E-Learning Readiness Audit 1
E-Learning Readiness Audit 1
E-Learning Readiness Audit 1
Words: 2799
E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT 2
While preparing for this assignment I initially looked at higher learning institutions that I
am familiar with. Either schools that I personally attended, or ones that are geographically close
with which I have come connection. As I dug deeper I came to two realizations. First, these
higher learning institutions didn’t have much publicly available information in regards to e-
learning and technology management. Secondly, the organizational structure of higher learning
institutions have significant parallels to the K-12 school district that I currently work for, Elk
Larger school divisions have a Central Office that takes care of many of the functions
handled by a universities Central Administration. These K-12 districts have many schools under
their leadership that are similar to Faculties in that they have a fair bit of autonomy and often
times have an agenda that is unique from that of Central Administration. (Bates & Sangra, 2011)
With this in mind, I decided to shift my focus and do a readiness audit of Elk Island
Public Schools (alternately referred to as: EIPS or the district). EIPS is one of Alberta’s larger
school districts and currently supports the learning of just over 40,000 students in Alberta’s
Capital Region. (EIPS, n.d.) It’s 900+ staff serve students in 42 schools, found in both urban and
rural settings.
Currently, EIPS is a dual-mode organization with both face-to-face and fully online
methods of instruction. (Moisey & Hughes, 2008) They have a correspondence program called
NextStep that currently involves 403 students. (Elk Island Public Schools, 2016) This program
features both fully online and blended learning classes managed with the Moodle LMS. This
program primarily services students that find the traditional schooling environment a hurdle to
After reading through their budget, some important numbers are highlighted. The overall
operating budget for Learning Technologies is $5,217,488. This includes a director and 22 other
staff. This staff include both IT support and Learning Technology Specialists.
One of EIPS’s three high schools has been running a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)
program for the past 3 years. This requires all students to have their own web-conncted device,
as technology is heavily relied upon for teaching and the completion of assignments.
When auditing an institution for its e-learning readiness it is important to have a tool that
will provide clear, unbiased results. This is due to the fact that many educational institutions give
themselves glowing e-learning reviews when in reality their e-learning program is rudimentary at
best. (Bates & Sangra, 2011) With this in mind, I coupled an existing readiness assessment with
the content from Managing Technology in Higher Education (Bates & Sangra, 2011) to create an
emotion and bias. In preparing for this assignment I scoured countless sources and evaluated
dozens of different ‘readiness assessments.’ These have varied in their methods, from interviews
and questionnaires to lengthy exams prepared by psychologists. One assessment that stood out
was the Checklist to Assess Organizational Readiness (CARI) by Melanie Barwick (2011). It has
been used successfully at Hospital for Sick Children at the University of Toronto with their
The CARI was designed as a pre-implementation assessment but can be used just as
The colloquial language of the options prevents the CARI from having an overly
academic and laborious appearance while simultaneously making it more appealing for all
employees at the organization. For this analysis, I will be keeping the 4-point scale and survey
deployment method. I will be changing the questions in all categories to better align with
educational institutions and academic learning goals. I will also be adding a short section at the
end for staff to include any other important details that they relevant to this topic. Ideally, this
Explanation of Categories
The categories and questions for this assessment will draw primarily from Chapter 3 of
Managing Technology in Higher Education by Tony Bates and Albert Sangrà (2011). In this
chapter, the authors’ highlight 9 criteria for assessing the success of technology integration. I will
be compressing and combining these 9 criteria into 4 categories that provide the same breadth of
assessment but fit more seamlessly into the auditing tool. The four criteria are as follows: staff &
student readiness, infrastructure, current implementations and organizational planning & support.
These redesigned categories are meant to give a quick snapshot of the organizational
readiness. They aim to highlight areas of strength and weakness, ultimately providing
E-learning is not the sort of learning tool that educators can tag onto their existing
teaching practice and see immediate, commendable improvements. It takes training, time and
some willingness to take risks. (Moisey & Hughes, 2008) On the same note, an educator cannot
present a well-oiled e-learning program to a group of technology illiterate students. In order for
e-learning to benefit educational institutions both teachers and students must have a level of
technological understanding. Quite often, especially in the case of educators, this requires
training. (Bates & Sangra, 2011) This portion of the assessment is vital, as it will report on how
The questions for his category aim to answer the following question posed by Bates and
What level of support and training is given to instructors to ensure good-quality teaching
Infrastructure
No e-learning program can be truly successful without a strong foundation. Yet, even
with ubiquitous technologies like the internet, there can be a great disparity in the quality of
infrastructure for students and teachers be successful in their e-learning undertakings. (Bates,
2001, Davis, Little & Stewart, 2004) This part of the assessment will verify whether or not the
organization has the essentials in place for e-learning to be successfully facilitated. Examples of
E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT 6
which include: internet with sufficient bandwidth, wireless access points, servers, software and
devices.
