and located in Victoria, British Columbia. The university focused on
applied and professional programmes for learners who were already in the work-
force. RRU offered more than 50 blended and online degree programmes
including bachelors, masters and doctoral programmes that included a combin-
ation of short-term residencies on-campus and longer terms of online study.
While the university also offered some programs in a more traditional on-
campus, face-to-face format, more than 70% of students at RRU continued to
work full-time while completing their studies through blended or fully online
learning. RRU programmes were designed to build learning communities
 Internationalisation of Online Learning 71

among a cohort of peers who participate together in both on-campus residencies

and online courses.
The Management Center Innsbruck (MCI) was founded in 1996 and offers
graduate, non-graduate and post-graduate educational programmes to senior
and junior managers from all management levels and branches. MCI offered the
majority of its programmes on its campus in Innsbruck, Austria, but was
expanding blended and online programme offerings. In fall 2018, it offered
8 online programmes and planned to add new programmes and online options
to increase the proportion of students in online learning offerings (MCI, 2018).
RRU and MCI both adopted a global orientation and sought to internation-
alise both their programme curriculum and student body. MCI was one of
the most internationally oriented schools in Europe, and by 2018 had created
11 international double degree programmes and student exchange agreements
with more than 250 partner schools around the world (MCI, 2018). At the same
time, RRU hosted more than 400 full-time international students studying at its
campus in Canada, while also offering RRU degree programmes together with
partners in several other countries. However, as was true at other institutions,
most of the participants in international programmes at both RRU and MCI
were students studying full-time in traditional face-to-face programmes. Very
few students from outside North America or central Europe enroled in the
online or blended degree programmes offered by the schools, and few opportun-
ities existed for students in these programmes to engage in international studies
because they were working full-time while studying online. A blended dual
degree programme partnership was therefore seen as a way to enhance learning
and expand internationalisation opportunities to students who might not other-
wise be able to study with learners from around the world.

4.3.2. RRU-MCI Double Degree Program Development and Design

RRU and MCI began actively working together on the development of a double
degree programme between the MCI MBA and the RRU MGM programme in
spring 2015. The partnership developed rapidly based on the past experience at
both institutions with double degrees, and the willingness of programme cham-
pions to work out academic and institutional details in collaboration with the
wide set of university departments that needed to be engaged in the development
and implementation of the programme.
The development of the double degree programme was supported by both
prior experience and the existence of a clear process and written guidelines that
specified programme requirements for double degrees. The existence of clear
guidelines and procedures within an institution that guided the development of
collaborative degrees has been found to be very important to facilitate coopera-
tive development efforts (Hall, 2012; Helms, 2014). The online aspects of the
double degree partnership required some special consideration with regard to
administrative details, but the basic guidelines and process for the development
of an online double degree fit well with the established frameworks. For
example, the guidelines specified that students need to complete at least
72 Charles Krusekopf

two-thirds of the credit requirements for each programme. This guideline

ensured that the double degree was not a 50% plus 50% arrangement where stu-
dents could complete two degrees while only doing the work required of one,
which is important to maintain the programme quality and integrity in the
development of double degrees (Knight, 2011).
The programme design of the MBA-MGM double degree ensured that stu-
dents complete the core course requirements in their first programme before
transferring to the partner university. Both the MBA and MGM programmes
begin in the fall with an on-campus residency of one to two weeks where stu-
dents and faculty build close bonds through participation in active learning and
team building exercises. After residency students return to full-time work and
take online courses together with their cohort. This design helps to build a
strong learning community where students have the experience of meeting and
working face to face with the other members of their cohort before engaging in
online courses. The online components allow students to directly apply their
learning within their workplaces and share experiences and hold discussions
with other cohort members.
After completing approximately 11 months in their home university pro-
gramme, students in each programme then decide whether they will complete a
single degree at their home university, or transfer to the partner university to
start the double degree programme with the incoming cohort at the partner
school. Students who opt for the double degree transfer and become full mem-
bers of the partner university programme, participating in both the first pro-
gramme residency and online courses. They are able to shorten the time to
degree completion by avoiding repetition of common core courses such as
accounting and finance that are included in both programmes. The double degree
can be completed in 24 months, approximately 6 months longer than the comple-
tion time of a single programme due to the elimination of overlapping courses.
A key consideration in the development of the double degree was the estab-
lishment of administrative details and processes including working out arrange-
ments for admissions, registration and credit transfer and tuition payments. To
ensure compatibility of students within the two programmes and a smooth trans-
fer process, it is recommended that both programmes have similar admission
standards (Chevallier, 2013), which is true of the MGM and MBA programmes
that both require significant and relevant work experience in addition to an
undergraduate degree. Tuition payments with the MBA-MGM double degree
were simplified through an agreement that allowed students to pay tuition only
to their home university. The two schools agreed to compare student numbers
and payments every two years and transfer funds among the institutions to
ensure that tuition revenues match the number of students taking each degree
programme.
Key factors that supported the success of the RRU-MCI collaboration
included the level of institutional compatibility between the two schools and
highly committed personnel who were able to work collaboratively to address
any concerns or issues that arose. Studies have shown that institutional compati-
bility and mutual commitment are necessary for successful double degree
 Internationalisation of Online Learning 73

partnerships (Hall, 2012; Tarazona, 2013). As the programme was the first of its
type for both institutions, it was necessary to review and update the administra-
tive and academic aspects of the programme after the first year of operation.
For example, adjustments were made to application dates to make the transfer
process between universities smoother and to the timing of courses to allow dou-
ble degree students to complete their thesis research alongside their expanded
course requirements. While these adjustments require staff resources to monitor
and address, the benefits from the programme for students, faculty, staff and
the institutions helped sustain the commitment of both key personnel and the
institutions.

4.3.3. Benefits to Students, Faculty and Institutions

Several benefits for students, faculty and the institutions have been identified
through the development and implementation of the blended double degree pro-
gramme between MCI and RRU. First, the programme expanded global learn-
ing opportunities for students who are working full-time and who would not
otherwise be able to deeply engage in international learning. This benefit is felt
most directly by the students who opt to take the double degree programme at
the partner university, but it extends to all the students in both university pro-
grammes due to the additional diversity the double degree students from the
partner university bring to the home university cohort. Therefore, all students in
both programmes gain new skills and cross-cultural competencies through the
opportunity to get to know and study with students from other backgrounds
and countries. These skills have been shown to be beneficial in both academic
and work environments (Corno et al., 2016; Culver et al., 2012).
The double degree programme expands the range of courses and experiences
available to students. For example, MGM students who took the double degree
were able to take advantage of MCI’s strength and courses in entrepreneurship,
while MCI students were able to take advantage of RRU’s focus and courses
in the area of sustainability. The students also gained important experience
working and communicating across borders. The double degree students were
required to navigate the systems and requirements of a new university in a for-
eign country, thereby demonstrating their ability to work successfully across
borders and in online environments. Students who participate in double degree
programmes gain confidence in their ability to effectively work in a global and
cross-cultural environment (Culver et al., 2012).
The online aspects of the double degree programme provide skills that are valu-
able in the workplace and overall career development. Through its blended format,
the RRU-MCI double degree programme was designed to meet a critical need for
managers with cross-cultural and management skills in both face-to-face and
online settings. Firms operating in a global environment often rely on teams of
people located in different parts of the world who interact primarily online. The
MGM-MBA double degree programme required students to engage with a diverse
range of participants from different countries and different industry sectors in both
74 Charles Krusekopf

face-to-face and online settings. These skills are in increasing demand as companies
build collaborations and supply chains that span the globe (Neeley, 2015).
Second, in addition to the benefits that accrued to students, university faculty
and programmes benefited from the double degree programme as well. For fac-
ulty, the double degree programme created new learning opportunities by help-
ing to internationalise the student body and offered the opportunity to teach at
the partner university and explore new pedagogical approaches. The double
degree partnership has allowed faculty from both institutions to teach online or
face-to-face courses in the partner university, and MCI learning technologists
have participated in training sessions related to online learning offered by RRU.
These teaching and professional development opportunities allowed faculty and
staff from both institutions to learn from one another and apply new knowledge
and lessons to home institution approaches and courses.
Third, the double degree partnership between MCI and RRU created several
advantages for the institutions involved, including the ability to recruit new stu-
dents and explore new avenues of cooperation. Enroling students from a partner
university offered a low-cost way to recruit additional high-quality students into
a programme. Before transferring, double degree students must both meet the
admission requirements of the partner programme and successfully complete all
the courses in the first year of the partner university programme. This helps to
ensure that the students taking the double degree will be able to meet the special
academic demands of a cross-border programme. Both MCI and RRU have
also been able to utilise the opportunity created by the blended double degree
programme to expand the potential pool of programme applicants within their
domestic markets. The double degree serves as a market differentiator for the
programmes involved, creating a competitive advantage for the schools in an
increasingly crowded marketplace for online business degrees. Both institutions
prominently highlighted the double degree partnership on their programme web-
sites, and the double degree was a key topic raised by prospective students at
recruitment presentations.

4.3.4. Lessons Learned from the RRU-MCI Online Double Degree

Partnership
The experience gained by RRU and MCI in the development and implementa-
tion of their online double degree programme offers insights for other institu-
tions considering ways to connect university internationalisation efforts together
with online learning and highlights the advantages of using a double degree
arrangement to facilitate cross-border learning opportunities. First, an inter-
national double degree ensures that students have the opportunity to engage in a
sustained series of courses and experiences with a diverse cohort of students.
Using a blended format for the double degree programme opens this opportun-
ity up to a wider range of students, many of whom would not otherwise be able
to engage in study abroad or an international experience, especially one that
allows them to engage with a cohort of peers across a range of courses and activ-
ities. Most existing cross-border online collaborations offer students a one-time
 Internationalisation of Online Learning 75

opportunity to work with students from another country, but do not allow stu-
dents the opportunity to build stronger networks or richer understanding.
Longer-term student engagement through the completion of a series of courses
has been shown to support deeper collaborations among learners in a cross-
cultural environment (Knight, 2012).
The double degree model ensures that students are full members of the learning
cohort at the international partner university, and a blended learning approach
supports the development of learning communities by allowing students to meet
and study together before moving into online courses as a cohort. The cross-
cultural and knowledge benefits of having students from the international partner
school participate in the full programme extend to all students in the program,
even those not taking the double degree, as the programme cohort gains add-
itional diversity and new perspectives through the inclusion of students living and
working in another country. The online double degree partnership allows all pro-
gramme students to enhance key skills and knowledge such as developing cross-
cultural capabilities, recognition of multiple perspectives, global awareness and
the ability to work in an international online environment.
One benefit of the blended double degree model is that students have the
chance in the first year of the programme at their home school to meet and
work with students from the partner university. These students have already
completed their courses at their home university and can offer insight and coun-
seling to the partner school students on the content and format of the courses
that will be required for the double degree. This interaction provides students
important information about the requirements and content of the partner school
programme and helps them make an informed choice about whether to partici-
pate in the programme and prepare for studies at the partner university if they
choose the double degree option.
Second, the blended double degree model helps to overcome technical and
cultural challenges cross-border online collaborations often experience. As stu-
dents complete at least one year of an online programme at the partner school
before entering the double degree, they have demonstrated that they can success-
fully access and utilise the required technology and engage in online learning
activities such as discussions, live sessions, teamwork and individual assign-
ments. While RRU and MCI use different learning platforms (Moodle and
Sakai), the format of online learning classes is very similar and students have
been able to easily transition from one platform and learning environment to
another. Students in online learning programmes, especially those for mid-career
learners, often experience challenges balancing work, school and family commit-
ments. From the experience of RRU and MCI, students who have successfully
completed the first year of their home university programme have been found to
be highly committed to online learning and able to successfully address the add-
itional challenges of an international online programme.
In addition to fostering a smooth technical transition, the similarities in the
backgrounds and interests of the students in the MGM and MBA programmes
helped develop culturally diverse, yet cohesive learning communities. Both pro-
grammes attract students with similar backgrounds and interests related to
76 Charles Krusekopf

international business, and therefore students are able to relate to one another
and share relevant experiences with a peer group. They share English as a com-
mon language across programmes, and many have global experience outside their
home countries. However, the backgrounds and perspectives of the students
differ, creating opportunities for deeper learning and sharing. As is true of most
online programmes, the learners in each programme come primarily from the
home country of the university. The double degree programme, therefore, brings
together students from Europe and North America in a shared learning experi-
ence that would not occur within the context of a single university programme.
Third, a significant benefit of the double degree arrangement is that it is sus-
tainable for the institutions and faculty involved because it pairs already existing
programmes and does not require the development of new curriculum or special
technical and administrative solutions. Students who participate in the double
degree programme between MCI and RRU are fully enroled in a programme at
each university, ensuring that they have access to the all the online and on-
campus resources at each school. Short-term online collaborations, such as joint
classes or exercises by students at different universities, are often hard to manage
and sustain because they must be organised on a case-by-case basis and students
and faculty located at different schools are often unable to access the online sys-
tems of the other school. While the MCI-RRU double degree partnership
required resources and staff time to develop and implement, once established it
was relatively easy to maintain and administer as it required no new courses or
programme arrangements. It maintained strong institutional support due to the
benefits for students and faculty, and a business case that highlighted the low
costs to the institution and the recruitment of additional students into the
programmes.

4.4. Conclusion
Online learning has experienced tremendous growth over the past 20 years but
has yet to play a significant role in the internationalisation strategies of univer-
sities. Online education offerings to date focus primarily on domestic students,
and cross-border enrolments in online programmes remain very low. Very few
examples exist of online education programs that are designed to support inter-
national education and bring together students from different countries in a
shared learning experience. New thinking and models are required to expand the
role online education might play in fostering global understanding and
engagement.
International education programmes, in particular off-campus international
learning and study abroad opportunities, have been primarily focused on
students enroled full-time in traditional, on-campus educational programmes.
Adult and working students have limited opportunities to engage in inter-
national education due to time constraints and the lack of appropriate pro-
gramme offerings, but also represent the largest group of learners participating
in online education programmes. Therefore, a special opportunity exists to
 Internationalisation of Online Learning 77

create programmes that allow adult and working students to access international
learning through online education.
Several challenges have limited cross-border enrolments in online pro-
grammes, including skepticism of online degrees, administrative and technical
hurdles and difficulties integrating students with different learning styles within
one programme. While MOOCs and other non-degree courses have attracted
cross-border enrolments, online university degree programmes continue to
almost exclusively enrol students from the home country of the university. While
over time internationally recognised online degree programmes are likely to
emerge, in the short-term an easier approach to the development of online
degree programmes with an international student body is through the linking of
existing online programmes offered by universities in different countries.
This paper highlighted one example of how this might be done using a dou-
ble degree model, which offers several advantages compared to short-term
exchanges or other approaches such as one-time shared classes. While there
are unique aspects to the partnership between RRU and MCI and the double
degree programme that was developed, the concept presented can be applied
in a variety of formats. For example, rather than involving just two schools
and two programmes, an online double degree partnership might involve mul-
tiple schools and programmes located in different countries. Students would be
able to choose to complete a second degree in a country or programme of spe-
cial interest rather than being limited to only one partner school or pro-
gramme option. This would lead to a more diverse set of students at any one
institution and enhance the aspects of student choice. However, a multiple
school consortium approach would also require careful selection and coordin-
ation among partner schools to ensure that students from different pro-
grammes were compatible, schedules were coordinated and course offerings
met academic standards.
Other opportunities also exist outside double degree partnerships to expand
international online collaborations. The growing list of online courses create
opportunities for students to take specialty courses not offered at their home
campus in an online format. While students currently often cross enrol in online
courses at other institutions within their home country, they rarely enrol in
courses offered by institutions in other countries. Many universities have student
exchange agreements with international partner schools, but these agreements
are almost always focused on face-to-face exchanges. Partnership agreements
and cooperation might be expanded to create new opportunities for students to
take online courses at international partner schools. These online course offer-
ings might be paired with exchange opportunities that allow students to meet
face to face and build personal bonds, enhancing the international learning
potential of the online interactions.
Online learning has great potential to support internationalisation efforts by
universities and expand the student population that can engage in global learn-
ing. The globalisation of the economy has increased the demand for people who
can work effectively in an online, cross-border environment. To date, few uni-
versity programmes have been explicitly designed to facilitate cross-border
78 Charles Krusekopf

engagement by students online, but opportunities exist for universities to con-

tinue to develop new online educational offerings that meet the needs of students
and society.

References
Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online educa-
tion in the US. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.
Altbach, P., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. (2009). Trends in global higher education:
Tracking an academic revolution. Paris: UNESCO.
CBIE. (2016). World of Learning: Canadian post-secondary students and the study
abroad experience. Ottawa: Canadian Bureau of International Education.
Chevallier, A. (2013). A process for screening and authorizing joint and double degree
programs. New York, NY: Institute for International Education.
Corno, F., Lal, R., & Hassouna, S. (2016). Building bridges: Enabling intercultural
competences within double degree programs. Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology (Special Issue for INTE 2016), 398 405.
Council of Graduate Schools. (2010). Joint degrees, dual degrees and international
research collaborations. Washington, DC.
Culver, S., Puri, I., Spinelli, G., DePauw, K., & Dooley, J. (2012). Collaborative
dual-degree programs and value added for students: Lessons learned through the
evaluate-e project. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(1), 40 61.
Edwards, J., & Teekens, H. (2012). Leveraging technology and the international
classroom for cross-cultural learning. In D. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J. Heyl, &
T. Adams, The Sage Handbook of International Higher Education (pp. 267 282).
Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
European Commission. (2014). The Erasmus impact study: Effects of mobility on the
skills and employability of students and the internationalisation of higher education.
Brussels: European Commission.
Fearon, C., Starr, S., & McLaughlin, H. (2011). Value of blended learning in univer-
sity and the workplace: Some experiences of university students. Industrial and
Commercial Training, 446 450.
Gemmel, I., Harrison, R., Clegg, J., & Reed, K. (2015). Internationalisation in
online distance learning postgraduate education: A case study on student views
on learning alongside students from other countries. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 137 147.
Green, M. F., Marmolejo, F., & Egron-Polak, E. (2012). The Internationalization of
higher education: Future prospects. In D. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J. Heyl, &
T. Adams, The Sage Handbook of International Higher Education (pp. 439 455).
Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Hall, F. (2012). Best practices regarding international dual/double and joint degrees.
Canadian Association for Graduate Studies.
Helms, R. M. (2014). Mapping international joint and dual degrees: US program
profiles and perspectives. American Council on Education, Center for
Internationalization and Global Engagement. Washington DC: American Council
on Education.
 Internationalisation of Online Learning 79

Henard, F., Diamond, L., & Roseveare, D. (2012). Approaches to internationalisation

and their implications for strategic management and institutional practice. Paris:
OECD Higher Education Program.
Knight, J. (2011). Doubts and dilemmas with double degree programs. Revista de
Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento, 8(2), 297 312.
Knight, J. (2012). Concepts, rationales, and interpretive frameworks in the inter-
nationalization of higher education. In D. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J. Heyl, &
T. Adams, The Sage Handbook of International Higher Education (pp. 27 42).
Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Knight, J., & Lee, J. (2012). International joint, double and consecutive degree pro-
grams. In D. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J. Heyl, & T. Adams, The SAGE Handbook
of International Higher Education (pp. 343 357). SAGE Publications.
Kuder, M., & Obst, D. (2009). Joint and double degree programs in the transatlantic
context: A survey report. New York, NY: Institute of International Education.
Leask, B., & Carroll, J. (2011). Moving beyond wishing and hoping: International-
isation and student experiences of inclusion and engagement. Higher Education
Research & Development, 647 659.
MCI (2018, September 6). Website of the Management Center Innsbruck. Retrieved
from https://www.mci.edu/en/
Merola, R. (2017). What does data tell us about cross-border online learning.
International Higher Education, 21 23.
Merriam, S., & Bierema, L. (2014). Adult Learning: Linking theory and practice.
San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Neeley, T. (2015, October). Global teams that work. Harvard Business Review.
Obst, D., Kuder, M., & Banks, C. (2011). Joint and double degree programs in an
international context: Report on an international survey. New York, NY: Institute
of International Economics.
Online Course Report. (2018, March 8). Online Course Report. Retrieved from
www.onlinecoursereport.org/state-of-the-mooc-report/
Ortmans, L. (2018, March 4). UK business school takes top spot in 2018 FT online
MBA ranking. Financial Times.
Rye, S. A., & Stokken, A. M. (2012). The Implications of the local context in global
online education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning.
Sanderson, G. (2011). Internationalisation and teaching in higher education. Higher
Education Research & Development, 661 676.
Seaman, J., Allen, I., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance educa-
tion in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.
Shirvani, H., Scorza, J., Alkhathian, K., & Garcia, F. L. (2011, November 27). The
Challenges of Global Online Education. University World News.
Simm, D., & Marvell, A. (2017). Creating global students: Opportunities, challenges
and experiences of Internationalizing the geography curriculum in higher educa-
tion. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 467 474.
Spiro, J. (2014). Learning interconnectedness: Internationalisation through engage-
ment with one another. Higher Education Quarterly, 65 84.
Stavredes, S. (2011). Effective online teaching: Foundations and strategies for student
success. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
80 Charles Krusekopf

Sursock, A. (2016). Trends 2015: Learning and teaching in European universities.

European University Association.
Tarazona, M. (2013). Influences on the sustainability of joint and double degree
programs: Empirical findings from programs with German participation. In
M. Kuder, N. Lemmens, & D. Obst, Global perspectives on international joint and
double degree programs. New York, NY: Institute of International Education.
Ziguras, C. (2018). Will global higher education ever take off? Retrieved from http://
www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20180116150633478
PART II
CHANGING CLASSROOM
DYNAMICS IN THE DIGITAL
TEACHING SPACE
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 5

Engagement in Online Learning: It’s Not

All About Faculty!
Kathy Bishop, Catherine Etmanski and M. Beth Page

Abstract
In this chapter, we, the authors Bishop, Etmanski and Page, argue for the
need to disrupt the traditional notion of faculty solely as expert. We
redefine the online faculty role to be that of a facilitator who creates the
space for students to engage with both content and other students in the
class. We discuss the adult learning principles behind our practices and our
attention to building community. To illustrate what our online teaching
work looks like in practice, we begin by providing a creative script on what
online learning could look like. We then speak to utilising the specific strat-
egies of online forums, behind the scenes outreach, synchronous meetings
and assignments to create rich engagement in the online environment for
higher education and learning.
We place a strong emphasis on building community among our students
from the start of course and throughout. Recognising that people respond
differently to different scenarios and have different learning preferences, we
seek to offer a diverse range of options for experiencing community, with
the intention of offering the possibility of belonging for everyone. The
intention to create space for engagement in online learning has challenged
us to continually ask ourselves how we can adapt or create new activities
and experiences for the online learning environment, so as to enhance
engagement.

Keywords: Learning communities; adult learning; constructivism;

belonging; omnidirectional mentorship; creativity

The Disruptive Power of Online Education: Challenges, Opportunities, Responses, 83 98

Copyright r 2019 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISBN: 978-1-78754-326-3
84 Kathy Bishop et al.

5.1. Introduction
Online or blended (online and face-to-face) graduate degrees are becoming
increasingly popular options across the globe. As the title of this collection sug-
gests, these distance options not only have the potential to disrupt, but already
are disrupting traditional notions of education and learning. Although these dis-
tance degrees are increasing in popularity (Christensen & Erying, 2011, p. 8), the
attitude that online learning is a lesser alternative to face-to-face classrooms
remains part of the common discourse in higher education. This belief may be
bolstered by non-credentialed organisations offering non-legitimate credentials
via spam email messages. However, we argue that in cases where dedicated edu-
cators from verified degree granting Universities (or other institutions of higher
education) are involved in teaching, the myth that online learning is a second-
class option is no longer valid. Furthermore, we concur that the time is ‘ripe
for disruption-and innovation’ (Christensen & Erying, 2011, p. xix) in online
learning.
Drawing primarily from our experiences teaching in various university settings
and, in particular, a Canadian Master’s of Arts in Leadership programme where
we three authors teach, in this chapter we speak to creatively cultivating engage-
ment in online learning environments. In order to do so, we argue for the need to
disrupt the traditional notion of faculty solely as expert and redefine the role to be
that of a facilitator who creates the space for students to engage with both content
and other students in the class. Similarly, Featherman (2014) identified that in this
time of disruption, successful universities enable meaningful degrees through
focussing on student-centred education (p. 13). Therefore, as faculty, we seek to
skillfully raise the quality of student experience through creatively cultivating
engagement and community online.
To illustrate what our online teaching work looks like in practice, we begin
with an engagement script of a presentation we offered at the Western Association
of Management (WAM) conference in March 2016. In this presentation, rather
than giving a standard lecture on the topic of engagement in online learning com-
munities, we made a conscious choice to disrupt the traditional notion of a confer-
ence presentation in the same way that this book suggests that online learning has
disruptive potential. To this end, we created a theatrical sketch (Belliveau, 2006)
of an online teaching experience in our virtual classrooms. This script highlights
both tips and lessons we have learned about how to engage learners in an online
environment, for example through a range of discussion forums, activities that eli-
cit heart-felt responses, the ways in which the instructor responds to the needs of
different learners both on the online Learning Management System (in our case,
MoodleTM) and behind the scenes through personalised email correspondence.
Just as we intentionally disrupted the usual approach to giving conference presen-
tations, we are similarly intentional in our choice to include a script as the intro-
ductory part of this chapter. In the same way that online learning can disrupt
education and calls upon our creativity for better engaging learners, alternative
writing styles can also be powerfully disruptive to the ways in which we under-
stand scholarship. We draw from scholars such as Cynthia Chambers, Erica
 Engagement in Online Learning: It’s Not All about Faculty! 85

Hasebe-Ludt, Carl Leggo and Anita Sinner (2012) who promote creative and/or
narrative writing as a way of knowing that ‘comes from the body, the heart and
the imagination, from having our feet planted in the humus of day-to-day, lived
experience’ (pp. xxiii xxiv). This approach also appeals to readers who learn
from more expressive ways of knowing, as described by Davis-Manigaulte, Yorks,
and Kasl (2006).
Following our engagement script, we discuss the adult learning principles
behind our practices and our attention to building community and then speak to
utilising the specific strategies of online forums, behind the scenes outreach, syn-
chronous meetings and assignments to create rich engagement in the online
environment for higher education and learning. The following is our collective
narrative account of our approach to online learning and teaching.

5.2. Engagement Script

5.2.1. Week 1 Online Forum: Welcome/Orientation
Instructor (played by Kathy) typing into computer: Welcome to ‘Engagement
in online learning 101: It’s not all about faculty!’ It is not all about faculty
but faculty do have a critical role to play in cultivating engagement with and
between learners in online learning. I am your instructor and I am delighted
to be teaching this course and share in this stage of your learning journey.
You will notice we have a variety of discussion forums. For example, Our
Weekly Posts Forum, Our Learning Community Forum and our Q&A
Forum. If you run into a question regarding anything during the course, feel
free to first post it to the Q&A Forum. For those who may find online learn-
ing challenging, since it is a different way of being and doing, I have pre-
scheduled a few CollaborateTM sessions for us to spend some real, face-to-face
time dialoguing; albeit in cyberspace!
In this forum, please take a moment and introduce yourself to our community.

Student 1 (played by Catherine): Hi everyone. My name is AAA

and I’m a student of life and a lifelong learner. I’m delighted to
be joining this online course and I look forward to learning with
you all.
Student 2 (played by Beth): My name is BBB. I teach on contract
at our local University as associate faculty. I’m interested in
belonging. I think learning is easier face-to-face.
Student 1: Hi BBB! Great to e-meet you! I love face-to-face learn-
ing as well, but this is my fourth course now and I’m getting into
the swing of online learning. I hope we can engage in some great
conversations throughout the course.
Student 2: (No response, but thinks to herself: “Oh brother, what a
keener!”)
86 Kathy Bishop et al.

Instructor: Beautiful all! What are some of the benefits of online

learning?
Student 1: I love that I can login at any time of the day or night
and fit this coursework into my busy schedule.
Student 2: The benefits of online learning are I get on when I can
because I do a variety of consulting work. And I love that I can
post in my pyjamas.

Learning Community Forum

Instructor: Welcome to the Learning Community. The Learning

Community Room is a place to discuss the activities and course
assignments. For me, it is another space which creates a real
opportunity to grow our learning community. I invite you to con-
sider: How do you want to show up here in your learning? How
will you support others in their learning? I am sharing a link to a
three min YouTube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZlXWp6vFdE
To me, this video epitomises so many belonging values: inspir-
ation, overcoming obstacles, determination, responding in the
moment, servant leadership, support, […] found in Olympian
Derek Redmond’s story. This may also give you a glimpse into a
bit of how I think and what moves me. What might this video tell
you about who I am as an instructor in this course?
Student 1: Wow! What an incredible story. I admit it brought a
tear to my eye. The agony on his face was so hard to see.
I wonder how the other athletes felt passing him by, seeing that
he was in pain, yet needing to stay focused on their own race.
Sometimes competition can push us toward our own personal
best so there is an opportunity to love our competitors for their
role in bringing out the best in us.
Also touching, of course, was the incredible support from his
father. Even though he lost the race, I think the crowd witnessed
an amazing victory for humanity! I love stories like this that
remind us of our capacity as humans to truly support and love one
another in our moments of vulnerability as well as our moments
of strength. I think this video shows that you will break through
security to help me across the finish line, even when I’m struggling!
Student 2: It was a powerful moment of persevering to the finish.
Instructor: Awesome! I love hearing your responses and seeing
the different lenses we can view one story from, and love the
 Engagement in Online Learning: It’s Not All about Faculty! 87

connections to human capacity and the value of support and per-

severing. Indeed, I am here in support of your learning and am
committed to supporting everyone finishing strong in this course!
I tend to be on online courses daily to see how things are going.
If things are going fine, I may just smile and revel in your individ-
ual and collective capacities. Alternatively, I may offer thought-
provoking questions or coaching suggestions to deepen your
learning. I am conscious, though, to allow you the space to grow
your learning community rooted in omnidirectional mentorship
and support[…]. Enjoy a super day of learning!

Week 2 Online Forum: Learning and Belonging in Community

Instructor: Welcome to this Week’s Forum on learning and belong-

ing in community. Please read the assigned readings and make 1
online post and 2 responses to your colleagues around, the ques-
tion: Why is belonging important in online learning? Note: This is
a great opportunity to practice referencing skills for your first
assignment. Please be sure to refer to your American Psychological
Association (APA) publication manual, sixth edition (2010).
Student 1: Peter Block suggested that community cannot exist
without people experiencing a sense of belonging. Moreover,
Stallard and Pankau identified that ‘people have six psychological
needs that they expect will be met in the workplace: respect, rec-
ognition, belonging, autonomy, personal growth and meaning’
(p. 20). Furthermore, Pearce and Pearce noted that in belonging
to a community, people gain an (a) understanding that one’s own
stories and (b) [realise] the value of remaining in the tension
between standing one’s own ground and being profoundly open
to the other. As a result, the act of belonging is co-created
through people sharing their stories and expanding their self-
understanding.
Student 2: thinks to herself, ‘Wow! That was articulate! Hmmmm,
I don’t know what to say[…]’ She does not post anything.
Instructor: Excellent point about belonging! I wonder, what are
your thoughts about how this understanding of self in relation-
ship to other enables effective online learning? Just a quick
note about referencing too. According to APA (2010) authors are
cited followed by the year. So correctly you would say, Block
(2008) suggested […] and Stallard and Pankau (2008) identified
[…] and Pearce and Pearce (2003) noted. Make sense?
Instructor continues to look through the course site then says:
Hmmm, Student 2 has not been online posting. She’s been online
88 Kathy Bishop et al.

but no posts […] (Looks at watch Pauses1) 10 hours, still no

post. (Looks at watch Pauses) 20 hours still not online posting.
(Looks at watch Pauses) two hours past the deadline. I think
I’ll drop her a private email. (Begins typing)
Dear BBB, I’m just checking in. I have noticed that you have
been online, but you have missed the deadline to complete this
week’s activity. I know that it can sometimes take students time
to understand the Course site and also to rearrange their work/
life schedule in order to have enough space to engage in the
online learning community. So I wanted to check in and see how
you are doing? Participation is critical. Sharing your reflections
on readings, responding thoughtfully to others posts and partici-
pating in building our learning community are all important
aspects of online learning. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Student 2: Thanks so much to reaching out via email. To be hon-
est, I’m not sure what to say in response to this week’s activity.
AAA is so articulate and I feel a little intimidated sharing my
ideas in this online forum. When I speak in class I can just go
with the flow of ideas, but typing seems so permanent. I feel as
though the limitations to my knowledge will be on display for all
to read! That said, I signed up for this course so I will muster up
some courage and give it a shot.
Instructor: Thanks BBB. I know that it sometimes takes students
time to get used to the online learning environment. Many stu-
dents feel the way you do. I appreciate how you are willing to
muster up the courage and give it a shot. I am hunching that you
are a deep thinker, and I am interested in what you have to say.
Without a doubt, others will too. Perhaps there might be some
strategy you could put into place, such as you talking into a tape
recorder to let your ideas flow and then transcribe it with the
caveat that your ideas are still in process. It is in the dialogue
that we can really learn and grow! I encourage you to have fun
with this new form and let me know if there’s something I can do
to support you. See you online!
Student 2 writing in the online forum: Hello all, I guess what I’ve
been thinking about this week is that in order to really feel like
I belong, I need to feel like people accept me as I am, warts and
all! I’ll take a little risk here and say that I’m really feeling out of
my comfort zone in this online learning environment so I’m

1
Note this is staging direction within this performance script to show the passing of
time.
 Engagement in Online Learning: It’s Not All about Faculty! 89

feeling quite vulnerable. When I watched that video the instructor

posted last week I thought to myself, ‘oh no, I don’t want to be
seen hobbling across the finish line on anyone’s shoulder espe-
cially not in front of all these strangers online!’ But I guess if I’m
going to learn, I need to be willing to fall (metaphorically speak-
ing). Maybe belonging means finding a place where it’s OK to
fall. P.S. No APA this time, but I’ll try again next week!
Instructor continuing the thread in the online forum: I appreciate
your honesty and openness BBB, and indeed this is a place where
it’s OK to fall! I love how everyone is showing up, authentically,
questioning, wrestling with the content and deeply thinking about
belonging. As we wrap up the week, please post an image of
what belonging in the community looks like to you.
Student 1: I’m not sure what the instructor means. I think I’ll send
her an email. About this week’s Learning community activity,
I wondered if it is a personal picture I have or is it one from the
internet?
Instructor: Hi AAA. Thanks for your email. Great question! It’s
your choice, any image you would like. Also, this is a great ques-
tion to post in our Q&A forum because if you have the question
likely others may have it as well. Could you please post it there
and I will respond for us all to dialogue on it? Thank you!
Student 2: I love this activity! My image is of a carrot. There’s a
great quote by Paul Cezanne that says, ‘The day is coming when
a single carrot, freshly observed, will start off a revolution!’ After
struggling all week to figure out how to join this conversation,
I now feel as though I’m seeing online learning differently and
think there might be a place for me to belong here. There’s hope
for me yet!
Student 1: Thanks for your patience. I was a little uncertain about
where to begin this week. Here is a picture of our farewell party
for a colleague who had been with the organisation for 10 years.
I love this picture because we are all so happy, celebrating this
person’s next move and honouring how much we are all
connected.
Instructor: Excellent work this week. I appreciate AAA’s question
in our Q&A forum, and such great images on Belonging. Very
striking! As Kouzes and Posner noted, ‘you can’t get extraordin-
ary things done by yourself’. Onwards in our learning journey!
PS. I have been calling you on APA this week, and for a bit of
fun, I thought I’d let you call me on it too. Did you notice what
one APA mistake I made?
90 Kathy Bishop et al.

Student 1: I’ll take a stab at this. Is it that you didn’t follow

Kouzes and Posner with the year (2012)?
Student 2: And, shouldn’t you have included the page number
(p. 242) after the quotation marks?
Instructor: What? Two mistakes? I said I only made one!

5.3. Online Teaching Principles Demonstrated in the Script

Once the role-playing aspect of our Western Academy of Management (WAM)
conference presentation was over, we debriefed with the audience for deeper dia-
logue around the topic of engagement in online learning communities. We asked
them which strategies were modelled through the script, what they learned and
what other strategies they themselves use. The debrief questions centred on strat-
egies for co-creating community and engagement for both students and faculty.
During this dialogue, we drew upon our individual and collective experiences
teaching in different University settings and in particular, in the Master’s of Arts
in Leadership programme at Royal Roads University (RRU). In 2016, the
School of Leadership Studies in which we work celebrated its 20th year of offer-
ing leadership degrees for professional adult learners in a blended format (which
combines face-to-face and online learning). Created as a special purpose
University for working professionals, RRU primarily offers two-year graduate
degrees that include at least two on-campus learning experiences (typically one
to three weeks in length) with the remainder of the learning happening online.
Having refined its learning and teaching model over the past two decades, scho-
lars at RRU have now identified several principles that underpin the success of
this model (Grundy et al., 2016; Royal Roads University, 2013). These include,
but are not limited to creating learning communities (i.e., students stay together
as a cohort to support one another through a whole programme) and fostering
engaged learning (i.e., employing learning techniques that require the active par-
ticipation of students) (Royal Roads University, 2013, p. 15). In addition, this
learning and teaching model recognises that adult learners bring a wealth of
knowledge and experience to the classroom and therefore applies constructivist
notions to co-create knowledge between and among faculty, learners, concepts
and theories.
Because the programme in which we teach is blended, members of the audi-
ence during this conference presentation raised important questions about
whether or not a sense of engagement and belonging to community was possible
in a strictly online setting. Since all three of us have taught in online-only classes,
we do indeed believe that it can along with other scholars (Austin, 2013;
Luppicini, 2007). Underpinning our belief in cultivating engagement in online
learning is the desire to disrupt the traditional notion of faculty as expert as
advocated by Freire (2005) and redefining the role to be that of a facilitator who
creates the space for students to engage with both content and other students in
the class. We will now showcase examples of how these ideas are put into
 Engagement in Online Learning: It’s Not All about Faculty! 91

practice and demonstrate successful strategies for cultivating engagement. We

begin by discussing the adult learning principles behind our practices and our
attention to building community and then speak to utilising the specific strat-
egies of online forums, behind the scenes outreach via email, synchronous meet-
ings and assignments (individual and team) to create rich engagement in the
online environment for higher education and learning.

