Clicks and bricks work together in the world of corporate teaching
E-learning and corporate universities appear to be following in the footsteps of business schools.
Their paths have been parallel from the first tentative steps, with a sprinkling of courses and institutions, to the proliferation of programmes available today.
And, just as business schools have sought to differentiate themselves by means of accreditation, e-learning and corporate universities appear to be realising the value of quality control.
Corporate universities can now turn to Clip, the Corporate Learning Improvement Process, as a quality benchmark, while the introduction of the Certification of e-learning (CEL) also offers a standard for customers.
The CEL has to some extent been born out of necessity. E-learning has much to recommend it; it is accessible, quick and once established, it is cheap. These benefits have led to its rapid growth.
However, there is cause for concern, as the quality of both the products and the programmes varies widely. To address this, the European Foundation for Management Development, the Swiss Centre for Innovations in Learning at the University of St Gallen, and Spirus Applied Learning Solutions formed a joint initiative, the CEL.
CEL is described by its creators as a “quality management system for e-learning supported programmes in the field of management education”.
Eligible programmes are those related to management education and have at least 100 hours of learning. Programmes must also be operated on a durable basis and must end with an assessment or examination.
The aim of CEL is to raise the standard of e-learning programmes worldwide.
The Open University Business School - the distance learning organisation - has become the first business school to acquire the CEL - in this case it is the OU’s professional diploma in management that has acquired the CEL.
“There is a lot of very poor e-learning around and the introduction of accreditation that gives a quality signal is a very important thing to be doing,” says Mark Fenton-O’Creevy, director of programmes and curriculum at the OU Business School.
The e-learning products that have crashed and burned, he adds, are those that have based their product on technology, rather than on teaching and learning.
Technology is merely an enabler for e-learning says Mr Fenton-O’Creevy; e-learning should be about the teaching and learning processes and the quality of students’ experiences.
The CEL accreditation, he says, looks at the processes by which learning is delivered as well as the institutional support.
“Distance education and e-learning are starting to take off, especially in management education, but the quality is ariable. We [at the OU Business School] do think it is pretty important to find ways of educating potential students and training organisations about what good e-learning is.”
Enrique Dans, professor of information systems at the Instituto de Empresa, Spain, sees many benefits of e-learning.
"It helps if the technology is not cutting edge because the majority of students do not have state-of-the-art equipment"
He started teaching on the school’s international executive MBA, an online MBA, three-and-a-half years ago and describes it as a very rich medium.
He maintains that the best discussions are those that happen online; students can reflect on the issue, refine their response and if necessary supplement it with additional material.
This is very much in contrast to the classroom formula, he says, where students vie for attention and a debate can be so quickfire that subjects are often debated only at a superficial level.
Prof Dans believes a teacher’s role is reinforced by being online. Not only is there more time for research before replying to a student’s question but the online format helps with grading as he can review past questions as well as course work.
For the students, he says a sense of community also develops rapidly online. In spite of being in different countries “they feel a sense of belonging” especially if this has been reinforced by face-to-face time in Madrid and Miami.
According to EFMD through its Clip report, traditional or face-to-face teaching is becoming less popular, particularly with top managers.
“This is one of the main reasons why companies feel they are better able to provide learning solutions for their future leaders internally [with corporate universities or e-learning] than by contracting out to the business schools,” says the report.
WebCT, the e-learning provider, has seen more companies turning to e-learning solutions. Peter Segall, executive vice president, says revenues have increased 20 per cent in 2003-04.
As the company has grown, he says, it has become more learner-centric with programmes tailored to the needs of the customer.
The UK is a definite growth area, he says, and has caught up with the US in terms of momentum. But, continental Europe he adds, is lagging two or three years behind both the US and UK in terms of e-learning sophistication.
The relationship between corporate universities and business schools remains problematic. While both recognise the benefits of co-operation and frequently work together, mutual distrust is common.
Gordon Shenton, director of Equis, the quality control arm of the European Foundation for Management Development, says the main criticism by companies is that business schools are trying to sell pre-packaged training programmes, rather than developing courses.
Other criticisms are that schools are unwilling to work closely with corporate universities, slow to respond to their needs and too academic in their approach.
Prof Shenton believes these perceptions are broadly untrue, but nonetheless it is one that is often repeated in corporate circles.
"Business schools do not understand the kind of differentiation that the companies have been making"
On the other hand, business schools accuse corporate universities of cherry-picking their best faculty, an accusation that may have some justification.
Prof Shenton sounds a warning note for business schools.
