Ebenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

Home , Macquarie University

eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

November 2007

Prepared by Dr Maree Gosper

Assisted by

Ms Karen Woo Table of Content

Executive Summary ...... i

Recommendations...... iii

1. Introduction ...... 1

eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement ...... 1

Phase 1: Identification of policy, procedures and guidelines...... 2

Phase 2: Identification of good practice in the sector ...... 2

Phase 3: Griffith University review...... 3

2. A statement of context - vision and rationale for the use of technologies in learning and teaching...... 4

Sector activity ...... 4

The way forward – recommendations...... 6

3. Governance and management ...... 7

Sector activity ...... 8

The way forward – recommendations...... 10

4. Policy Framework – to guide practice and ensure quality and sustainability ...... 12

4.1 Infrastructure: Policy and guidelines around ICTs for teaching and learning to support mainstream use and innovative practice...... 13

4.2 Academic Practice – policies and guidelines that make reference to the implications for the use of ICTs ...... 17

4.3 Academic/Professional Development ...... 20

4.4 Student induction...... 21

4.5 Quality Assurance / Enhancement ...... 22

5. Managing decisions about new technologies for learning and teaching...... 25

References...... 27

Appendix 1: Report on the IRUA eBenchmarking Exercise (attached)

Appendix 2: Focus Group Report (attached) eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

Executive Summary

In May 2007, Macquarie University participated in an eLearning benchmarking exercise sponsored by Innovative Research Universities Australia. The universities involved were Macquarie, Griffith, La Trobe, Murdoch, Newcastle and Flinders. As a result of this exercise, Macquarie identified three benchmarks for further action:

1. Specific plans relating to the use of technologies for teaching and learning are aligned with the institution’s strategic and operational plans.

2. Decisions regarding the adoption of new technology are made within current policy frameworks.

3. Planning for technologies in teaching and learning is aligned with the budget process, i.e. funds are allocated to progress priorities.

Advancing the work in these three areas entailed two interrelated aspects. The first was the identification of policies, procedures and guidelines to form the nucleus of a policy framework to guide practice. The second was the identification of mechanisms for ensuring that institutional strategy, policy frameworks, planning and resourcing decisions are all aligned.

A three-phase approach was adopted. The first phase was a series of focus groups to identify areas for policy development. For this exercise policy was defined in its broadest sense as encompassing policy, procedures and guidelines.

The second phase was a web-based search of relevant policy frameworks, governance and management structures in place at a range of Australian and international universities.

The third phase was a further meeting of the benchmarking participants to explore the systems and practices in place at Griffith University in relation to the three benchmarking criteria. Griffith University was chosen because it was clearly the most advanced in this area – as identified in the initial benchmarking exercise.

The information gathered from each of these sources has been synthesised to form seventeen recommendations covering:

a statement of context, vision and rationale for the use of technologies for learning and teaching

governance and management of the use of technologies for learning and teaching

i eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

policy to guide practice and ensure quality and sustainability

managing decisions about new technologies for learning and teaching

Together, the recommendations provide the beginnings of a framework for governing and managing the adoption and use of technologies for learning and teaching at Macquarie in line with the three benchmarking principles outlined above.

Underpinning the recommendations is the principle that eLearning is not different or separate from learning. eLearning is simply the use of digital information and communication technologies to enhance the process of teaching and learning (eLearning Policy Committee, 2003). Currently, special consideration is being given to eLearning because of the pervasive and disruptive influence of web technologies on all aspects of learning and teaching and its implications for physical, technical and human infrastructure. However, with better understanding, technologies for learning should become ubiquitous and integrated into the broader umbrella of learning and teaching.

ii eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

Recommendations

1. A statement of context, vision and rationale for the use of technologies in learning and teaching

Recommendation 1

Reframe ‘eLearning’ as the use of technologies in learning and teaching in order to avoid any misconception that ‘eLearning’ and ‘learning’ are discrete entities.

Recommendation 2

Develop a vision, rationale and context for the use of technologies in learning and teaching at Macquarie University which articulates relationships with Macquarie’s vision, strategic directions and learning and teaching in general.

2. Governance and management

Recommendation 3

3.1 Reinforce the University’s Learning and Teaching Committee as the governing body for the use of technologies in learning and teaching in order to:

maximise integration into the University’s educational imperatives, strategic directions and operational plans

facilitate dissemination of policy, plans and procedures through the Associate Deans (Learning and Teaching) to the academic community

3.2 Recognise the Committee for IT Planning around Academic Priorities as the principle advisory committee to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Provost) and the Learning and Teaching Committee on all matters relating to the use of technologies in Learning and Teaching. This arrangement will maximise alignment with and interoperability with the University’s academic mission, its IT infrastructure and related enterprise systems.

Recommendation 4

Develop a Framework for Technologies in Learning and Teaching to complement the University’s Learning and Teaching Plan. The Framework will guide the development and use of technology for learning and teaching at Macquarie. It should include a vision for the use of technologies in learning and teaching, a portfolio of policies to guide practice, a strategic plan and an operational plan.

iii eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

Recommendation 5

Review, and develop where necessary, mechanisms to ensure that technologies for learning and teaching are adequately resourced and represented in the University’s budget procedures. In doing so, separate budget arrangements should be available for:

the maintenance and ongoing development of the University’s platform of mainstream technologies for learning and teaching

support for Innovation - the identification, test-bedding and integration of new technologies into mainstream systems.

All requests relating to the use of technologies in learning and teaching should be advanced through the governance and management arrangements arising from Recommendation 3. This will ensure alignment with strategic directions, plans and policy frameworks.

3. Policy– to guide practice and ensure quality and sustainability

3.1 Technical infrastructure

Recommendation 6

Develop policies, procedures or guidelines around the development and use of technologies and systems for learning and teaching purposes outside the platform supported by the Online Teaching Facility and Information Technology Services (ITS). These policies should cover:

Hosting on-campus

Requirements and conditions of use to ensure quality and compliance with University policy and regulatory frameworks.

The establishment of a mechanism for registering such technologies and systems for development and planning purposes

Hosting off-campus

Conditions and considerations for hosting systems, technologies, learning and teaching content and processes (e.g., blogs, wikis, discussion forums, surveys) off campus.