5.3.1. Applying Adult Learning Principles

Students frequently come into the online classroom environment with notions of
learning based on a more traditional, top-down, teacher-centred model of educa-
tion, (i.e., Freire’s infamous ‘banking model’; see Freire, 2005). However, they
quickly find that our classrooms, involving adult learning principles and experi-
ential group processes, create bonds among student colleagues and enable them
to engage more deeply with the material and one another. From our experience,
successful online classrooms are rooted in the principles of andragogy.
Specifically, Malcolm Knowles (1970) introduced the European term andragogy
in 1968 as adult educators focussed their attention on theory building and learn-
ing for adult education, which was a field in the process of differentiating itself
from the theory associated with how children learn. According to Merriam
(2001), several principles underpin andragogy which includes someone who: can
direct their own learning; comes with life experience and learning needs; is seek-
ing immediate application of their learning; and is motivated from their own
internal source. As a result, we seek out ways to enable personally meaningful
application within the classroom.
We have found that constructing online learning activities according to
Kolb’s (1984) experiential model of learning is a way to engage students in per-
sonally meaningful ways. Course activities are designed to address all four com-
ponents of Kolb’s experiential learning cycle, namely, concrete experience,
reflective observation, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation.
Students are asked to consider a particular experience, reflect on it by discussing
their thoughts and feelings, draw connections to theory, and, put new beha-
viours into practice and report on their experience. Therefore, in addition to
requiring students to read and apply theories, we also require them to actively
learn from their experiences throughout the course, which enables them to
engage deeper with the course materials.
Furthermore, as adult educators, we are always seeking to find new and
innovative means to engage learners. There are five major ways of making
meaning: through number, word, image, gesture and sound (Norris, 2000,
p. 40). In education, we tend to privilege word, whereas in the arts, image, ges-
ture and sound are recognised as different ways of coming to understand and
know the world. Therefore, wherever possible, we tend to blend in creative and/
or arts-based practices into the online environment. Arts-based practices are not
simply for engaging in artistic processes but are also different ways of knowing
that we can draw upon to engage learners. We might suggest activities that
incorporate music, photographs, poetry or drawings. Symbolism is utilised to
92 Kathy Bishop et al.

elicit meaning and engage learners in rich conversations. We start with the sym-
bol and elicit meaning that way, rather than starting with the written word alone
(e.g., an article or book) to generate meaning.

5.3.2. Building Community

In addition to creating a personally meaningful learning environment as a way
to engage students, we also recognise the importance of building community as
a way to engage students. As two of us have discussed in a previously published
chapter (see Page, Etmanski, & Agger-Gupta, 2016, pp. 159 160), in the exist-
ing literature, the concepts of Communities of Learning (CoL) and Communities
of Practice (CoP) are frequently conflated. Although CoLs are at times narrowly
defined in the educational literature specifically ‘as a formal cross-disciplinary
approach, involving the restructuring of the curriculum to enhance active, col-
laborative learning’ (Wastawy, Uth, & Stewart, 2004, p. 333), they are typically
associated more generally with the sharing and co-creation of knowledge. Like-
wise, the concept of a CoP is typically associated with Wenger’s (1998) work
(see also, Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 2000; Wenger & Snyder, 2000).
Described as “groups of people informally bound together by shared expertise
and passion for a joint enterprise” (Wenger & Snyder, 2000, p. 139), CoPs have
become part of organisational and educational discourse for the past two
decades.
The concept of CoP has become more nuanced over the years as new technolo-
gies have emerged and the body of related literature has expanded. However, in
his original association of community with the idea of practice, Wenger (1998)
claimed that the association of these two words ‘yields a more tractable character-
isation of the concept of practice in particular, by distinguishing it from less
tractable terms like culture, activity, or structure [and] […] defines a special type
of community a community of practice’ (p. 72). Wenger went on to assert that
the three characteristics of CoPs were mutual engagement (i.e., people doing
things together in the midst of complexity and diversity), a joint enterprise (i.e., in
the context of heterogeneity, mutual responsibility and diverse interpretations)
and a shared repertoire (i.e., of stories, artifacts, historical events, concepts, and
discourses) (pp. 73 85). Moreover, Hydle, Kvalshaugen, and Breunig (2014)
have added to Wenger’s original conception to assert that ‘a view of CoP that
extends beyond the local understanding to consider relational ties in terms of spa-
tial and relational proximity is needed’ (p. 610). In other words, the more trad-
itional understanding of community as only comprising a place-based group of
people has evolved and communities are now understood to exist in virtual set-
tings as well. As such, the Learning Communities (both CoL and CoP) we discuss
in this section extend beyond place-based communities of more typical, localised
classrooms and into the online setting.
The Learning Communities we seek to create are rooted in omnidirectional
mentorship (Clapp, 2010). Omnidirectional mentorship can be thoughtfully
introduced to students so that they realise that they can learn with and from
each other as well as the faculty. Furthermore, this can create a stronger sense
 Engagement in Online Learning: It’s Not All about Faculty! 93

of belonging in the classroom. We recognise that people learn better and engage
more when they feel that they belong. As Block (2008) suggested, community
cannot exist without people experiencing a sense of belonging. For this reason,
we continue to place a strong emphasis on building community among our
students from the start of the course and throughout. Recognising that people
respond differently to different scenarios and have different learning prefer-
ences (Kolb, 1984), we seek to offer a diverse range of options for experien-
cing community, with the intention of offering the possibility of belonging for
everyone.

5.3.3. Strategies for Engagement

In the opening script above, we demonstrated several strategies for facilitating
online engagement, namely through online Forums and behind the scene out-
reaches. In addition to expanding on these strategies, we will also elaborate on
synchronous meetings, and course assignments (individual and team).
Online Forums
We highlighted three key forums in our script: weekly forum, learning commu-
nity and Question and Answer (Q&A).

5.3.3.1. Weekly Forum

Within the first week, we immediately set our role with some type of activity or
video which engages learners and demonstrates that in this classroom environ-
ment we will be learning from one another and that students need to step up to
contribute to make it a personally meaningful experience for all. For one of the
authors, Beth, when onboarding people into the course, whether a brand new
course or into a pre-existing class, she asks students ‘what is the contribution
that you are making to our new community to create an inclusive learning envir-
onment?’ Also at the beginning of a course, we might extend individual
welcomes to each student, connecting some element of their introductory post to
something we have experienced or something that they have suggested that
relates to the learning. This strategy allows us to connect individually with each
student and models the way for others to see how they might show up in com-
munity. Other strategies that we employ include, posing a curious question that
will deepen or further dialogue. In another author, Catherine’s online courses,
she will often assign students the role of facilitator for the week. This means that
students themselves (individually or in pairs or small groups) will be responsible
for facilitating the discussion around the week’s assigned readings. She often
asks them to engage their fellow students in a creative way and this has opened
the door to all kinds of possibilities. For example, in their role as weekly facilita-
tors, students have asked their colleagues to post a photograph or come up with
a tweet that summarises the article assigned to that week. Sometimes students
have used a word cloud generating online tool called, WordlTM (see: http://
www.wordle.net/) to summarise the week’s discussions. Regardless of the strat-
egy they use to engage their classmates, the very fact that the conversation has
94 Kathy Bishop et al.

been designed by their classmates creates a sense of accountability to one

another and a desire to participate in others’ activities so that others will likewise
participate in theirs when the time comes.

5.3.3.2. Learning Community Forum

Participation in this particular forum is not mandatory, and acts as a communal
space for the class to connect and continue to engage with and among one
another in an informal way, thus, fostering further means to engage and co-
create community. Students can utilise it to discuss the activities and course
assignments, and/or explore different ideas above and beyond course material.
As identified in the script included at the outset of this chapter, the author
Kathy has used it as a place to speak to her role as an online instructor through
posting the Redmond video (URL included above as part of the script). Often
after hearing different people’s perspectives, she will identify some of the com-
mon themes among the students. She will also reiterate her role to create a space
for learners to run with the course material and that she will be on the sidelines
watching and waiting to offer support and guidance and cheering them on. In
the past, the author, Beth, has invited students to adopt a 30-day challenge
related to some aspect of the course. We have witnessed students offer a variety
of resources, such as TED TalksTM (a free speaker series where videos of short,
powerful speeches are posted online; for more information, see: https://www.ted.
com/talks), relevant websites or literature, along with quotes of encouragement,
cartoons to offer humour and invitations to post pictures of their favourite
workspaces, personal adventures or family fun.

5.3.3.3. Q&A Forum

The power of this forum is that students feel they have access to the faculty
member as the need arises. Often students will complain that a faculty member
is not online and so this is a way to ensure that their needs are met. More often
though than not, another student has the answer and responds in the forum
before the faculty member. Often students express that they were glad someone
posted the question as they had wondered about the same thing and no longer
feel alone.

5.3.3.4. Behind the Scenes Outreach

As shown in the vignette above, we email students behind the scenes. In the
first week of a programme launch, a check in email will be sent to students
who have not shown up online, to reinforce the value of participation and
contribution and to offer support if the student is struggling. We do not offer
the possibility that anyone will be an outlier. We make sure to round everyone
up, and do so sooner than later. If students are not online every few days, we
email. If students miss a deadline, we send a personal email checking in.
Essentially, the thread of being in community and belonging gets pulled
through everything we do.
 Engagement in Online Learning: It’s Not All about Faculty! 95

5.3.3.5. Synchronous Meetings (Formal and Informal)

Technology, such as CollaborateTM, SkypeTM and ZoomTM, allows students to
connect virtually through both formal and informal means. Both formal and
informal methods are necessary to operate successfully as an organisation
(Hydle et al., 2014, p. 620). We as faculty organise virtual synchronous sessions
at strategic points, but we also leave our course site CollaborateTM rooms open
so students can self-organise as well. For example, we tend to set a synchronous
session in the first two weeks of a course to have a virtual face-to-face with the
class as a way to get to know one another, go over the course expectations or
assignments, and answer any questions that students might have. With the open
CollaborateTM rooms, we have witnessed students at their discretion booking
informal synchronous check-ins throughout the online portion of their course-
work. Catherine once coined this kind of a check-in call as ‘a Collaborate Wine
and Cheese’, which students enjoyed and the term stuck (informal). As well, one
of our colleagues sets up an Open Space dialogue, which allows students to
experiment and go into different rooms, depending on their topic of interest.
Finally, in many online courses, we encourage a synchronous meeting where stu-
dents can celebrate their learning and completion of the course.

5.3.3.6. Assignments (Individual and Team)

Online there is also the opportunity to build of engagement through assignments
both on an individual level and as a team. Similar to the example of author
Catherine’s example above who assigns students to be weekly facilitators,
author, Kathy, builds engagement by requiring learners to implement a student-
led seminar as one of the course assignments. For this assignment, each student
is expected to lead one asynchronous seminar, by offering a one-page synopsis
of a selected topic from a particular textbook and engaging the class in whatever
creative means to engage in dialogue (e.g., video, presentation, sound bite, cre-
ative questioning). Upon completing the seminar, each student is expected to
submit a two-page reflective paper summarising the key learnings resulting from
her/his seminar presentation and the class dialogue. Thus, although an individ-
ual assignment it requires engagement with other students. Likewise, we build in
peer review as part of individual assignments. We ask students to post a draft of
their assignments and engage in a discussion with learning partners or triads
where they are to pose curious questions and give substantive feedforward
(Goldsmith, 2002) to deepen their own learning and that of others. After they
engage in this process, they polish and submit their final assignment to faculty
for review.
Another way of creating more structured engagement is through setting team
assignments. Team assignments are created to offer the opportunity for learners
to engage with others, either in partners or small groups. A variety of different
technological tools can be built into the team assignments as a way to foster dif-
ferent ways to engage with others. For example, a team assignment can be set
up for groups to put together an annotated bibliography by using a WikiTM,
96 Kathy Bishop et al.

which is a tool that can be added to the online Learning Management System
similar to a Google DocTM, which everyone can edit.

5.4. Conclusion
In conclusion, our online students have benefitted from our intentional disrup-
tion of the traditional view of faculty as an expert. This intention to create space
for engagement in online learning has challenged us to continually ask ourselves
how we can adapt or create new activities and experiences for the online learning
environment, so as to enhance engagement. In this chapter, we contended that
engagement in online learning is about how educators create a space for learners
to engage with one another by cultivating engaged learning and communities of
learning. Grounded in adult learning theory principles and drawing primarily,
but not exclusively, from our experiences teaching in a variety of university set-
tings we shared case study examples and strategies for engagement—namely
through online forums, behind the scene outreaches, synchronous meetings and
assignments. This chapter promotes the possibility that online learning has the
potential to disrupt traditional educational approaches through creatively culti-
vating engagement online and building community. In doing so, online learning
may continue to grow and thrive as a viable alternative mainstream option for
education in the twenty-first century.

References
American Psychological Association. (2010). APA publication manual of the
American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: APA.
Austin, R. (2013). Online learning and community cohesion: Linking schools.
Routledge research in education, 98. New York, NY: Routledge.
Belliveau, G. (2006). Collective playbuilding: Using arts-based research to under-
stand a social justice drama process in teacher education. International Journal of
Education & the Arts, 7(5), 1 16. Retrieved from http://ijea.org/v7n5/index.html
Block, P. (2008). Community: The structure of belonging. San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler.
Chambers, C., Hasebe-Ludt, E. Leggo, C., & Sinner, A. (Eds.), (2012). A heart of
wisdom: Life writing as empathetic inquiry. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Christensen, C., & Eyring, H. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA
of higher education from the inside out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Clapp, E. P. (2010). Omni-directional mentorship: Exploring a new approach to
inter-generational knowledge-sharing in arts practice and administration. In
D. D. Schott (Ed.), Leading creatively: A closer look 2010 (pp. 66 69). San
Francisco, CA: The National Alliance for Media, Arts, and Culture. Retrieved
from http://namac.org/sites/default/files/images_upload/NAMAC-Leading_Creatively.
pdf
 Engagement in Online Learning: It’s Not All about Faculty! 97

Davis-Manigaulte, J., Yorks, L., & Kasl, E. (2006). Expressive ways of knowing and
transformative learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 109,
27–35.
Featherman, S. (2014). Higher education at risk: strategies to improve outcomes,
reduce tuition, and stay competitive in a disruptive environment. Sterling, VA:
Stylus Publishing.
Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary edition). New York,
NY: Continuum. (Original work published 1968).
Goldsmith, M. (2002). Try feedforward instead of feedback. Leader to Leader,
25(Summer), 11 14.
Grundy, S. L., Hamilton, D., Veletsianos, G., Agger-Gupta, N., Márquez, P.,
Forssman, V., & Legault, M. (Eds.). (2016). Engaging students in life-changing
learning: Royal Roads University’s learning and teaching model in practice.
Victoria, BC: Royal Roads University.
Hydle, K. M., Kvalshaugen, R., & Breunig, J. K. (2014). Transnational practices in
communities of task and communities of learning. Management Learning, 45(5),
609 629. doi:10.1177/1350507613500881
Knowles, M. S. (1970). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy vs.
pedagogy. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, Spring 2001.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: experience as the source of learning and
development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2012). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordin-
ary things happen in organizations. (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Luppicini, R. (2007). Online learning communities. Charlotte, NC: IAP.
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning
theory. In S. B. Merriam (Ed.), The new update on adult learning theory (pp. 3–
22). San Francisco, NC: Jossey-Boss.
Norris, J. (2000). Drama as research: Realizing the potential of drama in education
as a research methodology. Youth Theatre Journal, 14(1), 40 51.
Page, M. B., Etmanski, C., & Agger-Gupta, N. (2016). Cultivating belonging: Living
leadership in communities of learning. In, S. L. Grundy et al. (Eds.), Engaging
students in life-changing learning: Royal Roads University’s learning and teaching
model in practice (pp. 154 173). Victoria, BC: Royal Roads University.
Pearce, W. B., & Pearce, K. A. (2003). Taking a communication perspective on dia-
logue. In R. Anderson, L. A. Baxter, K. N., & Cissna (Eds.), Dialogue: Theoriz-
ing difference in communication studies (pp. 39 56). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Retrieved from http://www.pearceassociates.com/essays/comm_perspective.htm
Royal Roads University. (2013). Learning and teaching model. Victoria, BC.
Retrieved from http://media.royalroads.ca/media/marketing/viewbooks/2013/
learning-model/
Stallard, M. L., & Pankau, J. (2008). Strengthening human value in organizational
cultures. Leader to Leader, Winter, 18 23.
Wastawy, S. F., Uth, C. W., & Stewart, C. (2004). Learning communities: An inves-
tigative study into their impact on library services. Science & Technology
Libraries, 24(3/4), 327 374.
98 Kathy Bishop et al.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems.
Organization, 7(2), 225 246.
Wenger, E., & Snyder, W. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational fron-
tier. Harvard Business Review, 139 145.
Chapter 6

Social Collaborative Learning

Environments: A Means to
Reconceptualise Leadership Education for
Tomorrow’s Leaders and Universities?
Anja P. Schmitz and Jan Foelsing

Abstract
During the past decade, fast-paced changes created a new environment
organisations need to adapt to in an agile way. To support their transform-
ation, organisations are rethinking their approach to learning. They are
moving away from traditional instructor-centred, standardised classroom-
based learning settings. Instead, learning needs to be tailored to the indivi-
duals’ needs, available anywhere at any time and needs to enable learners
to build their network. The development of digital tools, specifically net-
work technology and social collaboration platforms, has enabled these new
learning concepts.
The use of these new learning concepts in organisations also has implica-
tions for higher education. The present case study, therefore, investigates
how universities can best prepare future employees and leaders for these
new working environments, both on a content level and a methodological
level. It also investigates if these new learning concepts can support univer-
sities in dealing with a changing environment.
The investigated case is a traditional face-to-face leadership lecture for a
heterogeneous group of students. It was reconceptualised as a personalised
and social collaborative learning setting, delivered through a social collab-
oration platform as the primary learning environment. Initial evaluation
results indicate positive motivational effects, experience sharing and
changes in perception of the student − lecturer relationship. The findings
also supported previous challenges of computer-supported collaborative
learning settings, such as the perception of a higher cognitive load. The

The Disruptive Power of Online Education: Challenges, Opportunities, Responses, 99 123

Copyright r 2019 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISBN: 978-1-78754-326-3
100 Anja P. Schmitz and Jan Foelsing

implications of these results for the future teaching and business models of
higher education are discussed. In addition, the potential of these
computer-supported social collaborative learning settings is outlined.

Keywords: Social collaboration; collaborative learning; leadership;

disruption of higher education; social learning; social enterprise network

6.1. Introduction
During the last decades, globalisation, economic turmoil, the transformation in
technology and digitalisation led to unpredictable changes as well as disruption
in many industries (Bennett & Lemoine, 2014; Christensen, 1997). Additionally,
organisations are facing a new internal environment due to demographic
changes. Employees’ values are shifting (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010) and they
have new expectations, for example concerning the provided tools and technolo-
gies (Wehner, Ritter, & Leist, 2017). In order to remain competitive, organisations
need to adapt to these external and internal challenges (Lawrence & Lorsch,
1967). The ability to continuously adapt to complex, turbulent and, unpredict-
able environments has been termed organisational agility (Goldman, Nagel, &
Preiss, 1995). Agility can only be achieved if an organisation’s strategy, culture,
processes, structure and competencies are set up to anticipate change, continu-
ously learn as an organisation and provide the resulting knowledge to all of its
members (Dove, 1999; Fischer & Häusling, 2018; Robertson, 2016): Agile orga-
nisations are striving for fast processes with a clear focus on customer value.
They have flatter hierarchies, are organised in (digital) network-structures and
focus their culture on sharing information, collaboration and high levels of self-
organisation. Leadership focuses on empowering employees and is shared
between different people (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014; Pearce, Conger, &
Locke, 2008).
This transformation towards agility also influences organisations’ approach
to learning and development (Bersin, 2017; Wehner et al., 2017). They are
moving away from traditional instructor-centred, standardised classroom-based
learning settings. Instead, they are looking for new learning concepts in which
learning is collaborative, can be tailored to the individuals’ needs, incorporates
informal elements, is integrated into work-processes, can take place anywhere at
any time and enables learners to interact with others to build their network. This
new approach to learning was both, influenced and enabled by technological
developments: Network technology and web 2.0 applications. They drove the
implementation of Enterprise Social Media or Networks as well as Social
Collaboration Platforms (SCPs) (Chui et al., 2012; Kane, 2015; Wehner et al.,
2017).
These changes in the global business world also have implications for higher
education. The adoption of new technology and learning concepts by companies
challenges traditional instructor-centred, standardised, classroom-based learning
 Social Collaborative Learning Environments in Leadership Education 101

settings in universities. Additionally, traditional universities are already starting

to feel competitive pressure from online educational offers. These developments
hold disruptive power for the processes, products and business model of trad-
itional universities (Christensen & Eyring, 2011).
Taken together, the changes in the business world and in higher education,
lead to two questions:

(1) How can universities best prepare future employees and leaders for the new
working environments, both on a content level and a methodological level?
(2) How can universities adjust their offers and business model to respond to
the posed challenges?

This chapter explores these two questions through the case of a reconceptua-
lised traditional lecture-based learning setting: an introductory leadership class
for bachelor students. In regards to the first question, the class was reconceptua-
lised to provide a personalised, social collaborative learning setting that seeks to
better prepare students for a global work environment from a content and meth-
odological perspective. The content was adapted to include leadership topics
related to leading in a global context. On the methodological level, the course
was delivered through a SCP as the primary learning environment and included
personalised elements. This aimed at fostering students’ experience and meth-
odological skills in using new tools because previous research has shown that
learners need time to adapt to new learning settings and technologies (Bielaczyc,
2013; Hmelo-Silver, Nagarajan, & Derry, 2006). In regards to the second ques-
tion, the reconceptualisation was used to explore the potential of social collab-
orative learning settings as a possible response to the challenges traditional
universities are facing.
The chapter first provides a brief overview of the literature, focusing on per-
sonalised learning as well as collaborative learning enabled through SCPs.
Second, it presents the case of a traditional leadership lecture that was rede-
signed to incorporate personalised learning and social collaboration. Third, it
concludes by discussing the findings of the case study in regards to their poten-
tial for preparing students for the workplace and their implications for higher
education.

6.2. Background: Learning Beyond Standardised

Lecture-based Instruction
Lectures are still frequently used in higher education and the advantages, as well
as disadvantages of traditional classroom-based instruction, have been described
in depth (Schneider & Preckel, 2017). The following paragraphs thus only give a
brief overview of two learning formats beyond standardised lectures, namely dif-
ferentiated instruction and personalised learning as well as social collaborative
learning.
102 Anja P. Schmitz and Jan Foelsing

6.2.1. Differentiated Instruction and Personalised Learning

In today’s business context, organisations are looking for ways to motivate
employees to learn but also want to decrease the time needed for training. One
approach to achieve this is tailoring training more specifically to the needs of
the respective learner instead of providing the same standard training to all
learners.
From an educational perspective, these goals are mirrored in concepts of dif-
ferentiated instruction and personalised learning (Subban, 2006). Differentiated
instruction has been defined as “using strategies that address student strengths,
interest, skills, and readiness in flexible learning environments” (Hoover &
Patton, 2005, p. 232). Learners are provided with different learning options that
can be differentiated on the dimensions of the learning process, content and
product. By accommodating the differences in the learners’ readiness levels,
interests and learning profiles, differentiated instruction seeks to improve student
motivation and learning (Tomlinson, 2005, 2014). Its positive effects have been
demonstrated in numerous studies (Subban, 2006; Tullis & Benjamin, 2011).
In a similar vein, personalised learning has been defined as learning that is
paced to learning needs and tailored more specifically to the learner’s individual
goals and interests (Alli, Rajan, & Ratliff, 2016; Campbell, Robinson, Neelands,
Hewston, & Mazzoli, 2007). Whereas differentiated instruction focuses on the
instructor’s tasks, personalised learning focuses more on the learner’s perspec-
tive, as well as his empowerment and self-regulation to drive his own learning
(see Bray & McClaskey, 2013 for a detailed discussion).
Personalised learning regained attention as new technology became available
to support learning (Dwi & Basuki, 2012; Shaw, Larson, & Sibdari, 2014). One
specific method of adapting learning to students’ needs and preferences are
learning paths, in most cases provided through some form of digital courseware
(Dwi & Basuki, 2012; Shaw et al., 2014). Learning paths are composed of a spe-
cific sequence of the course material. They have been defined as ‘flexible groups
of content topics that move a learner towards his or her learning [goal].’ (Shaw
et al., 2014, p. 1192). The paths can contain any type of learning material, such
as texts, case studies, videos, etc. (Shaw et al., 2014). In their simplest form, the
paths are pre-defined by domain-experts and students can select between differ-
ent paths based on their preferences (Shaw et al., 2014). In more advanced
forms, the sequences are also adaptive to the learner’s knowledge level based on
the analysis of test results (Dwi & Basuki, 2012). Through the use of web-based
learning systems, learner variables can be used as the basis for adaptive learning
paths, such as learner behaviour, cognitive traits or styles (e.g., Chen, Huang,
Shih, & Chang, 2016; Dwi & Basuki, 2012; Tseng, Chu, Hwang, & Tsai, 2008).
Furthermore, personal recommendations can be included based on data col-
lected from previous learners (Shaw et al., 2014).
In addition to tailoring learning to the individual, many concepts of differen-
tiated instruction or personalised learning also emphasise the importance of
social processes (Subban, 2006). The following chapter gives a brief overview of
collaborative learning and SCPs as the technology supporting it.
 Social Collaborative Learning Environments in Leadership Education 103

6.2.2. Collaborative Learning Enabled Through Social Collaboration

Platforms as the Primary Learning Environment
6.2.2.1. Collaborative Learning

Social interaction plays an important role in the development of cognition and

many approaches to teaching and learning have been developed to promote
social interaction (Bandura, 1977; Lave, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978). Collaborative
learning refers to those social interaction processes in which two or more lear-
ners actively work together towards a shared learning goal and engage in a pro-
cess of co-construction (Dillenbourg, 1999). Furthermore, learners provide new
knowledge for each other, give feedback, support each other’s engagement while
also assuming responsibility for their own learning process (Barron, 2003;
Walker, Rummel, & Koedinger, 2011).
Many studies indicate the effectiveness of collaborative learning, but also
document the challenges related to it (Nokes-Malach, Richey, & Gadgil, 2015;
Pai, Sears, & Maeda, 2015; Schneider & Preckel, 2017; Slavin, 1983; Springer,
Stanne, & Donovan, 1999). Based on these findings, the respective literature
identified a large set of elements that need to be considered when designing col-
laborative learning settings. Among the most important ones are the following
elements: Collaborative tasks need to be complex as well as structured in a way
that allows for productive interaction (Cohen, 1994) and an active role of the
learner (P. A. Kirschner, 2001; F. Kirschner, Paas, & Kirschner, 2009).
Examples are the identification and negotiation of multiple perspectives, includ-
ing comparing and contrasting results (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011; Jeong &
Hmelo-Silver, 2016). Collaboration is specifically beneficial when learners need
to access resources of other group members to solve the task, e.g. different
knowledge domains (Park, Jeong, Jang, Yoon, & Lim, 2018). Accessing these
resources enables learners to explore others’ ideas, gain a more complete under-
standing of the problem and enhances co-construction and critical thinking
(Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001; Jeong & Hmelo-Silver, 2016). However,
effective and efficient collaboration not only requires different design elements
but also different skills and behaviours from learners, such as self-regulation,
monitoring and planning skills, initiating and engaging in discussions, giving
and seeking feedback (P. A. Kirschner & Erkens, 2013). Although learners may
vary in their competence and preference to engage in these behaviours (Barron,
2003), co-construction can be supported by suitable socio-cultural norms and
educational contexts (Jeong & Hmelo-Silver, 2016). These norms need to
encourage learner empowerment and agency, as well as self-directed learning,
critical thinking, the appreciation of different perspectives and a non-threatening
feedback-culture based on learning goal-orientation instead of performance
goal-orientation (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Rougas et al., 2015; Tan, Au,
Cooper-Thomas, & Aw, 2016). Another important element is the role of the
instructor. In collaborative learning contexts, his role changes from being pri-
marily a domain expert to becoming a facilitator of the learning process. The
104 Anja P. Schmitz and Jan Foelsing

learning process thus becomes a shared experience for both, students and
instructors (P. A. Kirschner, 2001).

6.2.2.2. Social Collaboration Platforms

During the last years, new technologies have been developed that focus on enab-
ling social collaboration and on strengthening social connection (Antonius, Xu, &
Gao, 2015; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Wehner et al., 2017). They are based on
network technology or Web 2.0 platforms and have been researched under differ-
ent names: Enterprise Social Media, Enterprise Social Networks (Wehner et al.,
2017) or social collaboration platforms (SCP) (McAfee, 2006). Generally, they
contain combinations of social technologies to enable collaboration. Among them
are features such as wikis, discussion boards, threaded discussions that support
many-to-many communication, chats, as well as distributed communication with-
out direct communication (Wehner et al., 2017). The latter feature lets learners
interact via artefacts they create, such as reviews or comments on their work
(Antonius et al., 2015; Jeong & Hmelo-Silver, 2016). They have been developed
primarily for the purpose of supporting cooperative work but became more and
more used in learning contexts, either as stand-alone solutions or as an integral
part of larger solutions, such as Human Capital Management systems. Especially
in the latter case, they have been included with a learning focus to enhance trad-
itional learning management systems (Bersin, 2017).
In the wake of these technological innovations, collaborative learning
regained attention in the business context as well as the educational context.
Supported by respective technology, it has been termed computer-supported col-
laborative learning (CSCL) (Stahl, Koschmann, & Suthers, 2014). When com-
puters serve as communication tools collaborative learning is not restricted
anymore to physically present small groups but can be extended towards larger
learning communities, even on a mass scale (Cress, Moskaliuk, & Jeong, 2016;
C. M. Johnson, 2001). These features allow it to be employed in international
learning contexts and to take place anytime and anywhere, which added to its
widespread use in the business context (Roschelle, 2013).

6.2.2.3. Core Affordances of Social Collaboration Platforms for

Collaborative Learning
Providing learners with (new) technology is not sufficient to foster student
engagement and learning or to provide an improved learning experience (Prieto,
Villagrá-Sobrino, Jorrín-Abellán, Martínez-Monés, & Dimitriadis, 2011). Jeong
and Hmelo-Silver (2016) therefore developed a framework of how technology
can be used to support collaborative learning. They identified seven opportun-
ities, or core affordances, of technology. These are summarised in the following
paragraphs with a focus on those affordances that are relevant for SCPs.
Collaborative tasks: In SCPs learners can easily be provided with joint tasks as
well as tools and materials to work on these tasks. The tasks should contain
components that need to be worked on together to offer opportunities for check-
ing differences in assumptions and perspectives as well as for developing shared
 Social Collaborative Learning Environments in Leadership Education 105

meaning (Jeong & Hmelo-Silver, 2016; Suthers, 2006). The materials may
include shared databases, videos, simulations and other multimedia content
(e.g., Sinha, Rogat, Adams-Wiggins, & Hmelo-Silver, 2015). When developing
these joint tasks, the additional cognitive load created by the use of (new) tech-
nology needs to be taken into consideration and the tasks need to be aligned
with the overarching learning goals. Furthermore, students need to be aware of
why they are using the technology (Jeong & Hmelo-Silver, 2016).
Communication: One of the great advantages of SCPs is their support of two-
way communication between a large number of distributed learners through dif-
ferent tools (e.g. chats, message boards, communication streams). Learners can
choose their preferred tool for both, synchronous as well as asynchronous com-
munication (Jeong & Hmelo-Silver, 2012, 2016). In addition to making learners
more flexible in their communication, asynchronous communication has also
been shown to support learners’ (self-)reflection (Baker, Andriessen, Lund, van
Amelsvoort, & Quignard, 2007).
Sharing resources: SCPs support learners in accessing others’ resources for solv-
ing tasks by providing a virtual space and the appropriate sub-structures in this
space (Jeong & Hmelo-Silver, 2016). However, learners might lack the skills
and/or motivation to share information and collaborate (Cress, Barquero,
Schwan, & Hesse, 2007; Jeong & Hmelo-Silver, 2016). Encouraging learners to
share resources also requires social support, reinforcement and incentives
(Kreijns, Kirschner, & Jochems, 2003).
Structuring productive collaborative learning processes: SCPs provide various
opportunities for structuring collaboration processes. Online interfaces can, for
example, be used to provide collaboration scripts. These scripts can instruct
effective collaboration behaviours, such as forming groups and choosing com-
munication modes (O’Donnell & O’Kelly, 1994). Structuring collaboration is
more important in computer-supported learning settings than in face-to-face set-
tings. First of all, because learners are likely to have less experience in distribu-
ted collaboration. Second, because there might be higher coordination and
communication hurdles (Jeong & Hmelo-Silver, 2016). The level of structure
should be personalised, that is, adapted to the learners’ skill and motivational
levels. Both under- and overregulation will have detrimental effects on the learn-
ing outcomes, e.g. on the development of learners’ self-regulation skills (Jeong &
Hmelo-Silver, 2016; Shaw et al., 2014).
Facilitating co-construction: Co-constructive processes enable learners to synthe-
sise information from different group members so that they can develop new
knowledge and meaning (Jeong & Hmelo-Silver, 2016). The use of SCPs can
facilitate co-construction through the provision of different technological fea-
tures, such as discussion boards, communication threads or joint workspaces.
However, co-constructive processes require social and cognitive skills (Nokes-
Malach et al., 2015) and thus need to be supported beyond the provision of tools
(Stahl et al., 2014). Rewarding group output as well as individual output,
106 Anja P. Schmitz and Jan Foelsing

establishing norms of social interaction or asking to build on each other’s contri-

butions can be used to support co-construction (D. W. Johnson & Johnson,
1999; P. A. Kirschner, Beers, Boshuizen, & Gijselaers, 2008). Constructivist ele-
ments, such as scaffolding and reflection, might also be appropriate to promote
meaningful learning experiences but further research is warranted (Cress et al.,
2016; Jonassen, 1994).
Monitoring and regulation of collaborative learning: Self-regulation and monitoring
demands on learners are higher in CSCL settings than in face-to-face settings
(Järvelä & Hadwin, 2013; Lajoie & Lu, 2012). They are increasing with task com-
plexity and group size as well as with asynchronous communication and the
number of available communication channels (Jeong & Hmelo-Silver, 2016). SCPs
can help to empower learners and support the development of their meta-cognitive
skills by providing them access to selected monitoring data, e.g. participation rate,
feedback on actions taken or learning analytics (Jeong & Hmelo-Silver, 2016).
Forming and building groups and communities: SCPs allow learners to become
part of different communities that support their access to information, introduce
them to norms and share experiences (Kling & Courtright, 2003; Lave &
Wenger, 1991; Oeberst, Halatchliyski, Kimmerle, & Cress, 2014; Scardamalia &
Bereiter, 2014). Groups can be formed by the instructor or with the help of
technology and need ongoing investment to be perceived as beneficial (Fields,
Kafai, & Giang, 2016). Again, the provision of suitable technology alone is not
enough to engage learners and sustain the communities (Kreijns et al., 2003).
Communities in SCPs will only become a successful collaborative learning set-
ting when embedded in a suitable instructional design and learning culture that
supports interactions and collective learning (Ma, Chen, & Zhang, 2016; Zhang,
Hong, Scardamalia, Teo, & Morley, 2011).
In summary, the work by Jeong and Hmelo-Silver (2016) shows that SCPs as
a new technology provide specific opportunities for social collaboration. It also
shows that the desired learning experience and outcomes can only be achieved
through a pedagogically effective orchestration of technology, instructional
design and learner support, embedded in an appropriate socio-cultural learning
setting (Looi et al., 2009; Prieto et al., 2011).

6.2.3. Summary
Today’s market and societal demands have led organisations to employ new
approaches to learning. Learning is tailored to the individuals’ interest, skills
and needs in order to maximise learning motivation and outcomes within the
given time period. Furthermore, learning becomes increasingly collaborative:
learners interact with each other, assume responsibility and have high degrees of
autonomy in their learning. These personalised and social collaborative learning
processes can be enabled through SCPs as the primary learning environment.
However, it is not enough to provide the technology. The highest learning out-
comes will only be obtained when the educational setting aligns technological
 Social Collaborative Learning Environments in Leadership Education 107

affordances with conceptual and socio-cognitive support as well as an appropri-

ate learning culture.

6.3. The Case

6.3.1. Course Description: ‘Introduction to Leadership’
Bachelor programmes at the Pforzheim University (Germany) contain different
elective courses during the 3rd year. Among them is an introductory course to
leadership, aimed at providing an overview of leadership concepts in both, theory
and practice. The course is taught in English and listed in the course catalogue as
a lecture for students from diverse bachelor programmes (e.g. Human Resource
Management, Engineering, Logistics). Enrolment is open to students of the
Pforzheim University as well as international exchange students. In its traditional
format, the lecture was conducted in an interactive teaching style, including ques-
tions, class discussion, short exercises and analyses of short case studies.

6.3.2. Encountered Challenges of the Traditional Learning Setting

In the traditional format described above, the course was taught several times
and evaluated through standardised student evaluation questionnaires as well as
qualitative student feedback. These data revealed the following challenges of the
traditional learning setting:

(1) Language of instruction

Many students reported that it was more difficult for them to follow the lec-
ture because it was not taught in their native language. This impaired their
comprehension of the presented information. The data also showed that the
English level of the students was very heterogeneous, reaching from very
low experience levels in speaking English to very high levels after spending
semesters abroad or because English was the students’ native language.
(2) Class size and participation
The number of students in the class usually varied from 35 to 50. This class
size limited the degree of possible participation from two different perspec-
tives: From the student perspective, it was difficult to ask questions or par-
ticipate in the discussions due to the combined effect of class size and
having to participate in their non-native language. From the course design
perspective, the class size limited the type of interactive methods that could
be used to activate students. Extended leadership skill-building exercises,
such as conducting employee dialogues, could not be included in the course
at all. In addition to that, the required time for group work was difficult to
gauge due to the different English levels.
(3) Student background and motivation
The students attending the course had very heterogeneous backgrounds.
Their prior knowledge varied from no knowledge to very good knowledge
due to previously attended courses or work experience. Furthermore, they
108 Anja P. Schmitz and Jan Foelsing

had very heterogeneous expectations and learning interests in the course.