The questions for his category aim to answer the following question posed by Bates and
enables all staff, students, and faculty to access computers, networks, software, and
services as required?
Has the institution digitized its administrative systems, and can staff, students, and
faculty access administrative information and services easily over the Web?
Current Implementations
In order to know where we should be headed, we need to know where we are currently at.
Leaving out plans, training and bandwidth speeds, how exactly is an institution using technology?
This is important because it gives us the reality of what is going on. Even the most promising e-
learning plans may unexpectedly fail. On the other hand, under-supported teachers often come
up with inventive ways of using technology with high degrees of success. (Bates and Sangra,
2011) Thus, this part of the assignment will report on how the organization is currently getting
The questions for his category aim to answer the following question posed by Bates and
What proportion of staff, students, and faculty are using technology and for which
activities?
Are students learning better and getting better services as a result of technology
integration?
This criterion is important as it shows the priority that is placed on e-learning through
administrative decisions. It also informs us in what direction the organization has decided to
focus their efforts. How an organization frames their e-learning programs are indicative of the
impact they think it can have in the classroom. (Bischel, 2013) Organizations that have clear
centralized plans and an e-learning centre demonstrate how foundational they believe e-learning
to be. (Bischel, 2013) This part of the assessment will gauge what kind of priority e-learning is,
The questions for his category aim to answer the following question posed by Bates and
Are there “champions” with power and influence in the institution who recognize the
Has the institution identified a clear, strategic rationale for the use of technology within
the institution?
This assessment was given to 2 principals and 2 classroom teachers within EIPS, in total
representing 4 different schools. As I personally contacted all 4 of these EIPS employees, the
assessments finished with an unplanned informal interview about the current state of e-learning
within the district. The following results draw primarily from the results of the CARI based tool
This is an area of moderate concern. The answers were primarily 2’s and 3’s. After
further discussion, it seems that EIPS accepts the e-learning training provided by Universities as
It was mentioned that EIPS focuses heavily on training staff for administrative systems,
such as their new Communicating Student Learning (CSL) reporting program. However training
Infrastructure
This is an area of strength for EIPS. The state of their infrastructure indicates that EIPS
understands the value that e-learning can add to teaching and learning. (Bichsel, 2013) All
contacted parties felt like they have adequate access to technology and the means to acquire new
technology. District systems are easily accessed when off campus and IT assistance is only a
phone call away. They have the necessities for daily access well covered: sufficient high-speed
internet bandwidth and plentiful web-connected devices for staff and students. (Bates, 2013)
E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT 9
Less visible but equally important are the back-end systems of servers and databases.
(Davis et al., 2004) EIPS’s back-end systems are reliable and improved upon without a
Current Implementations
The district current has a handful of truly e-learning focused initiatives. Next Step’s use
of Moodle and some video teleconference classes were the most noteworthy. (J. Peters, personal
really depends on the individual. Based on the assessment, if the teacher is motivated to
incorporate e-learning, they are given the tools to do so quite successfully. However, there is
little support in place (or encouragement) for those that would rather avoid technology all
together.
This would be the single largest area of concern for EIPS. Their historic decision making
with e-learning has been slow and evolutionary, mainly reactive and without any proactive risks.
(Bullen, 2015) Consistent with this, the district does not actively publish or communicate e-
learning goals to teachers or the broader learning community. Occasionally some goals are
communicated to principals, but not in such a way where the message routinely makes it to front-
line teachers. (J. Peters, personal communication, June-July 2017, J. Massel, Personal
Communication, July 10, 2017) Staff seem unsure about how and why technology decisions are
made, and both teachers and principals do not feel valued or involved in the decision making
process.
E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT 10
staff were split evenly on who they feel is making the e-learning directions for the district: either
specific principals or individuals who are passionate about technology. While this distributed
model of decision making can help foster creativity, it is considerably less efficient than a
In 2012, EIPS underwent some dramatic organizational changes in how they approached
e-learning. Prior to this year the director of technology reported directly to Business Services.
This meant that all e-learning related decisions ultimately had to be answered from a business
point of view. Costs reduction was paramount and student achievement was secondary.