Corporate universities, he says, especially those within large companies, are becoming sophisticated in both training and learning and business schools do not always fully appreciate the improvements CUs have made.
“Corporate universities are now tackling the strategic issues, people development, management development and organisational issues that were once the exclusive domain of business schools,” he says.
“What is happening is that corporate universities are making a clear distinction about what they outsource and what they keep in-house.
Business schools do not understand the kind of differentiation that the companies have been making.”
Prof Shenton also believes there is a fundamental difference in perception between the two. Business schools may think they are better equipped to work at the top level of management, leaving corporate universities to deal with general training.
However, he says, companies seem to think it is easier to outsource this general training - sales training or marketing for non-financiers for example - than it is to outsource strategy development and people development programmes for their top executives.
“We are hoping that we can work at this interface,” adds Prof Shenton. Last year Accenture Learning, a learning service provider, commissioned the Gantry Group to research the future of corporate universities.
It has predicted that as corporate universities develop over the next three years, technology will move increasingly centre-stage in programme delivery.
But, although obviously important, Matty Smith, director of learning and teaching services at Henley Management College in the UK, warns that investment in new technologies can be a waste of money if it gets in the way of learning.
The point of investment is not to provide students with gimmicks, but to drive home the message that technology can and should be used effectively.
“It actually helps if the technology is not cutting edge because the majority of students do not have state-of-the-art equipment at home or work,” she says.
Certainly there is a place for virtual learning in the 21st century.
However the experiences of online universities - such as UK e-Universities (UKeU), the government’s online learning scheme for higher education that closed last year - the widely varying and sometime questionable quality of e-learning products, and the growth of corporate universities, would indicate that a place still remains for more conventional teaching.
Perhaps the answer lies in a balanced approach, blended learning, taking the best of each teaching format to create a hybrid teaching platform on which to base education for the 21st century.
网上大学值得吗？
网上学习和企业大学似乎正在沿袭商学院的脚步。
从最初仅有少量课程和机构的尝试，到如今项目的扩大，它们的道路一直有着相似之处。
并且，正如各商学院试图通过认证来使自己与众不同，网上学习和企业大学似乎也开始意识到质量控制的价值。
网上学习证书