The feedback data revealed three motivation or interest clusters:
• Students who wanted to learn concepts and skills they could directly
apply in their first leadership role. Most of these students studied
Logistics or Engineering and they are likely to assume a first leadership
role after graduation.
• Students who wanted to know about the theoretical concepts of leader-
ship and how they could consult leaders. These were mainly Human
Resource Management students, who will most likely work a few years
before assuming their first leadership position but might have to act as
internal consultants to leaders in their first HR roles.
• Students who were primarily interested in learning about cultural differ-
ences and leadership in an international context. These were mainly stu-
dents with international experience, backgrounds or future plans of
studying abroad.
One common topic of interest, however, was mentioned by a high num-
ber of students: they wanted to gain practical leadership experience through
respective exercises.
(4) Methodological competencies
The classic lecture format did not provide ample opportunity for the stu-
dents to develop methodological competencies. The format was primarily
teacher-centred with little demands on the students to further develop their
self-regulation, monitoring, planning or collaboration skills. Furthermore, it
did not prepare students for learning in complex and unstructured work-
place settings where they need to collaborate in international, virtual com-
munities via their own digital persona (Conole, 2014; Solove, 2004).

In summary, the reported data showed that in the traditional lecture format
it was not possible to provide a differentiated learning setting to address the het-
erogeneous levels of learner readiness, needs and interests. The comparison with
learning formats currently used in applied settings furthermore revealed that
the traditional lecture format did not support students in developing necessary
methodological competencies for learning formats they will encounter in
the workplace. Based on these findings, the traditional lecture format was
redesigned.

6.3.3. Reconceptualisation of the Course: Computer-Supported Social

Collaborative Learning Environment with Personalised Elements
The reconceptualisation of the course aimed at overcoming the challenges that
had been identified in the evaluation. It was based on the concepts of persona-
lised and computer-supported collaborative learning. Previous findings showed
that the use of technology alone will not lead to the expected learning outcomes
(Schneider & Preckel, 2017). The instructional design of this course was thus
revised based on the theoretical framework described by Jeong and Hmelo-
Silver (2016). Since the course was part of an existing curriculum with respective
 Social Collaborative Learning Environments in Leadership Education 109

restrictions and guidelines (e.g. assessment, credit hours, instructional format)

the lecture format could only be enhanced by additional elements but could not
be completely transformed. The following paragraphs describe the elements of
the redesigned course that were deducted from the literature and could be imple-
mented within the given curriculum constraints.

(1) Social enterprise network as the social collaboration platform for the course
A social enterprise network (Wehner et al., 2017) was used as the SCP for
this course. The platform served as the central learning environment for this
class and contained all relevant information for the course. The respective
tool used in this course was Coyo (https://coyoapp.com). It provided lear-
ners with a general course workspace as well as private workspaces, multiple
communication options, content pages, lists, a blog, a document repository
and a booking tool. It was accessible through any browser or an app on any
mobile device. This tool was used so that learners could gain experience in
collaborating via their digital persona in learning settings used in the busi-
ness world. It also aimed at improving their methodological and techno-
logical competencies. Learners were supported in using the tool through
instructional videos and explanations in class.
(2) Ongoing communication throughout the course
The course was redesigned to keep learners continuously engaged through
the SCP. Throughout the course, the communication stream tool was used
to support the learners’ ongoing engagement with the topic of leadership.
The course instructors posted additional multi-media material for the stu-
dents and commented on each other’s posts. This was done to model and
facilitate co-construction of knowledge and establish norms for collabor-
ation and constructive commenting. The instructors thus also engaged in the
collaboration in the role of a learner. The students could also use the com-
munication channels to ask questions or reach the instructors. This new
approach to engagement and communication was aimed at creating a sup-
portive learning context.
(3) Personalised learning through the provision of learning paths
To better address diverse student interests (Hoover & Patton, 2005), three
different learning paths were developed. In this setting, the learning paths
were used as an in-depth module, following initial lecture sessions in which
all students were introduced to basic concepts and theories of leadership.
The learning paths were based on the previously extracted student interests:
‘Getting ready for leadership’, ‘consulting leaders’ and ‘diversity in leader-
ship’. Through the platform, the students were provided with introductory
descriptions to all of the learning paths and could choose the learning path
they were most interested in. As elements of cognitive support, each learning
path was structured through learning goals and included step-by-step scripts.
It consisted of different materials (e.g. readings, videos) the students had to
work on. The work on the learning path was self-paced, allowing students
to work on their paths of choice according to their own readiness levels. The
110 Anja P. Schmitz and Jan Foelsing

learning paths were thus also aimed at increasing students’ self-regulatory

skills. The time allotted to these equalled the duration of three lecture ses-
sions including the respective preparation time.
(4) Collaborative tasks
To promote collaboration, information sharing, synthesis of experiences and
ideas, as well as self-regulatory skills, the following tasks were included in the
course. All of these tasks were included as mandatory components and needed
to be completed in addition to the lecture sessions. Leaners were guided
through the completion of the tasks by respective scripts on the platform.
• Co-constructed summaries: To start their virtual collaboration, students
needed to select a specific leadership theory covered in class, thereby cre-
ating different groups of about 4-5 students. They selected the topic
through the SCP. Each group had the task to summarise the respective
leadership theory in preparation for the exam. They were encouraged to
prepare this summary by creating a sub-group workspace in which they
could discuss their ideas and compose their summary. The summary then
needed to be published in the course workspace. All students could thus
access this summary for their individual exam preparation and could also
comment on it or ask related questions through the platform. The sum-
maries were also commented on by the instructors.
• Reflection blog post: After the initial face-to-face lecture sessions, students
needed to pick an individual in-depth learning path and could work on
this path at their own pace. Upon completion of the learning path, the
students had to compile a reflection on their learning path. They had to
summarise their key takeaways, think about their own experiences in
regards to leadership and the content covered in their learning path. This
reflection also needed to be enhanced by collecting additional material
they found helpful or inspiring for their own learning (individual task).
These components had to be combined in a short text and then published
on the SCP as a blog post.
• Reflection co-construction: After publishing their own reflection post, stu-
dents had to comment two other posts by their fellow students. Each
reflection post was also commented on by the instructor.
(5) Leadership skills training in small-group learning settings
During the course phase allotted to the work on the individual learning
paths, the students also had the opportunity to sign up for one out of three
face-to-face leadership skills training session. In the resulting small group
sessions with 10−15 people, students were able to apply their leadership
knowledge to different practical leadership tasks, e.g. self-presentation in an
assessment centre, employee dialogue exercises.

In summary, these instructional design elements were developed to address

the challenges contained in the traditional learning setting. They were based on
personalised learning considerations as well as on the affordances of CSCL, out-
lined in Jeong and Hmelo-Silver’s (2016) framework. Specifically, the above-
mentioned design elements operationalised the affordances of communication,
 Social Collaborative Learning Environments in Leadership Education 111

providing collaboration resources and structure, facilitating co-construction,

forming and building groups and communities. Not operationalised was the
affordance of monitoring student participation. Overall, the reconceptualisation
aimed at providing an effective socio-cultural learning setting through the align-
ment of the employed technology, instructional design, learner support and a
changed role of the instructor.

6.3.4. Preliminary Evaluation Findings

Overall, 28 students participated in the redesigned course. As a first and prelim-
inary evaluation step, informal student feedback was gathered in a face-to-face
class discussion and student posts on the collaboration platform were analysed
to check for emerging themes. The identified themes are reported in relation to
the instructional design elements described above.

(1) Social enterprise network as the social collaboration platform for the course
Students’ comments indicated that they perceived this platform as very new
and did not have any experience working with a similar tool. Among the
features they enjoyed were the mobile app, the possibility to comment and
like comments of their peers and the opportunity to communicate with the
instructors on eye-level, in a fast and more informal way. They also posi-
tively commented on the level of instructor engagement and mentioned that
the platform appeared much more ‘personal’ than traditional learning man-
agement systems and allowed the learners to establish closer connections
with the other classmates. On the negative side, students’ comments showed
indications of an increased cognitive load: They reported increased effort to
get oriented and that the structure and strengths of the platform were only
discovered over time. One student also commented that the platform had
probably not yet been used to its fullest potential by the participants. Some
also reported that it was not as easy to use as consumer apps, such as
WhatsApp or Dropbox. Only a few reported not enjoying this new mode of
working.
(2) Ongoing communication throughout the course
The learners perceived the multiple communication channels as demanding
and needed to get used to their different functionalities, e.g. push-notifica-
tions. They also mentioned that a stricter guidance concerning deadlines for
posts would have been helpful for spreading the participants’ posts more
evenly. Not being able to read all of the posts led to feelings of being
overwhelmed.
(3) Personalised learning through the use of learning paths
Being able to choose an in-depth learning path was well received by the lear-
ners. They enjoyed the mix of learning materials, particularly the videos
contained in the learning paths. However, the learning paths were also per-
ceived as an increased workload in comparison to a traditional lecture
that only requires learners to review the slides in preparation for the exam.
112 Anja P. Schmitz and Jan Foelsing

A recurring theme was the lengths of the included texts and their perceived
high level of difficulty.
(4) Collaborative tasks
It was positively perceived that the individual work could be shared with
fellow students and was not only produced for the instructor. Specifically,
the comments and ‘likes’ for the posts were motivating. One participant also
mentioned that it was very positive to be able to engage in these validation
behaviours (‘likes’) for meaningful educational content. On the downside,
the group work was perceived as increasing the workload for the course.
The analysis of the student blog posts on the platform showed that their
reflections offered more insight into their experiences than their comments
and examples shared in class. Even students who did not actively participate
in verbal class discussions shared valuable experiences in their blog posts.
The comments on the posts also contained first evidence for co-constructed
knowledge: some participants built on the others’ comments and were able
to integrate the different perspectives into their line of argumentation. Many
comments were posted on reflections by participants who had already
known each other before enroling in this class. However, there were also a
number of comments and discussion threads that were carried on between
students who had not previously known each other. The affordances offered
by the platform also motivated learners to contribute beyond the require-
ments. One learner even shared the individual study script she had com-
posed for the exam, although this sharing behaviour was not incentivised
through the instructional design.
(5) Leadership skills training in small-group learning settings
The opportunity to participate in leadership skills training was very posi-
tively perceived by the students. They highly valued gaining practical leader-
ship experience for their future work-life.
(6) General comments on the instructional design
Concerning the content of the class, learners reported that they enjoyed the
topics covered and perceived them as very relevant for their future work-
life. Concerning the overall instructional design, the students frequently
mentioned that they enjoyed the lectures and discussions in class. They spe-
cifically perceived the respectful and appreciative manner of the class discus-
sions as helpful and enjoyable.

6.4. Discussion
Recently, organisations have implemented new approaches to learning in a quest
to respond to the societal market as well as societal demands and to increase
their agility. They are looking for ways to motivate employees to continuously
learn, to maximise the learning outcomes in given periods of time and to support
learners in building their network within the company. To achieve this, they tai-
lor learning to the individuals’ interests, skills and needs. Furthermore, they
focus on collaboration: learners are encouraged to interact with each other and
 Social Collaborative Learning Environments in Leadership Education 113

have high degrees of autonomy in their learning. This new approach to learning
was enabled by technological innovations, such as social collaboration platforms
(SCPs).
Since these changes in the business context also affect higher education, this
case study investigated the potential of social collaborative learning environ-
ments for preparing university students to work in this new business context.
Additionally, the case study’s results will be discussed in regards to their poten-
tial for enabling traditional universities to better respond to the current chal-
lenges they face due to this new business environment, online learning offers and
new learner expectations.

6.4.1. Social Collaborative Learning Environments’ Potential for

Educating Tomorrow’s Leaders
This chapter described the reconceptualisation of a leadership course from a
traditional lecture to a lecture enhanced by social collaboration elements and
supported by an SCP as the technological learning environment. The prelimin-
ary findings of the learners’ perceptions of the new course as well as the analysis
of their contributions on the SCP corroborate the affordances and constraints of
computer-supported social collaboration learning environments reported in the
literature.
The SCP and the ongoing communication throughout the course were reported
to increase learners’ perceived cognitive load and at times led to feelings of being
overwhelmed. The latter impression mainly resulted from the amount and
timing of user-generated content published on the platform. Furthermore, it
might have resulted from the combination of functionalities contained in the
SCP. Learners might be more used to access different kinds of information in
different apps (e.g. communication content, document storage) instead of on
one platform. These findings are in accordance with previous results of the
effects of technology use (Cohen, 1994) and computer-supported collaborative
learning (Jeong & Hmelo-Silver, 2016) and counter more optimistic accounts
that computer-supported collaboration and information management come eas-
ily to the ‘digital natives’ (Prensky, 2001a, 2001b). As previous meta-analytic
findings indicated, prior experience strongly influences the effectiveness of
computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL): how much students learn in
CSCL settings depends on their prior experience and the instructional design ele-
ments used (Lou, Abrami, & d’Apollonia, 2001). Enabling university students to
gain experience and build competencies in using CSCL settings thus seems a
valuable component of preparing them for the future workplace and the learning
demands they will face there.
The reports of the increased cognitive load in dealing with the platform might
also be an indication that working with SCPs requires more self-regulation.
Again, a finding that has been previously reported in the literature (P. A.
Kirschner & Erkens, 2013). Learners often perceive these self-regulatory demands
as unpleasant. Providing more support for the students decreases the perceived
discomfort but is also likely to impair the learning outcome (Hmelo-Silver,
114 Anja P. Schmitz and Jan Foelsing

Duncan, & Chinn, 2007). It thus seems more advisable to foster self-regulation
strategies in educational settings. This might lead to negative reactions in the
short-term but will empower learners for their future careers, especially since the
same effects of perceived overload and feelings of being overwhelmed have been
described in the workplace (Bersin, 2017). Based on our preliminary data, it can
thus be concluded that using SCPs provides learners with much-needed experi-
ence in self-regulation. Instructional settings should be designed to support the
development of self-regulation skills because these are needed to cope with the
demands of continuous, life-long learning in a workplace characterised by infor-
mational overload.
Another result that stood out was the perception of the platform as ‘per-
sonal’. It afforded the instructor to show his/her level of involvement with the
class through continuous and eye-level communication. This might have added
to the perception of the respectful learning atmosphere, thus supporting the
development of a supportive, learning-goal oriented climate (Dweck & Leggett,
1988; Tan et al., 2016). Based on these findings, it can be assumed that CSCL
environments support instructors in taking on a more pronounced role as learn-
ing facilitators. This new role is of specific importance in a societal and organisa-
tional context that values democratic participation, dialogue, relationships,
networks and collaboration on eye-level, instead of clear boundaries and hier-
archies (Balda & Mora, 2011; McGonagill & Pruyn, 2010; Myers & Sadaghiani,
2010). Through this role, instructors can furthermore serve as role models for a
new form of leadership.
The personalised learning elements through the use of learning paths were per-
ceived as motivating. However, it also became evident, that the learning paths
could not fully unfold their advantages in this setting. Learners predominantly
perceived an increased workload instead of a workload reduction through being
able to focus learning on their topics of interest. These perceptions might be due
to the learners comparing this course to traditional lectures that require them to
only study the information contained in the slide set. However, the perceived
workload might have also been influenced by the learners’ language skills. The
elements of the learning paths should thus be revised to include more of those
materials that were favourably received, such as videos. However, as this course
is an advanced level course aiming to prepare students for their bachelor thesis,
the requirement to deal with scientific texts will remain. The inclusion of learning
paths thus holds potential for increasing learner motivation in an educational set-
ting but their goals and advantages need to be communicated explicitly.
The use of collaborative tasks in the learning setting was, on the one hand,
perceived as motivating, on the other hand, as an additional burden. Again,
these findings corroborate the reported complex picture of the effects of collab-
orative learning (Nokes-Malach et al., 2015) and the pitfalls for social inter-
action in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (Barron,
2003; Kreijns et al., 2003). Based on the findings of the case study and the litera-
ture, the use of collaborative tasks with the singular goal of maximising learning
outcomes (‘instrumental view’, Barron, 2003, p. 354) does thus not seem advis-
able. However, the risks that come with collaboration might be worth taking, if
 Social Collaborative Learning Environments in Leadership Education 115

additional goals are pursued in the learning setting, such as introducing students
to learning and working formats they will encounter in the workplace. The latter
argument is supported by findings pointing out that collaboration in the work-
place, e.g. in knowledge-building communities, needs to be practiced (Eberle,
2014). Furthermore, specific tasks and technological features related to the col-
laborative work, such as ‘liking’ and commenting on others’ work, were per-
ceived as motivating.
Unanimously, the learners gave positive feedback on the practical leadership
skills training elements in face-to-face small-group learning settings. This under-
lines findings in the area of leadership evaluation studies indicating the import-
ance of not only building leadership knowledge but also practical skills
(Collins & Holton, 2004). University curricula are often dominated by cognitive
learning goals (Kuchinke, Ardichvili, Wocken, Seo, & Bovornusvakool, 2018).
Among other things, this domination of cognitive learning goals might be due to
the curriculum restrictions also faced in the original version of this leadership
course. The use of new instructional designs that include self-directed learning
parts has in this case been very effective in creating the opportunity to split up
the large lecture group and offer these small groups face-to-face practical skills
training sessions. The content of these sessions was directly tailored to workplace
and leadership tasks students will encounter in selection processes. It thus aimed
at producing tangible effects on the immediate employability of the learners.
The positive perceptions of the skills-training sessions are also in line with the
general comments on the instructional design. The case study and findings in the
literature show that time in class and class discussions are still valued by lear-
ners. Furthermore, previous research showed not only the positive perceptions
of face-to-face small-group learning in the classroom but also the resulting
higher achievement (Schneider & Preckel, 2017). The blended approach that was
achieved through the redesign of the course was thus able to not only adhere to
existing curriculum regulations but also supported recent meta-analytic evidence
showing that the combination of online and classroom instruction creates the
most effective learning settings (Schneider & Preckel, 2017).
Overall, this case study was thus able to provide preliminary findings that an
SCP used as the primary online learning environment can support instructors in
dealing with challenges often encountered in university learning settings: a non-
native language of instruction, large student groups, diverse learner readiness. It
furthermore showed that SCP-supported learning environments afford learning
experiences that cannot be provided through traditional lectures. Using SCPs
learners can gain experience in using this new technology and can develop the
required methodological skills such as self-regulation, monitoring and planning.
Possessing these methodological competencies will positively affect their success
in the workplace. Knowledge and experience in leadership in virtual environ-
ments will furthermore increase their employability (Kuchinke et al., 2018). In
accordance with previous findings, the case study also showed that effective
learning processes, specifically collaborative learning, can only be supported
when the use of technology is aligned with the appropriated instructional design
and learning culture (Jeong & Hmelo-Silver, 2016).
116 Anja P. Schmitz and Jan Foelsing

6.4.2. Social Collaborative Learning Environments’ Potential for

Tomorrow’s Universities
Based on the preliminary results of the case study, the following paragraphs
investigate the power of CSCL settings for dealing with the challenges created
by online educational offers and their disruptive power for higher education.
This case study yielded no direct support yet, that students strongly prefer
CSCL settings over lecture-based instruction. Although this finding might be
due to a number of reasons that need to be investigated in more controlled
studies (e.g., weaknesses in course design or lack of technological features,
etc.), it is in line with current meta-analytic results. Schneider & Preckl
concluded that their data also did not seem to support the conclusion that
‘communication technology will revolutionize higher education’ (2017,
pp. 594 595).
However, as the democratisation of knowledge, social media and other
technology, as well as new university models, gain further acceptance in soci-
ety (Antonius et al., 2015; Mehaffy, 2012) the traditional higher education
format and business model might not hold up anymore. Agile companies need
to adapt their products and business models very fast. Their employees need
to be equally fast in acquiring new competencies. Thus, students, as well as
employers, will expect life-long learning offers that are easily accessible and
flexible, and provide knowledge- and skill-building on demand. Demand will
shift towards ‘nano-degrees’ that are tailored to specific needs and can be used
to secure one’s employability in form of ‘badges’ for very specific skills. Big
employers such as IBM are already generating their own badges and their
employees add them to their profiles on professional social networks.
Universities will have to answer these expectations with concepts that go
beyond traditional face-to-face degree programmes and provide a revised
approach to teaching and learning.
Personalised and social collaborative learning processes enabled through
SCPs as the primary learning environment hold potential for dealing with the
challenges faced by traditional universities and their business model for the fol-
lowing reasons.

• They enable universities to redesign traditional teaching settings to cater to

the expectations of new student generations concerning personalisation,
engagement with peers and facilitators (instructors), as well as on-demand
access to learning.
• They provide a framework for preparing learners for new demands in the busi-
ness context by supporting the development of methodological and techno-
logical skills. Students’ gain confidence in collaborating beyond boundaries
and can engage with members of larger communities (Zhang, Scardamalia,
Reeve, & Messina, 2009).
• They are flexible enough to be implemented in different degrees, allowing uni-
versities an early response to the possible disruption while still using
 Social Collaborative Learning Environments in Leadership Education 117

traditional and effective face-to-face course elements. They are an advanced

tool for offering blended learning settings.
• If used to their fullest extent, social collaborative learning settings provide the
unique opportunity to establish sustainable communities of practice. This
affordance should be used to create ‘knowledge relationships’ (Balda & Mora,
2011) between learners and faculty from the beginning. When traditional uni-
versities fail to provide this social component, their advantage over full online
curricular will vanish. Business organisations are shifting from ‘generating
knowledge’ to ‘creating the relationships and connections through which
knowledge can flow’ (Balda & Mora, 2011, p. 16) and in which different gen-
erations are working and learning together ‘through relationally driven and
technologically [enabled] collaborative processes’ (p. 14). Comprehensive
social collaborative learning settings allow universities to also create such a
relationally-driven environment.
• Successfully sustaining these knowledge communities will open up new busi-
ness models for universities: They can be used for continuous professional
education, enabling universities to provide life-long-learning concepts to
their alumni. The university offers a framework and platform for a select
student group to learn on demand, informally and with coaching support
from professors. The use of technology-supported social collaborative learn-
ing environments can thereby support universities’ currently ‘irreplaceable’
functions as mentioned by Christensen and Eyring (2011, p. A72). First: the
discovery of knowledge: Social collaborative networks enable pronounced
exchanges between scientists and their previous students. The resulting
access to the questions currently being asked in the business will inspire sci-
ence. The networks will provide practitioners with another venue to gain
access to research results. Second, they offer a new means to serve as men-
toring grounds. The establishment of social collaborative networks, starting
in college and turning into a life-long informal learning network, will fur-
ther help to bridge the scientist-practitioner gap.
• The networks will also enable universities to provide a high-quality learning
environment in which shorter, more focused knowledge- and skill-building
courses that lead to very specific certificates, can be embedded.

6.5. Limitations
The reported findings are based on preliminary evaluation data only. A more
thorough analysis and an experimental design are needed to assess students’
reactions, learning, behaviour and results (Kirkpatrick, 1994). The reconcep-
tualisation of this class did not yet include the specific recognition of learner
ability for the differentiation of learning paths. Given the importance of ability
and other learner variables, the instructional design should be developed fur-
ther. Additionally, the conclusions concerning the social collaborative learning
environments’ potential for tomorrow’s universities warrant further empirical
investigation.
118 Anja P. Schmitz and Jan Foelsing

6.6. Conclusion
Personalised and social collaborative learning processes enabled through SCPs
as the primary learning environment can enable traditional universities to deal
with the disruptive power of online education. They hold the potential to offer a
new teaching and business model for traditional universities. Implementing these
changes, however, will not be possible without analysing and adjusting organisa-
tional structures and culture as well as faculty reward systems.

References
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects.
Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132 169. doi:10.3102/0034654311404435
Alli, N., Rajan, R., & Ratliff, G. (2016). How personalised learning unlocks student
success. Educause Review, 51(2), 12 21.
Amundsen, S., & Martinsen, Ø. L. (2014). Empowering leadership: Construct clarifi-
cation, conceptualisation, and validation of a new scale. The Leadership Quarterly,
25(3), 487 511. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.009
Antonius, N., Xu, J., & Gao, X. (2015). Factors influencing the adoption of
Enterprise Social Software in Australia. Knowledge-Based Systems, 73, 32 43.
doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2014.09.003
Baker, M., Andriessen, J., Lund, K., van Amelsvoort, M., & Quignard, M. (2007).
Rainbow: A framework for analysing computer-mediated pedagogical debates.
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2 3),
315 357. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9022-4
Balda, J. B., & Mora, F. (2011). Adapting leadership theory and practice for the
networked, millennial generation. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(3), 13 24.
doi:10.1002/jls.20229
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3),
307 359. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1
Bennett, N., & Lemoine, G. J. (2014). What a difference a word makes:
Understanding threats to performance in a VUCA world. Business Horizons, 57(3),
311 317. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2014.01.001
Bersin, J. (2017). The Disruption of Digital Learning: 10 Things We Have Learned
(Talent Trends). Retrieved from www.bersin.com
Bielaczyc, K. (2013). Informing design research: Learning from teachers designs of
social infrastructure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(2), 258 311. doi:10.1080/
10508406.2012.691925
Bray, B., & McClaskey, K. (2013). A Step-by-Step Guide to Personalise Learning.
Learning & Leading with Technology, 40(7), 12 19. Retrieved from http://files.
eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1015153.pdf
Campbell, R. J., Robinson, W., Neelands, J., Hewston, R., & Mazzoli, L. (2007).
Personalised learning: Ambiguities in theory and practice. British Journal of
Educational Studies, 55(2), 135 154. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8527.2007.00370.x
 Social Collaborative Learning Environments in Leadership Education 119

Chen, S. Y., Huang, P.-R., Shih, Y.-C., & Chang, L.-P. (2016). Investigation of mul-
tiple human factors in personalised learning. Interactive Learning Environments,
24(1), 119 141. doi:10.1080/10494820.2013.825809
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: The revolutionary book that
will change the way you do business. Harper Business Essentials. New York:
HarperCollins.
Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. (2011). How to save the traditional university,
from the inside out. Chronicle of Higher Education, 57(42), A72 A72.
Chui, M., Manyika, J., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C., Sarrazin, H.,
Westergren, M. (2012). The social economy: Unlocking value and productivity
through social technologies. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/
high-tech/our-insights/the-social-economy
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive
small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1 35. doi:10.3102/0034654306
4001001
Collins, D. B., & Holton, E. F. III. (2004). The effectiveness of managerial leader-
ship development programs: A meta-analysis of studies from 1982 to 2001.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(2), 217 248. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1099
Conole, G. (2014). The 7Cs of learning design a new approach to rethinking
design practice. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Networked
Learning (502 509). Retrieved from http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fss/organisations/
netlc/past/nlc2014/abstracts/pdf/conole.pdf
Cress, U., Barquero, B., Schwan, S., & Hesse, F. W. (2007). Improving quality and
quantity of contributions: Two models for promoting knowledge exchange with
shared databases. Computers & Education, 49(2), 423 440. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.
2005.10.003
Cress, U., Moskaliuk, J., & Jeong, H. (Eds.). (2016). Mass collaboration and educa-
tion. Heidelberg: Springer.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg
(Ed.), Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (pp. 1 16).
Amsterdam: Pergamon, Elsevier Science. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0463.1999.tb05661.x
Dove, R. (1999). Knowledge management, response ability, and the agile enterprise.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(1), 18 35. doi:10.1108/13673279910259367
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation
and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256 273. doi:10.1037/0033-
295X.95.2.256
Dwi, C. A., & Basuki, A. (2012). Personalized learning path of a web-based learning
system. International Journal of Computer Applications, 53(7), 17 22. doi:10.5120/
8434-2206
Eberle, J. (2014). Legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice:
Participation support structures for newcomers in faculty student councils.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(2), 216 244. Retrieved from https://www.
learntechlib.org/p/167897/
Fields, D. A., Kafai, Y. B., & Giang, M. T. (2016). Coding by choice: A transitional
analysis of social participation patterns and programming contributions in the
online Scratch community. In U. Cress, J. Moskaliuk, & H. Jeong (Eds.), Mass
Collaboration and Education (pp. 209 240). Heidelberg: Springer.
120 Anja P. Schmitz and Jan Foelsing

Fischer, S., & Häusling, A. (2018). Agilität und Arbeit 4.0 [Agility and work 4.0]. In
S. Werther & L. Bruckner (Eds.), Arbeit 4.0 aktiv: Die Zukunft der Arbeit
zwischen Agilität, People Analytics und Digitalisierung [Work 4.0: the future of
work between agility, people analytics and digitalization] (pp. 88 107).
Wiesbaden: Springer.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive
presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of
Distance Education, 15(1), 7 23. doi:10.1080/08923640109527071
Goldman, S. L., Nagel, R. N., & Preiss, K. (1995). Agile competitors and virtual
organizations: Strategies for enriching the customer. New York, NY: Wiley.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and
achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner,
Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99 107. doi:10.1080/
00461520701263368
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Nagarajan, A., & Derry, S. J. (2006). From face-to-face to online
participation: tensions in facilitating problem-based learning. In M. Savin-Baden &
K. Wilkie (Eds.), Problem-based learning online (pp. 61 78). Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Hoover, J. J., & Patton, J. R. (2005). Differentiating curriculum and instruction for
english-language learners with special needs. Intervention in School and Clinic,
40(4), 231 235. doi:10.1177/10534512050400040401
Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL.
Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25 39. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.748006
Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2012). Technology Supports in CSCL. In J. van
Aalst, K. Thompson, M. J. Jacobson, & P. Reinmann (Eds.), The future of learning:
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences: Volume 1,
Full papers (pp. 339 346). Sydney, Australia: Society of the Learning Sciences.
Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2016). Seven affordances of computer-supported col-
laborative learning: How to support collaborative learning? How can technologies
help? Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 247 265. doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1158654
Johnson, C. M. (2001). A survey of current research on online communities of prac-
tice. The Internet and Higher Education, 4(1), 45 60. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(01)
00047-1
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model.
Educational Technology, 34(4), 34 37. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.
org/p/171050/
Kane, G. C. (2015). Enterprise social media: Current capabilities and future possibil-
ities. MIS Quarterly Executive, 14(1), 1 16.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges
and opportunities of social media. Business Horisons, 53(1), 59 68. doi:10.1016/j.
bushor.2009.09.003
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009). A cognitive load approach to col-
laborative learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology
Review, 21(1), 31 42. doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9095-2
 Social Collaborative Learning Environments in Leadership Education 121

Kirschner, P. A. (2001). Using integrated electronic environments for collaborative

teaching/learning. Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction, 2(1), 1 9.
Kirschner, P. A., Beers, P. J., Boshuisen, H. P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2008).
Coercing shared knowledge in collaborative learning environments. Computers in
Human Behaviour, 24(2), 403 420. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.028
Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2013). Toward a framework for CSCL research.
Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 1 8. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.750227
Kling, R., & Courtright, C. (2003). Group behavior and learning in electronic for-
ums: A sociotechnical approach. The Information Society, 19(3), 221 235.
doi:10.1080/01972240309465
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for
social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a
review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335 353. doi:10.1016/
S0747-5632(02)00057-2
Kuchinke, P. K., Ardichvili, A., Wocken, L., Seo, J., & Bovornusvakool, W. (2018).
Leadership development for undergraduate students at U.S. universities: The case
for HRD research and practice. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(1),
549. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21309
Lajoie, S. P., & Lu, J. (2012). Supporting collaboration with technology: Does
shared cognition lead to co-regulation in medicine? Metacognition and Learning,
7(1), 45 62. doi:10.1007/s11409-011-9077-5
Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L. B. Resnick, M. J.
Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63 82).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Learning in doing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1 47. doi:10.2307/2391211
Looi, C. K., Wong, L. H., So, H. J., Seow, P., Toh, Y., Chen, W., Soloway, E.
(2009). Anatomy of a mobilized lesson: Learning my way. Computers and Education,
53(4), 1120 1132. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.021
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learn-
ing with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3),
449 521. doi:10.3102/00346543071003449
Ma, L., Chen, A., & Zhang, Z.-X. (2016). Task success based on contingency fit of
managerial culture and embeddedness. Journal of International Business Studies,
47(2), 191 209. doi:10.1057/jibs.2015.45
McAfee, A. P. (2006). Enterprise 2.0: The dawn of emergent collaboration. MITSloan
Management Review, 47(3), 21 28.
McGonagill, G., & Pruyn, P. W. (2010). Leadership Development in the US
Principles and Patterns of Best Practice (Leadership Series). Gütersloh. Retrieved
from http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/cps/rde/xbcr/bst_engl/xcms_bst_dms_30820_
30821_2.pdf
Mehaffy, G. (2012, September/October). Challenge and change. Educause Review,
24 42. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2012/9/challenge-and-change
Myers, K. K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010). Millennials in the workplace: A communica-
tion perspective on millennials organizational relationships and performance.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 225 238. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9172-7
122 Anja P. Schmitz and Jan Foelsing

Nokes-Malach, T. J., Richey, J. E., & Gadgil, S. (2015). When is it better to learn
together? Insights from research on collaborative learning. Educational Psychology
Review, 27(4), 645 656. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9312-8
O’Donnell, A. M., & O’Kelly, J. (1994). Learning from peers: Beyond the rhetoric of
positive results. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 321 349.
Oeberst, A., Halatchliyski, I., Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2014). Knowledge con-
struction in wikipedia: A systemic-constructivist analysis. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 23(2), 149 176. doi:10.1080/10508406.2014.888352
Pai, H.-H., Sears, D. A., & Maeda, Y. (2015). Effects of small-group learning on
transfer: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 27(1), 79 102.
doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9260-8
Park, S., Jeong, S., Jang, S., Yoon, S. W., & Lim, D. H. (2018). Critical review of global
leadership literature: Toward an integrative global leadership framework. Human
Resource Development Review, 17(1), 95 120. doi:10.1177/1534484317749030
Pearce, C. L., Conger, J. A., & Locke, E. A. (2008). Shared leadership theory. The
Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), 622 628. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.07.005
Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5),
1 6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816
Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants Part 2: Do they really think
differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1 6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424843
Prieto, L. P., Villagrá-Sobrino, S., Jorrín-Abellán, I. M., Martínez-Monés, A., &
Dimitriadis, Y. (2011). Recurrent routines: Analyzing and supporting orchestra-
tion in technology-enhanced primary classrooms. Computers & Education, 57(1),
1214 1227. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.001
Robertson, B. J. (2016). Holacracy: The revolutionary management system that
abolishes hierarchy. New York, NY: Penguin Random House.
Roschelle, J. (2013). Special issue on CSCL: Discussion. Educational Psychologist,
48(1), 67 70. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.749445
Rougas, S., Clyne, B., Cianciolo, A. T., Chan, T. M., Sherbino, J., & Yarris, L.
M. (2015). An extended validity argument for assessing feedback culture.
Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 27(4), 355 358. doi:10.1080/10401334.2015.
1077133
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and tech-
nology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbooks in psychology. The Cambridge
handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97 118). Cambridge: University Press.
Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher
education: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 143(6),
565 600. doi:10.1037/bul0000098
Shaw, C., Larson, R., & Sibdari, S. (2014). An asynchronous, personalized learning
platform—guided learning pathways (GLP). Creative Education, 05(13),
1189 1204. doi:10.4236/ce.2014.513135
Sinha, S., Rogat, T. K., Adams-Wiggins, K. R., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2015).
Collaborative group engagement in a computer-supported inquiry learning envir-
onment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,
10(3), 273 307. doi:10.1007/s11412-015-9218-y
Slavin, R. E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement?
Psychological Bulletin, 94(3), 429 445. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.94.3.429
 Social Collaborative Learning Environments in Leadership Education 123

Solove, D. J. (2004). The digital person: Technology and privacy in the information
age. Ex machina. New York, NY: New York Univ. Press. Retrieved from http://
www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0730/2004010188-d.html
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning
on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21 51. doi:10.3102/0034654
3069001021
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. D. (2014). Computer-supported collaborative
learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbooks in psychology. The Cambridge
handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 479 500). Cambridge: University Press.
Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis. International
Education Journal, 7(7), 935 947. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ854351
Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making:
A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315 337. doi:10.1007/s11412-006-9660-y
Tan, K. W. T., Au, A. K. C., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., & Aw, S. S. Y. (2016). The
effect of learning goal orientation and communal goal strivings on newcomer pro-
active behaviours and learning. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 89(2), 420 445. doi:10.1111/joop.12134
Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms
(2nd ed.). Merrill education/ASCD college textbook series. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all
learners (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum
Development.
Tseng, J. C. R., Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Development of an
adaptive learning system with two sources of personalization information.
Computers & Education, 51(2), 776 786. Retrieved from https://www.learnte-
chlib.org/p/67330/
Tullis, J. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2011). On the effectiveness of self-paced learning.
Journal of Memory and Language, 64(2), 109 118. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2010. 11.002
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Adaptive support for CSCL:
Is it feedback relevance or increased student accountability that matters? In
H. Spada, G. Stahl, N. Miyake, & N. Law (Eds.), Connecting Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning: CSCL2011 Conference Proceeding Volume I—Long papers
(pp. 334 341). Hong Kong: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Wehner, B., Ritter, C., & Leist, S. (2017). Enterprise social networks: A literature
review and research agenda. Computer Networks, 114, 125 142. doi:10.1016/j.
comnet.2016.09.001
Zhang, J., Hong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C. L., & Morley, E. A. (2011).
Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary
school. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 262 307. doi:10.1080/
10508406.2011.528317
Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective
cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7 44. doi:10.1080/10508400802581676
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 7

Online, Not Distance Education:

The Merits of Collaborative Learning
in Online Education
Desiree Wieser and Jürgen-Matthias Seeler

Abstract
As a result of the rapid technological innovation and its disruptive power
also on the educational sector, teaching and learning practices changed
fundamentally and new forms of education, as well as totally new degree
programmes emerged. Today, higher education institutions (HEIs) make
use of different online resources and new collaborative tools by integrat-
ing digital technologies and the internet fully within the curricula.
However, although online education offers numerous advantages and has
the power to overcome traditional barriers in education as time and
space, many higher education institutions are still struggling with issues
such as fostering student collaboration on one hand and reducing feelings
of social isolation on the other. In the present case study, we analyse a
blended Bachelor degree programme in Management at a European busi-
ness school with the aim to provide practical suggestions and inspiration
for implementing e-learning and online education in higher education.
The introduced case demonstrates how collaborative learning aspects,
organisational and pedagogical structures, philosophical assumptions and
educational settings can be combined to decrease one of the main chal-
lenges in online education, namely distance.

