Online Learning in Commonwealth Universities Selected data from the 2002 Observatory survey- Part 1 Online Learning in Commonwealth Universities: Selected Data from the 2002 Observatory Survey, Part 1 August 2002 The Observatory on borderless higher education Woburn House, 20-24 Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9HF United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)20 7380 6714 Fax: +44 (0)20 7387 2655 www.obhe.ac.uk Richard Garrett, Deputy Director, The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education
Online Learning in Commonwealth Universities: Selected Data from the 2002 Observatory Survey, Part 1 Abstract: Over the past five years, numerous universities around the world have developed online learning capacity. The term online learning is imprecise. It is used here to refer to use of Internet technology to enhance learning. This ranges from on-campus enhancement (e.g. Internet connections in classrooms, wireless networks and learning management systems) to distance learning. Motivations are varied, overlapping and contested, including improved access for disadvantaged communities, meeting global demand for higher education in a knowledge economy, an enhanced experience for the campus-based student and revenue generation. Some activities are guided by formal institutional strategy while others are department or individual-led. The digital divide between universities in the developed and developing world inevitably shapes the activities of particular institutions. This report focuses on selected findings from the first section of the survey (strategy). Comparison with data from the United States is made where possible. The Observatory s next report will concentrate on findings from the infrastructure and activities sections. In due course, all responding institutions will receive individual feedback on selected questions, allowing them to benchmark their position against international trends. A complete account of the findings will be posted on the Observatory website later this year. The Observatory intends to repeat the survey in the future, with a view to building valuable time-series data that will help inform governments, funding agencies and universities internationally. About the Author: Richard Garrett is Research Officer at The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. Richard was a member of the consultancy team for the international Business of Borderless Education study in 2000, leading to the establishment of The Observatory. Prior to joining the Observatory, he was a researcher at the School of Educational Studies, University of Surrey, UK. He can be reached at: r.garrett@obhe.ac.uk The Observatory is a joint initiative between the Association of Commonwealth Universities and Universities UK The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, August 2002 2
Online Learning in Commonwealth Universities: Selected Data from the 2002 Observatory Survey, Part 1 1 Introduction Online learning has generated considerable interest and hype, and many claim it has revolutionary potential for higher education. To date, there has been minimal national data on the detail of institutional strategies and developments (with some exceptions, such as the first Universities Online survey in Australia in 2002 1, a Campus Computing International survey on Canada in 2000 2 and the annual Campus Computing Survey in the United States 3 ). A rare international study was carried out in 2002 by the Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS) at the University of Twente in the Netherlands- but concerned with individual university staff rather than institutions. 4 The 2002 Observatory Survey was designed to provide a unique Commonwealth-wide picture of relevant university activity. 2 Overview of Responses The survey found widespread enthusiasm for online learning among responding universities and colleges, but little evidence of mainstream application (e.g. integration of major online elements into the majority of the curriculum or institutionwide use of online distance learning). Over the next five years, institutions reported plans to effect such mainstream change. Concerns were raised about staff development and perceptions of cost-effectiveness. The survey was first despatched in May 2002, going to the executive head of the five hundred or so member institutions of the Association of Commonwealth Universities and Universities UK (two of the initial sponsoring organisations of the Observatory). In most cases, this restricted coverage to public-sector universities. A second call for responses was sent out in mid-july 2002. By the end of August 2002, 101 responses have been received (about 20% of institutions contacted) from 17 countries. The responses by continent were as follows: Table 1: Responses by Continent Table 2: Responses by Country Continent Responses Percent Africa 11 11% Asia 13 13% Europe 43 43% North 7 7% America Oceania 27 27% TOTAL 101 100% Country Responses Percent United Kingdom 42 42% Australia 22 22% Canada 7 7% South Africa 6 6% India 5 5% New Zealand 5 5% The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, August 2002 3
