A critical foundation: resource-based and lecture-based education

Of fundamental importance of TEL implementation is the context in which it is applied. I like to draw a distinction between resource-based and lecture-based contexts. Both make different assumptions of how TEL should be implemented, and ultimately determine the shape TEL takes in education.

The distinction between resource-based and lecture-based education was first made in:

Seelig, Caroline, and Mark Nichols. “New Zealand: Open Polytechnic.” In Perspectives on Distance Education: Using ICTs and Blended Learning in Transforming TVET, edited by Colin Latchem. Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning and UNESCO-UNEVOC, in press.

Resource-based provision:

• Has a team of experts responsible for learning design; tends to be based on a division of labour
• Focuses on the generation of (usually written) course materials
• Typically assumes an independent learner

Lecture-based provision:

• Has a lecturer or academic as subject expert and author; may also involve additional specialists
• Is based on a verbal presentation of information
• Typically assumes a class-based cohort

The two are not mutually exclusive however I'm certain the contrast resonates enough for illustrative purposes. The most effective, scalable and efficient forms of TEL are, in my view and from my experience, resource-based. Consider these reasons:

1. Expertise in design. A resource-based approach is better able to maximise the input of professionals; a lecture-based approach is more likely to be limited to the educational design expertise of the lecturer.
2. Longevity in resource. A lecture-based approach relies on the longevity and tenure of each lecturer, and new lecturers will tend to want to heavily customise 'their' course; a resource-based approach is more independent of any individual.
3. Consistency in approach. As a result of the above points, a lecture-based approach will likely lead to a varied student experience from course to course; a resource-based approach is more likely to use a consistent design from course to course.
4. Student expectations. Students enrolled in a lecture-based institution expect to hear from a lecturer, and to have access to that person or even to be told what they need to know; students enrolled with resource-based institutions anticipate a more independent and mediated study journey.

Ultimately, resource-based and lecture-based are simply structured differently. Resource-based institutions tend to emphasise cross-unit synergy; lecture-based institutions tend to be very independent across academic units. These differences lead to very different expectations and approaches to TEL. In my previous experience as an e-learning consultant in a lecture-based institution my work was limited to those who were keen to work with me, and even then mainly on their terms; in a resource-based institution it is far easier to influence design at the level of a programme of study.

Linking this to literature, consider King, E.,& Boyatt, R. (2015). Exploring factors that influence adoption of e-learning within higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), 1272–1280. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12195. The authors point out that there are three main barriers to the broad uptake of e-learning in contact universities: “institutional infrastructure, staff attitudes and skills, and perceived student expectation”. Gunn, C. (2010). Sustainability factors for e-learning initiatives. ALT-J, Research in learning technology 18(2), 89-104 (here) concurs: "there is a need for cross-functional collaboration to accommodate different and sometimes conflicting perspectives" (p.89) if e-learning interventions are to be sustainable. Until contact universities learn the importance of a resource-based approach barriers are unlikely to fall!