Keywords: Online education; blended learning; collaborative learning;

distance; social isolation; management education

The Disruptive Power of Online Education: Challenges, Opportunities, Responses, 125 146
Copyright r 2019 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISBN: 978-1-78754-326-3
126 Desiree Wieser and Jürgen-Matthias Seeler

6.1. Introduction
As online education has become increasingly accessible in the last years, the
number of students enroled in online programmes has grown and in turn also
pedagogical models and higher education systems have changed with the aim to
use the virtual space offered by the internet, transforming it into a social learn-
ing space (Harasim, 2000; Liang & Chen, 2012; McKiernen & Wilson, 2014).
Indeed, online education is very often no more only adopted as an extension to
traditional and common learning and teaching modes in higher education insti-
tutions, but even considered a promising alternative for differentiation (Kim &
Bonk, 2006; Sursock, 2015). Thus, online education has become reality for
many institutions and their students within the last years.
Nevertheless, the effectiveness and success of online educational offers are
still doubted from time to time. These doubts result mainly from the higher
drop-out rates in online courses compared to traditional courses on campus.
Distance and feelings of social isolation are often named as the first causes why
students do not complete their online study programmes/courses successfully.
A very popular form of initiating and implementing online education − often
claimed as having the power to outbalance issues as distance and social isolation −
is blended learning. The blended model combines traditional classroom educa-
tion with synchronous and asynchronous online teaching (Fearon, Starr, &
McLaughlin, 2012) and benefits thus of both modes of content delivery, the
traditional face-to-face delivery, as well as the online delivery of content (Allen &
Seaman, 2010; Harasim, 2000). The advantages include and combine next to the
typical advantages regarding time and space (Harasim, 2000; Liang & Chen,
2012), on one side the personal and regular teacher − learner interaction (which
would be lost in full online programmes) and on the other side, the use of different
facilitation modes enabled by technologies and ICT like podcasts, discussion
boards and online forums (Fearon et al., 2012). Moore (1991), however, sees the
key to diminish distance in online education, specifically in an enhanced inter-
action by fostering and improving collaborative learning.
The introduced case study offers an example for the implementation of the
blended mode as a form of online education in management education, emphasis-
ing, in particular, the collaborative learning aspect to outbalance social isolation
and distance in online education. Hence, the present study seeks to answer the
research question how to implement blended learning in management education in
order to inhibit one of the key disadvantages in online education namely distance.
Before introducing and analysing the case, the next section will investigate
into literature and the distance factor of online education, taking a closer look
on interaction and collaborative learning and its influence on distance in online
education.

6.2. Distance in Online Education

A major barrier for students to succeed in an online programme, often also
termed as a key disadvantage of distance and online learning, is transactional
 The Merits of Collaborative Learning in Online Education 127

distance. This term was developed by Moore (1991) and describes the theory of
cognitive space between instructor and learners in an educational setting, which
means actually the psychological and communicational distance between
instructor and learner. Indeed, many students enroled in online courses or pro-
grammes suffer from social isolation caused by a decreased feeling of the social
presence of the teacher and their peers. This, in turn, affects motivation and
involvement negatively and learning outcomes deteriorate. Social isolation is
thus a major danger which increases finally also the likelihood of student
dropouts, as various empirical studies claim and proved (Bitzer & Janson, 2014;
Eom & Ashill, 2016; Hiltz, 1998; Muilenburg & Berge, 2005; Rovai, 2003;
Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, & Kindermann, 2008; Tinto, 1987; Wallace,
2003; Wu, Tennyson, & Hsia, 2010). In turn, it can be assumed that if learning
outcomes want to be maximised and drop-outs minimised, transactional distance
has to be minimised first.
According to Moore (1991) transactional distance can be minimised among
three main factors: dialogue, autonomy and structure. Dialogue implicates the
regular interaction and exchange between learner and teacher, and among lear-
ners. More interaction and regular interaction reduces the transactional distance
sustainably. Furthermore, also the autonomy of the learner plays a crucial role
because more autonomous and self-directed learners need less interaction with the
instructor and less standardisation and structure than people who are not able to
manage to learn on their own. Also, the structure of the programme which can
adopt different characteristics from flexible to standardised, to blended or fully
online, from collaborative to independent and so on has a huge potential to influ-
ence transactional distance (Moore & Kearsley, 2011). Finally, and of crucial
importance for the improvement of the overall learning experience within online
education, as argued by Moore (1991), are key aspects as personal student sup-
port, guidance and encouragement, mutual feedback, criticism and supervision.
Looking at the discourse of Moore (1991) and Moore and Kearsley (2011),
‘interaction’ is one main factor which seems to have a huge overall impact on
the reduction of transactional distance in online education. The next section
will, therefore, investigate into collaborative learning within online environments
by looking at its benefits and its power to decrease transactional distance.

6.3. Collaborative Learning and Online Education

According to the school of cognitive and constructivist learning theories, collab-
orative learning plays a central role in understanding and acquiring knowledge,
as learning and understanding are seen as processes of interaction where mean-
ings are negotiated and established in social contexts (Piaget, 1982; Vygotsky &
Cole, 1978).
When talking about collaborative learning, Dillenbourg (1999) has been one of
the most pioneering authors. Dillenbourg (1999, p. 5) explained collaborative
learning as ‘a situation in which particular forms of interaction among people are
expected to occur, which would trigger learning mechanisms, but there is no
128 Desiree Wieser and Jürgen-Matthias Seeler

guarantee that the expected interactions will actually occur. Hence, a general con-
cern is to develop ways to increase the probability that some types of interaction
occur.’ He identified four critical items that determine collaborative learning:

(1) Defining the situation: Setting up initial conditions;

(2) Defining the interaction: Specification of the collaboration contract with a
scenario based on roles;
(3) Defining the process: Ensuring productive interactions by encompassing
interaction rules;
(4) Defining the effects: Monitoring and regulating interactions.

To summarise, collaborative learning starts with a situation that generates

interaction patterns. These patterns trigger cognitive mechanisms in a second
step and produce cognitive effects in the end.
Glaser (1990) defined collaborative learning in a similar way before and
claimed that it demands for interaction and collaboration with others and builds
on shared understandings. McAlpine (2000) added later that learning from peers
and teachers is thereby crucial.
Johnson and Johnson (1992) conducted a longitudinal study where they
revealed that the achievement and productivity of learners is higher in collabora-
tive or cooperative settings, compared to individualistic and competitive settings.
Indeed, they also proved cooperative learning experiences to foster positive social
relationships which positively influences students’ self-esteem and strengthens their
social ability competences. In this context, they also highlighted the special role of
the instructor to actively support learners in their construction of knowledge.
Put into practice, collaborative learning expresses itself through students’ active
search for information, the engagement in discussion, the asking of questions and
the discussing of answers, ideas and problems from different perspectives.
According to Morris and Hayes (1997) interaction, group activities and collabor-
ation are considered to enhance deep learning and to improve learning outcomes
by the development of transferable skills, communication and interpersonal skills.
Furthermore, active collaboration between students is claimed to render learning
more realistic because it provokes activity and stimulates motivation (Petraglia,
1998), and as claimed by Bekele (2010), increased motivation is an important cri-
terion for student success and lower dropouts. As a result, students do no longer
take on a passive role in the learning process but do actively contribute to the co-
creation of knowledge through their prior knowledge and experiences, their beliefs
and values and the preparation of activities, as explained by Petraglia (1998).
In turn, instruction becomes more learner-centred, instead of teacher-
cantered. Consequently, also the role of the teacher changes. In the new learning
process, the teacher often becomes a facilitator in a collaborative environment
by supporting students in the creation of their knowledge, whereby knowledge is
viewed as a social construct which is enabled through peer interaction, evalu-
ation and cooperation, as explained by Hiltz (1998).
 The Merits of Collaborative Learning in Online Education 129

With the diffusion of the internet and the development of new technologies
and ICT new opportunities for collaboration, communication, but also for learn-
ing have emerged. Collaboration is now also possible among a long distance of
space by the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) systems as
Veerman and Veldhuis-Diermanse (2001) explain. McAlpine (2000) claims com-
puter networks, databases and the internet to be important cognitive tools in a
collaborative learning environment as they enable the development of shared
understanding and collaborative problem-solving. According to him the combin-
ation of collaborative learning and online education makes interaction vivid,
emphasising the learning process itself which has the power to outweigh the lack
of contact and the feelings of isolation in online education (McAlpine, 2000).
Similarly, Harasim (2000) argues that one of the major strengths of online
education is social, affective and cognitive interaction and collaboration which
can be enabled through the use of CMC.
Indeed, some studies already proved that collaborative learning can be more
effective for online learning than traditional pedagogical approaches in some
cases, providing evidence for Hiltz (1998) that the advantages of online educa-
tion can increase over the disadvantages until traditional barriers as social isola-
tion can be finally outbalanced. In the past, it has been already argued by Henri
and Rigault (1996) that communicating online can even be more intensive as
traditional face-to-face communication in some cases, because of a lack of social
pressure and much more freedom to express its own opinion, which in turn
allows participants to react to the content in a more reflective and effective way
of communicating.
Indeed, Veerman and Veldhuis-Diermanse (2001) claim that technologies and
CMC in online education, as for example text-based chats, can facilitate the
structuring of interaction and communication, as well as enhance reflection at
the same time, offering the possibility of re-reading messages, and the slowness
of communication which helps to focus and track.
Summarising the standpoints of these and other authors it becomes clear that
interaction and collaboration are very often seen to be integral and substantial
parts of online educational environments (Dabbagh, 2007; Goodyear, 2002;
Harasim, 2000; Liang & Chen, 2012).
As a result, and out of those collaborative and cooperative learning theories,
pedagogies of networked learning emerged, which emphasise especially the
learning with information and communication technologies. A prominent and
especially relevant networked learning model in the present context is the model
developed by Goodyear (1999, 2002, 2005). It builds on the collaborative learn-
ing approach by Dillenbourg (1999), and captures the benefits of learning
through collaboration (Goodyear, 2002). Goodyear, Banks, Hodgson and
McConnel (2004) defined networked learning as a process of learning which uses
ICT to promote connections between learners, between learners and instructors
and between the learning community and the learning resources.
In his model Goodyear (1999, 2002, 2005) sets the pedagogical framework in
relation to the educational activity in a real-world setting. Hence, it is an
attempt to describe real-world settings, concrete activities, processes, capturing
130 Desiree Wieser and Jürgen-Matthias Seeler

people and artefacts involved in learning. Both, the pedagogical framework and
the educational setting are influenced by the higher education institution itself
and its organisational framework. The model builds on the assumptions that
learning is always influenced by the learning philosophy (how learning occurs)
behind it. The educational setting, however, brings together tasks (brainstorm-
ing, discussion, critique, etc.), activities (writing, reading, memorising, develop-
ing, etc.), people (students, instructors) and the social environment (chat room,
discussion boards, shared folders, etc.).
But not only the networked learning model by Goodyear (1999, 2002, 2005)
debates the key relevance of collaborative learning in online education and
vice versa, also in practice there is evidence that students enjoy connecting with
others, and realise benefits through it. They report that relationships with others,
working and learning with peers and in teams, reduce loneliness and motivate
them at the same time, in order to be able to learn more successfully in an online
learning environment. In turn, other authors conclude that collaborative learning
environments have the power to foster learning from a social, as well as an aca-
demic perspective by preventing social isolation on one hand and leading in turn
to fewer drop-out rates and student success in online education on the other hand
(Bekele, 2010; Moessenlechner, Obexer, Sixl-Daniell, & Seeler, 2015; Stanford-
Bowers, 2008).
Nevertheless, some other questions remain still unanswered. In particular the
statement of Dillenbourg (1999) at the beginning where he emphasises the fact
that there is no guarantee that interactions which influence the learning outcome
positively actually occur, entails an interesting question: How is it possible to
increase the likelihood that the ‘desired types of interaction’ occur, if collabora-
tive learning in itself is not automatically able to induce the ‘expected inter-
actions’ which lead to positive outcomes?
Yukselturk and Bulut (2007) would argue that it demands reasonable and
efficient instructional strategies which provide effective feedback and monitor
performance in online education. At the same time the question also ties up to
the three factors developed by Moore (1991) to reduce transactional distance, as
mentioned earlier:

interaction/dialogue, autonomy, and structure.

Furthermore, as drawn out by Garrison and Kanuka (2004) blended learning

is indeed a fundamental reconceptualization and reorganisation of teaching and
learning in an institution. The implementation of blended learning can adopt vari-
ous differing forms, depending always on the respective institution and its disci-
plines, resources, mission, etc. Profiting from a one-size-fits-all approach might,
therefore, be difficult, if not redundant. Hence, the question appears: how to actu-
ally implement blended learning successfully in order to overcome, at least however
to outbalance, one of the key disadvantages in online education namely distance?
 The Merits of Collaborative Learning in Online Education 131

6.4. Method
We apply a case study approach which investigates a blended Bachelor
Programme in Management, in a European Business School. A discussion of
merits and challenges of case study research is omitted here, but frequent criti-
cism on this kind of inquiry to be anecdotal and subjective is acknowledged.
Given the fact that to date little data is available on collaborative learning in an
e-learning environment, case study research appears to be appropriate as it
allows for investigating a phenomenon in its social context. It is descriptive in
nature and aims at displaying certain phenomena on a theoretically informed
basis in order to build a foundation for further research. As it is not the goal to
generalise from findings, but rather to gain rich understandings and insights on
how traditional barriers in online education as distance can be counter or outba-
lanced, a case study appears to be particularly useful (Yin, 2003).
The primary criteria for the selection of this specific case were the institution’s
innovative approach which provides insights into alternative modes of delivery
and new and creative ways of learning by combining two special approaches,
namely collaborative learning and e-learning. In this regard, we were especially
interested in a blended degree programme in management which has been rea-
lised in an e-learning environment and builds upon collaborative learning princi-
ples at the same time. Moreover, it is characterised by some special and unique
features, not yet very prominent in the same form in the closer higher education
environment.
The study builds first of all upon the experiences and observations of faculty
(head of the study, senior lectures) involved in the study programme under
research. Also, other perspectives and observations from non-directly related
departments and faculty, as well as management have been considered and
included in the analysis. Formal blueprints and reports, as well as brochures and
publicly accessible data on websites, etc. and related material (study programme
brochures, etc.), has been examined to comprehend strategy, goals, learning phil-
osophy and organisational structures. In addition, the study uses the networked
learning model by Goodyear (1999) presented earlier, as a conceptual frame-
work for the analysis.

6.5. The Case

At the institution under study, a blended Management Bachelor programme is
offered. This programme grants after completing the academic degree of
‘Bachelor of Arts in Business’, lasts 3 years (6 semesters) and accredits for 180
ECTS. It is officially labelled by the institution as business-oriented, practical
study programme with eCampus support, including webcasts, videos, moderated
chats, live streams and digital course material. The study programme under
research also builds on a cohort-based approach which means that each year a
group of students enrols and remains the same until graduation, following a pre-
defined curriculum pathway.
132 Desiree Wieser and Jürgen-Matthias Seeler

The target group is a separate category of students differing from traditional

on-campus students. Those targeted students appreciate especially flexibility in
learning and the possibility to study next to outside commitments as family and
job responsibilities. Indeed, most of the students enroled in the study programme
at hand are full-time workers and ‘adult learners’ being on average 28 29 years
old, and thus older than the traditional on-campus student who starts studying
right after high school very often (Dabbagh, 2007; Dutton & Dutton, 2002;
Oblinger, Barone, & Hawkins, 2001).
The institution under study does not strive for economies of scale by taking in
as many students as possible. In fact, the study programme receives public subsid-
ies for a predetermined number of students. The Bachelor degree programme ini-
tially started with 30 study places in 2014. In 2015, 54 student places were offered,
and in 2016, the programme was able to allow 84 new students to enrol. In antici-
pation of potentially high drop-outs, an excess of 20 to 30% was taken in.
These numbers in mind, the institution’s strategy in this online programme was
optimising active student engagement and participation in their studies. To
achieve this objective, collaborative learning has been declared as a key measure.
As in any other study programme offered by the institution, also within the
programme under research student participation in lectures is obligatory.
Students have to attend at least 75 % of lecturing hours in each subject. This is
regarded an essential precondition for effective collaborative learning. Since the
launch of the study programme in 2014, a number of 275 students enroled and
opted for the blended educational format. The programme by now counts four
cohorts (2014/15, 2015/16, 2016/17; 2017/18).
As with typical blended programmes, the programme in question combines
traditional classroom education with synchronous and asynchronous online edu-
cation whereby 80% of the content is delivered online through network class-
rooms. Hence, students have direct live contact with other students and the
instructor, and work independently with online resources and the learning man-
agement system on most days. Furthermore, there are mandatory residencies
which include face-to-face teaching and examinations.
Looking at the pedagogical framework, a student centred approach, as well
as the co-construction of knowledge, is seen as the cornerstones of the overall
teaching strategy of the business school which is also true for the study pro-
gramme in question which is offered in a blended format. In regards to this
pedagogy, one of the key features is the institution’s unique understanding of
collaborative learning. Collaborative learning is part of the business school’s
overall learning goals, its assurance of learning and the curriculum management.
This unique understanding of collaborative learning means, in particular, the
facilitation of learning and the learning process through new approaches which
go beyond the traditional instructor-student exchange. The same approaches
and goals are also fostered within the e-learning environment at the institution.
Collaboration, however, is not simply understood as students working
together with peers. This is why it also takes student-instructor interaction into
account. Thus, instructors hired into the programme have to commit to high
levels of responsiveness to any student queries on the one hand, and to a
 The Merits of Collaborative Learning in Online Education 133

pro-active approach of supervision and coaching of students on the other. Thus,

the importance of hiring sufficiently qualified and motivated instructors must
not be underestimated because it is assumed that online facilitation varies con-
siderably from classroom teaching, as far as concerning the initiation of collab-
orative learning processes. Therefore, instructors who are open to new teaching
strategies are seen as a necessity in online education at the institution. Indeed,
the institution and its faculty never talk about ‘instructors’ but use the term
‘facilitator’ to describe the role of the lecturers in the blended study programme.
To systematically organise collaborative learning in an online programme
with students who are not physically represented, the institution relies on its
Learning Management System (LMS) ‘Sakai’. In the study programme in ques-
tion, it is mandatory that all parties involved are entirely facilitated via the
LMS, with the exception of classroom lectures. Students and instructors are
advised to solely communicate via the LMS (again with the exception of class-
room activities). This proved to be a challenge at the beginning. In particular,
external faculty was resistant to employing the tools because they were used to
communicate via private email accounts and other channels. So the decision was
made that instructors, upon their first assignment, have to sign a guideline
clearly stipulating the sole use of the LMS for any communication with students.
Students, however, were advised to use the LMS for follow-up reasons. It was
made clear that employing other communication channels could compromise
attempts to give evidence in cases where they felt treated unfairly.
The online degree programme is fully displayed in the LMS and subdivided
into courses sites. Each course provides for an introductory video in which the
instructor introduces him/herself and presents key elements that are going to be
addressed in the course. Thus, students get a personal impression of the
instructor and a first idea of the course contents. Course sites then provide for a
set of sub-sites e.g. announcements, resources, drop box, assignments, messages,
forums, virtual classroom access, etc. Each of these sub-sites contributes to stu-
dent collaboration, in particular, however, ‘Messages’, ‘Forums’ and ‘Virtual
Classroom Access’.
Using the ‘Virtual Classroom Access’, students are entering the webinar sys-
tem which, among other features, allows for live online lectures. Students can
participate here via voice or chat. Instructors may also split students up into
groups. It has been shown that the more experienced online instructors are, the
more they are able to motivate students to extensively use the chat function.
Furthermore, instructors are expected to use open questions and to let students
generate the knowledge, rather than presenting the entire content directly as in
traditional frontal teaching (e.g. flipped classroom and co-construction of
knowledge). Given the lack of immediate feedback in online teaching situations,
it proved to be helpful for instructors to prepare for this questioning approach
well in advance, preferably already by embedding it into the presentation slides.
Undoubtedly, there are students who are not actively participating in such activ-
ities but experience shows that the percentage of inactive students is not higher
than in typical classroom situations. In some online sessions, students were
required to work on even more comprehensive assignments (with time allocation
134 Desiree Wieser and Jürgen-Matthias Seeler

of up to 2 hours). Again, most of the students were found to be actively engaged

in the activity.
Directly linked with live interaction during lectures is the use of the ‘Forum’
as an integral part of the LMS. During lectures as well as for any kind of assign-
ments between lectures, students are not only requested to present their results
in the forum but in line with the collaborative learning approach, they are espe-
cially challenged to comment on other students’ works too. Highly relevant is
that students understand what exactly they are supposed to do in forum work.
Otherwise, students might have a tendency to simply ‘manufacture’ forum
entries by simply agreeing to the works of others (e.g. obligatory commenting
posting at least three comments, etc.). Not only students can profit from this
peer-learning approach, but also instructors who would never be able to provide
feedback for all statements generated in the forums, especially if student groups
are large. As the institution’s experience shows it is not uncommon to have also
more than 1000 forum posts in a group of 40 students within a week for
example. Thus, the instructor benefits in the same manner as students do, as he/
she relies on the fruitful exchange between peers, and the co-construction of
knowledge, generating inputs and sharing knowledge with students.
Given the lack of face-to-face communication in an online programme,
instructors’ responsiveness to student queries is of particular importance. In the
online department, measures have been taken to assure that students receive
answers to their questions well in time. Therefore, instructors must sign-up to a
procedural guideline, in which they agree to answer all student queries within 36
hours during an ongoing course. This includes weekends due to the fact that most
of the students in the online Bachelor degree programme remain in their profes-
sions whilst studying and thus to better cope with their individual needs. Given
the structure of the online Bachelor with courses taught in 3-weeks blocks, instruc-
tors must be available for questions by students for 21 days overall. As said earl-
ier, emails are supposed to be exchanged via the message-function. This allows
for regular checks on response times of instructors in their courses.
After the first three years, a drop-out rate of 20 % is observable, which is
comparable to the drop-out rate in regular on-campus programmes in the same
local area and the European area in general (Vossensteyn et al., 2015).
Table 7.1 summarises the key features of the blended study programme,
building on the networked learning model by Goodyear (1999, 2005).

6.6. Discussion
6.6.1. Strengths
Analysing the present case, it becomes evident that the institution under study
strives for a balance between monitoring and supervision on one hand, empha-
sised by Yukselturk and Bulut (2007) as precondition for collaborative learning
and desired types of interaction to occur, and support and co-construction on
the other, declared by Dillenbourg (1999) and Moore (1991) to be essential parts
in collaborative learning settings. Through this approach the key aspects such as
 The Merits of Collaborative Learning in Online Education 135

Table 7.1. Overview Key Features.

Organisational • European Business School

Framework • Blended Bachelor Degree Programme in Management
(full programme)
• Cohort-based approach
• 180 ECTS and 6 semesters
• Public subsidies for a predetermined number of students
• 275 students by now
Pedagogical Philosophy:
Framework
• Student-centred approach
• Instructors are seen as facilitators supporting the
co-construction of knowledge
• Online facilitation varies considerably from classroom
teaching, especially concerning the initiation of
collaborative learning processes
• Unique understanding of collaborative learning
collaborative learning is part of learning goals, assurance
of learning and the curriculum management
Pedagogy:
• Systematic organisation of collaborative learning in an
online programme
• Delivery through a blended format (80% of the content is
delivered online)
• Students must attend at least 75% of lecturing hours in
each subject
• Instructors have to commit to high levels of
responsiveness to students and must apply a pro-active
approach to supervision and coaching of students
• LMS is the core mean for communication between
students and instructor
Educational • ‘Virtual Classroom Access’ live online lectures through
Setting the webinar system
and Student • ‘Forums’ students not only present their results in the
Activity forum, but in line with the collaborative learning
approach, they have to give feedback on other students’
works
• ICT enabled and supported group works, etc.
Drop-out Rate • Drop-out rate of 20%
136 Desiree Wieser and Jürgen-Matthias Seeler

student support, guidance, encouragement, feedback, criticism and supervision

to counterbalance transactional distance emphasised by Moore (1991) become
substantial parts of the programme.
On one side there is a strong focus on the constructivist and cognitive learn-
ing pedagogies. The study programme builds upon the assumptions by Piaget
(1970) that knowledge is constructed through active and personal experience
and observation, and that understanding is a process of interaction. Thus, edu-
cation, where the learner is constantly challenged to reflect and discuss the learnt
content in a social context with others, is provided and students do not take on
a passive role but contribute to the co-creation of knowledge through their prior
experiences and the exchange with peers and instructors (Petraglia, 1998) or
better ‘facilitators’ as they are termed by the institution itself.
On the other side, the study programme under research fosters the student-
instructor interaction in a particular way. Hence, certain measures were estab-
lished to assure a regular student-instructor interaction, as instructors must be
available for questions by students for a certain amount of days and have to
sign a procedural guideline where they ensure their commitment to do so.
Hence, the role of the instructor changes, as proposed by Hiltz (1998), and he
becomes a facilitator in a collaborative learning environment by supporting
students in the creation of their knowledge, emphasised as a precondition for a
successful collaborative learning environment. Regular interaction is not only
assured from the faculty-side, but also from the student side. A precondition
here is the mandatory attendance of students. Furthermore, they are encouraged
to interact with their peers through obligatory commenting in forums, etc.
(e.g. making at least three constructive comments) where they have to review
and enrich the work of others, as well as through team-based assignments and
assessments. Hence, the institution recognises the importance of active collabor-
ation between students and students and facilitator.
Furthermore, the learning management system and especially its effective and
consequent utilisation and application (monitoring and supervision on one hand
and guidance and feedback on the other), builds the basis for collaborative
learning in the online environment. This special approach differentiates the insti-
tution and its blended study programme from other higher education institutions
which often limit the use of LMS to provide basic information such as schedules,
marks and other learning material.
By a unique combination of different collaborative elements as e.g. group
assignments, virtual classrooms, forums, etc., the fostering of interactional
aspects can be ensured at all levels, whereby the learning process becomes more
vivid and thus more realistic in the end. Hence, the presented learning model is
congruent with the assumptions of the authors Dabbagh (2007), Harasim (2000)
and Liang and Chen (2012) regarding the importance of interaction within the
learning process as an integral and substantial part of online education.
In this context, the blended format has to be highlighted. Through this
blended format, key benefits of online education such as the flexibility, the possi-
bility of coaching and interaction and learning through the incorporation of
educational technology can be combined with the advantages of on-campus
 The Merits of Collaborative Learning in Online Education 137

teaching and the personal facilitator-learner and learner-learner interaction, as

drawn out by Fearon et al. (2012). Through this blended format, students have
the possibility to also meet in person and are thus able to further build and
extend relationships in the virtual learning environment afterward. This
enhances feelings of social inclusion and strengthens the feeling of belongingness
to a group, following the theory of Social Identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979;
Turner & Tajfel, 1986) and the assumptions regarding increased retention out-
lined by Tinto (1993).
As claimed by Hiltz (1998) and McAlpine (2000), it becomes apparent that
through this blended format and through a special combination of collaborative
and digital learning elements in the curricula, it is not only possible to better
respond to the special needs of the online educational target group in seeking for
more flexibility, but it enables vivid and realistic interaction that diminishes, in
turn, the risk of social isolation in the study programme.
Considering the organisational frame and the implementation of a whole
study programme building on a cohort-based approach, instead of a single
course or module might bring further advantages. As student groups are
remaining the same over the years (cohort-based approach) they might also be
more motivated to build up social contacts, as chances to create lasting rela-
tionships are higher. Moreover, this is not only a possibility to strengthen rela-
tionships between peers but also between students and instructor or faculty in
general. Students will probably be more engaged and motivated to create valu-
able contacts with faculty and the institution if they know they will spend the
next three years with them and not as in single modules some weeks only.
Indeed, the study by Abel (2005) found evidence that institutions offering
online education successfully clearly preferred full programmes over single
courses/modules to be offered online, as they show higher retention rates.
Looking at the case at hand, a real integration of ICT (internet, CMC, digital
tools, etc.) not only within the curricula, but the overall teaching strategy
becomes apparent.
Finally, through this special combination of collaborative learning and
e-learning aspects, a strong reciprocal reinforcement between both approaches
has been established, rendering the offered online programme more effective.
Indeed, after the first three years, it can be observed that student drop-out rates
are comparable to the European standards in on-campus programmes, which at
least by now, pleads for the institution’s implemented e-learning approach.

6.6.2. Weaknesses
The study programme at hand is rather novel and therefore still in a develop-
mental phase. As it has been launched in 2014, findings only refer to three years
of experience, observations and outcomes. The sustainable evidence is therefore
still absent and it remains to be seen how the programme will evolve over time.
Second, it must be admitted that it will not be possible to fully remove the
lack of personal contact, neither within blended learning. Hence, also the
amount of autodidactic learning remains still higher compared to traditional
138 Desiree Wieser and Jürgen-Matthias Seeler

on-campus education. In turn, students who are not that autonomous in man-
aging their learning may struggle more to succeed in online education, whereas
students who are known to be more autonomous and self-directed learners need
less interaction, standardisation and structure, as drawn out by Moore and
Kearsley (2011). An option could be to identify those students in order to offer
individual and personalised support where needed.
However, from time to time, instructors also have to rely on the self-directed
learning of their students as they would never be able to react on every single
student activity, even more so in classes with many students, as confirmed in this
case. Thus, lecturers actually depend on the collaborative learning elements
which should foster the co-construction of knowledge and should ensure a fruit-
ful peer-to-peer exchange. However, the risk remains that this will not occur.
Finally, such an approach to learning as in the present case pushes faculty,
instructors and higher education management in general, to their limits. The
efforts regarding planning, designing and structuring such learning models and
the subsequent implementation, processing and monitoring are excessive. On the
one hand, instructors are not able to leave anything to chance as detailed plan-
ning is essential for a smooth flow to ensure that learning occurs in the first
place. On the other hand, a certain degree of flexibility must be apparent as
target students have special requirements. Hence, finding a balance between
standardisation and flexibility remains a challenge.
In addition, this particular approach to learning requires for experienced fac-
ulty and might therefore be very difficult to handle for inexperienced and fresh-
man instructors or external faculty. Consequently, trainings and briefings
regarding the implementation and application of collaborative learning in online
education might be necessary, entailing, however, additional costs. In addition,
more experienced faculty would probably require a higher salary and will be
harder to find. Thus, the implementation of blended learning as a form of online
education as illustrated in this case bears also the risk of excessive costs linked
to a stressful and exhausting recruiting and personnel training process.
Talking about costs, it must be kept in mind that the programme at hand
benefits from public subsidies, which might not be the case for many other
higher education institutions. This may be an obstacle, but also a benefit if
tuition fees can be adjusted to costs in the absence of subsidies. Therefore, every
institution should consider revenue and costs streams, as well as resource alloca-
tions when responding to the disruptive power of online education, deciding
carefully if online education should be offered and how many study places can
be offered. Similarly, also legal and policy aspects should be considered and
evaluated, as they may vary considerably among countries. Hence, it has to be
kept in mind that the present study illustrates a case within the European area
and that implementing a similar programme in other countries especially outside
Europe might also be unfeasible.
Table 7.2 summarises the strengths and weaknesses identified, building again
on the networked learning model by Goodyear (1999, 2005).
Table 7.2. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Study Programme.

Strengths Weaknesses
Organisational • Offering a whole Bachelor’s programme • European business school respective
Framework in a blended format with a cohort-based policy and legal conditions have to be

The Merits of Collaborative Learning in Online Education

approach increased and regular considered (implementation in the
contact with peers, deepens and manner outlined might not be possible,
reinforces intensified and close as inadmissible)
relationships with peers, as well as • Risk of excessive costs resulting from
faculty recruiting and personnel training
processes
Pedagogical Philosophy: Philosophy:
Framework
• Co-construction of knowledge higher • Instructors are seen as facilitators
collaboration and decreased the feeling supporting the co-construction of
of social isolation knowledge. At the same time, they are
• Instructors as facilitators supporting the also supposed to guide, monitor and
co-construction of knowledge new supervise students. This double-burden
relationship emerges where students and for instructors might also be exhausting
instructors collaborate and co-construct, and requires for experienced faculty
learning is more effective and social • Online facilitation varies from
isolation can be decreased classroom teaching in the initiation of
• Unique understanding of collaborative collaborative learning this
learning transparency among all levels assumption requires experienced and
and departments about learning goals well-trained faculty and might also
imply additional efforts & costs

139
Table 7.2. (Continued )

140
Strengths Weaknesses

Desiree Wieser and Jürgen-Matthias Seeler

Pedagogy: Pedagogy:

• Systematic organisation of collaborative • Systematic organisation of

learning implying consequent collaborative learning in an online
procedures and structures programme requires for huge efforts,
• Delivery through a blended format (80% including time and costs affecting all
of the content is delivered online) parties involved
ensures that personal contact does not • High levels of responsiveness of
get fully lost instructors and pro-active supervision
• Students must attend at least 75% of and coaching also highly exhausting
lecturing hours in each subject a for faculty and could be an additional
precondition for collaboration burden.
• High levels of responsiveness of • Lack of social contact will not fully
instructors and pro-active supervision disappear.
and coaching fosters interaction and • Entire and sole communication via
diminishes social isolation LMS might be an obstacle for external
• LMS as core mean for communication or inexperienced faculty
reinforces clear rules and transparency
for all parties involved
Educational Setting and • ‘Virtual Classroom Access’ live online • Self-directed learning of students is
Student Activity lectures through the webinar system sometimes also a precondition.
which makes synchronous interaction
possible and fosters thus interaction
 • ‘Forums’ students have to comment • Autodidactic (self-directed learning) has
on other students’ works. This fosters not to be higher compared to on-campus
only interaction and collaboration programmes
(reduces lack of contact), but also critical
thinking

The Merits of Collaborative Learning in Online Education

Drop-out Rate • Drop-out rate of 20% comparable to • Novel programme (launched in 2014),
on-campus rates in the European region still in a developmental phase

Key Pillars of the Programme

• Combination of online education and collaborative learning and reciprocal reinforcement

• Full programme, blended and cohort-based approach
• Consequent commitment to LMS in use
• Engagement from faculty and balance between being facilitators and supporting students, and guidance and monitoring

141
142 Desiree Wieser and Jürgen-Matthias Seeler

6.6.3. Summary
To sum up, the present case provides an example for the four critical items
developed by Dillenbourg (1999) for defining the situation (conditions), inter-
action (specification), processes (rules) and effects (monitoring and regulating).
With the introductory video in which the instructor introduces him/herself and
presents key elements that are going to be addressed in the course, conditions
and settings are clarified from the beginning. Getting a first sight impression of
the instructor and his/her appearance also lays the foundation for building up
further relationships, fostering social inclusion. Moreover, through mandatory
attendance and group tasks implying a minimum of critical reflection
(e.g. mandatory commenting to peer postings), interaction patterns and rules are
generated with the specification of collaboration and roles, as proposed by
Dillenbourg (1999). Finally, the LMS in use and its consequent utilisation
enables the control and the monitoring of those interactions through the track-
ing of postings, emails, etc. and the recording of student and class activities.
Thus, the presented case study may well serve as a prime example on how to
imply reasonable and efficient instructional strategies which provide effective
feedback and monitor performance in online education and foster the occur-
rence of desired interactions in an online environment, as proposed by
Dillenbourg (1999). At the same time, these conditions emphasised by Dillen-
bourg (1999), constitute a solid based to reduce transactional distance through
dialogue, autonomy and structure as emphasised by Moore (1991).
The first aspect important to reduce distance as claimed by Moore (1991),
namely dialogue and so to say interaction, can be reinforced in this case through
a collaborative learning approach, as drawn out earlier following the key ele-
ments developed by Dillenbourg (1999). This lays the bricks for the following
two aspects, autonomy and structure. Autonomy is fostered through the support
of those students that are less autonomous learners with guidance, supervision
and feedback from lecturers who at the same time act as facilitators, but also
from peers who help to co-construct knowledge. Important factors to mention in
this context are the availability of instructors and their commitment towards
responding in time, as well as group works and the obligatory use of the LMS
and connected tools as discussion forums, for communication and interaction.
The third factor structure, is fostered through the implementation of a whole
Bachelor study programme in a blended format that builds on a cohort-based
approach, building a basis for enhanced social contacts while reducing feelings
of social isolation.
Hence, an accurate answer to our research question how to implement
blended learning successfully in order to overcome, at least however, to inhibit
one central disadvantage in online education, namely distance and the connected
feelings of social isolation, can be found. First of all, the secret lies in this special
case, within the combination and integration of collaborative learning elements
and e-learning in one and the same degree programme. Secondly, the underlying
assumptions that learning occurs through interaction, and that online education
enhances this interaction and finally facilitates deep learning supports the design,
 The Merits of Collaborative Learning in Online Education 143

development, implementation and evaluation of the study programme, constitut-

ing a guiding mission for everyone involved. Thirdly, through the design as full
programme building on a cohort-based approach, and the delivery of the con-
tent through a blended format, personal contact between student and instructors
and between peers gets not fully lost and builds a basis for deepening virtual
relationships at the same time. Finally, the consequent commitment to the LMS
in use, as well as the claimed engagement from faculty facilitates and improves
the communication and interaction between students, and instructors and
students.
The case at hand also demonstrates that not only blended learning/delivery
alone has the power to decrease feelings of social isolation, but that it is, in fact,
more a matter of combining different factors which reinforce this process even
more. Indeed, it is a combination of various organisational determinants, peda-
gogical and philosophical approaches, educational setting designs and the linked
activity and used resources, as drawn out in Table 7.2.

6.7. Conclusion
The present case serves as an example on how educational settings can be
embedded in the e-learning context and how organisational and pedagogical
frameworks can provide the direction to overcome traditional barriers in online
education as social isolation and distance by fostering interaction.
It becomes clear that the cognitive and constructivist approach towards learn-
ing, the facilitation of a whole programme through a blended, cohort-based
format, the deployment of and commitment to the LMS in use, as well as the
embedding of collaborative learning in online education in combination with a
strong faculty commitment (striving for a balance between monitoring and super-
vision on one hand and support and co-construction on the other hand) can be
referred as key pillars and at the same time as major strengths of the study
programme.
Thus, our study contributes being an example, guiding other higher education
institutions in their starting gates to implement and apply online education
through a blended mode, while they get the possibility to reflect and are thus
able to learn from other HEIs and their implemented online educational
approaches.