现在，企业大学能采用企业学习改善程序(Corporate Learning Improvement Process，Clip)作为质量基准，而网上学习证书(Certification of e-learning，CEL)的引入也为顾客提供了一项标准。
从某种程度上说，网上学习证书应需而生。网上学习很有吸引力，因为它可获得、快捷，而且一旦固定下来花费很便宜。这些好处已使它得到迅速发展。
然而，人们有理由担心，因为产品和项目的质量参差不齐。为了解决这个问题，欧洲管理发展基金会(European Foundation for Management Development)、圣加仑大学(University of St Gallen)的瑞士创新学习中心(Swiss Centre for Innovations in Learning)，以及Spirus Applied Learning Solutions联合创立了一项计划，即网上学习证书。
网上学习证书的创造者将其描述为“针对管理学教育领域网上学习支持项目的质量管理体系”。
合格的项目是与管理教育相关、至少有100学时的项目。各项目还必须在持久的基础上开展，而且结束时必须有评估或考核。
网上学习证书旨在为网上学习项目设立一种全球标准。
远程教育机构开放大学商学院(Open University Business School)已成为第一家获得网上学习证书的商学院，而获得证书的是开放大学的管理学专业文凭。
“有一些质量很差的网上学习项目，采用质量认证是件很重要的事。”开放大学商学院项目及课程负责人马克?芬顿-奥克里维(Mark Fenton-O’Creevy)说。
他补充说，有些网上学习产品一塌糊涂，即那些基于技术而非教与学的产品。
教与学的过程
技术仅仅是网上学习借助的手段，芬顿-奥克里维先生说，而网上学习应该是有关教与学的过程，以及学生所获体验的质量。
他表示，网上学习证书的认证着眼于教学过程，以及机构支持。
“远程教育和网上学习正开始发展，尤其是在管理教育领域，但质量良莠不齐。我们(开放大学商学院)确实认为，设法教育潜在的学生并对各机构进行培训，让他们了解什么才是优秀的网上学习，这相当重要。”
西班牙企业学院(Instituto de Empresa)的信息系统教授恩里克?丹斯(Enrique Dans)认为，网上学习有很多益处。
他从三年半前开始从事该校国际管理MBA的教学，这是一个在线MBA项目。他将这种方式描述为一个非常丰富的媒介。
他坚持认为，最好的讨论是在网上进行的，学生可以思考问题，改进自己的回答，必要时还可以补充附加材料。
这与课堂教学方式形成鲜明的对照，他表示，在课堂上，学生都希望能够得到关注，辩论可能非常仓促，因而对一些主题的辩论通常仅仅停留在表面。
丹斯教授认为，通过在线教学，教师的作用得到加强。对教师来说，他在回答学生的问题前有更多时间进行研究，不仅如此，在线模式还有助于他评分，因为他可以回顾学生以前的问题和课程论文。
他说，对学生而言，在网上还会迅速产生一种社区感。尽管各自身在不同的国家，但“他们有一种归属感”，尤其是若能在马德里或迈阿密面对面交流，就更能加深这种感觉。
据欧洲管理发展基金会的企业学习改善程序报告显示，传统或面对面的教学正越来越不受欢迎，特别对高层管理者而言。
“各公司之所以认为自己更有能力(利用企业大学或网上学习)在内部为未来的领导者提供学习方案，而不是外包给商学院进行，这就是主要原因之一”，该报告指出。
公司网上学习方案
网上学习提供商WebCT看到，已有更多公司采用了网上学习方案。执行副总裁彼德?西格尔(Peter Segall)表示，网上学习方案的销售收入在2003至2004年间增长了20%。
他说，在成长过程中，公司变得越来越以学员为中心，并为客户度身定制一些项目，以满足他们的需求。
他说，在英国网上学习不断增长，且其增长势头已赶上了美国。但他补充说，就网上学习的成熟度而言，欧洲大陆比美国和英国都落后两到三年。
企业大学和商学院的关系仍然存在问题。尽管双方都认识到合作的好处，并经常展开合作，但彼此间的不信任还是普遍存在。
欧洲质量发展认证体系(Equis)负责人格登?申顿(Gordon Shenton)表示，来自公司方面的主要批评是，商学院正试图出售事先打包的培训项目，而不是开发新的课程。欧洲质量发展认证体系是欧洲管理发展基金会的质量控制部门。
其它批评包括，商学院不愿与企业大学密切合作，对企业的需求反应缓慢，教学方法也过于理论化。
申顿教授认为，这些看法基本上是错误的，但尽管如此，企业界经常反复提出这些看法。
另一方面，商学院谴责企业大学挖走了它们最好的师资，这一谴责可能不无道理。
申顿教授对商学院发出了一个警告。
他说，企业大学，尤其是大公司内部的大学，在培训和学习这两方面都变得越来越精进，而商学院并不总能完全欣赏企业大学所取得的进步。
“企业大学正在处理一些战略性问题，例如人员发展、管理发展，以及一些组织性问题，这些问题曾是商学院独占的领域，”他说道。
“目前的情形是，企业大学正对它们外包的东西和保留在内部提供的东西进行明确区分。”
商学院不理解公司一直在进行的这种区分。
申顿教授还认为，两者在看法上有根本性差异。商学院可能认为，它们有更好的条件来进行高层管理培训，而把普通培训留给企业大学进行。
但他说，各公司似乎觉得，比起把针对高层管理人员的战略发展及人员发展项目外包出去，把普通培训项目（例如针对非财务人员的销售培训或营销项目）外包出去会更容易些。
“我们希望，我们能在这一界面上工作，”申顿教授说道。去年，学习服务提供商埃森哲学习解决方案公司(Accenture Learning)委托Gantry Group考察企业大学的前景。
技术投资
埃森哲学习预言，在企业大学未来三年的发展过程中，技术将在课程教授中占据越来越中心的位置。
不过，尽管技术显然很重要性，但英国亨利管理学院(Henley Management College)学习与教育服务主任玛蒂?史密斯(Matty Smith)警告说，如果对新技术的投资会妨碍学习，那么这种投资就有可能是浪费金钱。
技术投资的意义并不在于为学生提供一些新奇的玩意，而是让他们明白，技术能够并且应当得到有效运用。
“如果这种技术并不尖端，其实倒有好处，因为在大部分学生的家中或办公室里，并没有先进的设备，”她表示。
当然，在21世纪虚拟学习会有一席之地。
然而，许多网上大学经历坎坷，例如英国政府的高等教育网上学习项目“联合王国世界网上大学集团”(UKeU)去年关闭，而且各种网上学习产品的质量参差不齐，有时还很成问题，加之企业大学正在发展壮大，这些都表明，更传统的教学仍有其地位。
也许解决办法就是采取一种均衡的方式，一种混合式教育手段，取各种教学模式之长，创建一个综合性教学平台，以此作为21世纪教育的基础。