Establishment of a mechanism for registering off-campus hosting e.g., service level agreements might be lodged with ITS – to include security, back-up, management of information, confidentiality privacy arrangements, accessibility, support for staff and students etc.)

Recommendation 7

Develop a comprehensive suite of Institutional policies, procedures and guidelines around the development and use of the University’s Online Teaching Facility. The suite should include but not necessarily be limited to policy, procedures or guidelines around:

iv eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

Access

lifecycle of user accounts - creation, maintenance, deletion

user/access rights to online units – by whom and for what purpose

Administration

charging for use of technologies supported by the Online Teaching Facility

collection and use of data – by whom, purpose, access, conditions of use

Unit Management

ownership of online units, roles and responsibilities of stakeholders

lifecycle of online units – creation, maintenance, deletion, archiving

content management – development, maintenance, archiving, deletion (e.g. iLectures)

Quality Assurance

roles and responsibilities for technical, compliance and pedagogical dimensions

3.2 Academic practice

Recommendation 8

Define the roles, responsibilities and expectations of the University's central services, Faculty and individual staff in regard to decisions and practices surrounding the use of technologies in learning and teaching

Recommendation 9

Establish a minimum standard of web presence for every postgraduate and undergraduate coursework unit taught at Macquarie University.

Recommendation 10

Develop mechanisms to enable Faculty to plan and undertake the systematic development and maintenance of online units and materials. This could be through for example:

A service allocation (time and/or dollars) in the Learning and Teaching Centre for each Faculty

Faculty-maintained ‘sinking funds’ for online units

Recommendation 11

Develop Institutional guidelines for good practice in the use of technologies for learning and teaching. Included should be reference to curriculum design and delivery, materials development, student support, feedback, communication and interaction.

v eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

Recommendation 12

12.1 Review and update existing institutional policy relating to academic practice implications of the use of technologies in learning and teaching. These policies should include, but not necessarily be limited to:

program development and review

assessment including plagiarism and use of Turn-It-In software

academic workload – to recognise time for innovation

privacy and confidentiality

information and records management

access and equity

IP /copyright

quality assurance and enhancement

12.2 Identify instances where new policy may be necessary.

3.3 Professional development

Recommendation 13

13.1 Articulate the University’s expectations of staff in relation to developing their knowledge and skills in the use of technologies for learning and teaching

13.2 Identify and then integrate these expectations into relevant HR policy

13.3 Clarify the roles and responsibility of staff to develop and enhance skills in the use of technologies for learning and teaching.

13.4 Provide opportunities for staff to enhance their knowledge and skills in the use of technology for learning and teaching.

3.4 Student induction

Recommendation 14

14.1 Articulate the University's expectations of students as they relate to the use of technologies for learning and teaching to include:

minimum hardware, software and bandwidth requirements

knowledge and skills required to use technologies for learning

academic endeavours - knowledge creation and sharing, communication and interaction in an online environment

vi eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

use of the University’s platform of technologies for learning

ethical practice in the use of technologies

14.2 Review implications of minimum software/ hardware/ network requirements for access and equity

14.3 Identify and then integrate these expectations into relevant student documentation, for example codes of conduct, IT policies and guidelines.

3.5 Quality assurance / enhancement

Recommendation 15

15. 1 Adopt an holistic approach to quality assurance /enhancement around the use of technologies in learning and teaching that addresses three interrelated dimensions:

curriculum - interpreted in its broadest sense to include program development and delivery; students and their learning; and teaching.

technology - technical standards surrounding their use to ensure accessibility, interoperability and sustainability

organisational context – institutional arrangements in place to support staff and students and ensure compliance with the University’s policy frameworks

15.2 Embed each of the three dimensions into the University’s Quality Assurance and Enhancements arrangements.

Recommendation 16

Undertake further benchmarking on:

student training for the effective use of technologies for learning (ACODE Benchmark 7)

student support for the use of technologies for learning (ACODE Benchmark 8)

4. Managing decisions about new technologies for learning and teaching

Recommendation 17

Develop a process to support innovation and the integration of new technologies into the mainstream platform to include:

Procedures for identifying, test-bedding and embedding technologies into mainstream practice

Sources of funding

A governance process to ensure alignment with the University’s strategic and operational imperatives, particularly in learning and teaching. vii eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

1. Introduction

In May 2007, Macquarie University participated in an eLearning Benchmarking exercise run by the Innovative Research Universities Australia (IRUA) focusing on the use of technology in learning and teaching. The universities involved were Macquarie, Griffith, La Trobe, Murdoch, Newcastle and Flinders. Macquarie was represented by Dr Maree Gosper.

The two areas chosen by the respective Deputy Vice-Chancellors for attention were:

Institution policy and governance for technology supported learning and teaching

Professional development for academic staff in the effective use of technologies for learning and teaching

A report on the exercise and its outcomes is attached as Appendix 1.

As a result of exercise, Macquarie’s Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Provost) endorsed a recommendation for a follow-up project in the area of the governance and management of technology-supported teaching and learning. Three benchmarking criteria were identified for action:

1. Specific plans relating to the use of learning and teaching technologies are aligned with the institution’s strategic and operational plans.

2. Decisions regarding new technology adoption are made within current policy frameworks.

3. Planning for learning and teaching technologies is aligned with the budget process ie funds are allocated to progress priorities.

eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

The follow-up project, eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement, was led by Dr Maree Gosper, assisted by Ms Karen Woo (Research Assistant).

An Advisory Committee was convened to advise on the process and outcomes:

Professor Michael Johnson, Vice-President of Academic Senate Dr Marnie Hughes-Warrington, Chair of the University’s Learning and Teaching Committee Ms Mary Sharp, Director of Information Technology Services (ITS) Mr Andrew Burrell, Director of Centre for Flexible Learning (CFL) Mr John Knox, Lecturer, Department of Linguistics 1 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

Because of the paucity of specific plans, policies, procedures or guidelines surrounding the use of technologies in teaching and learning at Macquarie, the scope of activity was extended beyond the identification of mechanisms to support the three benchmarking criteria to incorporate the identification of relevant policies, procedures and guidelines for development. A three-phase plan was adopted.