Country Responses Percent Sri Lanka 3 3% Pakistan 2 2% Bangladesh 1 1% Botswana 1 1% Cyprus 1 1% Hong Kong 1 1% Malawi 1 1% Mauritius 1 1% Singapore 1 1% Swaziland 1 1% Tanzania 1 1% Overall, universities from the UK and Australia made up almost two-thirds of responses. Of course, a small number of responses from some countries (e.g. New Zealand) represented a relatively large proportion of universities in those countries; while in others (e.g. Cyprus, Mauritius, Swaziland) a response was received from the country s sole public university. Using a classification from the World Bank 5, developed countries submitted 79% of responses, and developing countries 21%. This is in marked contrast to the breakdown for membership of the Association of Commonwealth Universities, where developing country universities represent more than 60% of members. This is a stark reminder of the digital divide. The questions covered by this report relate to institutional strategy, underpinning rationale, reasons for not pursuing an institution-wide strategy, selected elements of strategies and respondent s views on faculty development and cost-effectiveness. The questions were designed to provide an indication of the extent to which online learning was moving from local experimentation to institutional strategy and mainstream impact. 3 Findings This section discusses responses to eleven survey questions. Given that only the UK presented sufficient responses to merit national analysis, all other respondents were placed in one of two categories: Other Developed Countries or Developing Countries. (Questions are numbered differently from the original survey document). Q1. Does your institution have an institution-wide Online Learning Strategy or equivalent? Category Yes No Under Development Related strategies rather than single one No response Total Developing 6 (27%) 9 (41%) 6 (27%) 0 1 22 Other 18 (49%) 3 (20%) 10 (27%) 6 (16%) 0 37 Developed UK 16 (38%) 6 (14%) 10 (24%) 10 (24%) 0 42 TOTAL 40 (40%) 18 (18%) 26 (26%) 16 (16%) 1 101 The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, August 2002 4
In all categories, a majority of respondents pointed to an existing institution-wide strategy or one under development. Existing strategies were most common in Other Developed countries (49%) and least common in Developing countries (27%). These figures suggest that in universities across the Commonwealth online learning is widely perceived to warrant an institution-wide strategy. Preference for a number of related strategies- rather than a single overarching document- was very much a minority view (16%). Data from the United States paints a very similar picture, with about 42% of institutions reporting an institutional policy or plan for using Internet resources in instruction (with a high of 46% for private universities and a low of 38% for public universities). 6 A number of institutions who cited the related strategies option- plus three who ticked NO or Under Development - pointed to the integration of online learning into a number of existing strategies (e.g. teaching and learning and corporate plan). This approach holds that such integration is preferable to a distinct online learning strategy. Indeed, distinct strategies may be a reflection of the novelty of online learning. Over time, wide-ranging strategic integration rather than distinct strategies may evidence the mainstreaming of online learning. However, the majority of responses suggested either a distinct strategy, such a strategy under development or little strategic attention to online learning. Other questions offered more insight into the nature of different strategies. Q2. If your institution has an institution-wide online learning strategy, when was the strategy first written? Of the 45 institutions that responded to this question (i.e. those that possessed an institution-wide strategy on online learning, plus a number who mentioned related strategies), 64% pointed to strategies first produced within the last three years (2000-2002), and 87% within the last five years (1998-2002). Relevant institutions in the Other Developed category pointed to strategies first written on average in 1998 (dominated by Australia, Canada and New Zealand, including a 1990 outlier), whereas the figure was 2000 for the UK and Developing countries. 56% (25) of respondents to this question indicated that their strategy had been substantially revised since it was first agreed (64% of which made the revision in 2002). Indeed, all but two strategies produced before 2000 had been subject to major subsequent revision. Combined with the previous question, this data suggests that a small majority of institutions (55%) either have a very recently developed strategy (2000-2002) or are still working towards such a strategy. Only 16% have a strategy older than three years. A small majority of institutions with existing strategies (56%) reported substantial revisions in subsequent years. The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, August 2002 5