References
Abel, R. (2005). Implementing best practices in online learning: A recent study reveals
common denominators for success in internet-supported learning. EDUCAUSE
Quarterly, 28(3), 75 77.
Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on demand: Online education in the United
States, 2009. Babson: Babson Survey Research Group, The Sloan Consortium.
doi:10.1108/13673279710800718.
144 Desiree Wieser and Jürgen-Matthias Seeler

Bekele, T. A. (2010). Motivation and satisfaction in internet-supported learning

environments: A review. Educational Technology & Society, 13(2), 116 127.
Bitzer, P., & Janson, A. (2014). Towards a holistic understanding of technology-
mediated learning services A state-of-the-art analysis. In International Confer-
ence on Information Systems (pp. 1 19). Tel Aviv: European Conference on
Information Systems (ECIS).
Dabbagh, N. (2007). The online learner: Characteristics and pedagogical implica-
tions. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(3), 217 226.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P.
Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning Cognitive and computational approaches
(pp. 1 19). Oxford: Elsevier. doi:10.1.1.167.4896
Dutton, J., & Dutton, M. (2002). How do online students differ from lecture stu-
dents? JALN, 6(1), 1 20.
Eom, S. B., & Ashill, N. (2016). The determinants of students perceived learning out-
comes and satisfaction in university online education: An update. Decision
Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 14(2), 185 215. doi:10.1111/dsji.12097
Fearon, C., Starr, S., & McLaughlin, H. (2012). Blended learning in higher educa-
tion (HE): Conceptualising key strategic issues within a business school.
Development and Learning in Organisations, 26(2), 19 22. doi:10.1108/1477728
1211201196
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transforma-
tive potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95 105.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
Glaser, R. (1990). The reemergence of learning theory within instructional research.
American Psychologist, 45(1), 29.
Goodyear, P. (1999). European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 2(1).
Goodyear, P. (2002). Psychological foundations for networked learning. In
Networked learning: Perspectives and issues (pp. 49 75). London: Springer.
Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern
languages and design practice. Australian Journal of Educational Technology,
21(1), 82 101.
Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnel, D. (2004). Research on net-
worked learning: aims and approaches. In P. Goodyear, S. Banks, V. Hodgson, &
D. Mcconnel (Eds.), Advances in research on networked learning. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens online education as a new paradigm in learning.
The Internet and Higher Education, 3, 41 61.
Henri, F., & Rigault, C. R. (1996). Collaborative distance learning and computer
conferencing. In T. T. Liao (Ed.), Advanced educational technology: Research
issues and future potential (pp. 45 76). Berlin: Springer.
Hiltz, S. R. (1998). Collaborative learning in asynchronous learning networks:
Building learning communities. In WebNet 98 World Conference of the WWW,
Internet, and Intranet Proceedings (pp. 1 9). Orlando, Florida. doi:10.1007/
BF02763577.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1992). Positive interdependence: Key to effective
cooperation. In Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of
group learning (pp. 174 199). Australia: Cambridge University Press.
 The Merits of Collaborative Learning in Online Education 145

Kim, K.-J., & Bonk, C. J. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning in
higher education: The survey says. Educause Quarterly, (4), 22 30.
Liang, R., & Chen, D.-T. V. (2012). Online learning: Trends, potential and chal-
lenges. Creative Education, 3(8), 1332 1335. doi:10.4236/ce.2012.38195
McAlpine, I. (2000). Collaborative learning online. Distance Education, 21(1),
66 80. doi:10.1080/0158791000210105
McKiernen, P., & Wilson, D. (2014). Strategic choice: Taking business out of
b-schools. In A. Pettigrew, E. Cornuel, & U. Hommel (Eds.), The institutionial
development of business schools (1st ed., pp. 248 269). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Moessenlechner, C., Obexer, R., Sixl-Daniell, K., & Seeler, J.-M. (2015). E-learning
degree programs: A better way to balance work and education? International
Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning, 8(3), 11 16.
Moore, M. G. (1991). Distance education theory. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 5(3), 1 6.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online
learning (3rd ed.). Wadsworth, OH: Cengage Learning.
Morris, R., & Hayes, C. (1997). Small group work: Are group assignments a legitim-
ate form of assessment. In R. Pospisil & L. Willcoxson (Eds.), Learning through
teaching (pp. 229 233). Murdoch: Proceedings of the 6th Annual Teaching
Learning Forum.
Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor
analytic study. Distance Education, 26(1), 29 48. doi:10.1080/01587910500081269
Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., & Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education and
its challenges: An overview. Washington, DC: American Council on Education,
EDUCAUSE.
Petraglia, J. (1998). Reality by design: The rhetoric and technology of authenticity in
education. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child (Vol. 51). New
York, NY: Orion Press.
Piaget, J. (1982). The child’s conception of the world. London: Palladin.
Rovai, A. P. (2003). In search of high persistence rates in distance education online
programs. Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 1 16.
Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and
disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765 781.
Stanford-Bowers, D. E. (2008). Persistence in online classes: A study of perceptions
among community college stakeholders. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning
and Teaching, 4(1), 37 50.
Sursock, A. (2015). Trends 2015: Learning and teaching in European universities.
EUA Publications 2015. EUA European University Association asbl.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The
Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33(47), 74.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attri-
tion. In Toward a theory of doctoral persistence (pp. 230 256). Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
146 Desiree Wieser and Jürgen-Matthias Seeler

Turner, J. C., & Tajfel, H. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior.
Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 7 24.
Veerman, A., & Veldhuis-Diermanse, E. (2001). Collaborative learning through
computer-mediated communication in academic education. In Euro CSCL,
(pp. 625 632).
Vossensteyn, H., Kottmann, A., Jongbloed, B., Kaiser, F., Cremonini, L., Stensaker,
B. […] Wollscheid, S. (2015). Drop-out and completion in higher education in
Europe Main report. European Commission. Luxembourg.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
mental process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wallace, R. M. (2003). Online learning in higher education: A review of research on
interactions among teachers and students. Education, Communication & Informa-
tion, 3(2), 241 280. doi:10.1080/14636310303143
Wu, J.-H., Tennyson, R. D., & Hsia, T.-L. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in
a blended e-learning system environment. Computers & Education, 55(1), 155 164.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.012
Yin, R. K. (2003). Designing case studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Yukselturk, E., & Bulut, S. (2007). Predictors for student success in an online course.
Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 71 83.
Chapter 8

Disrupting Higher Education in Alaska:

Introducing the Native Teacher
Certification Pathway
Paul Berg, Kathryn Cruz, Thomas Duening and
Susan Schoenberg

Abstract
The geosocial divide that separates many rural regions of Alaska continues
to present considerable challenges, such as those that have long plagued the
Yukon-Kuskokwim region with cultural and value conflicts. Lack of empir-
ical data and improper identification of the root causes of the ongoing
socio-political, cultural and economic disparities between rural Alaska and
the rest of the country contribute to the general misconceptions of the tur-
bulent nature of life on the tundra today. In this isolated region, the state
has built dozens of schools that largely employ non-Natives. Teacher certi-
fication requirements have largely alienated Alaska Natives from pursuing
careers in their home villages due to cost, lack of access, lack of student
support and irrelevant curriculum. Despite rigorous standards and extra-
ordinary funding opportunities, the current model has traditionally under-
performed against both state and national norms.
This research targets a project that re-conceptualizes the teacher certifica-
tion pipeline for remote Alaska Native villages via the utilisation of a
competency-based bilingual curriculum, mentoring and interactive learning
delivered via hybrid and online formats. The Native Teacher Certification
Pathway proposed will be significant both in its local impact on
unemployed adults and Yupik youth, and globally as a site for innovation
in the application, delivery and assessment of evidence-based student sup-
port activities and programmes. Leveraging place, identity, language and
values make learning incredibly powerful, increases efficacy and creates a
true impact. Universities and business programmes that are sensitive to this

The Disruptive Power of Online Education: Challenges, Opportunities, Responses, 147 166
Copyright r 2019 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISBN: 978-1-78754-326-3
148 Paul Berg et al.

fact and tailor their programmes appropriately will likely see a greater
return on their investment.

Keywords: Culturally relevant education; online teacher certification;

biculturalism; adaptive curriculum; indigenous education models; positive
identity formation

8.1. Alaska’s Need for Disruption in Teacher Education

Alaska is a land of contrasts and extremes. The central landmass of Alaska
extends 870 miles north from the Gulf of Alaska to the Arctic Ocean, and 800
miles west from the Canadian border to the Bering Sea. Nature and inter-
national politics have given Alaska two appendages. Southeast Alaska extends
south from the central landmass for 500 miles, while the Alaska Peninsula and
the Aleutian Islands jut into the Bering Sea for 1000 miles. With these regions
added, Alaska’s dimensions become truly monumental 1,400 miles from north
to South and 2,260 miles from east to west and a landmass of 586,400 square
miles. Alaska is twice as large as France, yet has less than one-hundredth the
population (State of Alaska, 2010).
The urban centres of Alaska are similar to towns found in the contiguous
United States. But away from the major urban centres of Anchorage, Fairbanks
and Juneau; away from the paved roads and shopping malls, another world
emerges. Small villages dot the landscape, most accessible only by aircraft or
boat. Here, away from the cities, live 70,000 Aleuts, Eskimos and Indians,
making up about 78% of the total population. Here the English language still
yields in varying degrees to Native languages. The economy changes as one
moves away from the population centres. Hunting and fishing emerge as import-
ant economic activities as this is the largest geographic region of the world
where subsistence is still an essential part of life. Here the Inupiaq, Yupik,
Athabascan, Tlingit and Aleut live in homelands they have traditionally occu-
pied. This is bush Alaska the other Alaska.
Like the geography and climate, Alaska’s human condition exhibits the same
pattern of contrasts and extremes. One of the most obvious of these is the boom
and bust nature of the economy. For the past 150 years, Alaska has experienced
a consistent pattern of alternating periods of rapid economic growth followed by
periods of steep economic contraction. In the past, mineral development and the
gold rushes have spurred on these exaggerated economic cycles. Since the mid
1970s, with the discovery of oil in Purdue Bay, Alaska has experienced a period
of unprecedented economic growth. However, with steadily declining oil produc-
tion and the steep drop in oil prices, Alaska is again experiencing a financial
crisis of lean budgets and economic contraction.
But perhaps the most enigmatic contrast and extreme in Alaska is the con-
trast of the human condition of the immigrant and indigenous residents of
Alaska. Most of the wealth of Alaska is derived from the sale of raw materials
 Introducing the Native Teacher Certification Pathway 149

from the rural areas. However, most of the wealth is concentrated in the urban
non-Native communities (Goldsmith, 2008).
In contrast to this unprecedented wealth of the non-Native communities,
Alaska has succeeded over the past 35 years in establishing a dismal record in
the human condition of the Native population. The negative health and social
statistics spike in the rural Native community.

• Alaska Natives make up 16% of the state’s population, but comprise 32% of
the offender population revealing a potential systemic bias in Alaska’s crim-
inal justice system (Alaska Department of Corrections, 2015).
• As of 2012, Alaska was incarcerating 4.1% of all Native males aged 18 years
and above. This is the second highest male indigenous incarceration rate in
the world, following Australia (Alaska Department of Corrections, 2015).
• Alaska Native males aged 15 to 24 years have the highest rate of suicide in
the United States, 1.5 times higher than the national average suicide rate.
(Centre for Disease Control, 2015).
• For the second year in a row, Alaska is considered the most dangerous state
with the highest per capita rate of violent crimes in the nation. (Department
of Public Safety, 2015).
• In 2014, the Congressional Bipartisan Indian Law & Order Commission
report singled out rural Alaska law enforcement and judicial processing as
being the worst in the United States.
• For the 2014 − 2015 school year, 23% of students enroled state-wide were
Alaska Native. Of that 23%, 38% of high school students drop out state-wide
annually (State of Alaska, 2015).

According to the 2014 Native Youth Report prepared by the Executive

Office of the President, this problem extends beyond Native Alaska. For example,
the report found that:

• More than one in three American Indian and Alaska Native children live in
poverty.
• The American Indian/Alaskan Native high school graduation rate is 67%, the
lowest of any racial/ethnic demographic group across all schools. Alaska
Native and American Indian students are the least likely to finish high school.
• 39% of Native students who enroled in a four-year institution in the fall of 2004
completed a bachelor’s degree by 2010, compared to 62% of white students.
• American Indian and Alaska Native youth are the least likely to be offered an
Advanced Placement course in their high schools and often are not enroled in
rigorous high school courses that are gateways to higher education (Executive
Office of the President, 2014).

Education is the means by which cultures perpetuate themselves. For Alaska

Natives who live in the Arctic, the subarctic, the interior and the mountainous
regions of the state, learning to live in these challenging environments is a
150 Paul Berg et al.

life-long process. Their knowledge base and life process are currently excluded
from the education system and teacher certification process.
The purpose of this research is to eliminate such educational disparities
through the investigation of the feasibility of a new, disruptive teacher certifica-
tion pathway. An alternative model would prepare Alaska Native teachers of
the highest quality, preparing on the Yupik Eskimos of the Yukon-Kuskokwim
Delta for life-long careers in their villages. There will be teachers grounded in
Yupik language and culture (Yuuyaraq), uniquely able to serve Yupik students.
Envisioning new ways of preparing teachers to serve Yupik villages requires a
shift in existing administrative assumptions and practices. Such a proposed alter-
native teacher certification would be based on the recognition of linguistic, cul-
tural, historic and local knowledge skills which are neither taught nor recognised
in current teacher programmes. The alternative preparation programme would
seek accreditation through the state and the World Indigenous Nations Higher
Education Consortium (WINHEC). Pending success, the alternative teacher cer-
tification programme could serve as a model for indigenous certification prac-
tices worldwide.
An alternative indigenous teacher certification programme has the potential
to establish relationships among certified teachers, public school districts, the
Alaska university system, the Alaska Department of Education & Early Devel-
opment (DEED) and tribal entities. Creating an online pathway for certification
based on the knowledge and skills in the indigenous culture is a supplement to
traditional teacher certification. The online certification aims to redress a basic
shortcoming in the rural Alaska education system the failure to recognise the
indigenous education system and values of Alaska’s traditional native people
who are living in their native homelands.
Unfortunately, empirical research concerning the direct connections between
education systems and community health and wellness is spread thin throughout
the social sciences. The result of these inconsistencies is that some ideas pre-
sented are speculative, whereas others have significant empirical support. At the
least, we hope these findings can be used as a springboard for more controlled
investigations into the potential of new teaching models in Alaska to equalise
the education system.

8.1.1. Crisis in Alaska Native Education

Alaska is at a critical juncture in its educational history as the current rural vil-
lage school system is serving fewer and fewer students effectively. The state has
also been exhausting dwindling economic resources in its attempt to operate a
system that in some villages, fails to produce a single high school graduate.
Educating Alaska Natives has predominantly relied on non-Native sources, with
new teachers and administrators circulating in from the contiguous 48 states
each year. Although these teachers meet the requirements mandated by the state,
they are oftentimes culturally unaware and ultimately unqualified to work with
Alaska Native youth, resulting in high teacher attrition rates. The state’s
attempts to ignore the consequences of maintaining the status quo coincides
 Introducing the Native Teacher Certification Pathway 151

directly with high rates of violence, suicide and other alarming health factors
currently rising in rural villages. While universities and the state-wide school sys-
tem practices have adopted the rhetoric of equal educational opportunity for all,
data and statistics show that reality continues to fall short of the expectation.
Nowhere is this situation more evident than in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta
and the Yupik people who have resided in the region since time immemorial.
The Yupiit School District consists of three villages: Akiak, Akiachak and
Tuluksak. The total population of all three villages is approximately 1,600.
During the 2013 − 2014 school year, the state of Alaska spent USD$ 12,600,000
for the education of the children in rural Alaskan villages, or over USD$ 41,000
per child. This figure is representative of the level of expenditure per student in
the remote regions of Alaska. (Source: Notes taken during November 21, 2014
Yupiit School Board meeting.)
The single largest expenditure for the school district is teacher and administra-
tor salaries. The majority of the new hires are from the contiguous 48 states. The
current superintendent of the Yupiit School District is the only Alaska Native out
of 54 superintendents state-wide. The school district bears the expense of recruit-
ing out-of-state staff, including travel to and from Alaska, salaries and subsidised
housing. Most of the teachers and administrators save as much of their salary as
possible and relocate out of Alaska within two or three years. Of the few non-
Native administrators and teachers who do make a career of teaching the Yukon-
Kuskokwim Delta, the majority retire to homes out of state:

Teachers and administrators in rural Alaska schools are mostly

Euro-American and short-term, many staying in a village only
1 or 2 years (with a few staying for less than a week). While the
villages themselves strongly reflect their particular Alaska Native
culture, Euro-American culture dominates the school and the cur-
riculum. In the recent past, Alaska Native students were forbid-
den to speak their native language in the schools. (Kawagley,
Tull, & Norris-Tull, 1998, p. 3)

In addition to financial constraints in operating the current model, there are sev-
eral factors contributing to a lack of cross-cultural understanding in the district
and across the state.

8.1.1.1. Alaska Natives Are Not Immigrants

Minority school performance has long been the focus of extensive research and
scrutiny. However, despite decades of investigation into the factors that influ-
ence success within our current systems, there remains little agreement among
educators and administrators about how to positively increase learner success.
John Ogbu, a Nigerian-American anthropologist, developed educational theor-
ies based on the concept of how race and ethnic differences affect educational
and economic achievement. Ogbu concluded that the educational infrastructure
of the United States was designed by and for the settler society, a society where
152 Paul Berg et al.

the dominant group is made of immigrants that have come here for self-
improvement and general conformity. Therefore, the educational system is
highly successful in helping other immigrants, minorities or not, ‘assimilate,’ feel
American and find success in schooling.
The other group of minorities Ogbu identifies is those ‘who have been made a
part of the society against their will’. He defines these two groups as autonomous,
voluntary (immigrant) and involuntary (non-immigrant) minorities. The original
peoples of the land, the Alaska Natives and American Indians fall into this
‘involuntary’ category along with Hawaiians, Mexican Americans and descen-
dants of slaves.
In Ogbu’s 1998 research, he discovered, ‘involuntary minorities are less eco-
nomically successful than voluntary minorities, usually experience greater and
more persistent cultural and language difficulties, and do less well in school’
(Ogbu & Simons, 1998, p. 166). Investigations of the root causes of how the
Yupik became a minority group indicate that the encroachment of Western civil-
isation in the Yupiaq world happened relatively recently, with the first Euro-
Americans arriving in the early 1800s, placing Yupik Eskimos in the involuntary
minority category.

8.1.1.2. Education’s Role in Identity Formation

The American educational dream is inclusive and immigrant minority students
from literate cultures, after several years of adjustment, generally do quite well in
school. Much of this process of identity affirmation, and even the awareness of
the process, take place at an unconscious level. Immigrants have a frame of refer-
ence as to where they came from and if what they are experiencing are better or
worse than their lives previously. However, the curriculum and educational meth-
odologies which work for the immigrant-based population do not work with the
majority of indigenous peoples living in their ancestral homelands:

Immigrants see school success as a major route to making it in

the United States. The community, family, and students believe
strongly that the same strategies that middle-class white
Americans employ for success, namely, hard work, following the
rules, and getting good grades, will also work for them in school
and in the future job market.

Involuntary minorities have an ambivalent folk theory of making

it. True, they believe that hard work and education are necessary
to succeed in the United States. But because they have faced
employment and wage discrimination as well as other barriers to
making it in a white-controlled economy for many generations,
they have come to believe that (1) job and wage discrimination is
more or less institutionalized and permanent, and (2) individual
effort, education, and hard work are important but not enough
 Introducing the Native Teacher Certification Pathway 153

to overcome racism and discrimination. The ambivalence may

not be conscious. (Ogbu & Simons, 1998)

Generations of Alaska Native children were taken away from their families
entirely and sent to boarding schools in the contiguous states, often to never be
reconnected with their families or homes. Eradication of Alaska Native culture
was an understood goal of early Alaskan educational systems (Kawagley et al.,
1998). ‘As a tool of colonisation, education served the dual purposes of imposing
European and Euro-American cultures and justifying seizure of Indian land’
(Executive Office of the President, 2014, p. 7).

8.1.1.3. Alaska’s Educational Model Does Not Foster Bilingualism or

Biculturalism
The definition of culture differs amongst scholars and becomes even more of a
point of contention in regards to biculturalism. For the purpose of this article, we
will refer to a culturally competent individual as someone who would have to:

(a) possess a strong personal identity, (b) have knowledge of and

facility with the beliefs and values of the culture, (c) display sensi-
tivity to the affective processes of the culture, (d) communicate
clearly in the language of the given cultural group, (e) perform
socially sanctioned behavior, (f) maintain active social relations
within the cultural group, and (g) negotiate the institutional struc-
tures of that culture. (LaFromboise, Hardin, Coleman, & Gerton,
1993)

How a bicultural individual becomes culturally competent varies, and currently

there are five accepted models that explain the transition that is experienced in
second-culture acquisition, ‘the processes by which an individual from one cul-
ture, the culture of origin, develops competence in another culture, often the
dominant majority culture’ (LaFromboise et al., 1993, p. 396).

(1) Assimilation, a model that operates under the assumption that an individual
loses their original cultural identity entirely to acquire a new identity, usu-
ally perceived as more desirable by the dominant culture.
(2) Acculturation refers to the process where ‘the member of the minority group
is forced to learn the new culture in order to survive economically’.
Acculturation differs from assimilation in that through acculturation, the
individual will still be identified as a minority, instead of losing their original
identity.
(3) Alternation models assume individuals can understand two cultures and
apply different behaviours as necessary. Through this model, it is possible to
feel a part of both cultures without compromise as there is no hierarchical
relationship superimposed and the relationship is more bidirectional.
(4) Multicultural models address institutional relationships globally.
154 Paul Berg et al.

(5) The final model is the fusion model, which proposes that after enough time
of sharing institutional structures, ‘a new common culture’ emerges
(LaFromboise et al., 1993, p. 401). The fusion model, however, requires
more research as oftentimes, minority cultures lose their identity to blend in
with the majority group.

In LaFromboise’s study of biculturalism, it was concluded that the combin-

ation of having low amounts of contact with Western society, along with a
strong desire to identify as the dominant culture, caused the greatest incidences
of personality maladjustments and emotional difficulties for the individual. In
rural Alaska, students have minimal exposure to Western lifestyles but are devel-
oping personally, socially and intellectually within a predominantly Western
education system.
Monolingualism and monoculturalism remain the common practice in rural
Alaskan school models, despite empirical evidence that shows the current accul-
turation model is not producing desired educational or socio-health results. The
Akwesasne Mohawk collected data on the bicultural curriculum in both segre-
gated and desegregated schools on the reservation. When allowed to learn
through the context of Mohawk culture and language until the 4th grade, stu-
dents were able to develop coping strategies and mechanisms for dealing with
cultural dissonance independent of their future school setting. Both schools saw
higher retention rates in students who attended Mohawk elementary pro-
grammes, and found non-Indian students were ‘differentially and more posi-
tively influenced by the bicultural curriculum than the Indian students’
(LaFromboise et al., 1993, p. 400). LaFromboise’s study also examined the
long-term effects of bicultural competency and efficacy:
One of the most influential institutions in the rural villages is the village
school. Unfortunately, the schools currently are agents of cultural breakdown
and change. Ninety-five per cent of the teachers are non-Natives who are not
familiar with the local language, culture, knowledge base, history or learning
style of the children. The classes are conducted in English. The children are
taught with textbooks and materials designed and written for students living in
the contiguous United States. Educational assessment is conducted with standar-
dised tests. The local cultural, linguistic and environmental setting in which the
children live is marginalised in this system. However, there is an important
meta-lesson which the children learn from this arrangement. Students see that
the non-Native educators have the best jobs, the best housing, the highest pay
and the most status in the community. Currently, education is being delivered
by those who do not possess cultural competence for where they are living, and
an unintended effect is that young people grow up unsure of their own identity
and how to navigate the bicultural world in which they live.

8.1.2. Barriers to the Success of Previous Programme Offerings

In 1992, the United States Department of Education’s Indian Nations at Risk
Task Force submitted their findings to the George H. W. Bush administration at
 Introducing the Native Teacher Certification Pathway 155

a White House Conference dedicated to Native American issues. Northern

Arizona University’s Professor, Jon Reyhner, compiled research on factors lead-
ing Native students to drop out of school:

• Large schools that present students with an impersonal education.

• The perception that teachers do not care about Native students.
• Passive ‘transmission’ teaching.
• Inappropriate curriculum designed for mainstream America.
• Use of culturally biased tests.
• Tracking of Native students into low achieving classes and groups.
• Lack of Native parent involvement.

With a lack of Native teachers to model the career choice at the elementary
and secondary levels, students struggle to identify with the teachers they inter-
pret as being the instruments of exclusion. Young Alaska Natives are being
tasked with developing a sense of persistent identity in a rapidly changing world
without key adults modelling to do so themselves.

Nowhere are the costs associated with failures to achieve a proper

measure of individual and cultural continuity more apparent than
in the identity struggles of young First Nations persons who are
required not only to clear the standard hurdles that punctuate the
ordinary course of individual identity development, but to construct
a sense of shared identity out of the remnants of a way of life that
(as a result of colonisation, ongoing prejudice, and positional infer-
iority) has been largely overthrown. (Hallett, Chandler, & Lalonde,
2007, p. 394)

Eighty per cent of rural students are Alaska Native but less than 5% of
Alaska’s certified teachers are Alaska Native (Leary, Tetpon, Hirshberg, & Hill,
2014). Alaska Natives have resisted involvement in formal teacher certification
programmes. Despite a number of university endeavours to increase the number
of Alaska Native certified teachers, the university system in Alaska has produced
an average of only four certified Native teachers per year over the past 40 years
(Leary et al., 2014). In Leary’s study examining all Alaska Native teacher pro-
grammes, she concluded that the programmes were unsuccessful due to three
factors (Leary et al., 2014, p. 97):

(1) Access and cost: Students, even when enroled in distance programmes, were
still required to leave their home villages for at least a part of their teacher
preparation.
(2) Academics: University programmes certify students in western pedagogy and
curriculum instead of incorporating Native ways of teaching and learning.
(3) Student support: There is a lack of intensive advising in the areas of navigat-
ing all facets of the university system and key certifying exams.
156 Paul Berg et al.

8.2. Native Teacher Certification Pathway

The Native Teacher Certification Pathway (NTCP) is designed to provide sup-
port to Yupik teaching candidates through two dimensions: skills based − focus-
ing on technical skill development and emotional/motivational − focusing on
the personal and professional development of each scholar. The initial
emphasis must be placed on increasing the amount of Alaska Native teachers
certified at the elementary level. The linguistic, cultural and historical identity
of the child must be taught and reinforced in the schools at a young age for
proper identity formation to occur. The fundamental Native skills and knowl-
edge are found among the indigenous people and teacher certification should
reflect this.
The NTCP project will begin this transformational process by establishing an
indigenous certification programme for teachers of grades K-5 under the control
of specific cultural regions. In other words, the people of the Yupik region would
establish certification requirements. Teachers certified by the indigenous commu-
nities would additionally be issued teacher certification recognised by the state
of Alaska based on their demonstrating competency instead of based on the
traditional requirement of seat time.
Candidates for indigenous certification would have to meet regional cultural
standards as identified by Native leaders. Such standards may include knowl-
edge of local language, history and culture; successful employment history, char-
acter background requirements and demonstrated desire to participate in a
transformational educational experience. We propose that the candidates be
required to participate in a condensed course to teach basic pedagogical skills in
collaboration with the state and university system. The skills would be taught by
highly experienced and successful master village teachers, Native and/or non-
Native. A list of such skills may include but not be limited to:

(1) Planning: creating comprehensive lessons and units of instruction which

• are grounded in the context of the local culture, local environment and
local reality to increase relevancy;
• integrate core subjects such as reading, writing, math and language;
• emphasise decision-making, problem-solving, reflective and critical think-
ing and the formation of values and concepts needed to navigate Yupik
and western social norms; and
• operate under the bidirectional alternation model as opposed to assimila-
tion or acculturation.
(2) Classroom organisation: how to plan for materials, orchestrating both group
and individual learning centres and time management.
(3) Discipline: alignment with administrative expectations and policies based on
local norms and Yupik knowledge.
(4) Local language, culture and history.
(5) Project-based curriculum development.
(6) Working with elders and cultural resources.
(7) Collaborative teaching.
 Introducing the Native Teacher Certification Pathway 157

In addition, candidates would be supported by mentor village teachers, either

locally or through distance education, during the first two years of teaching.
Scholars will be required to successfully complete two three-week follow-up
summer training sessions and participation in continuing online classes and
social forums before receiving final certification.
Each scholar in the programme will also need to participate in working with
or mentoring secondary high school students. This intervention programme is
designed to help Yupik youth persist, advance and graduate high school with
the hope and expectation that they will continue on to the NTCP higher educa-
tion programme.
High tech interventions will utilise the internet, mobile applications and web-
based culturally relevant content and technology to deliver a wide range of cur-
ricular and co-curricular support to each student on an individualised basis.
Utilising live online problem-solving and materials based on Yupik culture, stu-
dents will have extensive opportunities beyond the classroom for practice, obser-
vation and learning that honours Yupik teaching, which can occur in a variety
of settings.
The project will develop its curricular and co-curricular support using an
evidence-based strategy. That is, all of the supporting materials will be derived
directly from research into Alaska Native student persistence and factors asso-
ciated with success and expertise development such as identity formation and
positive psychology. Current research in identity theory highlights the import-
ance of identity formation to undergraduate students. Identity theory is con-
cerned with questions such as ‘who am I?’ and ‘how should I act?’ (Cerulo,
1997). Ashforth and Mael (1989, p. 135) conceived social identity as ‘perception
of oneness with or belongingness to some human aggregate’. Positive psychology
‘is about identifying and nurturing [a person’s] strongest qualities, what they
own and are best at, and helping them find niches in which they can best live out
these strengths’ (Seligman et al., 2000, p. 186).
It is necessary for individuals to develop grit and resilience in order to face
down obstacles to positive affect and positive outcomes. The NTCP programme
will be based in large measure on ensuring that Yupik Scholars develop the emo-
tional and motivational tools to persist through the inevitable challenges of
teacher fields of study and undergraduate life in general.

(1) The Positive Power of Culturally Responsive Curriculum and Technology

With the possibility of an indigenous certification pathway that integrates
local language and culture, comes the possibility to reverse this catalyst of
cultural breakdown. The University of Oxford examined what community-
level markers had the most influence on ‘cultural continuity’ in a 2007 study
on Aboriginal language knowledge and youth suicide. The study discovered
the following:

The common theme that cuts across all of these research efforts is
that any threat to the persistence of personal or cultural identity
158 Paul Berg et al.

poses a counterpart threat to individual or community wellbeing.

(Hallett et al., 2007, p. 393)

Results indicated that, at least in British Columbia, tribes with higher

levels of language knowledge, defined as more than 50% of the village
reporting use of conversational language, suicides declined at a statistically
significant rate. Villages that reported that less than half of the community
members spoke conversational language experienced suicide rates six times
greater. The results of this study demonstrate indigenous language use is a
strong predictor of health and wellbeing in tribal communities (Hallett
et al., 2007).
Hallett’s research was preceded by a literature review conducted by
Demmert, Grissmer, and Towner (2006) that searched for factors contribut-
ing to the effectiveness of culturally based education programmes serving
American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian students. Their
research found that successful cultural programmes included the following:
• recognition and use of Native American languages;
• pedagogy that stresses traditional cultural characteristics;
• adult-child interactions as the springboard for education;
• pedagogy built around traditional culture as well as contemporary ways
of knowing ;
• curriculum based on traditional culture, including Native spirituality;
• strong Native community participation in educating children and in the
planning and operation of school activities; and
• knowledge and use of social and political mores of the community
(Hattori, 2014).
Geneva Gay, author of the seminal book, Culturally Responsive Teach-
ing: Theory, Research, and Practice, defines culturally responsive teaching
as ‘using the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference
and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning
encounters more relevant to and effective for them’ (Gay, 2013, p. 50).
She says that culturally responsive teaching enhances academic success is
critical to developing a sense of individual self-worth and ‘validates, facili-
tates, liberates and empowers ethnically diverse students’. The Equity Alli-
ance gives the key features of culturally responsive teaching as including
getting to know the cultures represented by the students in order to
anchor the curriculum in the everyday lives of students. The Equity Alli-
ance recommends presenting multiple viewpoints, actively engaging stu-
dents in their learning, building scaffolding based on what students
already know and using learning structures that are familiar to students
culturally (Kozleski, 2010).
The Native Teacher Certification Pathway Programme (NTCP) is
designed both to help teacher trainees provide culturally responsive educa-
tion to their K-12 students and to model this by providing culturally respon-
sive education to the teacher trainees themselves. The programme will
consist of:
 Introducing the Native Teacher Certification Pathway 159

• A blended-learning course on pedagogy and teaching skills.

• A virtual course to help new and existing non-native teachers learn how
to develop project-based learning units based on local culture and place.
• A virtual community that will provide support during and after the
courses.
• The creation of a new bilingual, bicultural teacher certification pipeline.
(2) Blended-learning Course: Twelve Skills of Master Teachers
‘Twelve Skills of Master Teachers’ is a blended-learning course on pedagogy
and teaching skills, specifically customised for the Yupik culture. This
course will enable native language teachers and cultural bearers who cur-
rently have Type M certification to earn an initial K-5 teaching certificate.
Type M certification is given to those who do not have bachelor’s degrees to
be ‘cultural specialists’ or ‘native language teachers’ in the school districts of
Alaska. Often, they have 20 or more years of teaching experience but are
not able to get a teaching certificate without a bachelor’s degree. The course
will be completed mostly online, with one in-person workshop to provide
the students with the opportunity to observe and try out various teaching
techniques. The online portion of the course will present pedagogy within
the Yupik context. Native instructors will provide mentoring to the learners,
and learners will interact with one another via social media.
(3) Virtual Learning Course: Culturally Responsive Project-based Learning
‘Culturally Responsive Project-based Learning’ is an online course that will
walk teachers through the process of creating a culturally responsive
project-based learning unit. Teachers will learn by doing and will build one
or more projects that draw on a native culture that they can immediately
use with their students. This course will also include mentoring by native
instructors and student interaction via social media.
(4) Cohort Model and Virtual Community
Cohorts are research-based boosters of success for NCTP students as they
foster positive relationships with peers, mentors and master teachers. This
scholarship criterion is evidence-based and supported by research. To help
enhance and maintain the cohort, students in the NCTP programme will
also participate in a virtual learning community. Learning communities are
similar to affinity spaces, a term first coined by Paul Gee (Gee & Hayes,
2009). Gee and Hayes noted that affinity spaces encourage and enable
people who use it gain and spread knowledge, and act as a ‘learning system’.
According to the 2014 National Survey of Student Engagement annual
report, ‘Learning-directed uses of social media were systematically and posi-
tively related to engagement in effective educational practices’ (NSSE,
2014). Similarly, studies on both community college students and four-year-
college students have found a relationship between social media usage and
students’ persistence and success, as well as learning outcomes and ability to
adapt to university culture (Fagioli, Rios-Aguilar, & Deil-Amen, 2015; Yu,
Tian, Vogel, & Kwok, 2010). The virtual community will consist of social
media groups connecting the students, a blog that the students themselves
will write, discussion threads monitored by teachers and mentors, and space
160 Paul Berg et al.

for students to showcase their work and ideas. An additional intervention

designed to foster community will be sending students periodic motivational
texts. A recent study (Chande et al., 2015) found that a simple intervention
of sending encouraging text messages to students increased class attendance
and student retention.
(5) Bilingual, Bicultural Teacher Certification Pipeline
In the final phase of this project, we aim to help create a bilingual, bicultural
teacher certification pipeline. The pipeline will be supported by online
teacher certification and continuing education courses, social media, online
mentoring and virtual communities. The use of technology will enable per-
sonalised learning for each student, and allow students to learn from within
their communities. Students can utilise their own culture and background in
both their own learning and their subsequent teaching. The NTCP pro-
gramme will provide concrete skills, focusing on developing teaching skills
and using culturally relevant material, and will also provide emotional and
motivational support, focusing on the personal and professional develop-
ment of each teacher.

Today’s educational technology is uniquely suited to provide many of the cul-

turally relevant factors. Online learning communities can be used to help
students who are geographically isolated, but who share a culture, to connect
with one another. They can also be used to promote sharing across cultures.
Social media in online courses can be used to allow students to share their cul-
ture with each other and with the instructor. Personalised learning systems can
help present differentiated learning to students based on learning styles, current
knowledge and skills, culture and language. Digital systems can be used to pro-
vide culturally relevant videos, interactive activities, experiential learning and
online collaboration tools. Competency-based models allow for students to excel
at their own pace, displacing traditional seat time requirements that are a barrier
to subsistence-based lifestyles. Technology can also be used to help provide men-
tors and role-models from a similar cultural background. Finally, translation
software helps to break down language barriers and make learning more access-
ible for a variety of students, or in the case of Alaska Native interests, helps to
preserve and promote local languages. In this way, educational technology can
be used to provide the culturally responsive teaching that has been shown to
enhance academic success.
The NTCP programme addresses all three of the factors Leary identified as
barriers to Native student success − access and cost, academics and student sup-
port − by providing inexpensive online access so that students can remain in
their home villages and participate in an affordable programme, using a cultur-
ally responsive curriculum and providing an online system for intensive student
support. Culturally responsive higher education can offer Native students an
opportunity to share the opportunities of the larger society, and can also provide
social and economic mobility. University policies and programmes aimed at
decreasing indigenous attrition are typically oriented toward helping the students
 Introducing the Native Teacher Certification Pathway 161

make the transition from their home culture to the culture of the university
(Kirkness et al., 1991). For a post-secondary institution to truly serve Alaska
Natives requires a paradigm shift away from viewing higher education as a tool
to synthesise, reproduce and integrate its members toward social norms.
Achieving positive disruption via a bicultural, bilingual online certification
requires viewing the pursuit of higher education as more than just obtaining a
university degree to teach in local schools, but instead the pursuit of education
to address Yupik communal needs as a self-determining society. An alternative
model needs to be humanised and framed around respect, relevance, reciprocity
and responsibility to preserve Yupik cultural integrity throughout the entire edu-
cation process (Kirkness et al., 1991).
NTCP also directly aligns with current research and the latest recommenda-
tions reported by the White House. To reverse the failures of the past and trans-
form future opportunities, the Executive Branch recommends collaborations
between tribal nations, as well as the private and public sectors, to create and
maintain transformative programmes that directly:

• strengthen tribal control of education;

• provide comprehensive student support systems;
• integrate Native culture and language into school climate and classrooms;
• support the creation of new, high-quality teacher pipelines and programmes
to strengthen the skills of current instructional staff by infusing cultural com-
petency training into professional development;
• promote twenty-first century technology for tribal education;
• strengthen and expand efforts targeting suicide prevention;
• improve community systems of care to address the behavioural health needs
of Native youth (Executive Office of the President, 2014).