Phase 1: Identification of policy, procedures and guidelines

Focus groups were conducted across the University to identify areas in need of support through policy, procedures and guidelines designed to enhance the quality of learning and teaching and at the same time foster creativity and innovation.

A full report on the focus groups, the methodology adopted and outcomes is attached as Appendix 2. In summary the issues raised for attention were around:

a statement of context to articulate a vision and rationale for the use of technologies in learning and teaching

funding for the development and maintenance of projects and infrastructure

the technologies - use and management of the University’s Learning Management System, hosting outside central services, identification of new technologies,

academic practice – workloads, guidelines for practice, copyright, assessment, open access to content, responsibility for decisions about the use of technologies

professional development and training

students' induction and development

quality assurance / enhancement

Phase 2: Identification of good practice in the sector

To supplement the information gained from the Benchmarking partners on organisatonal arrangements and procedures for ensuring alignment of plans, policies and budgetary processes, a web-based search was undertaken on Australian and international universities. Below is a list of the universities surveyed. The focus of the survey was on the Go8 Universities; however, other Australian and international university web sites were scanned.

Group of Eight

Australia National University Monash University

2 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

University of Adelaide University of Melbourne University of New South Wales University of Queensland University of Sydney

Other Australian Universities

University of Technology, Sydney University of Wollongong

Universities Overseas

Indiana University MIT Stanford University University of British Columbia

Phase 3: Griffith University review

A second meeting of the benchmarking participants was arranged to explore the systems and practices in place at Griffith University in relation to the three benchmarking criteria. Griffith University was chosen because it was clearly the most advanced in this area – as identified in the initial benchmarking exercise. Throughout this report, references will be made to the documentation obtained from the visit will be denoted as Griffith University (2007).

The information gathered from each of these sources has been synthesised to form a series of recommendations covering four broad areas.

1. A statement of context - vision and rationale for the use of technologies in learning and teaching 2. Governance and management of the use of technologies for learning and teaching 3. Policy Framework – to guide practice and ensure quality and sustainability 4. Managing decisions about new technologies for learning and teaching

The body of the report is organised around these four areas. Each area includes a summary of the Macquarie context, identification of good practice in the sector and recommendations for moving forward.

Together, the recommendations can provide the beginnings of a framework for guiding and managing the use of technologies in learning and teaching at Macquarie University.

3 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

2. A statement of context - vision and rationale for the use of technologies in learning and teaching

Over the past decade the adoption of web-based technologies for the delivery of education programs has impacted every aspect of University infrastructure - physical , technical and human resources – and is contributing to significant change in the way universities work. Reports emerging from Educause (Horizon, 2007), OECD (2007), BECTA (2007) - organisations which regularly report on current and future trends - indicate that the pace and impact of change is unlikely to lessen.

Coupled with this is a university environment characterised by diminishing resources, an increasing emphasis on research and greater accountability in teaching. Academic staff operating within this environment are finding it increasingly difficult to balance research and teaching. Various reports emanating from Macquarie (eLearning focus groups , VCDF evaluation) have found that introducing new technologies into the status quo comes at a cost both in time and in effort, that might otherwise be devoted to research. An observation from the focus groups was that academic staff are becoming more strategic about decisions on whether to embark on a pathway of innovation and change in their teaching. They were keen to understand whether their efforts would be recognised and valued. Sentiments being expressed were along the lines of Why bother – it’s a lot of work and effort. Is it valued? Will it help? Would I be better focusing on research? Is this the direction the University is taking?

Macquarie has had no formalised vision, strategic plans or related documentation to provide a context for answering these questions. Hence it is difficult for individuals and indeed Faculties to make a commitment to innovation and change. Calls for a vision, rationale and clear strategy for the use of technologies in learning and teaching are not new. In 2003/4 an eLearning Policy Committee was established to advise the Vice Chancellor on strategic directions, policies, plans and investment priorities in eLearning. However, the committee was disbanded in 2005 without any tangible outcome.

Sector activity

It is not uncommon for universities to provide a context for innovation and the role of technologies through vision statements that recognise the central role technologies play achieving the overall university mission of offering high quality education. They often aspire to the flexibility technologies allow for staff and students, and their ability to enhance communication and information access. The University of Melbourne identifies a role for technologies in connecting students to research, connecting students across the University,

4 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement and to internationalising their experience (University of Melbourne Curriculum Commission, 2007). Monash emphasises the integration of the physical and virtual environments for ubiquitous technology-enhanced learning, that builds on students’ previous experiences (Webster, 2007). UNSW sees the possibility of widening access for staff and students with disability through technologies (UNSw, 2005).

A significant observation when reviewing documentation from other universities is a movement away from the use of eLearning when referring to the use of technologies. This is, in part ,to overcome the perception (whether real or imagined) that eLearning is separate from mainstream learning (Sharpe, Benfield, Roberts, Francis, 2006). To reframe and refocus the debate to encompass a more integrated approach, the terms blended or integrated learning are being adopted.

Griffith University and Wollongong University, for example, have adopted the term blended learning, the University of Sydney, integrated learning, and UNSW, integrated and online learning. In many ways the introduction of these terms is introducing more terminology into an already crowded area – eLearning, flexible learning, online learning. Will this cause further confusion?

The terminology adopted by Monash is Educational Technology. An advantage of this terminology is that it situates the technology as an enabling tool whereas the terms eLearning, blended or even integrated learning suggest a new paradigm of learning, albeit with technology. On the other hand the term educational technology can imply a class of technology that is specifically devoted to educational use. However, in reality, the technologies used in learning and teaching are largely the same as those used in everyday life, for social, business, marketing and research purposes.

Macquarie tends to use eLearning, online learning and flexible learning interchangeably. The definition of eLearning adopted as a result of the work of the eLearning Policy Committee in 2003/4 was ‘ the use of digital technologies to enhance the process of learning and teaching.’ The words aptly portray technologies as servants to learning and teaching.

There is some value in building on this notion and abandoning all terminology (eLearning, flexible, online, blended or integrated learning) to avoid confusion and redundancy in terminology and simply use the phrase technologies in learning and teaching.

