This case study discusses unique socio cultural and political challenges faced by Australian universities in higher education course design and delivery. Many researchers abroad might be surprised to read that synchronous e-learning in higher education is not typically practiced in Australian universities, except in research pilots, at least as compared to the virtual learning environments and methods that are reported in UK (Biggs, 2003; Laurillard, 2002) and USA literature (Weller, 2007; Bates & Poole, 2003; Palloff & Pratt, 2002). Nonetheless this case compares the same e-learning course with a traditional campus version delivered to both domestic and international or multi-cultural students.
Rationale and Challenges
It is difficult to position this research into the Australian theoretical or empirical contexts because the term ‘e-learning’ is often applied in rudimentary and ambiguous ways, without actually meaning online synchronous student interaction for learning (Eklund, 2005; Brabazon, 2002; Manathunga, 2002). In Australian higher education theory, e-learning often refers to a student having Internet access to campus systems, primarily for convenient access to materials, asynchronous group discussions and submission of assignments (Lock & Redmond, 2008; Pauli, 2007). Exceptions do occur such as in science, business and military where synchronous interactive e-learning is being used for continuing education (Zimmer, Billaud, & Geoffroy, 2006; Newton & Ellis, 2005; Zhang, Zhao, Zhou, & Nunamaker, 2004).
Additionally, from experience and the literature (Kobas & Renzie, 2005; Karemera, Reuben, & Sillah, 2003; Stevens-Long & Crowell, 2002), comparing face-to-face with e-learning delivery for effectiveness is difficult because very little of the context may be consistent between the two modes (lack of experimental control). The instructor, materials, assessment requirements and teaching methods often differ (Drent & Meelissen, 2008; Kobas & Renzie, 2005; Grant, 2004). Students often have different levels of experience and/or learning styles, some favoring e-learning mode (executives, managers or engineers) as compared with others preferring face-to-face tutoring, like English second language (ESL) or inexperienced adolescents.
There is considerable debate in the empirical literature on whether e-learning (or online education) is as effective as traditional face-to-face (campus) delivery. Many empirical studies have found e-learning is as effective as, or better, than face-to-face mode (Strang, 2007; Cybinski & Selvanathan, 2005; Gao & Lehman, 2003; St Hill, 2000). In the literature, several meta-analysis of e-learning versus classroom effectiveness studies have been inconclusive about the ‘(no) significant difference’ finding (Coffield, Moseley, Hall, & Ecclestone, 2004; Olson & Wisher, 2002; Russell, 2002; Joy & Garcia, 2000).
Another unresolved dimension in comparing e-learning to campus-based delivery is determining what metrics should be used: Student grades, student satisfaction, organizational costs (less faculty, less time to design/deliver), environmental impact (travel, paper usage), and so on. It was the proposition of a cost-effective blended teaching model by Laurillard (2007) that inspired documenting this case study. Most importantly, few if any empirical studies of learning use a ‘balanced measure’ of effectiveness. A ‘balanced measure’ refers to benchmarks that are valued by all relevant stakeholders. The assessment paradigm used here is a balanced one, which is conceptually linked to the key stakeholders, namely: Students, faculty, administration, and the public-at-large through university accreditation agencies.