As an alternative to the current situation, we propose that Alaska recognise

the skill and knowledge which exists within the Native cultures of Alaska. An
important first step in this process is to recognise that there are, and have been
for millennia, ‘teachers’ in the Native villages. We can begin to recognise this
reality by creating a process which includes, rather than excludes, Native tea-
chers in the certification process.
This programme seeks to support Yupik community members in their pursuit
of teaching degrees throughout the duration of their studies. This objective
extends beyond mere degree acquisition, into the realm of metacognitive aware-
ness, increasing self-efficacy, professional development and career placement in
rural villages. The NTCP curriculum is designed to be dynamic and continu-
ously reviewed for effectiveness, with observations about best practices inside
and outside of the classroom shared with other professionals to promote educa-
tional equality and innovation in teacher education. There is also a great
emphasis on career-centric pedagogy to help students with identity construction.
By allowing high school students to internalise teacher virtues and discover
career attributes, the programme gives students the time to focus their
162 Paul Berg et al.

concentrated teacher studies on the professional path that best fits with their
sense of self. (Duening & Metzger, 2015)
With advanced mobile delivery technologies, a highly motivated Yupik
school board, and the recent international attention to Indigenous rights,
coupled with dwindling economic resources in Alaska and climbing rates of vio-
lence and student drop outs, Alaska is well-positioned to integrate an alternative
teacher certification model. The proposed NTCP model would be directly adher-
ing to Article 14-1 of the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples which states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their

education systems and institutions providing education in their
own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods
of teaching and learning.

Finally, educational funding can be re-conceptualised as a community and

regional developmental resource. High unemployment rates in cash-poor tribal
villages should not be viewed as a challenge solely for the government.
Alternative teacher certification has the potential to allow entry-level workers
to move from public assistance into career positions. The creation of pathways
to higher education for members of the Native community, in addition to salar-
ies, will allow pensions to stay in Alaska, contributing to further economic
development.

8.2.1. International Models of Success

Global awareness of the rights of Indigenous nations has caused positive disrup-
tion to educational models around the world. Norway, Nunavut in Canada,
Greenland and Hawaii all provide evidence of success where organisational
transformation of the education system has resulted in significant improvement
in the quality of life for indigenous people. Success has come from the recogni-
tion of the need for genuine local control of education, and the balanced blend-
ing of both the indigenous and Western education systems.
Historically, Norway utilised schools to systematically unite the country in
an effort to Norwegianise its citizens. A consequence of this action was the loss
of the indigenous Sámi language and identity. Sámi people are one of two classi-
fied Indigenous Caucasian people of the world. A combination of Nazi occupa-
tion and Sámi cultural breakdown led Norway to rewrite the Norwegian
constitution in 1987 to include opportunities for Sámi and non-Sámi students to
have access to Sámi curriculum and language through immersion schools
(Hornberger, 2008). Today, Sámi students have the opportunity to learn through
their language and culture from Pre-K through higher education. The Sámi
University of Applied Sciences offer advanced degrees in language preservation
and indigenous journalism, for example:
 Introducing the Native Teacher Certification Pathway 163

The Sámi School, as part of the common school, is founded on

the principle that education must be common and equal and
start from and be based on the nature and needs of the Sámi
society. In terms of content and quality, education must provide
basic skills which bring the cultural heritage to life, motivate
students to make use of the local culture, and provide children
and young people with the desire to become active and innova-
tive in both the Sámi and Norwegian societies. Education
must enhance a positive self-esteem in each pupil. (Hornberger,
2008, p. 21)

A recent United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

Report (UNESCO, 2010) investigated the educational and social impact of the
kōhanga reo (Māori language nests) movement in New Zealand. The summary
found that Māori students who participated in kōhanga reo followed by Māori
immersion schools ‘have recorded significantly better achievement rates than
their Māori peers in English-medium schools’ (Skerrett et al., 2010). Even the
English-medium schools that some Māori attend are still required to operate in
a bicultural curriculum frame. In 2006, the New Zealand Ministry of
Education found that nesting schools were rated stronger if they had teachers
fluent in te reo Māori (the Māori language) and access to strong professional
development.
The differentiating factor between other models and NTCP is that the pro-
posed programme targets youth identity-formation and provides support for a
seamless transition into the higher education realm through online education.
The programme extends beyond language and culture revitalisation to educa-
tional autonomy and pedagogical leadership. Previously, there has been insuffi-
cient research conducted on the power of utilising online education as a strategy
to weave together professional development and culturally responsive teacher
certification. NTCP builds upon the knowledge generated by previous inter-
national models, best practices and various online technologies to foster the
development of a culturally responsive teacher certification.

8.3. Conclusion
Root causes of educational disparities amongst Alaska Native students stems
from complex historical and contemporary factors including lack of genuine tribal
control, lack of comprehensive student support, challenges in recruiting and
retaining highly effective teachers and school leaders, lack of native languages
and culture in schools and insufficient funding (Executive Office of the President,
2014). Alaska, however, recently signed into law House Bill 216, officially recog-
nising 20 Alaska Native languages. The passing of the language bill could have
effects on education and social policy throughout the state. Multilingual social
policies open up ideological spaces for multicultural education.
164 Paul Berg et al.

Research indicates that teachers who are Native speakers of the language
of their students, and who are deeply familiar with their culture, produce bet-
ter educational outcomes than their non-Native peers. It is therefore impera-
tive for Alaskan tribal villages, and for similar communities around the world,
to certify teachers from the respective regions. As such, there is a compelling
need to disrupt the current model of teacher development and certification,
and to re-imagine what is possible for Alaskan Native students aspiring to
become teachers, and for their communities. The results and efficacy of NTCP
are dependent on the degree of Alaska Native influence on the content and the
educational system. Achieving this transformative experience requires unique
partnerships between the private and public sector, university systems and
state infrastructure focused on innovation that provides breakthrough path-
ways to student success and the design and deployment of disruptive educa-
tional infrastructure through technology. The result of our research is that the
value of education is amplified when culturally relevant. This finding is obvi-
ous for teachers, especially those in the field. We are predicting that the same
is true for universities committed to distance education, regardless of the con-
tent area.

References
2014 Alaska Offender Profile, Alaska Department of Corrections. (June, 2015).
Retrieved from http://www.correct.state.ak.us/admin/docs/Final_2014_Profile.pdf
Alaska’s Public Schools: 2014 2015 Report Card to the Public. (2015). State of
Alaska Department of Education, Alaska Department of Education & Early
Development. Retrieved from https://www.eed.state.ak.us/reportcard/2014-2015/
reportcard2014-15.pdf
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. The
Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20 39. doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4278999
Cerulo, K. A. (1997). Identity construction: New issues, new directions. Annual
Review of Sociology, 23, 385 409. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.385
Chande, R., Sanders, M., Borcan, O., Linos, E., Robinson, S., Luca, M., …
Kirkman, E. (2015). Curbing adult student attrition: Evidence from a field experi-
ment. Harvard Business School. Working paper. Retrieved from https://papers.
ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2563757
Demmert, W., Grissmer D., & Towner, J. (2006). A review and analysis of the
research on Native American students. Journal of American Indian Education,
45(3), 5 23.
Demographic Profile for Alaska, 2010 Census Information. (2010). State of Alaska.
Retrieved from http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/cen/dp.cfm
Duening, T., & Metzger, M. (2015). Identity construction in entrepreneurship education:
Facilitating the process of becoming an entrepreneur. Unpublished manuscript.
Fagioli, L. P., Rios-Aguilar, C., Deil-Amen, R. (2015). Changing the context of stu-
dent engagement: Using Facebook to increase community college student persist-
ence and success. Teachers College Record, 117, 1 42. Retrieved from https://
 Introducing the Native Teacher Certification Pathway 165

www.coe.arizona.edu/sites/coe/files/HED/Changing%20the%20Context%20of%
20Engagement_0.pdf
Gay, G. (2013). Teaching to and through cultural diversity. The Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education of the University of Toronto. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1).
doi:10.1111/curi.12002
Gee, J. P., & Hayes, E. (2009). Public pedagogy through video Games: Design,
resources & affinity spaces. Handbook of Public Pedagogy. doi:10.4324/97802038
63688.ch21
Goldsmith, S. (2008). Understanding Alaska’s remote rural economy. UA Research
Summary. Retrieved from http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/research-
summ/UA_RS10.pdf
Hallett, D., Chandler, M. J., & Lalonde, C. E. (2007). Aboriginal language knowl-
edge and youth suicide. Cognitive Development, 22, 392 399. doi:10.1016/j.
cogdev.2007.02.001
Hattori, M. T. P. (2014). Culturally responsive educational technology. University of
Hawai’i at Manoa. Retrieved from: https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bit-
stream/10125/100502/1/Hattori_Mary_r.pdf
Hornberger, N. (2008). Can schools save Indigenous languages? Policy and practice
on four continents. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/
9780230582491
Kawagley, A. O., Tull, D., & Norris-Tull, R. A. (1998). The indigenous worldview
of Yupiaq Culture: Its scientific nature and relevance to the practice and teaching
of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2). doi:10.1002/(SICI)
1098-2736(199802)35:2 < 133::AID-TEA4 > 3.0.CO;2-T.
Kirkness, V. J., & Barnhardt, R. (1991). First Nations and higher education: The
four R’s respect, relevance, reciprocity, responsibility. Journal of American
Indian Education, 30(3), 1 15.
Kozleski, E. B. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching matters. Equity Alliance at
ASU. Retrieved from http://www.equityallianceatasu.org/sites/default/files/Website_
files/CulturallyResponsiveTeaching-Matters.pdf
LaFromboise, T., Hardin, L., Coleman, K., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological
impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. American Psychological
Association, Inc. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 395 412. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0033-2909.114.3.395
Leary, A., Tetpon, B., Hirshberg, D., & Hill, A. (2014). Alaska Native-Focused
teacher preparation programs. UAA Center for Alaska Education Policy Research.
University of Alaska Anchorage. Retrieved from http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/
Publications/2014_6-AKNative-FocusedTeacherProgs.pdf
McClure, C. L., & Monfreda, K. Crime in Alaska. (2015). Department of Public
Safety. Retrieved from http://www.dps.alaska.gov/statewide/docs/UCR/UCR_
2015.pdf
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). (2014). Bringing the institution into
focus—Annual Results 2014. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for
Postsecondary Research.
Native Youth Report. (December 2014). Executive Office of the President. Retrieved
from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/20141129nativeyouthre-
port_final.pdf
166 Paul Berg et al.

Ogbu, J. U., & Simons, H. D. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A

cultural-ecological theory of school performance with some implications for edu-
cation. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155 188. doi:10.1525/aeq.1998.
29.2.155
Reaching the marginalised. (2010). United Nations Educational, Scientific, & Cultural
Organization. UNESCO. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/en/efareport/
reports/2010-marginalization/.
Reyhner, J. (1992). Plans for dropout prevention and special school support services
for American Indian and Alaska Native students. Journal of American Indian
Education. Retrieved from http://www2.nau.edu/~jar/INAR.html
Seligman, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.
American Psychologist, 55(1), 5 14. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5
Skerrett, M. (2010). A critique of the best evidence synthesis with relevance for
Māori leadership in education. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy, and
Practice, 25(1), 42 50.
Suicide Facts at a Glance. (2015). National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control, Division of Violence Prevention, Center for Disease Control. Retrieved
from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/suicide-datasheet-a.PDF
Yu, A. Y., Tian, S. W., Vogel, D., & Kwok, R. C. (2010). Can learning be virtually
boosted?: An investigation of online networking impacts. Computers & Education,
55, 1495 1503. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.015
Chapter 9

Academic Rigour and Video Technology:

A Case Study on Digital Storytelling in
Graduate-level Assignments
Eva Malisius

Abstract
While some may perceive technology as disruptive in higher education, this
chapter makes a case that video technology can be used to increase collab-
oration and engagement in learning and teaching. It is argued that digital
storytelling can be integrated as part of the assessment in graduate-level
courses without compromising expectations related to academic rigor.
Rather, digital storytelling advances multimedia literacy for the individual
and supports the generation of bounded learning communities, specifically
in online and blended programmes. Covering social presence, teaching pres-
ence and cognitive presence, the chapter draws on two examples of digital
storytelling used in the MA in Conflict Analysis and Management and the
MA in Global Leadership at Royal Roads University, Canada. Overall,
the chapter makes a contribution to the conversation of how assessment
formats can be updated to match the shift from traditional, lecture formats
and brick-and-mortar institutions to applied, collaborative programmes
that are often delivered in blended and online formats. Thus, as the field of
higher education continues to evolve and adapt alongside technological
innovations, the chapter suggests that digital storytelling can be one way to
complement and update assessment formats to match the evolution of the
twenty-first century.

Keywords: Digital storytelling; online teaching; online learning; video

assignments; academic rigor; assessment

The Disruptive Power of Online Education: Challenges, Opportunities, Responses, 167 184
Copyright r 2019 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISBN: 978-1-78754-326-3
168 Eva Malisius

As various formats of online and blended programme offerings become more

commonplace in higher education around the globe, slowly happening alongside
is a shift in the delivery of learning and teaching. This shift moves the classroom
away from more traditional lectures to technologically mediated learning and
teaching building on experiential learning and flipped classrooms (Keengwe,
Onchwari, & Oigara, 2014; Kolb, 1984; Laster, 2012). Part of this is to make
stronger efforts in accommodating different types of learners and, for example,
auditory, visual and kinesthetic learning styles (Hatami, 2013; Rolfe & Cheek,
2012; Yassin & Almasri, 2015). The other part is accommodating more asyn-
chronous and location independent learning, which allows students to study
without travelling to brick-and-mortar classrooms and on their own schedule,
often through video lectures formatted and posted on Learning Management
Systems (LMS) such as Moodle or Blackboard. The benefits and limitations of
video lectures, especially in generating diverse, interactive, collaborative,
engaged and applied teaching and learning experiences that replace the trad-
itional lectures, are widely discussed by researchers and the teaching community
(Borbye, 2010; Kuosa et al., 2016; Martin & Notari, 2014; Ronchetti, 2010;
Willis, 2009; Woolfit, 2015). At the same time, how do we bring traditional,
written assignments into twenty-first century and online learning and teaching
without compromising expectations related to academic context and content,
but rather increasing students’ ability to compete in the modern job market?
The purpose of this chapter is to make a case for what some might perceive
as an alternative assessment format: a case for video-based, academic assign-
ments at the graduate-level in blended and online programmes across disciplines.
While this is less commonly found in research and practice, there are efforts to
include video-based assignments in higher education to complement more trad-
itional assessment formats and academic writing (Fiorentino, 2004; Lim,
Pellett, & Pellett, 2009; Malisius, 2016; Price, Strodtman, Brough, Lonn, & Luo,
2015; Willis, 2009). The chapter specifically advocates for digital storytelling as
a general format for video assignment submission as it moves beyond the sub-
mission of voice-over presentations. Digital storytelling requires a more deliber-
ate use of video technology or animation by generating a cohesive narrative in a
compelling manner. Furthermore, the digital storytelling format engages stu-
dents to transfer their acquired knowledge on a particular topic in an audio-
visual narration, requiring critical thinking and analysis similar to academic
writing (Gregory, Steelman, & Caverly, 2009). Thereby digital storytelling as a
generic format becomes comparable to academic writing, as it requires story-
boarding and editing in a similar manner that essay writing requires planning
and editing. Thus from both a teaching and learning approach, assignment from
conception to assessment have comparability related to academic rigor and
learning engagement.
Beyond that, the submission of graduate-level assignments in the format of
digital storytelling has several, additional benefits (or side-effects) that contribute
to the collaborative and engaged learning environment sometimes missing in
blended and online programmes: the generation of a bounded learning commu-
nity that brings together social presence, teaching presence and cognitive
 Academic Rigour and Video Technology 169

presence. Both anecdotal evidence and research suggest that the objectives of
learning, engagement, retention and teacher and student satisfaction increase
manifold through this approach. The format of submitting audio-visual files for
assignments allows students to share their work with their peers in an easy and
accessible way. By literally seeing each other and their respective approaches to
content and subject matter, students in the classroom learn from each other and
how they worked through the assignment, are exposed to a range of different
content and views related to the same content they were exposed to. Learning
overall becomes richer and more engaged through the integration of technology
and related collaboration. Furthermore, students provide anecdotal evidence of
how they have the ability to share their work beyond the classroom in an easy
and accessible way with community members, families and friends, current or
potential future employers. Learning becomes applied by both content and for-
mat through increased accessibility of materials through digital storytelling:
rather than being disruptive, online learning becomes integrative and invites col-
laboration and dialogue beyond the classroom similar to hallway conversa-
tions in brick-and-mortar academic institutions.
This chapter includes a case study based on the experience of integrating
technology, specifically video-based assignment and digital storytelling, into
blended programmes and online courses at the graduate level at a Canadian uni-
versity in a social and applied sciences context. It engages with instructor and
design perspectives, as well as student experiences in Conflict Analysis and
Management and Global Leadership programmes at Royal Roads University,
Canada. Anecdotal evidence from key stakeholders, students and instructors
and interdisciplinary research on teaching and learning, the intention is to con-
tribute to the dialogue on the improvement of student learning through technol-
ogy (Dempster, Beetham, Jackson, & Richardson, 2011; Dickson & Treml,
2013; Fischer, Wild, Sutherland, & Zirn, 2013). The skills, confidence and aca-
demic learning students acquire from video assignments enables them to critic-
ally engage with audio-visual materials presented to them in professional
contexts, as well as to produce succinct and relevant clips to present information
at their workplace. In the digital age and at the modern workplace, audio-visual
soft skills compare to enhanced report writing and research literacy stemming
from academic writing and critical thinking another marketable tool for a suc-
cessful transition for students to the workforce.
While advocating for the mindful integration of video assignments at inter-
vals throughout a programme, this chapter addresses common concerns, specif-
ically related to video technology and academic rigor. It provides examples of
how digital storytelling can be used to frame academic assignments successfully.
This includes how to manage expectations of both students and instructors, how
to overcome technology challenges and the wider benefits of video technology in
online classrooms to generate student and instructor presence, collective learning
and teaching in the online classroom community and the acquisition of technol-
ogy related soft skills relevant for the workplace, and beyond the university
context.
170 Eva Malisius

In conclusion, this chapter provides an overview of how video technology

can be integrated into online learning and teaching, focusing specifically on the
use of digital storytelling in graduate-level assignments. The case study is based
on the experience and successful integration of video assignments blended gradu-
ate programmes at a Canadian university and argues that it is possible to main-
tain academic standards through video assignments while enhancing the
learning and teaching experience. This includes, beyond demonstrating academic
skills and knowledge in assessment, an enhanced and shared learning experience
and acquisition of skills that benefit beyond the higher education classroom in
preparing students for more successful engagement in their future employment.

9.1. Online Learning and Teaching: Challenges

and Opportunities
The success of graduates of reputable online and blended university programmes
demonstrates that the concerns related to academic rigor and quality of higher
education and learning are generally unfounded. There are some caveats, of
course. However, when courses and programmes adapt and integrate technology
into learning and teaching in a constructive and meaningful manner, the integra-
tion of technology in the classroom is not for technology sake, but to enhance,
enrich and consolidate higher education learning irrespective of the classroom
format (Bates & Sangrà, 2011; Grundy et al., 2016; Issa, Isaias, & Kommers,
2014). In this regard, the rise of MOOCs and open access learning platforms
such as Coursera have impacted the higher education market and provided
researchers and facilitators of learning with a plethora of data and input on
what interactive online learning can look like and how to decrease barriers to
accessing knowledge (Koller, 2012). Furthermore, part of the success of the
learning platforms has been in offering optional, by payment, micro-credits or
certificates that can be transferred to credits at regular universities and/or are
welcomed by employers as professional development efforts (whether or not this
is disruptive to traditional universities is beyond the scope of this paper). This in
turn has demonstrated a need for user related technology knowledge at the
employment market. Online and blended programmes are in a unique position
to advance and enhance students’ abilities in this respect and thereby contribute
to their employability.

9.1.1. Distance Learning and Video Technology: Managing Expectations

Expectations of what engaging use of video technology looks like to support
teaching and learning vary significantly. It appears clear that the mere use of
video technology as part of distance learning is insufficient to generate meaning-
ful learning. The production process of instructional videos can be high, soft-
ware and technology constantly evolving and changing: it is hard to keep up. At
times, it may appear that the process is more cumbersome than meaningful,
at which point it becomes counterproductive. Similarly, creating a video
 Academic Rigour and Video Technology 171

assignment without a distinct purpose and relevance to the context of the course
and/or programme will not result in meaningful learning.
The first perceived hurdle to meaningful learning from a video assignment
may be unfamiliarity of most students in producing a video clip. At the same
time, the same often applies to students in relation to academic writing and all
that it entails. Providing students with guidance on how to produce a clip and
pointing out readily available and, often free, video editing software can be suffi-
cient to set students off on producing meaningful video submissions with aca-
demically relevant content presented in a cohesive narrative (Willis, 2009).
Resources such as a library guide and storyboarding guidance enable students to
master video assignments (RRULibrary, 2015; Thorn, 2011). Depending on the
framing of the assignment itself, a video assignment can be set up to ask students
to address a particular question similar to an essay format, to engage with a ser-
ies of questions comparable to an exam, or be used to replace an in a classroom
presentation. As the latter suggests, the benefit of the video assignment format is
the possibility to share with both peers and beyond.
Expectations of both faculty and students may be higher when it comes to
engaging assignments, at the same time, the challenges to use technology may be
perceived as an additional challenge or barrier. Anecdotal evidence from stu-
dents suggests that this is often their initial reaction to facing a video assignment,
for example, but that the overwhelming majority thrives in facing and overcom-
ing the initially perceived challenge. Managing those expectations means setting
the students up for success, providing guidance and creating an engaging assign-
ment that enables students to pursue a particular learning purpose and demon-
strate their academic ability and skills based on course materials and their own
research in an applied and meaningful manner. Whereas traditional lecture for-
mats may have commonly resulted in essays or short papers on particular ques-
tions pertaining to the materials covered, the creation of engaging assignments
has been covered alongside the overhaul of classroom (Lim et al., 2009; Nisly,
Cecire, Friesen, & Sensenig, 2015; Schultz & Quinn, 2014; Swinth & Vinton,
1994). In that respect, video assignments and digital storytelling are a logical
extension of integration technology in online and blended programmes.

9.1.2. Alternative Assessment Formats and Academic Rigor: How Different

can be the Same
As implied above, video assignments in many ways are no different than other
assessment formats commonly used in higher education. Alternative assessment
formats often generate concern related to academic rigor and standards, how-
ever, this can be easily addressed by setting requirements accordingly. Standard
academic conventions, i.e. referencing and copyright attributions apply to video
submissions in the same manner as to other academic writing. Instructors outline
the scope, length, format and anticipated output for an assignment, including
expectations relating the assignment to course content.
Video assignments are better suited for open-ended questions as they leave
students with more space for diverse analysis and creativity in engaging with the
172 Eva Malisius

challenge presented (Nisly et al., 2015). Similarly, the digital storytelling format
enables students to determine the best-suited approach for their submission by
compiling their own audio-visual materials from existing photographs, video
clips, adding animation, music, interviews and their own voice to the mix
(Schultz & Quinn, 2014; Truong-White & McLean, 2015). This includes students
integrating their own songs and music to represent conflict; using props such as
Barbie dolls or Lego to present conflict interaction or disasters; use animation
software to generate images and a narrative; presenting newscast type interviews
with themselves to answer the questions provided; and connecting their profes-
sional work as an air traffic controller to demonstrate conflict and competing
interests. Such direct applications of the question and course materials increase
engagement and retention equally, thus enhancing the impact of the assignment
itself.
Some may compare video assignments to classroom presentations rather than
demonstrations of critical thinking and academic writing, however, this does not
have to be the case. Requiring digital storytelling as submission format sets stu-
dents up to include a cohesive narrative and plan their clip in its sequences
(Frazel, 2010; Page & Thomas, 2011). Rather than asking students to record
their opinions or compile summaries of classroom materials, digital storytelling
invites students to critically engage with the topic and materials, to apply con-
cepts and ideas to an identified challenge and to present their reflections and
application of the knowledge in a cohesive narrative. This requires students to
internalise the material, to reflect on how they want to present themselves and
the materials and to extend their comfort zone by giving themselves a voice.
Participatory action research methods, including digital storytelling or
Photovoice, are being used to engage marginalised groups and providing them
with a voice (Reimers, 2016). The impact on students completing assignments in
this format is arguably comparable. The goal is to allow students to stretch their
comfort zone while engaging with the course materials (Borbye, 2010; Harrison,
Starks, & Denhardt, 2011; Nehyba, 2011). Specifically, in online and blended
formats, the ability to share assignment submission and see what others’ have
produced has further added value as it enables students to learn together and
support their community.

9.1.3. Bounded Learning Community and the Perception of Presence:

Building Relationships
One of several remarkable side-effects of video assignments is the contribution
to generating a bounded learning community and perception of presence in
online courses and thereby also in online or blended programmes. In online
courses and programmes students often feel isolated and lacking a sense of com-
munity, even if instructors make efforts to keep engaged and interactive (Brown,
Rich, & Holtham, 2014; Luppicini, 2007; Richardson et al., 2015; Tu, 2004).
Students may build a relationship with the instructor but less so with their peers,
specifically in comparison to more traditional in-classroom offerings where
social interaction with peers organically happens. Studying online, students, who
 Academic Rigour and Video Technology 173

live in a range of locations across a region, country or the globe, bond in differ-
ent ways. Video assignments provide an opportunity to bond in two ways: first,
as students collectively face the challenge of a different format and figuring out
technology; and, second, as they review each others’ submissions, get a sense of
the other person(s) and have a foundation for a bounded learning community.
The social engagement that generates a bounded learning community encom-
passes social presence largely based on student-student interaction, contributes
to teaching presence and the student-teacher interaction, as well and enhancing
cognitive presence and student-content interaction. Thereby, student engage-
ment can be observed to increase overall and through the bounded learning
community learning appears enriched, retention increased and overall satisfac-
tion unfolds.
Generating social presence through student-student interaction can be more
difficult and less intuitive to achieve in online courses, specifically when there is
little demand for students to interact directly. Some university programmes pro-
vide a framework for social presence through a cohort model in which students
complete a number of courses or their entire programme largely as a group
together (Hamilton, Marquez, & Agger-Gupta, 2013; Seed, 2008). This learning
community is enhanced through video assignments as students have a personal
frame of reference for each other, having engaged online and seen each other
through their video presentation (Malisius, 2013). This can add to the safe learn-
ing environment a classroom generates and increase satisfaction with the learn-
ing experience and enabling cohorts to bond more swiftly.
The social presence extends similarly to the teaching presence and enabling
enriched student-teacher interaction. Similar to students’ social experience, the
interaction between students and teachers in online classes can be minimal to
non-existent as the barriers to move out of the LMS and the boundaries of the
course can be perceived as more significant. While communication technology
such as Skype can support face-to-face interactions and facilitate ‘online office
hours’, some elements of the learning community and student − teacher conver-
sations go missing. Video assignments, through their audio-visual and somewhat
more personal approach, provide an additional dimension that facilitates teacher
presence. This applies specifically when video assignments are a component in a
class that is delivered through the pro-active use of video technology and
enhanced coverage of course materials by the instructor (Woolfit, 2015).
Most significant, however, is the cognitive presence and student-content inter-
action that forms part of the bounded learning community supported by video
assignments. As students share their submissions, they are individually and col-
lectively exposed to a range of topics and materials related to course content and
move being the assigned readings. Students are unlikely to read each others’ writ-
ten materials, but they are as anecdotal evidence confirms quite likely to
watch at least 5 8 video submissions made by other students in their class. Often
video submission range between 3 and10 minutes depending on the assignment
scope and content requirements, which is a bounded time commitment and easier
access than written work. Students individually pick their take on the task and
learn about other perspectives through their peers’ eyes (which again, increases
174 Eva Malisius

social presence), engage with different topics and areas of interest and expertise
that may be outside their own scope. Thus video assignments can contribute to a
holistic, more applied and diversified interaction of students with content.
The presence and the perception of presences have been the common thread
throughout the three elements presented as part of a bounded learning commu-
nity supported by video assignments. In online and blended courses presence
may be a highly sought after and often underestimated contributing factor to
success. While discussions around instructor presence can be found in the discus-
sions, elements of student and content presence are less frequently at the centre
of attention.

9.1.4. Video Technology and Soft Skills Acquisition: In and Beyond

Classroom Learning
Despite the frequent use of video on social media and availability of recording
devices through smartphones and laptops, the ability to compile and edit audio-
visual materials to generate a cohesive narrative remains limited among students
across disciplines. Digital storytelling is an easy access format that generates
quick results, educational value and provides a structure, similar to academic
writing in higher education (Chung, 2007; Price et al., 2015; Truong-White &
McLean, 2015). Thus, through digital storytelling assignments, students acquire
skills that enable them to succinctly present information, knowledge and content
analysis in and audio-visual format.
The inherent ability to visualise, understand and critique multimedia clips is
beneficial in many professions, enabling graduates to contribute and critically
assess multimedia production increasingly part of modern workplaces for mar-
keting or outreach purposes. That does not imply, however, that video assign-
ments can replace academic writing completely. Critical thinking remains a key
component of higher education; the case made her for digital storytelling simply
implies to expand the portfolio of assessment to including video formats.
Through academic programmes, students acquire research literacy, research and
academic writing skills. Adding digital storytelling allows students to enhance
their multi-media literacy, which subsequently becomes a marketable skillset at
the workplace. There is an increasing demand for academic programmes to be
applied and relevant to the twenty-first century workplace by enabling students
to pick up soft skills alongside their academic learning journey (Kyllonen, 2013).
This suggests that the output students produce in modern universities and specif-
ically online and blended programmes, prepare graduates for their professional
lives and related usage of technology.

9.2. Digital Storytelling in Graduate-level Assignments:

Some Examples
In order to provide specific examples of how digital storytelling can be inte-
grated as academic assignments in graduate-level courses, the following outlines
 Academic Rigour and Video Technology 175

two separate examples of online courses in blended programmes in the Faculty

of Social and Applied Sciences at a Canadian university. They include an over-
view of the assignment itself and how it fits into the specific courses and pro-
grammes, as well as anecdotal evidence of the impact and bounded learning
community generated through the assignment.

9.2.1. MA in Conflict Analysis and Management: My Digital Conflict Story

In the MA in Conflict Analysis and Management programme at Royal Roads
University, students start their two-year blended programme with an online
course running over nine weeks entitled ‘CAMN 502 Foundation:
Understanding Conflict, Change, and Systems in Organisational Contexts’.
Students, who are generally working professionals at a mid-career level and on
average aged in their late 30s, come from diverse backgrounds that include mili-
tary and police, provincial and federal ministries, human resources, healthcare
professionals, as well as conflict specialists. Pre-existing knowledge and compe-
tencies related to conflict range from very little to substantial. Some students
have previous online learning experience, yet many describe themselves with lim-
ited technological ability. In the first course of their programme they navigate
the LMS, the content and overall technology for the first time, as well as meet-
ing their cohort and peers within the setting of an academic course online. As
their first assignment, digital storytelling is perceived by many as a deviation
from their expectations and anticipation of academic writing. To many, this con-
text appears as an outlet for anxiety and putting all students on a level playing
field. The anxiety to engage in graduate studies and academic writing is quickly
replaced with anxiety by using video technology, however, the barriers to over-
come are met by high levels of motivation and excitement. The perceived open-
ness of the digital storytelling format enables students to be creative and present
themselves to instructor and peers.

9.2.1.1. The Assignment: My Digital Conflict Story

For the assignment itself, which is the first assignment for students within the
first course of their programme, students are provided with a short introduction
to digital storytelling and providing resources for storyboarding and technology
advice through a library guide (RRULibrary, 2015). Students are asked to pro-
duce a video clip that is approximately 4 minutes in length and meets academic
standards, i.e. is concise and analytical, makes use of references and concepts
from the course materials and external research as applicable, and overall
respects copyright regulations and APA standards. A dedicated Q&A forum
allows students to post their questions and challenges, commiserate and share
advice. More often than not, peers provide answers faster than the instructor.
As part of the assignment description students are presented with the follow-
ing disclaimer:

You may find presenting yourself and your views in a digital for-
mat challenging, and you may find yourself struggling with
176 Eva Malisius

technology, especially if you have never worked in this type of

format before. Do not despair, reach out to your class for sup-
port, consult online tech support groups, or consider contacting
computer services. Stretch your comfort zone.

Provided along with the assignment requirements is also a set of topics and ques-
tions to be addressed by the students (see Table 9.1). This provides them with
further guidance for their storyboarding and planning their content; it is empha-
sised that they are not required to diligently answer each question, but rather to
use the topics and themes as their guide.
As quickly becomes apparent from the topics and questions provided to stu-
dents (see Table 9.1), the purpose and intention of the assignment combine a per-
sonal introduction with programme motivation and content knowledge, i.e.
inviting students to present their take on conflict and the core theme of the pro-
gramme. Students draw on a mix of personal and professional experiences, includ-
ing course materials and their own research, to compile a digital conflict story.
By sharing the digital conflict stories students gain perspective of the diversity
of the topic (conflict), their peers and the range of professional background and

Table 9.1. CAM ‘My Digital Conflict Story’ Assignment.

My personal background
• What is your name and where are you from?
• What do you do in your non-student life? What would you like to share
about yourself with the class?
• What is your motivation for enroling in higher education? How did you
pick your programme of study?
• What makes conflict matter to you?
How I frame conflict
• What is your experience with conflict?
• What is conflict and what does it mean to you?
• From your perspective, what makes conflict interesting and valuable or
destructive and detestable? Is conflict good or bad?
• What can be done about conflict? What do you do with conflict and what
do you want to do with conflict?
Beyond my digital conflict story
• What are your expectations for this course? For this programme?
• What do you expect from yourself, your classmates and your instructor?
• What is your vision for conflict?
• Any words of wisdom to share?
 Academic Rigour and Video Technology 177

aspirations that are related to conflict analysis and management. This provides
an open frame to their programme of study and enables students to experience
knowledge beyond their own initial sphere of interest. The assignment itself,
given its setting in reflection, further engages students in reflective practice and
the application, rather than mere replication, of their conflict-related knowledge.

9.2.1.2. The Assessment: Learning Outcomes and Academic Rigor

For the assessment of the digital conflict story, the programme learning out-
comes are drawn upon and adapted to the audio-visual context. The key learn-
ing domains are: critical thinking (1.3: demonstrate openness to ideas and
actions), communication (2.1: articulate ideas and arguments effectively in oral
and written formats) and knowledge (4.10: identify and explain the implications
and impact of engaging in conflict management for self, individuals, profes-
sionals and other stakeholders. Comments are provided to students in relation
to each of the learning outcome components, as well as an overall demonstra-
tion of ability, which results in a holistic assessment (see Table 9.2).
As the learning outcomes and assessment criteria show, the academic rigor
and expectations related to the digital storytelling assignment are largely congru-
ent with any other assignment in the course or programme.
Similarly, the submissions students produce display a similar range in grades
and challenges with meeting the assignment criteria as would be expected with
more traditional assessment formats for a first assignment. Common feedback
includes length going beyond the 4 minutes’ requirement (submission can vary
between 3 and 8 minutes), lack of inclusion academic sources and references
(pure personal narration), lack of cohesive narrative and analysis (unstructured

Table 9.2. CAM ‘My Digital Conflict Story’ Learning Outcomes.

• Your overall ability to present yourself, your motivations, expectations and

views to the instructor and cohort in a meaningful manner that brings together
theory, practice and reflection suitable to an academic context
• Your ability to demonstrate openness to ideas and action; i.e., how
experiences have shaped your worldviews, how a conflict you focus on is
shaped by perceptions and perspectives, how mindful (conflict) engagement
informs your approach to self and others
• Your ability to articulate ideas and arguments effectively, including the clarity
with which you organise your materials and thoughts, provide structure and
evidence to support your analysis, and overall provide a clear flow of
arguments and insights conveyed in a visually appealing and engaging format
adequate for digital storytelling and
• Your ability to identify and explain the implications and impact of conflict
engagement as you explore aspects of ‘self’ in system, distinguish between your
own views and those of others, identify actors and stakeholders and engage
with power as applicable
178 Eva Malisius

elements without structure and description or replication of materials). General

praise includes creativity in presentation and outlook, a strong range of diverse
materials and sources from course materials and beyond, focus on analysis and
impact, matching content and application.
From an instructor perspective, the assessment process appears similar if not
more swiftly in reviewing the submission, as the time limit for a clip is set (in
this case) at 4 minutes. Generally, each submission is watched 1 3 times to com-
plete the assessment in regards to each of the learning outcomes, and to provide
feedback to the students on their performance. Again, academic standards and
expectations are comparable to other assignment formats, thus making the
digital storytelling an ideal starting point for students in an online and/or
blended programme.