5 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

The way forward – recommendations

Recommendation 1

Reframe ‘eLearning’ as the use of technologies in learning and teaching in order to avoid any misconception that ‘eLearning’ and ‘learning’ are discrete entities.

Recommendation 2

Develop a vision, rationale and context for the use of technologies in learning and teaching at Macquarie University which articulates the relationships with Macquarie’s vision, strategic directions and learning and teaching in general.

6 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

3. Governance and management

The initial benchmarking exercise (Appendix 1) found that the governance and management of technology-supported teaching and learning at Macquarie was poor. At the institutional level there is not a well-articulated strategy, nor is there a comprehensive policy framework for the development and use of technologies in learning and teaching. In the past there have been broad-based statements of intent in strategic planning documents with strategies and priorities for action being defined in operational plans of organisational units – CFL, CPD, the Library, ITS.

In the absence of clear priorities and strategies for action, from a whole-of-Institution perspective the plans have lacked a coordinated strategic focus. McGaw (2006) described the efforts in relation to supporting and developing the use of technologies in learning and teaching as ad hoc, reactive and opportunistic.

The situationa would be reflective of the bottom-up rather than top-down approach adopted at Macquarie in relation to technology innovation. Fullan (2003) notes that bottom- up strategies are rarely effective in the long term and there needs to be a meeting of the two.

The developments that have taken place at Macquarie in 2007 can be seen as a response to the need to provide stronger leadership and management at the institutional level. The new Learning and Teaching Plan (2007) has made some progress towards integrating technology- related issues into mainstream learning and teaching agendas. However, comprehensive planning for the use and development of technologies for learning and teaching needs to extend beyond those issues represented.

The formation of the Committee for IT Planning around Academic Priorities, bringing together the core functions in the University, is a potentially effective forum for planning for technologies in learning and teaching within an integrated environment. The development of the IT Business Plan 2008/9 (Coordinated by Chris Bird) with expenditure against core strategic areas - Student Experience, Learning and Teaching , Research, Development and External Relations, Strategic Programs and Administration – has also been a positive step forward.

In this first round of IT planning the money allocated to teaching and learning is largely addressing shortfalls in current operations, and it has been allocated in a context of non-

7 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement existent institutional strategies, goals and plans in regard to technologies in learning and teaching. Subsequent rounds need to adequately cater for regular cycles of maintenance and renewal of mainstream infrastructure, as well as strategic projects to allow for innovation and development. Clearly defined governance and management arrangements around technologies for teaching and learning will help to ensure that proposals and decisions are aligned with strategic goals, directions and policy frameworks.

The developments during 2007, particularly a revitalised University Learning and Teaching Committee as a subcommittee of Senate, and the Committee for IT Planning around Academic Priorities, an advisory committee to the DVC (Provost), are positive steps forward. However the relationships between the two are still emerging, particularly in relation to governance of technologies for learning and teaching.

Sector activity

In the IRUA group, Griffith University was clearly more advanced than other participating institutions in relation to governance and management; hence their arrangements will be used as a point of reference. A number of other universities - Queensland, Sydney and Monash included – also have well defined structures. Monash is of interest because it has recently released (September 2007) an Educational Technology Framework (Webster, 2007). The Overview of this document states

The Framework provides a conceptual vision to guide the governance and policy needs for educational technology at Monash. Underlying the framework is a vision of a learning experience enriched by ubiquitous and integrated access to a range of educational technologies. (page 2)

The Framework also establishes the relationship with three further documents: the Educational Technology Policy, Educational Technology Operational Plan and Educational Technology Roadmap. The suite of documents covers governance through to implementation and evaluation for all stages of the development and usage of educational technologies within the University (page 3).

The Educational Technology Roadmap is a three year plan to guide the implementation and uptake of educational technology. It identifies technologies and budget details for submission to the University’s budget submission processes. The Educational Technology operational plan, updated annually, is to advance the implementation of educational technology developments specifying tasks, responsibilities and timeframes.

8 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

Both Monash and Griffith have established governance arrangements for technologies in learning and teaching within the broader arrangements for learning and teaching. This clearly establishes that decisions about the use of technologies for learning and teaching are primarily educational in nature. In addition both have recognised the complexity of the technology operating environment and have established a separate Advisory Committee for technology-related matters, including strategy, plans and policy, as shown in Figure 1. Griffith has a Learning Environments Committee and Monash an Educational Technology Committee. Emerging from and supporting the work of these Committees sets of policy and planning instruments.

Monash University Griffith University

Academic Board

Education Committee Learning and Teaching L & T Quality Committee Learning Environments Committee Ed Tech Innovation Educational and Development Technology

Figure 1: Governance arrangements for technologies in learning and

Monash is also proposing to establish an Educational Technology Innovation and Development Group with appropriate funding lines to support research, development and the advancement of educational technology. At Griffith this function is embedded within the Learning Environments Committee.

Both Monash and Griffith have financial arrangements for learning and teaching technologies that cover mainstream operations and innovation (Monash University, 2007). Importantly budget requests are linked to strategic and operational plans which are monitored by the governing bodies for alignment.

If Macquarie were to adopt a similar approach then governance would be in the remit of the Learning and Teaching Committee. The Committee for IT Planning around Academic Priorities would be an advisory committee to both the DVC (Provost) and the Learning and Teaching Committee, with responsibility for the development of strategic and operational plans, and a platform of policies to guide practice and ensure quality (Figure 2).

9 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

Proposed Structure for Macquarie University

Academic Senate DVC (Provost)

Learning & Teaching Committee for IT Planning Committee around Academic Priorities

Figure 2: Proposed Structure for Macquarie

There are clear advantages in such an arrangement in that it recognises the need to have a body of expertise with representation from stakeholders across the University to ensure alignment with University infrastructure and related enterprise systems. Integrating the work of the Committee for IT Planning around Academic Priorities with that of the Learning and Teaching Committee has the advantages of:

establishing technology in learning and teaching as an educational, rather than a technical, infrastructure imperative;

ensuring integration of perspectives on technology in learning and teaching into academic policy and planning;

ensuring alignment with strategic and operational plans for learning and teaching; and

establishing a communication pathway via the Associate Deans (Learning and Teaching) for the dissemination and implementation of decisions to the academic community. Dissemination of policy was identified as being problematic for all IRUA benchmarking partners and Griffith University has found the Deans and Associate Deans to be an very effective communication channel.