Q3. If your institution has an institution-wide online learning strategy, which of the following are given as key rationales for undertaking online learning in the current version of the strategy? Question Developing Other Developed UK % of all institutions with a strategy Enhancement of 7 (100%) 19 (90%) 20 (95%) 94% teaching and learning on campus Improved 7 (100%) 20 (95%) 18 (86%) 92% flexibility of delivery for oncampus students Keeping up with 7 (100%) 13 (62%) 15 (71%) 71% the competition Widening 4 (57%) 14 (67%) 14 (67%) 65% access to local underrepresented groups Enhancement of 5 (71%) 12 (57%) 12 (57%) 59% distance learning Entry into new 2 (29%) 14 (67%) 10 (48%) 53% international student markets Facilitating 5 (71%) 9 (43%) 7 (33%) 43% collaboration with other institutions Access for 1 (14%) 8 (38%) 9 (43%) 37% disabled users Safeguarding 2 (29%) 6 (29%) 8 (38%) 33% existing international student markets Pursuit of new 2 (29%) 6 (29%) 8 (38%) 33% corporate clients Safeguarding 2 (29%) 4 (19%) 4 (19%) 20% existing corporate clients Cutting teaching 4 (57%) 2 (10%) 4 (19%) 20% costs long-term Supporting local businesses and economic development 1 (14%) 3 (14%) 3 (14%) 14% The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, August 2002 6
This data suggests that on-campus enhancement is the dominant focus of almost all university online learning strategies. This fits with the findings of the CHEPS study. 7 It is interesting that keeping up with the competition is the third most-highly ranked rationale, reflecting recent hype about the value of online learning and pressure on institutions to do something. Distance learning ranked fifth. Aside from campusbased students in general, local under-represented groups represented the most common target group for online learning, higher than international students and corporate clients. However, it is important to note that online learning was more commonly viewed as a means to pursue new international markets and corporate clients than to maintain existing ones. While it is not possible to make a clear link between the two, 76% of institutions that cited pursuit of new international student markets also cited enhancement of distance learning. Only 20% of respondents with a strategy mentioned cutting teaching costs long-term as a key rationale (although the proportion from developing country respondents was much higher, perhaps suggesting a context where other forms of distance learning have enabled significant cost savings). This perceived lack of connection between pursuit of online learning and cost reduction suggests that the majority of institutions view online learning as a costly add-on to existing structures. The Observatory s forthcoming September report, by Dr Carol Twigg, Director of the Pew Learning & Technology Program in the United States, disputes this view, arguing for course redesign work to challenge delivery norms and enable online learning to improve quality and reduce costs. 8 Developing country respondents most commonly felt pressure to pursue online learning to keep up with the competition, displayed most interest in distance learning and least in pursuit of international students. UK institutions (48%) were less likely to cite pursuit of new international markets than institutions in Other Developed countries (67%). Among those institutions without any kind of online learning strategy, only one considered there to be no demand for online learning from staff and students/ potential students; and similarly only one cited lack of disciplinary relevance. Only three considered online learning to be unproven as a technology and learning medium. Eight universities, dominated by those from developing countries, viewed online learning as beyond their means at present. Mention of a bottom-up approach, as an alternative to a central strategy, was the most common reason for the lack of a institution-wide strategy. Other more pressing issues and other reasons included the need to attend to basic IT infrastructure, stabilising existing academic departments and creation of new ones, research, maintenance of physical campus, student accommodation and fiscal stringency. Overall, responses to this question suggest virtually no universities are avoiding online learning on the grounds of perceived lack of demand, poor disciplinary relevance or concerns about effectiveness. Of course, the finding from Q3 that keeping up with the competition was a powerful strategic driver may suggest that detailed enquiry into demand, relevance and effectiveness is not widespread. The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, August 2002 7
Q5. Integration of major online elements into the majority of the curriculum Categories Developing Other UK TOTAL Developed (a) in place institution-wide 0 4 (11%) 7 (17%) 11 (11%) (b) to be implemented institutionwide in the next 12 months (c) to be implemented institutionwide in the next five years (d) in place in one or more subsections of the institution (not including isolated individual staff efforts) (e) currently not a strategic priority. 4 (18%) 5 (14%) 2 (5%) 11 (11%) 8 (36%) 16 (43%) 15 (36%) 39 (39%) 2 (9%) 9 (24%) 11 (26%) 22 (22%) 7 (32%) 0 7 (17%) 14 (14%) No response 1 3 (8%) 0 4 (4%) TOTAL 22 37 42 101 Responses suggest that little more than one-in-ten of respondents (11%- and none from Developing countries) can currently claim to have integrated major online elements into the majority of the curriculum. However, within 12 months, 22% expect to be able to make such a claim, and 61% within five years. Only 14% of respondents considered such integration not currently a strategic priority. This figure was highest among Developing country respondents (32%), but interestingly accounted for almost a fifth of UK respondents but none from Other Developed countries. Overall, the results indicate that while online learning has yet to significantly touch the mainstream curriculum in the vast majority of universities, a majority of respondents report plans to effect such integration in the relatively near future and only a small minority consider the task to be of low priority. In response to a similar question (Q6) about institution-wide use of online distance learning, a greater proportion of respondents claim to use online learning at a distance institution-wide (19%) than claim to have integrated major online elements into the majority of the curriculum (11%- dominated by campus-based provision in the vast majority of cases), the predicted figure in five years time is lower for distance learning (44% compared to 61%). This suggests that only a large minority of respondents see substantial use of online distance learning as a core activity. 