C.1+EEE+-+2nd+Step

Would you all please have a look at this Work-In-Progress and see if the questions I have raised do affect the sections you are working on or if I am completely off the mark: I have structured it in a way that : - I have included Linas remarks to give us a direction to revise what we did write, - included under Step 1 what Lina saw that caused her remarks and - Suggested a rewriting in Step 2.

In addition I have included a small description of how each E should be approached so that you can critically analyse what I have written without having to refer back to Checkland chapters yourself.

Rewriting this has raised a number of issues pointed out under QUESTION TO BE DISCUSSED TOGETHER

//**Please will you get back to me with any of your thoughts BEFORE Tuesday (21/9) 12:00 am so that I will still have time to complete this before our deadline tomorrow.**//




 * The suggestion from Lina:**

You also may want to revise your EEE. It’s unusual to have it formulated as questions. Also I was not sure if the questions for the first two E (efficacy and efficiency) are enough well aligned with the intensions of your transformation.


 * The notion of transformation (conversion of input to output) would be judged successful (or unsuccesful on 3 counts):**


 * 1.** Efficacy

From 1st step: Will the implantation of e-learning enhance the quality of learning? Will students be engaged in learning? Will it help at improving Ss’ knowledge and skills? Will e-learning modules improve the teaching practices and Ss’ learning in the classroom?


 * __Step 2 Suggestion :__**
 * The LMS installed has contributed to the enhanced quality of learning. (Issue this raises is that it is not only about quality learning but quality organization and assessment of this learning which should be catered for by the LMS as well and may need to be included in RD or CATWOE or some other part of the initial analysis – QUESTION TO BE DISCUSSED TOGETHER)**
 * Gilbert's suggested additions -- Criteria for judging efficacy**
 * 1) Mid-sem and end of sem results**
 * 2) Quantitive surveys and qualititive interviews with selected students**
 * 3) Interviews with teachers to ascertain amount of time and level of comfort with Moodle. The rationale is that if teachers were to be spending an inordinate amount of time and effort on moodle, this will take time off other duties which may affect the quality of learning**

- is the transformation being carried out with the minimum use of resources?
 * 2.** Efficiency:

From 1st Step: Moodle is a free educational MLS which is a plus with regard to financial costs. However, how much time/money would it need to equip teachers with instructional design and technical skills (professional development in the area of using Moodle as an educational tool)? How much time would teachers spend in the actual designing of Moodle courses? How much time Ss would need to spend on Moodle outside the classroom? Is computer access available to all Ts and Ss all the time? If not, are there enough financial resources to make computer access available at least on campus to all Ss and Ts for the longer period of time possible?
 * __Step 2 Suggestion:__**
 * The LMS enables quality learning and quality organizing and assessment of that learning with a minimum amount of resources (QUESTION TO BE DISCUSSED – University resources would be cost of LMS, development time, student resources to use LMS, teacher resources to use LMS to organize learning and assessing and Department resources to get statistics from LMS regarding Assessment – how does this affect RD, CATWOE other sections you are all working on?)**
 * Moodle is a free software suite and as such the cost of installing the program will be minimal. Purchasing and installing an in-house server will be inexpensive in this day and age. And given that moodle offers detailed manuals and is user-friendly, a selection of more digitally updated staff can be tasked to familiarise themselves with the details and then disseminate the expertise to the other teachers. The opportunity cost of teaching/admin time can be mitigated by taking a longer time to implement the LMS and allowing the "expert" staff to disseminate their expertise in short spurts.**

1) Total budget allocation should not exceed US $10,000 (i'm just inventing a figure, most organisations have a ballpark figure to evaluate budget efficiency) 2) Time from planning to implementatino should not exceed 6 months 3) Manpower needed to train staff and implement the system should not exceed 8 staff members
 * Gilbert's suggested additions -- Criteria for judging efficiency**

3. Effectiveness** : - even if works and is using minimum amount of resources – is it achieving the longer term aim? From 1st step: Will the implementation of e-learning across all courses at the university help in improving the quality of overall learning? Will this qualify the university to get international accreditation? __Step 2 Suggestion :__ The transformation of the quality of learning is such that the University qualifies for International Accreditation. (QUESTION TO BE DISCUSSED – within some part of our work do we need to cover how this "quality of learning" will be assessed and how this information will be passed to the Top level of the University and how they will be able to tell if it is in line with what the Body that appoints International Accreditation requires?)


 * Gilbert's suggested additions -- Criteria for judging effectiveness**
 * 1) Quasi-longtitudinal study. The first batch of students who study with an LMS can be monitored throughout their undergrad years to compare results and attitudes towards their courses with previous batches of students.**
 * 2) Assuming the inclusion of discussion forums in the course moodle package, a content analysis can be done of student postings to ascertain if students have developed higher level thinking skills and advanced content knowledge over the years.**