The way forward – recommendations

Recommendation 3

3.1 Reinforce the University’s Learning and Teaching Committee as the governing body for the use of technologies in learning and teaching in order to:

maximise integration into the University’s educational imperatives, strategic directions and operational plans

facilitate dissemination of policy, plans and procedures through the Associate Deans (Learning and Teaching) to the academic community

10 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

3.2 Recognise the Committee for IT Planning around for Academic Priorities as the principle advisory committee to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Provost) and the Learning and Teaching Committee on all matters relating to the use of technologies in Learning and Teaching. This arrangement will maximise alignment with and interoperability with the University’s academic mission, its IT infrastructure and related enterprise systems.

Recommendation 4

Recommendation 5

the maintenance and on-going development of the University’s platform of mainstream technologies for learning and teaching

support for innovation - the identification, test-bedding and integration of new technologies into mainstream systems.

All requests relating to the use of technologies in learning and teaching should be advanced through the governance and management arrangements which arise from Recommendation 3. This will ensure alignment with strategic directions, plans and policy frameworks.

11 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

4. Policy Framework – to guide practice and ensure quality and sustainability

For the benchmarking exercise policy was interpreted in its broadest sense to include procedures and guidelines (Refer to Appendix 1 for details). In comparison with the IRUA benchmarking partners Macquarie rated quite poorly in relation to criteria concerned with Institution-wide policy to guide the development and use of technologies in learning and teaching – this is not referring to the general IT Policy available on the ITS web site. Additionally few academic policies (e.g. assessment, confidentiality and privacy, access and equity) have been updated for implications arising from the increasing use of online technologies.

Notwithstanding this, Macquarie has functioned reasonably well, and this is largely due to the work of organisational units (e.g., the Library and CFL) and some Divisions in developing their own policies, operational procedures and guidelines. In some cases they operate as de facto University policy. A good example of this is use of WebCT. A surprising number of staff were under the impression that it was University policy to use WebCT.

The Focus Groups were primarily aimed at identifying the supports that staff and students would like in place to assure and enhance the quality of learning and teaching (with technologies) and at the same foster creativity and innovation. A report of the key issues that emerged is attached in Appendix 2 and some discussion is provided in the following sections.

Some significant observations around policy in general were that academic staff, in particular, were sensitive about maintaining a balance between regulation and innovation. On the one hand, they recognised the need for policy to ensure the quality of student’s learning and the establishment of a low-risk environment. On the other hand, they wanted to guard their independence and professionalism as well as their ability to experiment and innovate – an expectation when working a university environment.

The general consensus that emerged was that policy at the institutional level should capture strategic and statutory requirements, as well as University-wide issues that impact reputation, security and quality. Decisions about which technologies to use, for what purposes were best supported by institutional guidelines that could be interpreted at the Faculty, Departmental or even program level.

Five broad areas that were identified for policy development - infrastructure, academic practice, professional development, student induction and quality assurance. Not all areas will require institutional policy – in some cases procedures or guidelines will be more

12 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement appropriate. The recommendations arising from each of the areas s are based on the premise that policy is not meant to be prohibitive. On the contrary it should be enabling to:

ensure the best outcome for students and their learning.

ensure the alignment of specific plans relating to the use of learning and teaching technologies with Macquarie’s strategic and operational plans

ensure planning for learning and teaching technologies is aligned with budget processes

ensure decisions regarding the adoption of new technologies are made within strategic / policy frameworks

maximise the University’s investment in ICTS in a dynamic environment

4.1 Infrastructure: Policy and guidelines around ICTs for teaching and learning to support mainstream use and innovative practice

Macquarie provides high-level centralised support for the delivery of online programs though the Online Teaching Facility which houses WebCT (the University’s Learning Management system) and a range of other programs including iLecture, Wimba Voice Tools and LAMS. While use of the Online Teaching Facility has never been mandated it has been widely adopted across the University.

A centralised approach for enterprise level systems has advantages, for example, efficiencies in the provision of training and support; in ensuring interoperability with other infrastructure; and in ensuring quality. There are also efficiencies for staff and students in having a consistent approach across all programs. This has worked well for Macquarie University but, in the absence of clear guidelines around the use of the University’s preferred systems, there is no guarantee this arrangement will continue.

Technologies are becoming far more sophisticated and there is now a greater range of options available to support learning and teaching which are easy to set-up, access and use. It is far more feasible now, as opposed to two years ago, for staff to bypass the Online Teaching Facility and make their own arrangements for hosting services and teaching online. This is happening already with off-campus hosting of blogs and wikis and on-campus hosting of Breeze and Moodle in ICS and ACES respectively. Although ITS has policy and procedures around the use of systems outside those provided by central services, the focus is on ensuring stability of the University’s networks.

There are no mechanisms in place at Macquarie to monitor such systems in relation to the learning experience for students. This has multiple implications which need to be explored. What impact will this have on students? What implications are there for MQ branding and 13 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement reputation? How can quality (in relation to technical and compliance issue e.g., confidentiality, privacy, accessibility, copyright, IP, records management) be assured?

As we move into a more open access environment where students and staff will have greater access to technologies that can be used for learning and teaching, it will become more important for the University to have clear policy and guidelines around the conditions that have to be met to ensure a secure environment and a high quality learning experience for students.

Participants in the focus groups recognised the benefits of a centralised system. However they also wanted the ability to experiment and use new technologies as they come to hand. There was some concern about the capacity of central services to respond to their needs in a timely manner.

Within the IRUA group, all universities had a preferred Learning Management System operating centrally but none had mandated compulsory use of the centralised system and all were reluctant to do so. At Griffith, Faculties wishing to operate separate systems have to mirror the specifications of the Central system. This approach has the advantage of offering flexibility and choice in a controlled environment.

The challenges facing the sector from hosting of Web2 applications (blogs, wikis) off campus or even on campus are yet to be resolved. ACODE (Australasian Council for Open Distance and eLearning) devoted its August meeting to this topic. Universities were generally adopting a ‘wait-and–see’ approach to these applications and were monitoring activity.