9.2.2. MA in Global Leadership: Presenting a Community in Conflict

Another example for a different use of a digital storytelling assignment comes
from the course ‘GBLD 522: Managing Difficult Relationships Within and
Across Community Dynamics’, which is delivered online over the course of 10
weeks as an optional, second-year course in the blended, two-year MA in
Global Leadership at Royal Roads University. Students in this programme
are encouraged throughout their course of study to engage with different
assignment formats, including the production of audio-visual materials for
both presentations and short, informative clips. Students compile their work in
so-called e-portfolios, which enable them to share their work alongside their
studies. Overall, students are generally familiar with audio-visual formats and
have been encouraged to engage in digital storytelling prior to taking this
course and assignment. This shifts the purpose of the assignment beyond the
building of a bounded learning community into the sustaining of community
that has already been established: the student-student presence is further dee-
pened, the student − teacher presence set anew with a new instructor and the
student-content presence is expanded to the materials covered in this particular
course.
Given the different starting point, the assignment, in this case, serves an add-
itional purpose: students research and submit ‘community in conflict’ cases from
which the class then chooses several which provide the basis for a following,
team assignment which takes on the design of a change process for the commu-
nity, leading through conflict. What the digital storytelling format in this assign-
ment facilitates is both the reflection of the individual student on the case of
their choosing, which requires internalisation of materials, analysis and presenta-
tion and enables the class to review cases and make informed decisions as to
which cases to pursue further. Different from a written format, the audio-visual
format makes this a quick turnaround and easy to follow step for students. The
content transfer for students to learn from all cases submitted by their peers is
immense and informs learning beyond the course itself.
 Academic Rigour and Video Technology 179

9.2.2.1. The Assignment: Presenting a Community in Conflict

Within the topic of the course, the purpose of the assignment is to enable the student
to analyse a particular community in depth, increasing their awareness of dynamics
and tensions between and across stakeholders. Students are invited to pick a commu-
nity that they are familiar with and where they have access to public information or
research that enables them to analyse the challenges facing the community. It could
be a community covered in a different course, a community they have worked with
in the past or would like to work with or a community they live in. Reminding stu-
dents to avoid duplication of previous work, including self-plagiarism, they are
advised to generate new perspectives if they choose a case they previously worked on
in the academic context and to comply with academic integrity regulations.
Furthermore, students are reminded of potential challenges of working too close to a
case, i.e. ensuring their ability to take a balanced stance to analyse and present the
dynamics of their chosen community without bias or passion for a particular group
or cause. Students identify their audience for the assignment, i.e. the community
leadership, a potential donor organisation or a more general audience to be alerted
to the conflict. Generally, students choose to present a community they work with or
live in, and present to the wider public appealing to a need for action (see Table 9.3).

Table 9.3. MAGL ‘Presenting a Community in Conflict’ Assignment.

The purpose of this assignment is to enhance your awareness of the dynamics

and tensions between and across stakeholders in an existing community. Identify
a community that you are familiar with and/or one where you have access to
public information about conflicts, tension and challenges in that community.
You may choose:
(1) a community that you have covered or heard about in a different course;
(2) a community that you have worked with or would like to work in, or
(3) the community you live in.
The key guiding questions for your assignment are:
• What defines this community?
• Who are the key actors?
• What are the dynamics, key challenges, and conflicts that face the community?
Describe your community in all its richness, highlighting its assets, analysing its
dynamics and acknowledging its challenges and complexities. Provide a brief
background and basic statistical data for your community (geographical
location, demographics and some historical facts). Limit this section to what is
essential for understanding the wider context
Focus your assignment on the key dynamics of the community: what are key
values shared by the community? What are some underlying conflicts and how
do they affect the relationships between the community groups? How has the
community dealt with conflict in the past? How does the community make
180 Eva Malisius

Table 9.3. (Continued )

decisions? How does the community interact with the national/regional level?
How does it interact with other communities? What are the key challenges for
community development?
At the end of your assignment indicate your recommendations for the future of
the community and what could be done to address difficult relationships within
and with other communities

To provide students with a basic structure and focus for their assignment,
they are provided with key guiding questions and a suggested focus for the infor-
mation they present. While this guidance may be perceived as extensive, it
enables students to focus on the content of their case and provides them with
sufficient flexibility to focus the assignment on the parameters most relevant to
the conflict they focus on. This enables them to go into analytical depth within
the confines of their submission format.

9.2.2.2. The Assessment: Learning Outcomes and Academic Rigor

While digital storytelling is encouraged, students have the options to submit in
form of a written assignment as well. Students are required to submit either a
3- to 5-minute audio-visual clip or a 2000-word essay. The assessment criteria
for the assignment are the same, irrespective of submission format, which reiter-
ates the equivalency regarding expectations of academic standards and rigor.
Aligned with the assessment process within the MA in Global Leadership,
the submissions are assessed based on learning outcomes that focus on compe-
tencies and skills acquisition (see Table 9.4).

Table 9.4. MAGL ‘Presenting a Community in Conflict’ Learning Outcomes.

A2.1. Demonstrates the ability to adapt, learn and change through

self-awareness and self-management, and development of supportive and
productive relationships.
• Identifies a relevant conflict and presents how it impacts a community and
relevant stakeholders.
• Analyses a community and its culture, including values, (inter)relationships
and history as relevant to the conflict.
• Engages in reflective practice so that it becomes an integral part of the analysis
and identifies recommendations for future action that are feasible and based
on relevant research and/or practice.
• Is able to assess existing skills and strengths, as well as limitations for dealing
with conflict and tension within a community.
 Academic Rigour and Video Technology 181

Table 9.4. (Continued )

• Reflects on different roles in a system to ensure the successful engagement with

a conflict.
B2.2. Applies culturally appropriate approaches to communicate and interact
with diverse audiences.
• Uses culturally appropriate communication methods, protocols, language and
norms, taking into consideration cultural differences relevant to the identified
target audience and community context.
B3.1. Demonstrates the ability to facilitate culturally diverse groups and teams.
• Recognises one’s own biases, assumptions and understandings, and seeks to
understand others’ biases, assumptions and understandings in a culturally
appropriate and sensitive manner.
• Offers readings, ideas and alternatives willingly and appropriately in a
culturally sensitive manner.

Given the placement of the course within the programme of study, expectations
for quality of the submission, analytical depth and scope are higher in comparison
to the previously presented case of a first assignment. The acquisition of skills in
generating video assignments has been acquired and strengthened by students
throughout their programme. Nevertheless, common struggles remain to maintain
the focus on analysis and within the scope of the assignment requirements.
Successes include presentations that inspire further action, including sharing of
their work with stakeholder communities and action groups that work in the con-
text in real life. The applied nature of the assignment (and programme) empowers
students to take their classroom learning beyond their academic journey.

9.3. Conclusions
In pursuit of the question how to bring traditional, written assignments into
twenty-first century and online learning and teaching, this chapter has made a
contribution to the conversation by advocating for digital storytelling as a form
of academic assessment in graduate-level courses. Drawing on relevant research
and examples of digital storytelling assignments from two different programmes
at a Canadian university, the above has shown that video assignments can be
created compromising expectations related to academic rigor, context and con-
tent. Rather, students’ ability to critically engage with multimedia technology
has been shown as an additional soft skill desirable in the job market. Digital
storytelling has also been compared to academic writing and the ability to gener-
ate bounded learning communities that are specifically relevant in online and
blended programmes to generate presence. Social presence, teaching presence
and cognitive presence all contribute to engagement, learning, retention and
overall satisfaction of students and instructors. Thereby, mindful integration of
182 Eva Malisius

video assignments has been shown to advance online classrooms into the
twenty-first century through relevant acquisition and application of academic
and professional skills and knowledge.

Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank the students at RRU who provided the inspir-
ation to engage in research on transformative teaching and learning and who
have completed assignments that are described here. The goal was always to
extend comfort zones and explore creativity!

References
Bates, T., & Sangrà, A. (2011). Managing technology in higher education: Strategies
for transforming teaching and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Borbye, L. (2010). Out of the comfort zone: new ways to teach, learn, and assess essen-
tial professional skills: An advancement in educational innovation (Vol. 2; 2). San
Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.
Brown, A., Rich, M., & Holtham, C. (2014). Student engagement and learning.
Journal of Management Development, 33(6), 603 619. doi:10.1108/JMD-04-2014-
0038
Chung, S. K. (2007). Art education technology: digital storytelling. Art Education,
60(2), 17.
Dempster, J. A., Beetham, H., Jackson, P., & Richardson, S. (2011). Creating virtual
communities of practice for learning technology in higher education: Issues, chal-
lenges and experiences. Research in Learning Technology, 11(3). doi:10.3402/rlt.
v11i3.11288
Dickson, K. L., & Treml, M. M. (2013). Using assessment and SoTL to enhance stu-
dent learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2013(136), 7 16.
doi:10.1002/tl.20072
Fiorentino, L. H. (2004). Digital video assignments: focusing a new lens on teacher
preparation programs. JOPERD The Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation & Dance, 75(5), 47. doi:10.1080/07303084.2004.10607240
Fischer, F., Wild, F., Sutherland, R., & Zirn, L. (2013). Grand challenges in technol-
ogy enhanced learning. Outcomes of the 3rd Alpine Rendez-Vous (Vol. 1; 2014).
Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing.
Frazel, M. (2010). Digital storytelling guide for educators. Eugene, OR.:
International Society for Technology in Education.
Gregory, K., Steelman, J., & Caverly, D. C. (2009). Techtalk: Digital storytelling
and developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education, 33(2), 42 43.
Grundy, S., Hamilton, D., Veletsianos, G., Agger-Gupta, N., Marquez, P.,
Forssman, V., & Legault, M. (Eds.). (2016). Engaging students in life-changing
learning. Royal Roads University’s Learning and Teaching Model in Practice.
Victoria: PressBook.
Hamilton, D., Marquez, P., & Agger-Gupta, N. (2013). Royal Roads University’s
Learning and Teaching Model. Retrieved from http://media.royalroads.ca/media/
marketing/viewbooks/2013/learning-model/index.html
 Academic Rigour and Video Technology 183

Harrison, L., Starks, B., & Denhardt, K. (2011). Outside the comfort zone of the
classroom. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22(2), 203 225. doi:10.1080/
10511253.2010.517773
Hatami, S. (2013). Learning styles. ELT Journal, 67(4), 488. doi:10.1093/elt/ccs083
Issa, T., Isaias, P., & Kommers, P. A. M. (2014). Multicultural awareness and tech-
nology in higher education: Global perspectives. Hershey, Pennsylvania (701 E.
Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, Pa., 17033, USA): IGI Global.
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Oigara, J. N. (2014). Promoting active learning
through the flipped classroom model. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and
development. Canada: Prentice Hall.
Koller, D. (2012). What we’re learning from online education. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6FvJ6jMGHU: TEDTalks.
Kuosa, K., Distante, D., Tervakari, A., Cerulo, L., Fernandez, A., Koro, J., &
Kailanto, M. (2016). Interactive visualization tools to improve learning and
teaching in online learning environments. International Journal of Distance
Education Technologies (IJDET), 14(1), 1 21.
Kyllonen, P. C. (2013). Soft skills for the workplace. Change: The magazine of higher
learning, 45(6), 16 23. doi:10.1080/00091383.2013.841516
Laster, S. J. (2012). Rethinking higher education technology. EDUCAUSE Review,
47(3), 62.
Lim, J., Pellett, H. H., & Pellett, T. (2009). Integrating digital video technology in the
classroom: digital-video assignments enhance experiential learning. JOPERD − The
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 80(6), 40. doi:10.1080/
07303084.2009.10598339
Luppicini, R. (2007). Online learning communities. Charlotte, NC: IAP.
Malisius, E. (2013). Learning communities: Explanation of the popcorn maker assign-
ment. Learning and Teaching Model Series. Victoria: Royal Roads University.
Malisius, E. (2016). Creativity takes courage. Integrating video assignments into aca-
demic courses and blended programs. In R. R. University (Ed.), Engaging stu-
dents in life-changing learning: Royal Roads University’s Learning and Teaching
Model in Practice (pp. 175 192). Victoria: PressBooks.
Martin, S., & Notari, M. (2014). Affordances, approaches, and challenges for blended,
technology-enhanced learning: Present and future development. Educational
Research and Evaluation, 20(7), 513 515. doi:10.1080/13803611.2014.997466
Nehyba, J. (2011). Experiential reflective learning and comfort zone. Pedagogicka
Orientace, 21(3), 305 321.
Nisly, L. L., Cecire, S., Friesen, M., & Sensenig, A. (2015). Creating engaging
assignments. The National Teaching & Learning Forum, 24(3), 9 11. doi:10.1002/
ntlf.30025
Page, R. E., & Thomas, B. (2011). New narratives. stories and storytelling in the
digital age. Lincoln, TX: University of Nebraska Press.
Price, D. M., Strodtman, L., Brough, E., Lonn, S., & Luo, A. (2015). Digital
Storytelling: An innovative technological approach to nursing education. Nurse
educator, 40(2), 66 70. doi:10.1097/NNE.0000000000000094
Reimers, B. C. (2016). Building a bridge across the conflict theory-practice gap:
Comprehensive conflict engagement in community contexts. Conflict Resolution
Quarterly, 33(4).
184 Eva Malisius

Richardson, J. C., Koehler, A. A., Besser, E. D., Caskurlu, S., Lim, J., & Mueller,
C. M. (2015). Conceptualizing and investigating instructor presence in online
learning environments. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 16(3).
Rolfe, A., & Cheek, B. (2012). Learning styles. InnovAiT, 5(3), 176 181.
doi:10.1093/innovait/inr239
Ronchetti, M. (2010). A different perspective on lecture video-streaming: How to use
technology to help change the traditional lecture model. International Journal of
Knowledge Society Research, 1(2), 50 60.
RRULibrary. (2015). Video essays and digital storytelling: Video essays. LibGuides.
Retrieved from http://libguides.royalroads.ca/videoessayhowto
Schultz, P. L., & Quinn, A. S. (2014). Lights, camera, action! learning about man-
agement with student-produced video assignments. Journal of Management
Education, 38(2), 234 258. doi:10.1177/1052562913488371
Seed, A. H. (2008). Cohort building through experiential learning. Journal of
Experiential Education, 31(2), 209 224. doi:10.5193/JEE.31.2.209
Swinth, R. L., & Vinton, K. L. (1994). The video case assignment. Journal of
Management Education, 18(3), 359 363. doi:10.1177/105256299401800309
Thorn, K. (2011). The art of storyboarding. eLearn, 2011(8). doi:10.1145/2016
016.2024072
Truong-White, H., & McLean, L. (2015). Digital storytelling for transformative
global citizenship education. Canadian Journal of Education, 38(2), 1.
Tu, C.-H. (2004). Online collaborative learning communities: Twenty-one designs to
building an online collaborative learning community. Westport, CT: Libraries
Unlimited.
Willis, H. (2009). Video: The good, the bad, and the ugly. EDUCAUSE Review,
44(6), 106.
Woolfit, Z. (2015). The effective use of video in higher education. Retrieved from
https://www.inholland.nl/media/10230/the-effective-use-of-video-in-higher-educati
on-woolfitt-october-2015.pdf
Yassin, B. M., & Almasri, M. A. (2015). How to accommodate different learning
styles in the same classroom: Analysis of theories and methods of learning styles.
Canadian Social Science, 11(3), 26.
Chapter 10

Game-based Learning as Education

Method in the Digital Age:
Experiences at the Highest Military
Education Institution in Germany
with Online and Offline Game
Formats Related to Developing
Competencies$
Ronald Deckert, Felix Heymann and Maren Metz

Abstract
Game-based learning or simulation-based learning especially Serious
Games are notions of the contemporary discourse on digitalisation in the
higher education sector in Germany. These methods offer a more vivid and
motivating learning context and they help to improve important competen-
cies for reaching work-related higher education goals. This explorative
study focuses on experts’ experiences with digital and non-digital serious
games and their contribution towards developing self, social and manage-
ment competencies, in the Bundeswehr Command and Staff College in
Hamburg (Germany). Whilst there are numerous opportunities for using
serious games in higher education, their use creates barriers for addressing
social, as well as leadership/management competencies. In the future,
game-based learning and more specifically, digital game-based
learning could challenge the relation between learning as hard work and

$
The Military Education Institution of the study is Führungsakademie der
Bundeswehr, Hamburg.

The Disruptive Power of Online Education: Challenges, Opportunities, Responses, 185 204
Copyright r 2019 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISBN: 978-1-78754-326-3
186 Ronald Deckert et al.

learn for fun, and between explicit and goal-oriented learning and implicit,
incidental and explorative learning.

Keywords: Serious Games; gamification; edutainment; digital game-based

learning; simulation-based learning; digital competency development

10.1. Introduction
Game-based learning or simulation-based learning particularly Serious
Games are concepts across the methodological spectrum of learning
approaches, which are currently in the focus of discussion in higher education
circles (Schmid, Thom, & Görtz, 2016; Wannemacher, 2016; Willcox, Sarma, &
Lippel, 2016). Simulation-based learning is associated with a kind of digitalised
reality Wannemacher, 2016) and game-based learning is considered to enable
contextual learning (Willcox et al., 2016). Thinking about and bringing forward
advances in technology and learning methods is one side of the coin, but ultim-
ately, the purpose of education is not to use technology or methods, but rather,
to enable learners to construct, apply and develop their knowledge and compe-
tencies (Willcox et al., 2016). Competency-based approaches allow the learner to
focus on the context, intentions and sources of learning, as it will be discussed in
the following section.
This study focused on experts’ experiences in the Bundeswehr Command and
Staff College with the effective use of simulation-based methods. Specifically,
the purpose of the present study was to explore participants’ experiences with:
(1) simulations mainly combat simulations being a well-known military
training method, (2) military education and training, which help learners to ‘be
able to act’ in diverse situations, ranging from the battle field to diplomacy
matters and (3) developing competencies a strong focus of the present study
which is well-known and frequently practiced in military training. This study
was guided by the following research questions:

• What are the participants’ experiences with simulation-based learning?

• What are the participants’ experiences with military education and training?
• What are theparticipants’ experiences with competency-based learning in the
context of military training?

10.2. The Competency-based View

Higher education in Germany along with many other countries passed through
the Bologna Reform Process (European Commission, 2017) at the end of the
twentieth century with the Declarations of Sorbonne and Bologna in 1998 and
1999 (EHEA Secretariat, 2017). Competence orientation is a core aspect related
to this process. Competency-based learning is particularly relevant for
 Game-based Learning as Education Method in the Digital Age 187

game-based learning, such as Serious Games, which could support skill and
competencies’ development in an individualised and flexible way.
However, the implementation of competency-based learning approaches has
been questioned (Tenberg, 2014) and extensive research is on its way in
Germany (Wilhelm et al., 2014; Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, Pant, Lautenbach, &
Toepper, 2016). Competency-based learning offerings in Germany focus on
developing the following competencies:

• Self-competencies What is someone able to do on his own? (e.g. problem-

solving competence for special kinds of problems).
• Social competencies What is someone able to do related to others?
(e.g. communication competence).
• Leadership/management competencies How is someone able to lead and/or
manage? (e.g. team leader competence) (HRK, KMK, & BMBF, 2005).

Competencies like the ones mentioned earlier, can be used to provide struc-
ture (Neuberger, 2002), particularly within a higher education context
(Schlüter & Winde, 2009) and they create a vision for education, as they may
also promote social and emotional learning through technology (World
Economic Forum, 2015, 2016). Table 10.1 provides a short description of each
of those competencies:

10.3. Digital Learning

This section discusses the use of serious games as a learning method, placing it
in the context of digital learning concepts and more specifically, game-based
learning. We begin with a discussion of various digital learning concepts, where
we reflect on the commonalities and differences between them. Subsequently, we
turn our focus to game-based learning and its key characteristics and we then go
on to examine the concept of Serious Games and their uses in higher and further
education.

10.3.1. Digital Learning Concepts

In our attempt to understand game-based learning and more specifically, Serious
Games, in this section, we analyse the landscape of digital learning concepts.
With regard to digital learning concepts, digitalisation may have far-reaching
consequences for how people learn in the future. In line with the connectivistic
view (Siemens, 2005), the question arises, whether learning in the future might
be more implicit, incidental and explorative, occurring through the information,
events, problems or challenges of our social networks. This could imply that
learning will bear a greater resemblance to children’s learning. Children gain
maturity and they learn from their surroundings through social learning and
understanding, and more specifically, they learn through imitation, shared atten-
tion, empathy and social emotions (Meltzoff, Kuhl, Movellan, & Sejnowski,
2009).
188 Ronald Deckert et al.

Table 10.1. Description of the Competencies Based on HRK, KMK and

BMBF (2005); World Economic Forum (2015, 2016); Tenberg (2014).

Competencies Description
Self-competencies
Critical thinking/ Identifying, analysing and evaluating complex
problem-solving problems (situations, ideas, information) and
identifying and formulating appropriate solutions;
primarily in new and unfamiliar situations and also in
broad and multidisciplinary contexts
Creativity Imagining and crafting new, innovative ways of
addressing problems, answering questions or expressing
meaning through the application, synthesis or re-
purposing of knowledge
Curiosity Asking questions and demonstrating open-mindedness
and inquisitiveness
Initiative Undertaking self-paced new tasks or goals and
acquiring new knowledge and abilities independently
Persistence/grit Sustaining interest and effort and persevering in tasks
or goals
Adaptability Changing plans, methods or goals in light of new
information
Social Competencies
Communication Listening carefully, understanding correctly, conveying
information clearly and reasonably and placing this
information in context through verbal, non-verbal,
visual and written means
Collaboration Working in a team towards a common goal and ability
to prevent and manage conflicts successfully
Social and cultural Interacting with other people in a socially, culturally
awareness and ethically appropriate way
Leadership/Management Competencies
Leadership/ Directing, guiding and inspiring others to accomplish a
Management common goal, particularly in complex situations,
without complete information and related to ethical
aspects
Cognitive Dispositions
Knowledge and Verifiable availability of fundamental understanding
understanding and expertise, including application and transfer of
knowledge and methodological competence
 Game-based Learning as Education Method in the Digital Age 189

E-learning, edutainment, gamification and (digital) game-based learning are

different approaches, formats and concepts using the entertainment potential of
computer games to deliver educational content (Vollbrecht, 2008). Although
these concepts differ in terms of their educational intention and setting, the
boundaries between them are sometimes blurred. Transitions between inten-
tional, purposeful learning and non-systematic implicit learning constantly occur
and are nowadays virtually unavoidable in many modern media (Kübler, 1997).
Aside from purposeful learning, taking place for instance, as part of a formal
education programme or training, opportunities for non-systematic, implicit
learning are ubiquitous for instance, through social media, online networks, but
also within the game-based learning method, which combines explicit with impli-
cit learning. Correspondingly, overlaps become evident at various points and
clear boundaries cannot be drawn.
The most general category among the digital learning concepts mentioned
earlier e-learning, edutainment, gamification and game-based learning is
e-learning, which according to Hodson, Connolly and Saunders (2001) refers
mainly to aspects of computer-based learning, to interactive technologies and,
more widely, to distance learning. Edutainment is a concept that emerged in the
1990s and is a cross between education and entertainment. It refers to educa-
tional activities or multi-media learning environments that are entertaining or to
entertainment activities that are at the same time educational (Aufenanger,
2005). Essentially, the aim of edutainment is to impart content in a school-based
context, for instance when teaching languages, mathematics, physics or chemis-
try. It focuses on the training of skills and basic competencies (Egenfeldt-
Nielsen, 2006). In the edutainment format, the game element generally rewards
the learner for his or her efforts and is therefore subsidiary to, and typically not
an integral part of what is being learned. Gamification is still a new concept
used to describe the additional application of elements that are typical of games
in a non-game context. The focus is therefore not on playing a game but on add-
ing playful elements to different areas of application in order to motivate users
and award them with a feeling of success as well as pride and joy (Deterding,
Khaled, Nacke, & Dixon, 2011; Groh, 2012). In particular, this includes ele-
ments such as ranking lists, progress bars, high scores experience points or
awards. In a learning context, these elements are intended to motivate the user,
to encourage him or her to keep on learning, to promote a feeling of learning
success and also to help the learner identify with the learning concept.

10.3.2. Game-based Learning

Game-based learning and digital game-based learning are further concepts using
games for educational purposes for learners of any age.
A classical game-based learning format is the simulation game. This method
simulates complex real (socio-technical) systems in a stimulating learning con-
text. Digital game-based learning is restricted to digital formats using a playful
approach on a computer or online (Prensky, 2007). In digital game-based
learning settings, a product must have distinct features (Lampert, Schwinge, &
190 Ronald Deckert et al.

Tolks, 2009). For instance, (1) the context and content must be related in such a
manner that the user of the game actually feels like a player rather than a
learner. (2) Moreover, digital game-based learning only works if the same (high)
value is placed both on the game’s ability to engage and reward the user and on
the learning component. If this is not the case, the game becomes either a learn-
ing programmeme or a regular computer game mainly for entertainment. In
addition, (3) these two dimensions must be kept on an equally high level during
the entire course of the game.
The learning tasks are embedded in the game world. The learner must collect
objects, answer questions or pass tricky tests that are linked to content-related
information and questions. Digital game-based learning works primarily because
of the motivation generated by playing the game, which makes the player learn
automatically. Rieber, Smith and Noah (1998) describe this as ‘stealth learning’.
This refers to a setting in which, either the setting itself or the teacher conceals
the relevant content by applying clever and stimulating non-traditional tools
(e.g. games). The idea is to encourage students to have fun while learning. For
the player, it is motivating and rewarding not only to solve the tasks by acquir-
ing relevant knowledge and putting it in an appropriate context but also to
remain in the game and finish or win it. The learning activity is embedded in a
gaming act so that learning takes place incidentally in the game setting. This is
based on the idea that the (learning) game itself, and therefore the element of
play, is not a method restricted to a former, infantile or purpose-free way of
learning, but it is a purpose-guided learning method to be used freely across all
development phases and ages.
Game-based learning incorporates an educational intention and it is designed
around didactic principles, whilst it also maintains the features of a game
(Meier & Seufert, 2003). It allows learning through trial and error and the mas-
tering of tasks, to alternate between implicit and explicit learning, and to follow
personal interest and motivation.
The counterpart to educationally motivated games is entertainment games,
i.e. commercial computer games. These games sometimes contain elements that
draw the player into the game world, thus leading to an immersive experience.
As a rule, entertainment games are played primarily for the purpose of entertain-
ment, which does not preclude learning processes, though these tend to occur, if
at all, at an informal level.

10.3.3. The Serious Games Concept

Digital learning games are also called ‘serious games’. They represent a format
that primarily belongs to the category of digital game-based learning formats
and to e-simulations. As with gamification, serious games are not a stand-alone
learning format, but an additional element in a learning process. Serious games
go far beyond the aspect of pure knowledge transfer and are intended for train-
ing (Michael & Chen, 2006). In contrast to educationally oriented TV program-
memes, computer games have the advantage of requiring a high level of activity
and providing opportunities for interaction. In addition, the involvement of
 Game-based Learning as Education Method in the Digital Age 191

other players in multiplayer games creates the thrill of unpredictability, but also
provides opportunities to work together. The target group (individuals or
groups) includes all age groups but particularly addresses digital natives
(Prensky, 2001). Due to their online format, serious games can usually be played
independently of time and place. There is still no standard definition of the con-
cept of ‘serious games’ and its categorisation as a learning format. There is a
multitude of definitions, but none of them has so far become a standard defin-
ition. Consequently, the terms serious games, educational games, edutainment,
digital game-based learning, social impact games, persuasive games and games
for change are sometimes used synonymously (Sawyer & Smith, 2008; Susi,
Johannesson, & Backlund, 2007). In Germany, the term ‘serious games’ is cur-
rently used for all computer games that serve the purpose of simulation, training
and education in different fields (e.g. educational sector, medicine, military).
This makes a clear delineation of the term difficult. Wannemacher (2016) has
developed a structural representation of digitalised learning elements and for-
mats used in higher education in Germany. In this diagram, serious games are
of relevance in the categories ‘Game-Based Learning’ and depending on the
kind of game ‘Computer-Mediated Reality’ and ‘Simulation-Aided Learning’
(Wannemacher, 2016, p. 13).
Whether digital or not, simulations are models representing real systems in
which players assume a task or role and apply skills or act in certain ways that
require them to make decisions in a vivid and social learning context in order to
acquire knowledge for use in the real system (Kriz, 2001). Virtual reality situa-
tions in the form of serious games are useful, not only in cases where the situ-
ation rarely occurs in real life or would be too expensive or dangerous to be
practiced, but also because they allow content to be presented in an attractive
and motivating form.
Serious games developed from military board games and simulation games
and from flight simulators developed by the aviation industry. Military simula-
tion games date back to a modified version of the board game chess that was
used to try out different military strategies in the seventeenth century. The chess
pieces were altered to represent military units of the time and the board was
modified to reflect the actual terrain of the area in question. Between 1812 and
1824, Prussian Baron von Reisswitz developed his ‘tactical war game apparatus’
(Marr, 2010). This resembled a cabinet that contained various utensils including
the pieces, military equipment and realistic terrain features. In the following cen-
turies, the complexity of war simulators steadily increased, as wars were fought
not only on land but also in the air and at sea. Moreover, military equipment
was constantly being enhanced. Abt (1971) also had a strong influence on the
concept of serious games with his 1968 book of the same name. With the devel-
opment of personal computers in the 1980s and the rapid growth of their popu-
larity in the 1990s, Germany saw further technological advancements in game
visualisation. Nevertheless, Germany was behind the developments and experi-
ences in the field of serious games, in particular, the US. Since 2007, different
institutions have been established and various research projects carried out in
this field. For the first time, the Serious Games Conference was held within the
192 Ronald Deckert et al.

framework of the CeBIT Exhibition, and the Serious Games Award was spon-
sored by the Ministry of Economic Affairs of the German state of Hesse.
Experts in the field of serious games have no doubts that this field will continue
to evolve (Sawyer, 2005, 2007; Susi et al., 2007; van Eck, 2006).
Like all formats combining entertainment and education, serious games must
also be considered in terms of the relationship between education and entertain-
ment (see also Lampert, 2007; Singhal, Cody, Rogers, & Sabido, 2004;
Singhal & Rogers, 1999). Some authors believe that the main feature of serious
games is that the entertainment aspect is subordinate to the educational aspect
(Michael & Chen, 2006). According to Abt (1971), these games must have a
clear and well-thought-out educational purpose rather than offering mainly
entertainment. Other experts argue that the educational element should be sub-
ordinate to the entertainment element (Zyda, 2005). The only consensus that has
been reached so far is that serious games are computer games that are not
designed solely for entertainment. However, opinions still differ with regard to
the other purposes of such games. The context of the game and its adequate
employment are the key to its effectiveness. Contextual factors refer to the place
in which the game is employed, technological support and the learning environ-
ment. For serious games to be successful, they must have the best possible qual-
ity and functionality, as well as an appealing design and a high visual and
acoustic quality. Tempo and immediate reward are further factors determining
the success of a game. However, content is also essential, as players are tested by
having to accomplish tasks and reach goals. The players are awarded points for
their actions and these points allow them to compare their performance to that
of other players. There is another type of serious game that is not oriented
towards competition but focuses on learning by doing, which means that the
player can try out a particular process or action in a virtual environment to see
whether it produces the desired results. In terms of content, the tasks to be per-
formed can be dependent on, or independent of, the game story. An immersive
game ensures success and motivation. The game should be neither too easy nor
too difficult to play. It should never be boring and it should not constantly over-
tax the player. The level of difficulty is gradually increased and the player con-
tinuously experiences progress. Serious games adapt to the player’s level of
proficiency and thus lead to a feeling of success on the part of the player (Fritz,
2003; Vollbrecht, 2008). Moreover, serious games combine the features charac-
teristic of commercial computer games, such as a high level of motivation
(Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2006). Other essential factors that must be sufficiently taken
into account when designing the game’s content are social complexity, problem
management and problem-solving, as well as self-regulation. Consequently, an
educational goal, an attractive learning structure and the game’s skilful techno-
logical realisation are of utmost importance for the success of this method.
It makes sense to embed serious games in a set of activities and processes that
follow an educational approach in encouraging players to experiment and seek
solutions to problems (Boud & Feletti, 1991). Action, thought and communica-
tion patterns can then be observed. A subsequent analysis and reflection phase
provides the players with the opportunity not only to become aware of
 Game-based Learning as Education Method in the Digital Age 193

experiences, mental models, values, goals or behavioural rules associated with

the game but also to discuss and understand them and perhaps even change
them. This transfer from the game situation to the learning and working context
depends not so much on factual knowledge as on other aspects such as personal
learning competencies, procedures for acquiring knowledge and assistance with
retrieving knowledge (Wesener, 2004). Therefore, follow-up activities are essen-
tial, whether as a subsequent discussion or a period of reflection together with
other learners or a coach (Peters & Vissers, 2004). Coaching-based reflection is a
very helpful means to accompany the learning process over a period of time
(Theis & Helm, 2009). The conscious development and practice of action strat-
egies enable the learner to develop new action patterns (Kris, 2001). Learning in
a secure and manageable environment that simulates reality is an essential
requirement for the sustainability of this learning method. Different learning
aids can be included in this process to support learning (Bopp, 2005). These may
be tutorials, forums or introductory missions in a simplified and reduced gaming
environment can help to explain the rules of the game. Serious games are based
on traditional computer games and combine two aspects, namely a medium that
is already familiar to the player and a guided digital learning space. Other types
of media may also be integrated into serious games such as e-mails, text messa-
ging or supporting (educational) messages.
Serious games are employed in the fields of personnel recruitment, training,
personnel and organisational development, health management and leadership
development. In a business context, for example, the target groups are (poten-
tial) apprentices, employees and leadership personnel or, in the health sector,
specific groups such as patients. Serious games can be used to address a variety
of specific topics ranging from product and communication training to complex
decision-making processes. Serious games are used in higher education to sup-
port classroom teaching. In Anglo-American countries, game-based concepts
have already been employed many times with success (Antunes, Pacheco, &
Giovanela, 2012; Stringfield & Kramer, 2014). In Germany, higher education
institutions such as the RWTH Aachen University and Düsseldorf University
have used game-based scenarios, such as ‘Die Rettung der Zink & Co.’ (Liauw,
2012) and ‘Die Legende von Zyren’ (Knautz, Soubusta, & Orszullok, 2013),
respectively.
Moreover, Serious Games have long been used to train top-level military per-
sonnel at the Bundeswehr Command and Staff College. They can be subdivided
into the categories of staff exercises, simulation exercises and (computer-aided/
non-computer-aided) simulations/simulation games. Whereas staff exercises
focus on the basic, advanced and follow-on training of military leaders and staffs
in the command and control of armed forces, simulation exercises are especially
suitable for training and for exercising predefined military decision-making pro-
cesses. Simulation exercises are usually conducted with one or two parties. These
exercises are supported by various simulation models such as SIRA (simulation
system in support of command post exercises) and KORA/OA (corps-level
framework model for officer training). When it comes to non-computer-aided
simulations/simulation games, commercially available conflict simulation games
194 Ronald Deckert et al.

such as Commands & Colors by GMT Games are used. Similar to specifically
developed simulation games, these games are aimed not so much at training the
implementation of processes as at enhancing individual leadership skills based
on reflection on one’s own actions.

10.3.3.1. Learning with Serious Games

Playing games is a voluntary and intrinsically motivated activity that is pursued
its own sake and not with the intention of achieving specific teaching/learning
objectives (Huizinga, 2006; Oerter, 1999). Moreover, some people still have cer-
tain associations when it comes to learning, for example that learning always
requires a disagreeable amount of additional work. In a culture of learning,
many assume that learning is a serious business involving hard work and little
fun (Meier & Seufert, 2003). They believe that discovering their environment in
a playful manner is only possible during their leisure time and with considerable
freedom to do so. Natural, fun-based learning has largely been excluded from
the adult world. This apparent contradiction that game-playing and ‘more ser-
ious’ activities, such as learning, are mutually exclusive is refuted by serious
games. There is empirical evidence that educational video games are indeed
effective and those game elements can successfully support learning processes
(Consider this abbreviation (among others) instead of for example Egenfeldt-
Nielsen, 2006; Einsiedler, 1991).
Serious games are based on the concept of knowledge acquisition, as well as
on interaction (learning by doing/by pursuing an activity), as well as on testing
one’s own limits and trying out different roles (Theis & Helm, 2009). Playing
and learning take place simultaneously in serious games. Explicit learning is
accomplished by acquiring knowledge within the framework of intentional and
targeted learning activities, and the learners are aware that they are learning.
With implicit learning, knowledge acquisition occurs incidentally. Incidental
learning is generally understood as a process that takes place without the stu-
dents being aware that they are learning. Both explicit and implicit learning are
stimulated as students’ game-playing competence increases and by a didactic-
immersive game design (Lampert et al., 2009). In addition, serious games impart
declarative and procedural knowledge that relates to the world outside the
game. Declarative knowledge refers to the knowledge of facts and concepts and
it is gained through the transfer of knowledge. Procedural knowledge builds
upon the already acquired declarative knowledge and it is manifest in subcon-
scious routines and learning processes. Whilst declarative knowledge is explicit,
consciously accessible and it can be expressed verbally, procedural knowledge is
typically acquired through skills and it is difficult to articulate.
According to Klimmt (2008), both problem-solving and explorative actions
must be part of serious games. As long as the player is subjectively ‘within’ the
game world, implicit/incidental learning will take place throughout the game
cycle. If the player is unable to proceed, he or she will shift to a script of explicit
learning, but only as long as it takes to become re-immersed in the game world
and to apply the newly gained knowledge to the problem at hand. Therefore,
 Game-based Learning as Education Method in the Digital Age 195

game worlds should alternate between these two phases, while keeping the expli-
cit learning phases short and succinct. These explicit learning phases should not
require the user to abandon the game but should be part of the course of the
game (Bopp, 2005). In serious games, learning happens incidentally. At least,
this is the players’ impression. In fact, players go through a process of acquiring
knowledge both explicitly and implicitly.
The combination of knowledge transfer and the game’s setting has a positive
effect on motivation. Players, therefore, engage with a game and consequently
with a specific topic for a longer period. A high level of motivation and engage-
ment also ensures that players remember in-game experiences longer and retain
what they have learned more effectively than with other forms of learning
(Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2006). Serious games can generate high levels of intrinsic
motivation while they are being played and this motivation can be transferred to
the learning process (Marr, 2010). Another special characteristic is immersion,
which has addictive potential. Serious games are fun to play and generate a flow
effect. The term ‘flow’ refers to a state of complete concentration as the player is
absorbed in the activity he or she is performing and forgets the world outside
the game (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). In a state of flow, learning happens almost
incidentally. The same applies to the process of acquiring and making use of
skills. Once a challenge is overcome, the player feels good and receives approval.
This leads to a feeling not only of competence but also success and elation. The
player is encouraged to repeat previous actions. His or her responses can be tried
and tested a number of times and practiced or adapted as long as necessary.
Moreover, a high level of motivation on the part of the learner is a basic require-
ment for initiating and maintaining learning processes. Eckert (2009) and also
Theis and Helm (2009) regard this emotional involvement as the advantage of
serious games compared to other learning formats.
An important element in this context, and one that is also fun, is being able
to try things out. In the digital game world, the player does not have to know
everything. He or she has the opportunity to try out certain moves and receives
feedback from the system. Completing more game rounds, the player increas-
ingly expands his or her knowledge. Recurring patterns are memorised implicitly
and ensure that the player improves his or her performance and is able to master
the task more quickly and therefore control the game. The knowledge gained in
such game worlds can be thought of as a collection of ‘scripts’. A script contains
the knowledge required to deal with a certain type of situation, what things need
to be borne in mind when such a situation occurs, and which sequence of actions
would be appropriate in such a case. This knowledge is routinised by applying it
a number of times and is implemented automatically as soon as a situation
occurs that can be associated with a certain script. Expertise is characterised by
the fact that a person has a whole range of elaborate scripts at his or her dis-
posal and can apply them in a highly routine manner. This growing game-
playing competence leads to a feeling of joy and of being able to take appropri-
ate action. Feeling elated about one’s growing skills is an essential source of
motivation, as described by Behr, Klimmt and Vorderer (2008). In complex
game worlds, players not only have to apply previously established rules, i.e.
196 Ronald Deckert et al.

transform declarative knowledge into procedural knowledge, they also have to

generate procedural knowledge by interacting with the system. Players often
have difficulty explicating the knowledge they acquired implicitly while playing.
They know how to deal with certain situations, but in many cases, they are
hardly able to express this knowledge in words. The learning effect is strength-
ened by the didactic structuring of self-observation and self-reflection (Theis &
Helm, 2009).