32% of respondents from Other Developed countries report institution-wide provision of online distance learning, compared to only 17% in the UK and zero in Developing countries. The high Other Developed county figure may reflect the geographical scope of certain countries and a strong tradition of distance learning (e.g. Canada, Australia). 42% of respondents pointed to ongoing local development rather than any institutionwide strategy or plan- almost twice as high as the figure for on-campus developments cited above (22%). This may reflect the fact that on-campus delivery, rather than distance learning, is the core business of the majority of respondents. Again, only a small number of respondents (13%) considered institution-wide use of online distance learning not a strategic priority (with the figure much higher among Developing countries- 36%). The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, August 2002 8
Q7. Implementation of a learning management platform (e.g. Blackboard/WebCT) Categories Developing Other Developed UK TOTAL (a) in place institution-wide 9 (41%) 28 (76%) 24 (57%) 61 (60%) (b) to be implemented institution-wide in 5 (23%) 6 (16%) 8 (19%) 19 (19%) the next 12 months (c) to be implemented institution-wide in 3 (14%) 1 5 (12%) 9 (9%) the next five years (d) in place in one or more sub-sections 1 1 4 (10%) 6 (6%) of the institution (not including isolated individual staff efforts) (e) currently not a strategic priority 3 (14%) 0 1 4 (4%) No response 1 1 2 (2%) TOTAL 22 37 42 101 These figures are an overwhelming endorsement of the perceived value of learning management platforms. 60% of respondents claim to already have such a system in place institution-wide, with 85% predicting such a state-of-affairs within five years. The figures from Developing countries were similarly strong. Only 6% of all respondents were content with local developments and only 4% thought the matter not a strategic priority. The US Campus Computing Survey reported over 73% of institutions had implemented an institution-wide course management platform. 9 However, alongside responses to the previous two questions, it is clear that implementation of a learning platform institution-wide is not synonymous with widespread use of online distance learning or integration of major online elements into the majority of the curriculum. Clearly, many institutions have purchased or developed a learning platform but have yet to effect mainstream use. Another question (dealt with in the Observatory s subsequent report) concerns which platforms institutions are using. Another indication of the relatively immature state of online learning at the majority of universities was responses to a question (Q8) about content management systems. Content management systems, where electronic content is split into learning objects able to be manipulated and re-combined for multiple purposes, push online learning beyond administrative enhancement to challenge the core of materials development and delivery. A mere 4% of respondents pointed to a content management system in place institution-wide, and only a further 8% were able to cite local developments. Yet 21% of respondents pointed to institution-wide implementation in the next 12 months, and a further 43% in the next five years. This suggests that in the vast majority of universities, content management functionality is not yet operational, but 64% regard it as a strategic priority on at least a five year horizon. 18% of all respondents saw content management systems as not a strategic priority (but ranging from 27% in Developing countries and 21% in the UK, to only 8% in Other Developed countries). The final three questions covered in this report relate to respondents perceptions of faculty enthusiasm for online learning, faculty preparation to teach online and whether online learning is demonstrably cost-effective. The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, August 2002 9