At Macquarie, focus group evidence demonstrated the general low level of awareness of the technical and regulatory constraints that the University has to work within to ensure an equitable and accessible learning environment for all students. Given this, it would be prudent to provide some guidelines around hosting both on- and off-campus applications.

Recommendation 6

Develop policies, procedures or guidelines around the development and use of technologies and systems for learning and teaching outside the platform supported by the Online Teaching Facility and Information Technology Services covering:

14 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

Hosting on-campus

Requirements and conditions of use to ensure the quality of learning and teaching and compliance with University policy and regulatory frameworks.

The establishment of a mechanism for registering such technologies and systems for development and planning purposes

Hosting off-campus

Conditions and considerations for hosting systems, technologies, learning and teaching content and processes (e.g., blogs, wikis, discussion forums, surveys) off campus.

Establishment of a mechanism for registering off campus hosting e.g., service level agreements might be lodged with ITS – to include security, back-up, management of information, confidentiality, privacy arrangements, accessibility, support for staff and students etc)

The Use of the University’s Learning Management System

Like many universities, the operational practices around the use of learning management systems and associated learning technologies have gradually evolved over time. At Macquarie operational procedures adopted for the management of these technologies have not been formally endorsed at an institutional level, even though they have implications for academic practice – teaching, learning and the administration of programs and units. The procedures cover:

Access

lifecycle of user accounts - creation, maintenance, deletion

user/access rights to online units – by whom and for what purpose

Administration

charging for use of technologies supported by the Online Teaching Facility

collection and use of data – by whom, purpose, access, conditions of use

Unit Management

ownership of online units, roles and responsibilities of stakeholders

lifecycle of online units – creation, maintenance, deletion, archiving

15 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

content management – development, maintenance, archiving, deletion (e.g. iLectures)

Quality Assurance

roles and responsibilities for technical, compliance and pedagogical dimensions

While CFL has endeavoured to develop internal policy with a sensitivity to academic need, it is aware that these policies will need to be reviewed for academic integrity and, where necessary, endorsed as Institutional Policy. Example policies in this area can be found on the web site of the University of Queensland (2007).

The way forward – recommendations

Recommendation 7

Access

lifecycle of user accounts - creation, maintenance, deletion

user/access rights to online units – by whom and for what purpose

Administration

charging for use of technologies supported by the Online Teaching Facility

collection and use of data – by whom, purpose, access, conditions of use

Unit Management

ownership of online units, roles and responsibilities of stakeholders

lifecycle of online units – creation, maintenance, deletion, archiving

content management – development, maintenance, archiving, deletion (e.g. iLectures)

Quality Assurance

roles and responsibilities for technical, compliance and pedagogical dimensions

16 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

4.2 Academic Practice – policies and guidelines that make reference to the implications for the use of ICTs

While opening up new possibilities, the use of technologies is also changing well-established practices. New roles have emerged, and work practices have changed. So too have relationships between academics, supporting staff and service units. Quite often these changing practices are not reflected in existing policy and procedures describing the academic work as it relates learning and teaching.

Arising from the focus groups was an expressed need to more clearly define the roles and responsibilities of individuals, Faculties and the Institution in relation to academic practice. There was strong consensus that decisions about which technologies to use for what purposes and responsibility for teaching and learning should remain within Faculties. This was sent to be essential to preserve the different philosophical and epistemological orientations of disciplines, differences in approaches to learning and teaching and the differing needs and expectations of students.

The Monash approach provides insights into how this can be dealt with. Their Educational Technology Policy gives the technology decisions to its faculties. This policy also sets out the areas for evaluation of software, the essential software characteristics, and the faculty-level support and communication required in educational technology planning.

The Educational Technology Procedures (Monash University, 2007c) specify that “Deans are requested to include in their faculty operational plans their vision of the use of educational technology in their faculty, and the means by which they will achieve it.”

In the Flexibility in Pedagogy Policy (Monash University, 2007d), faculties are given guidelines which include specification of student and staff benefits and considerations of impacts and workloads, as well as responsibility to communicate with the affected communities.

Some universities have gone one step further and have also defined a minimum web presence for programs and units (e.g. University of Melbourne, Griffith and Flinders University). A minimum online presence can range from unit descriptors and administrative information through to unit outlines, reference lists, assessment requirements, and communications tools (as is the case at Flinders). Given predominance of the web as a primary source of information for current and prospective students it is hard to argue against this approach.

At Macquarie a minimum web presence for every unit would enable seamless access to one source of accurate and up-to-date information. Thus overcoming the multiple sources and

17 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement confusing pathways currently in place (e.g., through the University Handbook, Departmental pages, public pages on the Online Teaching Facility).

The way forward – recommendations

Recommendation 8

Define the roles, responsibilities and expectations of the University central services, Faculty and individuals in regard to decisions and practices surrounding the use of technologies in learning and teaching

Recommendation 9

Establish a minimum standard of web presence for every postgraduate and undergraduate coursework unit taught at Macquarie University.

The development of online units and teaching materials requires specialist expertise which is often beyond the expected skill set of individual academics. And, while initial support is often available through the various Macquarie University grant schemes, regular maintenance and further development is usually not resourced. This has been a recognised concern for some time at Macquarie as identified in an evaluation of flexible learning projects supported by the Vice-Chancellors Development Fund 1997 to 2001 (Gosper, 2002). It is still a concern as evidenced in comments from focus group participants.

Two different approaches to the managing the development and regular maintenance of online units and materials have been adopted by Griffith and Monash. At Monash the Educational Technology Procedures (Monash University, 2007c) specify: Deans are requested to include in their faculty operational plans their vision of the use of educational technology in their faculty, and the means by which they will achieve it. Faculties are responsible for providing grants focussed on educational technology in order to allow Heads of Departments to compensate for staff who are preparing educational technology-based material and therefore unable to carry out other duties. Each faculty should fund its own educational developer to implement staff ideas and to teach staff how to use technologies effectively.

18 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

At Griffith the Flexible Learning Access Services (FLAS is similar to CFL) allocates a quantum of time and services to each Faculty. Each year the Faculties develop operational plans in consultation with FLAS to determine priorities and projects for the forthcoming year. To ensure alignment with strategic directions of the University, decisions are endorsed by the Faculty- level Pro-Vice Chancellor and then forwarded to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor for approval.