10.4. Digital and Non-digital Game-based Learning

10.4.1. Digital Game-based Learning Settings at the Bundeswehr
Command and Staff College
Within the framework of education and training at the Bundeswehr Command
and Staff College, online and offline simulations are a good opportunity to
quickly introduce new topics. Both forms are used effectively in contexts where
there is limited scope for action and players are guided towards a previously
determined set of goals.
The digital game-based learning settings are uploaded from a DVD to a com-
puter and can be used without accessing the internet. SIRA (a simulation system
in support of command post exercises) is a constructive simulation system devel-
oped by CAE. The initiative for employing this simulation system was launched
in 1988 in order to ensure that training of Bundeswehr command personnel at
battalion and brigade level takes place in a cost-effective and environmentally-
friendly manner. KORA/OA, designed for one or multiple parties, focuses on
the realistic depiction of the deployment of land forces and the support rendered
to them by air and naval forces. Ecopolicy®, on the other hand, which is adver-
tised as a simulation and strategy game, recreates social, economic and political
interdependencies to generate a highly dynamic and complex game scenario. In
this setting, different scenarios can be played out, different roles assumed and
alternative solutions tried out. Decisions can be reconstructed and reflected on,
just as in a simulator. The reactions and reflections following a decision lead to
a change of perspective and the development of new patterns of action.
Interaction within such formats conveys first and foremost a feeling of self-
efficacy. Finally, the latest innovation in the digitalisation of education is the
implementation of a digital map table. This device allows to reach training
objectives regarding to operational planning processes in a far higher quality. As
it is possible to implement a time dimension within the process, this raises the
spectre of application also for war gaming. As there will be a further develop-
ment towards the additional dimension of simulation, the digital map table will
provide an enormous potential for the future development of digital game-based
learning.
Digital learning at the Bundeswehr Command and Staff College generally
focuses on developing management skills aimed at improving and expanding the
systematic application of previously learned military decision-making processes.
Special emphasis is placed on practicing the processes of situation assessment,
 Game-based Learning as Education Method in the Digital Age 197

decision-making and operations planning. Critical thinking, collaboration and

other soft skills are key elements of training conducted at the Bundeswehr
Command and Staff College. They are a by-product of the simulations. When it
comes to learning soft skills, non-computer-aided simulations and/or simulation
games are used. Similar to specifically developed simulation games, these games
are aimed not so much at training the implementation of processes as at enhan-
cing individual leadership skills, for example with regard to creativity or inter-
cultural competence based on the reflection of one’s own actions. This format
ensures that players quickly receive feedback.

10.5. Discussion Digital and Non-digital Game-based Learning

Formats at the Bundeswehr Command and Staff College
First of all, digital and non-digital game-based learning formats have certain
things in common. Both formats place the learning process in the hands of the
learner while being thoroughly structured and guiding the player towards certain
knowledge domains. Both formats are vehicles in the sense that they are part of
a methodology within a learning setting. They simulate and construct content in
such a way that experience leads to reflection. Common to both learning meth-
ods is supporting a high level of intrinsic motivation to learn, leading to the
development of a motivating learning scenario (Behr et al., 2008).
There are differences between the two methods in terms of observable compe-
tencies and knowledge acquisition. Whereas digital serious games generally use
a playful approach to imparting knowledge, non-digital game-based learning
formats, such as strategy games, focus especially on testing or ascertaining what
the player has already learned or knows and on encouraging the player to reflect
on his or her abilities and skills. Non-digital formats also focus on the player’s
ability to handle complex and stressful situations. Training conducted in a class-
room setting without digital support offers far greater scope for personality
development. Group dynamics become apparent particularly in situations where
there is direct contact and where players have to perform a task together.
Players take action, make decisions and communicate instinctively, which can
be observed and analysed. Transfer of knowledge and feedback can take place
immediately. By contrast, digital serious games lack the haptic effect and cannot
activate the full range of sensory channels. They mainly require and stimulate
mental flexibility and imagination, whereas unconscious thoughts or actions are
not revealed or analysed to the same extent that they would be when playing
non-digital games. Digital serious games, however, generate a slightly higher
level of learner autonomy, because learning rate, place and time can be adapted
to individual needs. Moreover, knowledge and action processes can be repeated
(i.e. simulated) under the same framework conditions. There are also better pos-
sibilities for documenting on-going processes because the course of the game can
be digitally recorded.
198 Ronald Deckert et al.

If one compares the competencies essential to higher education (see

Chapter 2) with the content and skills addressed by the two formats, one arrives
at the comparison shown in Table 10.2.
Neither format places much emphasis on developing creativity, because rou-
tines and fixed structures are required to complete them and because practising
these routine actions is, in fact, the object of these formats. Depending on the

Table 10.2. Comparing Digital and Non-digital Game Settings with Regard to
Competencies.

Competencies Digital Game-based Learning Non-digital Game-based

(Serious Games) Learning (Simulation Games)
Personal Competencies
Critical Can be addressed Can be addressed and formally
thinking/ reflected in a social context
problem-solving
Creativity Can be addressed within the The focus lies on the handling
limits of pre-specified, of routines; time and space for
digitally realised problem creativity have to be included
structures and solution
pathways
Curiosity Can be addressed Can be addressed and formally
reflected in a social context
Initiative If this is part of the specific Can be addressed and formally
aspect of the game is reflected in a social context
addressing
Persistence/grit If this is part of the specific Can be addressed and formally
aspect of the game is reflected in a social context
addressing
Adaptability Can be addressed Can be addressed and formally
reflected in a social context
Social Competencies
Communication If this is part of the specific Can be addressed and formally
aspect the game is addressing, reflected in a social context
to a limited extent due to the
spatial distance between the
players
Collaboration If this is part of the specific Can be addressed and formally
aspect the game is addressing, reflected in a social context
to a limited extent due to
spatial distance between the
players
 Game-based Learning as Education Method in the Digital Age 199

Table 10.2. (Continued )

Competencies Digital Game-based Learning Non-digital Game-based

(Serious Games) Learning (Simulation Games)
Social and If the serious game includes a Can be addressed and formally
cultural group scenario and on the reflected in a social context
awareness basis of digital realisation
Leadership/Management Competencies
Leadership/ If it is part of the serious Can be addressed and formally
management game and on the basis of reflected in a social context
digital realisation

game’s topic and parameters, all competencies described earlier can be covered
by both methods, although social competencies, in particular, can develop in
very different ways. Compared to simulations, and depending on the type of ser-
ious game, the possibilities for creating relationships may vary considerably.
One advantage of digital game formats is that a large number of people can
be trained simultaneously. A lot of information can be passed on. This approach
is very efficient in terms of the resources needed. Content must be prepared in
different ways, however, depending on whether digital or non-digital formats
are used. A webinar, for example, requires a different kind of preparation than
classroom training and synchronous and asynchronous web-based communica-
tion entails other challenges than face-to-face communication, but digital for-
mats still allow interaction within the learning environment and among the
students. For some, there may be too little interpersonal contact in digital educa-
tional formats. In such cases, the wider learning framework should include the
establishment of contacts, for example by setting up learning groups and discus-
sion forums or involving a learning consultant. Group processes can be observed
in serious games when players communicate or interact directly.
The use of digital game formats thus provides numerous possibilities for sup-
porting and enriching university studies in general and the treatment of specific
topics in particular.

10.6. Summary and Future Perspectives

Digital learning has become a firmly established form of learning and it is show-
ing positive developments. Greater emphasis is now being placed on adaptive
learning. Moreover, there will be a close connection between modern technolo-
gies and the education sector in the future according to expert interviews con-
ducted by the MMB-Institute for Media and Competence Research (mmb
Learning Delphi, 2015/2016).
Despite limited amount of empirical data on the subject, the lack of evalu-
ation studies and the resulting necessity to conduct further evaluations and
200 Ronald Deckert et al.

impact studies for the purpose of analysing the effectiveness of games in individ-
ual cases, current findings indicate that digital game-based learning formats are
especially in areas with limited scope for action. In this manageable area, learn-
ing goals and action processes can be identified and trained. The more accurate
objectives are formulated and the game is tailored to its target group, the more
effective the game will be and the more successful the learning experience.
Games, whether digital or not, have great potential and are much more than fun
and entertainment. Education through play remains an effective way to support
learning efforts.
Digital game-based learning formats, in particular, make it possible to impart
knowledge and generate interest and motivation for a given topic. Digital game-
based learning formats are a very new medium in the field of education and still
require further development. Universities and their departments should actively
contribute to shaping this modern format and should adapt it to the transfer of
knowledge and pursuit of learning objectives. This means that digital game-
based learning formats should be technically improved, but also that the content
should be tailored to the learning goal. The learning objective must be clearly
defined and the game-based learning format adapted to this goal. Game didac-
tics, game methodology and system requirements might need to be adjusted to
promote user group motivation.
In addition, questions remain as to whether and how group processes can be
digitalised or how relationships can be integrated and built into the digital pro-
cess. Another question that arises is how students could be supported through
digital learning. Developing a solid student identity will present a general chal-
lenge to digitalised education. Like in other topics, an important step forward
would be to learn from other universities around the world that have already
introduced Serious Games and also in a wider context, other digital forms of
education, and to join other platforms in order to gain some initial experience.
This will mean to continue to involve all higher education stakeholders in the
experiment of new digital game-based learning formats to create digital struc-
tures as a basis for further learning.

References
Abt, C. (1971). Ernste Spiele: Lernen durch gespielte Wirklichkeit. Köln:
Kiepenheuer & Witsch.
Antunes, M., Pacheco, M., & Giovanela, M. (2012). Design and implementation of
an educational game for teaching chemistry in Higher Education. Journal of
Chemical Education, 89, 517 521.
Aufenanger, S. (2005). Edutainment. Grundbegriffe Medienpädagogik (pp. 60 73.).
J. von Hüther & B. Schorb (Eds.), Munich: Kopaed.
Behr, K.-M., Klimmt, C., & Vorderer, P. (2008). Leistungshandeln und
Unterhaltungserleben im Computerspiel. In T. Quandt, J. Wimmer, & J. Wolling
(Eds.), Die Computerspieler. Studien zur Nutzung von Computergames.
(pp. 225 240). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
 Game-based Learning as Education Method in the Digital Age 201

Bopp, M. (2005). Immersive Didaktik: Verdeckte Lernhilfen und Framingprozesse

in Computerspielen. Kommunikation@gesellschaft: Journal für alte und neue
Medien aus soziologischer, kulturanthropologischer, und kommunikationswis-
senschaftlicher Perspektive, 6, article 2. Retrieved from http://www.kommunika-
tion-gesellschaft.de/B2_2005_Bopp.pdf
Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (Eds.). (1991). The challenge of problem-based learning.
London: Kogan Page.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Das Flow-Erlebnis. Jenseits von Angst und Langeweile
im Tun aufgehen (8th ed.). (Unpublished text), Stuttgart: Klett.
Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L. E., & Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: Toward
a definition. CHI 2011 Gamification Workshop Proceedings (pp. 1 4).
Vancouver: ACM.
Eck, v. R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who
are restless. EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 16 18.
Eckert, A. (2009). Serious Games: Einführung und Best-Practice-Beispiel: Der
Vodafone Code. Sonderdruck. Auszug aus: Eckert, Angelika: MarktCHECK:
Serious Games im Unternehmensumfeld.
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2006). Overview of research on the educational use of video
games. Digital Kompetanse, 1(3), 184 213.
EHEA Secretariat. (2017). History. Retrieved from http://www.ehea.info/article-
details.aspx?ArticleId=3
Einsiedler, W. (1991). Das Spiel der Kinder. Zur Pädagogik und Psychologie des
Kinderspiels. Klinkhardt: Bad Heilbrunn.
European Commission. (2017). The Bologna Process and the European Higher
Education Area. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/higher-edu-
cation/bologna-process_en.htm
Fritz, J. (2003). Zwischen Frust und Flow. Computerspiele. Bonn: Bundeszentrale
für politische Bildung. Retrieved from http://www.bpb.de/themen/8GADVU,0,0,
Zwischen_Frust_und_Flow.html
Groh, F. (2012). Gamification: State of the Art Definition and Utilization. In B. Asaj,
Könings, M. Poguntke, F. Schaub, & B. W. Weber (Eds.), Proceedings of 4the sem-
inar on Research Trends in Media Informatics (pp. 39 46). Ulm: Eigenverlag.
Hodson, P., Connolly, M., & Saunders, D. (2001). Can computer-based learning
support adult learners? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 25(3), 325 335.
HRK, KMK, BMBF. (2005). Qualifikationsrahmen für Deutsche Hochschulabschlüsse.
Retrieved from: http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/veroeffentlichungen_bes-
chluesse/2005/2005_04_21-Qualifikationsrahmen-HS-Abschluesse.pdf
Huisinga, J. (2006). Homo Ludens: Vom Ursprung der Kultur im Spiel. Hamburg:
Rowohlt Verlag.
Klimmt, C. (2008). Unterhaltungserleben bei Computerspielen. In K. Mitgutsch &
H. Rosenstingl (Eds.), Faszination Computerspielen. Theorie Kultur Erleben.
(pp. 7 17). Wien: Braumüller.
Knautz, K., Soubusta, S., & Orszullok, L. (2013). Game-based learning for digital
natives: Knowledge is just a click away. In D. Tan (Eds.), International
Conference on Advanced Information and Communication Technology for
Education (ICAICTE 2013) (pp. 74 78). Hainan, China: Atlantis Press.
202 Ronald Deckert et al.

Kris, W.-C. (2001). Die Planspielmethode als Lernumgebung. In H. Loebe & E.

Severing (Eds.), Planspiele im Internet: Konzepte und Praxisbeispiele für den
Einsatz in Aus- und Weiterbildung (pp. 41 64). Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.
Kübler, H. D. (1997). Bildungsmedien. In J. Hüther & B. Schorb (Eds.),
Grundbegriffe Medien Pädagogik (pp. 40 47). Munich: KoPäd.
Lampert, C. (2007). Gesundheitsförderung im Unterhaltungsformat: Wie Jugendliche
gesundheitsbezogene Botschaften in fiktionalen Fernsehangeboten wahrnehmen und
bewerten. Baden Baden: Nomos Verlag.
Lampert, C., Schwinge, C., & Tolks, D. (2009). Der gespielte Ernst des Lebens:
Bestandsaufnahme und Potenziale von Serious Games (for Health). Zeitschrift für
Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung, Special Issue 15/16. Retrieved from http://
www.medienpaed.com/15/#lampert0903Zeitschrift
Liauw, M. (2012). WBV-Fachtagung, 24. Oktober 2012. Retrieved from http://www.
wbv_fachtagung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/2012/Unterlagen/aktuell_Forum%203_
Liauw_Game%20Based%20Learning.pdf
Marr, A. C. (2010). Serious Games für die Informations- und Wissensvermittlung.
In: R. Fuhlrott, U. Krauß-Leichert, & C. H. Schütte (Eds.), B.I.T. online
Innovativ, 28. Wiesbaden: Dinges & Frick GmbH.
Meier, C., & Seufert, S. (2003). Game-based learning: Erfahrungen mit und
Perspektiven für digitale Lernspiele in der beruflichen Bildung. In A. Hohenstein &
K. Wilbers (Eds.), Handbuch E-Learning (pp. 1 17). Köln: Fachverlag Deutscher
Wirtschaftsdienst.
Meltzoff, A. N., Kuhl, P. K., Movellan, J., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2009). Foundations
for a new science of learning. Science, 325(5938), 284 288.
Michael, D., & Chen, S. (2006). Serious games: Games that educate, train, and
inform. Boston: Thomson CourseTechnology.
mmb Learning Delphi. (2015/2016). Mobiles Lernen wird der Umsatzbringer No. 1.
Retrieved from https://mmb-institut.de/mmb-trendmonitor/
Neuberger, O. (2002). Führen und führen lassen: Ansätze, Ergebnisse und Kritik der
Führungsforschung. 6th completely revised and expanded edition. Stuttgart: Lucius &
Lucius.
Oerter, R. (1999). Psychologie des Spiels. Weinheim: Beltz.
Peters, V. A., & Vissers, G. A. (2004). A simple classification model for debriefing
simulation games. Simulation & Gaming, 35(1), 70 84.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1 6.
Prensky, M. (2007). Digital game-based learning. St. Paul, Minnesota, USA: Paragon
House.
Rieber, L. P., Smith, L., & Noah, D. (1998). The value of serious play. Educational
Technology, 38(6), 29 37.
Sawyer, B. (2005). The state of serious games. Retrieved from http://www.gamasutra.
com/features/20051024/sawyer_01.shtml
Sawyer, B. (2007). 10 Myths about Serious Games. Retrieved from http://www.escapist-
magazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_121/2575-Ten-Myths-About-Serious-Games
Sawyer, B., & Smith, P. (2008). Serious Games Taxonomy. Presentation given at the
Game Developers Conference. Retrieved from http://www.seriousgames.org/pre-
sentations/serious-gamestaxonomy-2008_web.pdf
Schlüter, A., & Winde, M. (Eds.) (2009). Akademische Personalentwicklung. Eine
strategische Perspektive. Essen: Edition Stifterverband.
 Game-based Learning as Education Method in the Digital Age 203

Schmid, U., Thom, S., & Görtz, L. (2016). Ein Lebenlang Digital Lernen. Working
Paper No. 20 of HFD, MMB-Institute. Retrieved from: https://hochschulforumdi-
gitalisierung.de/sites/default/files/dateien/HFD_AP_Nr20_Lebenslanges_Lernen.pdf
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International
Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved from
http://www.itdl.org/journal/jan_05/article01.htm
Singhal, A., Cody, M. J., Rogers, E. M., & Sabido, M. (Eds.). (2004). Entertainment-
education and social change: History, research, and practice. Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Singhal, A., & Rogers, E. (1999). Entertainment-education: A communication strategy
for social change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stringfield, T., & Kramer, E. (2014). Benefits of a game-based review module in
chemistry courses for non-majors. Journal of Chemical Education, 91, 56 58.
Susi, T., Johannesson, M., & Backlund, P. (2007). Serious games: An overview.
Technical Reports, HS-IKI-TR-07-001. Retrieved from https:// www.his.se/upload/
19354/HS-%20IKI%20-TR-07-001.pdf
Tenberg, R. (2014). Competence-oriented study: Didactic reform of higher education
or Bologna-rhetoric? Journal of Technical Education, 2(1), 1 15. Retrieved from
http://www.journal-of-technical-education.de/index.php/joted/article/view/32
Theis, F., & Helm, M. (2009). Serious Games als Instrument in der
Führungskräfteentwicklung. In S. Laske, A. Orthey, & M. J. Schmidt (Eds.),
Personal Entwickeln: Das aktuelle Nachschlagewerk für Praktiker. 127(7.40), 1 14.
Vollbrecht, R. (2008). Computerspiele als medienpädagogische Herausforderung. In
J. Fritz (Ed.), Computerspiele(r) verstehen: Zugänge zu virtuellen Spielwelten für
Eltern und Pädagogen (pp. 236 262). Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.
Wannemacher, K. (2016). Digitale Lernszenarien im Hochschulbereich. Im Auftrag
der Themengruppe Innovationen in Lern- und Prüfszenarien koordiniert vom CHE
im Hochschulforum Digitalisierung. Submitted by the HIS Institute for
Development in Higher Education (HIS-HE). Essen: Edition Stifterverband.
Retrieved from https://hochschulforumdigitalisierung.de/sites/default/files/dateien/
HFD%20AP%20Nr%2015_Digitale%20Lernszenarien.pdf
Wesener, S. (2004). Spielen in virtuellen Welten: Eine Untersuchung von Transferprozessen
in Bildschirmspielen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Wilhelm, O., Baumert, J., von Davier, M., Jeschke, S., Seeber, S., Stemmler, G., &
Sumfleth, E. (2014). Audit-Bericht zur Förderbekanntmachung „Kompeten
zmodellierung und Kompetenzerfassung im Hochschulsektor. Retrieved from http://
www.kompetenzen-im-hochschulsektor.de/Dateien/Auditbericht_08_09_2014.pdf
Willcox, K. E., Sarma, S., & Lippel, P. H. (2016). Online education: A catalyst for Higher
Education reforms: Online Education Policy Initiative. Cambridge: Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. Retrieved from: https://oepi.mit.edu/sites/default/files/MIT%
20Online%20Education%20Policy%20Initiative%20April%202016_0.pdf
World Economic Forum / The Boston Consulting Group. (2015). New vision for edu-
cation: Unlocking the potential of technology. Retrieved from http://www3.
weforum.org/docs/WEFUSA_NewVisionforEducation_Report2015.pdf
World Economic Forum/ The Boston Consulting Group. (2016). New Vision for
Education: Fostering Social and Emotional Learning through Technology. Retrieved
from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_New_Vision_for_Education.pdf
204 Ronald Deckert et al.

Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Pant, H. A., Lautenbach, C., & Toepper, M. (Eds.).

(2016). Kompetenzmodelle und Instrumente der Kompetenzerfassung im
Hochschulsektor Validierungen und methodische Innovationen (KoKoHs):
Übersicht der Forschungsprojekte (KoKoHs Working Papers, 10). Berlin & Mainz:
Humboldt University & Johannes Gutenberg University. Retrieved from http://
www.kompetenzen-im-hochschulsektor.de/Dateien/WP10_final_032016.pdf
Zyda, M. (2005). From visual simulation to virtual reality to games. Computer,
38(9), 25 32.
Index

Academic lead, 49, 50 education’s role in identity

Academic resistance, 60 formation, 152 153
Academic rigor/rigour, 171 172, NTCP, 156 163
177 178, 179 180 Alaska Department of
digital storytelling in graduate- Education & Early
level assignments, 174 180 Development (DEED), 150
online learning and teaching, Alaska education system, 150
170 174 Alternation models, 153
Acculturation, 153 Alternative assessment format,
Acknowledgement, 36 168, 171 172
Adaptability, 188 American Psychological
Administrative processes, 20 21 Association (APA), 87
Administrators, key issues by, 32 American University, 30
competition, 34 35 American University of Beirut
guiding principles, 33 (AUB), 29 30, 33
implications on our brand Ancestral homelands, 152 153
name, 33 Andragogy, 57
measuring instructional Appreciation, 36, 103
effectiveness, 34 Arab world, 28, 38, 40, 41
MOOCs representing legitimate Assessment
way of delivering MA in conflict analysis and
education, 32 management, 177 178
Adult learning principles, 91 92 MA in global leadership,
Alaska, disrupting higher 179 180
education in Assignment
Alaska Natives immigrants, MA in conflict analysis and
151 152 management, 175 177
Alaska’s educational model, MA in global leadership, 179
153 154 Assimilation, 153
Alaska’s for disruption in
teacher education, 148 150 Belonging in community, 87 90
barriers to success of Biculturalism, 153 154
programme offerings, Bilingual, bicultural teacher
154 155 certification pipeline, 160
crisis in Alaska Native Bilingualism, 153 154
education, 150 151 Blended double degree model, 75
206 Index

Blended dual degree programme Cohort-based approach, 131 132,

partnership, 71 137
Blended learning, 15, 130 Collaboration, 112 113, 188
course, 159 behaviours, 105
Blended MBA-MGM double Collaborative learning, 55 56,
degree programme, 72 103 104, 127 130, 131
Bounded learning community, approaches, 3, 142
172 174 core affordances of SCPs for,
Building community, 92 93 104 106
Building relationships, 172 174 enabling through SCPs,
Bundeswehr Command and Staff 103 106
College monitoring and regulation, 106
digital and non-digital game- Collaborative tasks, 104 105,
based learning formats at, 110, 112, 114 115
197 199 Commissioning client, 45 46, 52
digital game-based learning Communication, 105, 188
settings at, 196 197 Communities of Learning (CoL),
Business model, 59 92
academic resistance, 60 Communities of Practice (CoP), 92
cost, 60 Community in conflict, 178, 179
cross-functional teams, 59 Competencies based on HRK,
KMK and BMBF, 188
CAM ‘Digital Conflict Story’ Competency-based view, 186 187
assignment, 176 Competition, 34 35
learning outcomes, 177 Computer-mediated
Classical game-based learning communication systems
format, 189 190 (CMC systems), 129
Classroom Computer-supported collaborative
delivery, 56 learning (CSCL), 104, 113
dynamics in digital teaching Computer-supported social
space, 3 4 collaborative learning
learning, 174 environment, 108 111
Client lead, 149 Conflict analysis and
Co-constructed knowledge, 112 management, MA in, 175
Co-constructed summaries, 110 assessment, 177 178
Co-constructive process, 105 106 assignment, 175 177
Co-creation of course design, Constructivist elements, 106
49 50 Contextual factors, 192
Coaching-based reflection, 193 Corporate executive education, 55
Cognitive dispositions, 188 Corps-level framework model for
Cognitive load, 111 officer training (KORA/
Cohort model, 159, 173 OA), 193, 196
 Index 207

Course Customised executive education,

activities, 91 45 47
description, 107 business model and inhibitors,
instructors, 38 59 60
reconceptualisation, 108 111 evaluation and outcomes,
Course commissioning and design, 58 59
technology role in, 48 technology role in course
co-creation of course design, commissioning and design,
49 50 48 54
course design, 53 54 technology role in course
roles in executive education delivery, 54 58
course design, 51 53 Customised executive education,
Course delivery, technology role 45 47
in, 54 differences with MOOCs, 47
collaborative learning, 55 56 field, 51
participants’ experience with
teaching and learning, 55 Declarative knowledge, 194
participation and engagement, Differentiated instruction, 101,
57 58 102
peer-to-peer learning, 56 57 Digital and non-digital game
tailoring to learning styles, settings comparison, 198
55 Digital conflict, 175 178
Creativity, 84, 188 Digital game-based learning,
Critical thinking/problem-solving, 189 190, 196
188 formats, 197 199
Cross-border collaborations, settings at Bundeswehr
67 68 Command and Staff
Cross-border internationalization, College, 196 197
65 Digital learning, 187
Cross-border online education, game-based learning, 189
benefits and barriers to, serious games concept, 190 196
68 70 Digital storytelling, 168, 169, 172,
Cross-functional teams, 59 174
Cultural programmes, 158 in graduate-level assignments,
Culturally responsive curriculum 174 180
and technology, positive Digital teaching space, changing
power of, 157 159 classroom dynamics in,
Culturally responsive project- 3 4
based learning, 159 Discipline, MOOCs work in,
Culturally responsive teaching, 36 37
158 Disruptive power of online
Curiosity, 188 education, 1
208 Index

changing classroom dynamics systemic innovation and

in digital teaching space, sustainability, 22
3 4 technology use at programme
online programmes and level, 19 20
programme design, 2 See also Online learning;
Disruptive technology discourse, 29 Scaling online learning
Distance e-portfolios, 178
degrees, 84 Edraak, 30, 34 35
learning, 170 171 Education(al), 91, 149 150
in online education, 126 127 role in identity formation,
Double degree model, 75 152 153
Double degree partnership, 74 setting, 127
Double degree programmes, technology, 9 10
internationalisation and, 65 theory, 55
benefits and barriers to cross- Edutainment, 189
border online education, Engagement, strategies for, 92
68 70 assignments, 95
expanding access to learning community forum, 94
international education, Q&A forum, 94
66 68 behind scenes outreach, 94
synchronous meetings, 95
e-Learning, 8 9, 189 weekly forum, 93 94
at Austrian Universities, 11 12 Engagement in online learning
environment, 131 engagement script, 85
implementation at programme online teaching principles,
level, 16 90 96
institutional change, welcome/orientation, 85 90
administrative processes Erasmus Mundi, 66
and policy development, EU-US Atlantis Program, 66
20 21 European standards in on-campus
learning resources, 20 programmes, 137
quality and quality assurance, Evaluation and outcomes, 58 59
21 22 Executive courses, 46 47
strong leadership and Executive Development Directors
institutional commitment, (EDD), 45
16 17 Executive education
supporting and developing context, 46
teaching staff in transition, course design, 51 53
17 18 environment, 59
supporting students in adapting Expectation management,
to new way of learning, 170 171
18 19 Explicit learning, 194
 Index 209

Face-to-face classroom teaching, IBM, 116

55 Implicit learning, 194
Faculty, 65 Incidental learning, 194
appreciation and Individual attention from
acknowledgement, 36 instructor, 38
benefits to, 73 74 Information technology, 11
effort, 36 Inhibitors, 59 60
key issues raised by, 35 Initiative, 188
making sense, 37 Institution(al), 65
MOOCs representing legitimate benefits to, 73 74
way of delivering change, 20 21
education, 35 36 commitment, 16 17
MOOCs work in discipline, programme-level approach for,
36 37 14 15
See also Teaching staff Instructional designs, 115
Financial aid systems, 69 Instructional effectiveness,
Fusion model, 154 measuring, 34
Instructor, individual attention
Game-based learning, 189 from, 38
competency-based view, International double degree, 74
186 187 International education, 68
digital and non-digital game- expanding access to, 66 68
based learning, 196 199 International models, 162 163
digital learning, 187 196 of success, 162 163
Gamification, 55, 189 International online
Global leadership, MA in, 178 collaborations, 68 69
assessment, 179 180 Internationalisation of online
assignment, 179 learning
Government funded programmes, internationalisation and
66 double degree programmes,
Graduate-level assignments, 65 70
digital storytelling in, 174 RRU-MCI double degree,
MA in conflict analysis and 70 76
management, 175 178
MA in global leadership, Knowledge and understanding,
178 180 188
Guiding principles, 33
Leadership, 16 17, 107
Higher Education Institutions leadership/management
(HEIs), 44 45 competencies, 187, 188
academic delivery team, 51 skills training in small-group
Human Resources (HR), 45 learning settings, 110, 112
210 Index

Learning Lone Ranger approach, 13 15

collaborative learning enabling Longer-term engagement, 67
through SCPs, 103 106
communities, 92 93 MAGL ‘presenting community
in community, 87 90 in conflict’
community forum, 86 87, 94 assignment, 180
community room, 86 learning outcomes, 181
concepts, 100 Management Centre Innsbruck
differentiated instruction and (MCI), 15 16, 19 20, 64,
personalised learning, 102 71
enhancement using TEL, 56 Management education, 126
outcomes, 177 178, 179 180 Massive Open Online Courses
participants’ experience with, (MOOCs), 2, 9, 28 29, 31,
55 44, 45, 48, 68
process, 115, 128, 136 administrators, key issues raised
resources, 20 by, 32 35
with serious games, 194 196 faculty, key issues raised by,
solutions team, 17 18 35 37
beyond standardised lecture- students, key issues raised by,
based instruction, 101 37 39
supporting students in adapting Master of Global Management
to new way of, 18 19 (MGM), 70
tailoring to learning styles, 55 MBA, 64, 70
See also Social collaborative MCI MBA-RRU MGM
learning environments partnership, 65
Learning management system MGM-MBA double degree
(LMS), 19, 55, 133, 136, programme, 72, 73
168 Military simulation games, 191
Learning paths, 102 Multi-media literacy, 174
personalised learning through, Multicultural models, 153
111 112, 114 Mutual high tech, 49, 50
personalised learning through Mutual low tech, 49
provision, 109 110
Lebanon, AUB in, 30 National Survey of Student
Lecture-based learning setting, Engagement (NSSE),
101 159 160
Legitimate way of delivering Native Teacher Certification
education, MOOCs Pathway (NTCP), 156
representing, 32, 35 38 international models of success,
LOGIC LEADS LEARNing, 32 162 163
methodology, 31 Net outcome for enrolment in
MOOC, 31 39 MOOC, 39
 Index 211

Network technology, 104 and programme design, 2

Networked learning, 129 Online teaching principles, 90
Non-digital game-based learning, applying adult learning
196 197 principles, 91 92
formats, 197 199 building community, 92 93
Non-traditional students, 67 strategies for engagement, 92
Open Educational Resources
Ogbu, John, 151 152 (OER), 9, 20
Omnidirectional mentorship, Open Space dialogue, 95
92 93 Organisational impact, 59
Online ‘Our brand name’, implications
double degree partnership, 75 on, 33
environment, 142
executive education, 54 Participants’ experience with
Online education, 67, 69, 126, teaching and learning, 55
136 137, 142 143 Participation and engagement,
case, 131 134 57 58
collaborative learning and, Participatory action research
127 130 methods, 172
distance in, 126 127 Peer-to-peer learning, 56 57
method, 131 Perception of presence, 172 174
strengths, 134 137, 139 Persistence/grit, 188
weaknesses, 137 141 Personalised learning, 102
Online learning, 11 13, 64, through learning paths,
66 68, 84 111 112, 114
alternative assessment formats through provision of learning
and academic rigor, paths, 109 110
171 172 Photovoice, 172
bounded learning community Playing games, 194
and perception of presence, Policy development, 20 21
172 174 Positive psychology, 157
distance learning and video Preliminary evaluation findings,
technology, 170 171 111 112
programme-level approach to, Primary learning environment,
13 14 SCPs as, 103
and teaching, 170 collaborative learning,
video technology and soft skills 103 104
acquisition, 174 core affordances of SCPs for
See also Scaling online learning collaborative learning,
Online programmes, 64 104 106
implementation, 17 Programme offerings, barriers to
online MBA programmes, 68 success of, 154 155
212 Index

Programme-level development and See also Online learning

implementation, 13 Self-competencies, 187, 188
advantages of programme-level Serious Games, 187, 190
approach, 14 15 learning with, 194 196
eLearning implementation at Serious Games Conference,
programme level, 16 22 191 192
for institution, 14 15 Settler society, 151
programme-level approach to Short-term online collaborations,
online learning, 13 14 76
for students, 14 Simulation system in support of
for teaching staff, 14 command post exercises
Public subsidies, 138 (SIRA), 193, 196
Simulation-based learning, 186
Quality and quality assurance, Skype, 173
21 22 Small Private Online Course
(SPOC), 44
Recognition, 38 39 Social and cultural awareness,
Reflection 188
blog post, 110 Social collaboration platforms
co-construction, 110 (SCPs), 3, 100, 104, 113
Royal Roads University (RRU), collaborative learning, 103 104
64, 70, 90 core affordances for
RRU-MCI double degree, 70 collaborative learning,
benefits to students, faculty and 104 106
institutions, 73 74 social enterprise network as,
lessons learned from RRU- 109, 111
MCI online double degree Social collaborative learning
partnership, 74 76 environments
program development and case, 107
design, 71 73 course description, 107
RRU and MCI profile, 70 71 encountered challenges of
traditional learning setting,
Scalability, 15 107 108
Scaling online learning learning beyond standardised
eLearning implementation at lecture-based instruction,
programme level, 16 22 101 106
beyond Lone Ranger approach, limitations, 117
13 15 potential for educating
setting scene, 8 9 tomorrow’s leaders,
short profile of MCI, 15 16 113 115
strategic imperative, 9 11 potential for tomorrow’s
strategic scope, 11 13 universities, 116 117
 Index 213

preliminary evaluation findings, Teaching staff

111 112 programme-level approach for,
reconceptualisation of course, 14
108 111 in transition, 17 18
Social competencies, 187, 188 See also Faculty
Social enterprise network as social Technology-enhanced learning
collaboration platform, (TEL), 44, 52 54
109, 111 learning enhancement using, 56
Social identity theory, 137 Traditional learning setting
Social interaction, 103 challenges, 107 108
Social isolation, 126 Transactional distance, 126 127
Socio-cultural learning setting, 111 Twelve Skills of Master Teachers,
SOCRATES programme, 66 159
Soft skills acquisition, 174
Standardised lecture-based United Nations Educational,
instruction, learning Scientific and Cultural
beyond, 101 106 Organisation (UNESCO),
Students, 68 69, 75 76, 91 163
in adapting to new way of University learning settings, 115
learning, supporting,
18 19 Video assignments, 171 173
benefits to, 73 74 format, 171
effort, 38 Video lectures, 168
individual attention from Video technology, 170 171, 174
instructor, 38 Virtual Classroom Access,
key issues raised by, 37 133 134
MOOCs representing legitimate Virtual community, 159
way of delivering Virtual learning course, 159
education, 37 38
net outcome for enrolment in Web 2.0 platforms, 104
MOOC, 39 Western Association of
programme-level approach for, Management (WAM),
14 84, 90
recognition, 38 39 WordlTM, 93
Sustainability, 22 World Indigenous Nations Higher
Symbolism, 91 Education Consortium
Synchronous meetings, 95 (WINHEC), 150
Systemic approach, 9
Systemic innovation, 22 Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta,
151
Teaching, participants’ experience Yupiit School District, 151
with, 55 Yupik teaching, 157