Q9. Faculty at my institution are generally enthusiastic about online learning Category Strongly Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly TOTAL Agree Disagree Developing 2 (9%) 14 (64%) 5 (23%) 1 0 22 Other 2 (5%) 24 (65%) 6 (16%) 5 (14%) 0 37 Developed UK 3 (7%) 19 (45%) 11 (26%) 9 (21%) 0 42 TOTAL 7 (7%) 57 (57%) 22 (22%) 15 (15%) 0 101 Q10. Faculty at my institution are generally well-prepared to teach online Category Strongly Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly TOTAL Agree Disagree Developing 3 (14%) 7 (32%) 2 (9%) 8 (36%) 2 (9%) 22 Other 2 (5%) 12 (32%) 5 (14%) 17 (46%) 1 (3%) 37 Developed UK 0 3 (7%) 14 (33%) 21 (50%) 4 (10%) 42 TOTAL 5 (5%) 22 (22%) 21 (21%) 46 (46%) 7 (7%) 101 These two tables reveal a stark disparity between perceptions of faculty enthusiasm for online learning (64% of respondents Agree or Strongly Agree ) and preparedness to teach online (only 27% of respondents Agree or Strongly Agree ). 67% of respondents either disagreed that faculty were well-prepared to teach online or were unsure. The figure was a massive 93% for UK institutions (compared to 63% for Other Developing countries). In fact, Developing country respondents were most confident about faculty preparedness (46%). Again, this may relate to a context where other forms of distance learning are commonplace. When contrasted with institutional plans to integrate major online elements into the majority of the curriculum and develop online distance learning across the institution, the vast majority of institutions, by their own admission, have a formidable staff development task ahead. The CHEPS survey reported much higher rates of preparedness 10, but of course the responses were from individuals themselves and the survey may have appealed disproportionately to enthusiasts. However, it is interesting to contrast the views of senior management (those who completed the Observatory survey) on faculty preparedness to teach online, with the views of faculty themselves. Q11. Online provision at my institution is demonstrably cost-effective* Category Strongly Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly TOTAL Agree Disagree Developing 1 9 (41%) 9 (41%) 3 (14%) 0 22 Other 1 7 (19%) 17 (46%) 8 (22%) 4 (11%) 37 Developed UK 1 5 (12%) 20 (48%) 13 (31%) 3 (7%) 42 TOTAL 3 (3%) 21 (21%) 46 (46%) 24 (24%) 7 (7%) 101 (*By cost-effective is meant production of a reasonable return for reasonable input. Of course, the concept is a relative one but nonetheless serves as an indicator of whether institutions have explored cost dynamics, can demonstrate cost-effectiveness and whether online delivery is regarded as simply an additional cost or a means of cost reduction) The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, August 2002 10
Again, the figures are striking. Only 24% of respondents were confident that online learning at their institution was demonstrably cost-effective; 46% said they were unable to answer the question, while 31% made a negative response. The literature is clear that online learning is an additional cost that can only be offset by either large enrolments and/ or redesign of development and delivery to reduce/ change staff roles and costs. 11 Nonetheless, if an institution regards online provision as a quality indicator, provision may be judged cost-effective despite additional cost. There is obviously a distinction between cost-effectiveness and demonstration of cost-effectiveness. The current and forthcoming Observatory reports take two different views on this distinction. In her forthcoming report for the Observatory, Carol Twigg argues that one marker of an institution with a mature online learning infrastructure and deep strategy is availability of data on facilities, usage and cost. 12 On her view, an institution cannot maximise the value of online learning without a detailed understanding of the cost components of different forms of delivery. By contrast, the August Observatory report on costing online learning (by John Fielden) concludes that detailed demonstration of cost-effectiveness is fraught with technical and practical difficulties and any findings are unlikely to affect what the author regards as the inevitable mainstream adoption of information technology on campuses across the world. 13 Most respondents (77%) are not in a position to comment on the cost-effectiveness of online learning at their institution. Of course, this is partly due to a non-costing culture in higher education generally, especially in the case of teaching costs. Fielden s approach is the most widely adopted, if only by default in most cases. If one combines this finding with, as discussed above, the fact that only 20% of respondents cited reduction of teaching costs as a key rationale of any online learning strategy, it is arguable that few institutions are collecting systematic cost data on online learning perhaps precisely because online delivery is widely regarded as an extra cost rather than a source of cost reduction. It obviously too simplistic to say that online learning is in general cost-effective or not, but as initiatives mature over time institutions may be less able to explore questions of cost if minimal data is collected due to an assumption that cost-savings are not generally possible. If institutions do not explore alternative development and delivery models, the high cost of mainstream investment in online learning (something the majority of respondents to the survey said was planned in the relatively near future) may prove an inhibiting factor. 4 Conclusion This report is an analysis of selected questions from the first Observatory survey of online learning in universities across the Commonwealth. Responses point to widespread enthusiasm for online delivery at both the strategic level and among faculty. On-campus enhancement and flexibility feature as key rationales in almost all cases, with online distance learning ranking fifth out of 13 given rationales. Local under-represented groups were the most commonly reported target audience, followed by new international markets, disabled students, existing international markets, new corporate clients and existing corporate markets. Tiny numbers of respondents cited low demand, poor disciplinary relevance and unproven technical and pedagogic value as reasons for not pursuing an online learning strategy. There was a clear contrast between initial plans and investments and mature infrastructure and delivery. Indeed, keeping up with the competition was the third most cited rationale (out of a given 13), suggesting sometimes less than adequate attention to value and effectiveness. Few institutions were able to point to the The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, August 2002 11