In the year of 2012 the Director of Technology title was reworded to become the Director
of Learning Technology. With this new title, they were also to report to the Superintendent of
Learning and not Business Services. (R. Marshall, Personal Communication, June, 2017) With
this, EIPS followed the footsteps of more mature programs and prioritized e-learning as an
Later, in 2013 the district changed how they viewed the internet. Prior to 2013, the
district provided basic high-speed internet to schools, and if schools wanted to improve on this
service they would need to do so out of their own budgets. This initial level of service provided
by the district was sufficient for web browsing and e-mail. It fell significantly short as teachers
attempted to implement different video and game based technologies. This led to a problem in
which larger, more cash-rich schools were able to provide their students and teachers with
E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT 11
sufficient bandwidth. While smaller (often rural) schools were forced to struggle with this
deemed internet as an essential infrastructure, at the same level as lights and running water. This
increased bandwidth allowed teachers great freedom in how they used technology and opened up
new avenues for innovative student learning. (Homeroom Teacher – Junior High, Personal
infrastructure growth over the past years. They have ample access to technology for both
administrative functions and teaching. Their tech support is readily available and budgets seem
However, as a district it seems there is absolutely no cohesive plan for technology. When
it comes to the daily use of technology for learning (both online and in-class) there exists a bit of
a chaotic environment. (Bates & Sangra, 2011) With no unified plan, all 42 schools are left to
make their own decisions regarding technology, which could ultimately lead to the district going
in multiple, opposing directions. In addition to this, there is a perceived lack of clear leadership.
Yes, there is a department in charge, but they do not communicate organizational objectives to
teachers. Without strong leadership on this issue, it is a realistic possibility that valuable resource
expenditures could result in limited success. (Labonte, 2006) On top of that, they provide
extremely limited professional development for teachers not adept with technology. If they hope
E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT 12
to improve learning through the use of technology in the classroom, a district wide e-learning
plan is sorely needed. If they hope to further integrate online courses through their Next Step
program, a district e-learning plan is sorely needed. If they hope to better support teachers and
Recommendations
EIPS is continuing their evolutionary journey of e-learning. As they do, they need to
focus on two primary areas of concern: district-wide planning and staff support. While their
current decentralized approach provides much freedom, it fails to better train staff and equip
In setting a clear plan, it is essential that EIPS doesn’t become too rigid as they need to be
able to adapt to the constantly changing nature of curriculum and technology. (Davis et al. 2004)
In creating a district-wide plan, EIPS needs to create a document that clearly articulates their
strategy around e-learning. This document should be created only after consulting teachers,
principals and district administrative staff. (Bullen, 2015) The ultimate goal of this document
should be to better support teachers and learners by providing clear steps towards improving the
Once this plan is in place, EIPS can then decide on what types of professional
development will best support staff in achieving stated goals. This training should then be
Conclusion
EIPS is an organization that is inconsistently ready for e-learning. They have some real
strengths (infrastructure) and some glaring weaknesses (planning). All of this considered, they
E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT 13
are moving in a positive direction. Their recent improvements have paved the way for more rapid
growth, whenever it may come. Based on the readiness assessment, if they are able to provide
some quality leadership in a district-wide plan, they will be able better support their students
Works Cited
Bates, A. W., Bates, T., & Sangra, A. (2011). Managing technology in higher education:
Strategies for transforming teaching and learning. John Wiley & Sons.
Bichsel, J. (2013). The state of e-learning in higher education: An eye toward growth and
Bullen, M. (2015). Revisiting the Need for Strategic Planning for eLearning in Higher
Davis, A., Little, P., & Stewart, B. (2004). Developing an infrastructure for online
EIPS. About Us. Elk Island Public Schools. Retrieved 6 July 2017, from
https://www.eips.ca/about-us
Elk Island Public Schools. (2016) 2016/2017 Fall Budget Report. Retrieved from
https://www.eips.ca/about-us/financial-information/budget
LaBonte, R. (2006). Leading eLearning Projects in British Colombia Schools. In Plan to Learn:
Alliance.
E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT 15
Moisey, S. D., & Hughes, J. A. (2008). Supporting the online learner. Theory and practice of
Pasian, B., & Wooddill, G. (Eds.). (2006). Plan to Learn: case studies in elearning project
A. Staff + Student
Readiness
A.1 In your University
education did you receive
teaching focused on E-
1 2 3 4
learning or Teaching with
Technology?
B. Infrastructure
B.1 Do you have a computer
provided by EIPS?
1 2 3 4
(Exclusively for your use)
C. Current
Implementations
C.1 Do you use technology daily
in your classroom? 1 2 3 4
D. Organizational Planning
and Support
D.1 Does EIPS have an individual
that provides a clear
direction for learning
1 2 3 4
technologies? (that you are
aware of)
A single leader
EIPS IT Professionals
Are there any additional comments you would like to make in regards to Elk Island Public
Schools and E-learning?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________