The way forward – recommendations

Recommendation 10

Develop mechanisms to enable Faculties to plan and undertake the systematic development and maintenance of online units and materials. This could be through for example:

A service allocation (time and/or dollars) in the Learning and Teaching Centre for each Faculty

Faculty-maintained ‘sinking funds’ for online units

Recommendation 11

Roles, responsibilities and expectations of staff and students in online environment are changing with new complexities arising in the interrelationships between the curriculum, the technologies and the organisational environment. There are implications for a range of academic policies and practices including but not limited to: o assessment o plagiarism - use of Turn-it-in software o IP / Copyright o archiving of materials, records and interactions o confidentiality and privacy o course review o access (including disability) and equity

In the absence of institutional policies, some Departments have developed their own response to the changing conditions. The Department of Sociology, for example has

19 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement developed its own policy and procedures around the use of Turn-It-In. The exact nature and extent of local level policy is unclear; however the work done at the local level should provide a good basis for developing a consolidated understanding of issues and translating this to University policy.

The way forward – recommendations

Recommendation 12

12.1 Review and update existing institutional policy relating to academic practice, taking into account implications of the use of technologies in learning and teaching. These policies should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following areas: program development and review assessment including plagiarism and use of Turn-It-In academic workload privacy and confidentiality information and records management access and equity IP/ Copyright quality assurance and enhancement

12.2 Identify instances where new policy may be necessary

4.3 Academic/Professional Development

The online environment is quite complex and the focus groups revealed a relatively low awareness of the issues and constraints that accompanied the use of technologies in learning and teaching, for example, those arising from statutory requirements (copyright, accessibility, records management, confidentiality) and the technicalities underpinning the need for a secure, interoperable and low-risk environment.

The knowledge and skills required of staff cover three interrelated areas (Gosper, Woo, Huir, Dudley, Nakazawa, 2007):

design and delivery of the curriculum

technical skills in using software and systems

the organisational context including statutory requirements copyright, accessibility, records management, confidentiality

20 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

While CFL and CPD provide programs of activities and resources covering most of these areas, staff (casuals included) are often not aware of their obligations to upskill. Above all, as evidenced through the focus groups, the biggest inhibitor to the acquisition and enhancement of skills and knowledge is time, particularly in an environment with many competing priorities.

The way forward – recommendations

Recommendation 13

13.1 Articulate the University’s expectations of staff in relation to developing their knowledge and skills in the use of technologies for learning and teaching

13.2 Identify and then integrate these expectations into relevant HR policy

13.3 Clarify the roles and responsibility of staff to develop and enhance skills in the use of technologies for learning and teaching.

13.4 Provide opportunities for staff to enhance their knowledge and skills in the use of technology for learning and teaching.

4.4 Student induction

It was clear from the focus groups that there was no common understanding of student and staff responsibilities and expectation of learning online. Students are not clear about what they can reasonably expect from the university, for example:

The level of computer access on campus

IT training, support and help

Access to unit information and learning resources online

Staff availability and response times

They were also unclear about what they needed to have and know in order to effectively study at the University, for example:

the expected computing requirements – hardware software, network connections, skills

special computing requirements for particular courses

what constitutes acceptable behaviour online

processes for resolving conflicts and misbehaviour online 21 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

conditions around the use and re-use of content – students making content available to the public

Most universities have a single, simple page for new students that inform them of the rules and regulations; how to access their uni email account, student portal and learning management system; and on-campus computing facilities. Some universities have provided online IT training for students to get up to speed with standard software (e.g. Microsoft Office) or a list of acronyms that are used in the university.

UniMelb: http://www.studentit.unimelb.edu.au/itguide/start/index.html Monash: http://www.monash.edu.au/students/computer/ UNSW: http://www.disconnect.unsw.edu.au/student/zhome.htm

The way forward – recommendations

Recommendation 14

14.1 Articulate the expectations of students as they relate to the use of technologies for learning and teaching. To include:

1. minimum hardware, software and bandwidth requirements

2. knowledge and skills required to use technologies for learning

3. academic endeavours - knowledge creation and sharing, communication and interaction in an online environment

4. use of the University’s platform of technologies for learning

5. ethical practice in the use of technologies

14.2 Review implications of minimum software/ hardware/ network requirements for access and equity

14.3 Identify and then integrate these expectations into relevant student documentation for example, codes of conduct, IT policies and guidelines.

4.5 Quality Assurance / Enhancement

An observation from the focus groups was that where policies already exist in the University (for example, in relation to copyright), dissemination and integration into practice has not

22 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement necessarily been effective. As such, the challenge for the University will not be so much in development of policy but in its dissemination and implementation.

To improve dissemination, participants were keen to have all policies located in a central register. Dissemination will also be enhanced through the proposed governance and management arrangements for the use of technologies in learning and teaching (Recommendation 3), along with the increased support for learning and teaching through the academic restructure. Furthermore, Deans, Associate Deans and Directors of Learning and Teaching will have a pivotal role in managing dissemination and implementation. What will be critical to the whole process will be the integration of policy into the University’s quality assurance and enhancement arrangements.

The way forward – recommendations

Recommendation 15

15. 1 Adopt an holistic approach to quality assurance /enhancement around the use of technologies in learning and teaching that addresses three interrelated dimensions:

The curriculum - interpreted in its broadest sense to include program development and delivery; students and their learning; and teaching.

The technology - technical standards surrounding is use to ensure accessibility, interoperability and sustainability

The organisational context –institutional arrangements in place to support staff and students and ensure compliance with the University’s policy frameworks

15.2 Embed each of the three dimensions into the university’s Quality Assurance and Enhancements arrangements.

A significant observation arising from the focus groups was that staff were often not aware of the circumstances and concerns of students. Single sign-on, a single entry point to online units, standardising the software used across programs and Departments, negotiating the University’s web site, use of student email, understanding the University ’jargon’ were examples of these concerns. Importantly Staff were not always aware of the impact of these on student’s learning. The gap in understanding highlighted the need to be vigilant in gaining feedback from students in order to understand their circumstances and the challenges they are facing.