integration of major online elements into the majority of the curriculum or institutionwide use of online distance learning. A majority had established an institution-wide course management platform but only a handful could point to a functional content management system. By contrast, large majorities of institutions mentioned plans to effect such changes within the next five years. Staff development will be key to the success of such plans. Alongside widespread faculty enthusiasm for online learning, little more than a quarter of respondents were able to say that faculty were generally well-prepared to teach online. Equally, demonstration of cost-effectiveness was problematic for the majority of institutions; and only a fifth regarded online learning as a means to cut teaching costs long-term. Respondents were grouped into three categories- Developing countries, Other Developed countries and the United Kingdom. As one would expect, Developing country respondents generally reported the least online learning activity and strategy (with the exception of interest in distance learning). Confidence in potential costsavings was most common among Developing country respondents, perhaps related to a context where other forms of distance learning have enabled cost savings. UK institutions, compared to those from Other Developing countries, generally appeared less advanced (e.g. later development of online learning strategies, less likely to have institution-wide online distance learning capacity, less likely to have established an institution-wide course management platform, less urgency about deployment of a content management system, and less confident about faculty enthusiasm and preparedness). Exceptions included a small lead in terms of the proportion of institutions with major online elements integrated into the majority of the curriculum. Given the range of institutions in the Other Developing country category, it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions about these differences. Where data was available, the positions of respondents from Other Developing countries and the UK compared well to institutions in the United States. Overall, the findings suggest that while online learning is not yet mainstream in most institutions, the majority report plans to effect mainstream change in the next five years. If plans come to fruition, such changes promise a dramatic impact on teaching and learning, in terms of development, organisation and delivery. However, the scope and sophistication of business models and staff development will prove crucial indicators of success and viability. The next report from the Observatory will explore responses to additional survey questions (e.g. student/ computer ratios, wireless networking, Internet connection speeds and details of student numbers on provision where at least 50% of delivery is online). The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, August 2002 12
References 1 Bell, M. et al (2002) Universities Online: a survey of online education and services in Australia, Commonwealth Department of Education, Science & Training, Occasional Paper Series 02-A. Available at: http://www.dest.gov.au/highered/occpaper.htm. 2 Cuneo, C. et al (2000) The Underbelly of Online Learning in Canadian Post-Secondary Education, a report prepared for Industry Canada. Available at: http://www.campus-computing.com/general- Reports/CCI_Underbelly.pdf. 3 Green, K. (2001) Campus Computing 2001: the 12 th national survey of computing and information technology in American higher education, Encino, CA. 4 Collis, B. et al (2002) Models of Technology & change in Higher Education: an international comparative survey on the current and future use of ICT in higher education, presentation at the conference The New Educational Benefits of ICT in Higher Education, Rotterdam, 2 September 2002. 5 See http://www.worldbank.org/data/countryclass/countryclass.html. 6 Green, Ibid p14. 7 Collis et al, Ibid. 8 Twigg, C. (2002) Improving Quality & Reducing Costs: designs for effective learning using technology, a report for the Observatory on Borderless Higher Education (forthcoming). 9 Green, Ibid. 10 Collis, Ibid. 11 Bates, T. (2001) National Strategies for e-learning in Post-Secondary Education & Training, UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning, No. 70, Paris, pp123-130. 12 Twigg, Ibid. 13 Fielden, J. (2002) Costing elearning: is it worth trying or do we ignore the figures? A report for the Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. Available at: http://www.obhe.ac.uk/. The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, August 2002 13