23 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

The importance of understanding and ensuring the quality of the student support experience has been recognised through the new Learning and Teaching Plan. Nevertheless, the University could benefit from a greater understanding of technology related issues which could be achieved through further benchmarking in this area.

Recommendation 16

Undertake further benchmarking on:

1. Student training for the effective use of technologies for learning (ACODE Benchmark 7)

2. Student support for the use of technologies for learning (ACODE Benchmark 8)

24 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

5. Managing decisions about new technologies for learning and teaching

In an environment where new technologies are emerging at a rapid and consistent pace, maintaining a platform of technologies that supports mainstream practice, meets the expectations of students and supports innovation is a constant challenge facing universities across the sector.

Macquarie, like a number of other universities has recognised that separate arrangements are necessary for the management and funding of: 1. the development and maintenance or the University’s mainstream platform of technologies (addressed in section 4.1) 2. mechanisms to support innovation and the integration of new technologies into mainstream practice.

The latter is a resource intensive and risk adverse endeavour that is essential if Macquarie wishes to remain competitive and live up to its claim of being the Innovative University. In managing the endeavour we need to recognise that:

The student experience must not be compromised

Support should cover technical infrastructure; evaluation processes; assistance for staff in developing and implementing innovative practice; documentation and troubleshooting assistance for students.

Alternate business models may need to be developed for technologies which are effective but have limited application.

New technologies must be sustainable within the organisation.

Decisions about new technologies must be aligned with the University’s strategic and operational imperatives, particularly in learning and teaching.

Monash and Griffith have well developed processes and procedures to manage innovation and integration. At Griffith the arrangements are governed through the Learning Environments Committee – a subcommittee of the Learning and Teaching Committee. Arrangements include:

Grants for individuals and groups to encourage innovation

An Emerging Technology Process (Griffith 2007) s for identifying technologies for potential integration into the University’s platform

An Emerging Technology Matrix (Griffith 2007) for evaluating new technologies which is inclusive of educational, technical and organisational criteria

25 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

Funding through the Electronic Infrastructure Capital Plan for integrating new technologies into the University’s infrastructure and academic practices

Monash articulates the process of mainstreaming innovation in its Educational Technology Framework (Webster, 2007), which is also echoed in its ICT Strategic Plan. It contains a substantial section on Education ICT innovations (Monash University, 2007e). A five stage model for innovation support is proposed where university support is not provided until the third or forth stages. It specifies that the Educational Technology Committee has responsibility for encouraging examples of best practice to be mainstreamed if successful. There is a proposed Educational Technology Innovation and Development Group to oversee the development, rollout, evaluation, provide advice, and administer small grants for educational technology innovations.

Figure 1: Monash University’s innovation support model (Webster, 2007)

The way forward – recommendations

Recommendation 17

Develop a process to support innovation and the integration of new technologies into the mainstream platform to include:

Procedures for identifying, test-bedding and embedding technologies into mainstream practice

Sources of funding

A governance process to ensure alignment with the University’s strategic and operational imperatives, particularly in learning and teaching.

26 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

References

Becta. (2007). Emerging technologies for learning (Volume 2). Coventry, United Kingdom. [Online] Available at http://www.becta.org.uk/research/reports/emergingtechnologies eLearning Policy Committee. (2003). eLearning Definition: Available from the Director of Centre for Flexible Learning.

Fullan, M. (2003). Chapter 3: New lessons for complex change, Change forces with a vengance. London: Falmer Press.

Gosper, M. (2002). Evaluation of flexible learning projects assisted by the Vice-Chancellors Development fund 1997 to 2001. Macquarie University, Sydney: Centre for Flexible Learning. Macquarie University.

Gosper, M., Woo, K., Muir, H., Dudley, C., & Nakazawa, K. (2007). Selecting ICT based solutions for quality learning and sustainable practice. Australiasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 227-247. [Online] Available at http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet23/gosper.html

Griffith University. (2007). Documentations from the IRUA eBenchmarking Visit to Griffith University.

Horizon. (2007). The Horizon Report: The New Media Consortium and the Educause Learning Initiative. [Online] Available at http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2007_Horizon_Report.pdf

Learning and Teaching Committee. (2007). Learning and Teaching Plan. [Online] Available at http://www.mq.edu.au/provost/planning/landt-plan.html

McGaw. (2006). Report on Learning and Teaching Support Services at Macquarie: Macquarie University.

Monash University. (2007a). Education Support Strategic Roadmap. [Online] Available at http://www.calt.monash.edu.au/Quality/ETC/governancegateway/governance.html

Monash University. (2007b). Educational Technology Policy. [Online] Available at http://policy.monash.edu.au/policy- bank/academic/education/management/educational-technology-policy.html

27 eBenchmarking for Quality Enhancement

Monash University. (2007c). Educational Technology Procedure. [Online] Available at http://www.policy.monash.edu/policy- bank/academic/education/management/educational-technology-procedures.html

Monash University. (2007d). Flexibility in Pedagogy Policy. [Online] Available at http://policy.monash.edu.au/policy- bank/academic/education/management/flexibility-in-pedagogy-policy.html

Monash University. (2007e). Flexibility in Pedagogy Policy. [Online] Available at http://policy.monash.edu.au/policy- bank/academic/education/management/flexibility-in-pedagogy-policy.html

OECD. (2005). Policy Brief: E-learning in Tertiary Education.: Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development. [Online] Available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/55/25/35961132.pdf

Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G., & Francis, R. (2006). The undergradaute experience of blended e-learning: a review of UK literature and practice: Higher Education Academy. [Online] Available at http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/ourwork/research/ literature_reviews/blended_elearning_full_review.pdf

University of Melbourne Curriculum Commission. (2007). The Melbourne Model: Report of the Curriculum Commission. [Online] Available at http://growingesteem.unimelb.edu.au/docs/cc_report_on_the_melbourne_model.pdf

University of Queensland. (2007). eLearn System Management Policy. [Online] Available at http://www.uq.edu.au/hupp/index.html?policy=6.10.6

Webster, L., & Nicholas, G. (2007). Educational Technology Framework: People pedagogy, places and technology: Monash University. [Online] Available at http://www.calt.monash.edu.au/Quality/ETC/governancegateway/governance.html