1. Enhancing the undergraduate learning experience
with digital media – approaches and obstacles of a
large-scale implementation
Patricia Arnold /Dennis Wortmann
Munich University of Applied Sciences, Germany
EDULEARN 2015, Barcelona, Spain
06.07.2015
Partially funded by

2. Slide 2
EDULEARN 2015
Patricia Arnold, arnold@hm.edu
1. Large-scale Implementation of Digital Media
2. Approach at Munich University of Applied Sciences (MUAS)
3. Investigation – Findings I: Designs & Technologies
4. Investigation – Findings II: Success Factors & Obstacles
5. Conclusions
Overview

3. Slide 3
EDULEARN 2015
Patricia Arnold, arnold@hm.edu
Product innovation  Process innovation
Implementating digital media at a large scale is
a complex change management process
Extra Challenges
• University as expert
organization
• Rapid technological
development
• E-learning vs.
Digitization

4. Slide 4
EDULEARN 2015
Patricia Arnold, arnold@hm.edu
Strategy
Educational Designs and Technology
Added value – Match between Design and Technology – Selected Technologies
Conducive Framework Conditions
Organization – Economy – Culture
Change Management Process (Euler & Seufert 2005)

5. Slide 5
EDULEARN 2015
Patricia Arnold, arnold@hm.edu
Munich University of Applied Sciences (MUAS)
• 18.000 students
• 1200 faculty / adjunct faculty
• 750 staff
• 72 bachelor and master programs
• 14 different departments
• Founded in 1971
• Second biggest UAS in Germany
WT 2014/2015

6. Slide 6
EDULEARN 2015
Patricia Arnold, arnold@hm.edu
E-Learning at MUAS - STRATEGY
2005/08
• E-learning as pioneers‘ work
• Highly different approaches & different acceptance by various
departments
2009/11
• Need for more support and central services is recognized
• Elaboration & endorsement of an e-learning strategy
2012/13
• Opening of the E-Learning Center to provide support
• Step by step expansion of support services provided
• Systematic quality development being elaborated
E-learning as blended learning to enhance face-to-face programs/ one
online degree program BA Social Work (BASA-online)

7. Slide 7
EDULEARN 2015
Patricia Arnold, arnold@hm.edu
E-Learning at MUAS – EDUCATIONAL DESIGNS

8. Slide 8
EDULEARN 2015
Patricia Arnold, arnold@hm.edu
8
Live
Class-
room
Adobe
Connect
E-Port-
folios
with
Mahara
LMS
Moodle
Audio and
video
recordings
Audience
Response
Systems
E-White-
boards
INSTRUCTIONAL
TECHNOLOGIES
E-Learning at MUAS – INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

9. Slide 9
EDULEARN 2015
Patricia Arnold, arnold@hm.edu
Organization • support in a central-decentralized manner
• 1:1 advice on educational designs
• training for faculty and students
• support ticket system
• maintenance of instructional technology
Economy • personnel resources
• equipment and material
Culture • community building
• exchange of experiences
• newsletter
• quality management system
E-Learning at MUAS – Conducive Framework Conditions

10. Slide 10
EDULEARN 2015
Patricia Arnold, arnold@hm.edu
Investigation of Uptake – Methodological Design
Online Questionnaire (e-learning survey) Focus Groups
Term WT 2013/2014 WT 2014/2015 ST 2014
Participants 825 963 5 members of
faculty
6 students
analysis of relevant data from the log files of LMS Moodle (continuously)
&

11. Slide 11
EDULEARN 2015
Patricia Arnold, arnold@hm.edu
• approx. 17.600 users on LMS Moodle
• growth of approx. 38% since 2012
• grade of extension 88% at MUAS
LMS Moodle audience response
systems
audio and video
recordings
e-whiteboards Adobe Connect e-portfolio system
Mahara
Which instructional technology have you already used?
(multiple items possible)
Findings I – Instructional Technologies Used
(e-learning survey WT 2014/2015, n=963)

12. Slide 12
EDULEARN 2015
Patricia Arnold, arnold@hm.edu
Findings I – Instructional Technologies Used (purpose)
LMS Moodle
• to provide documents
(90%)
• to share information (89%)
• to coordinate appointments
/ thematic groups (40%)
Audience Response
Systems
• to repeat learning
content (56%)
• to check present
knowledge (39%)
• to create an overview on
different opinions (31%)
Audio and Video
Recordings
• for instructional videos
(64%)
• for lecture capture (62%)
• to analyze performances
in presenting or language
seminars (9%)
E-Whiteboards
• as projector (72%)
• to enrich lecture notes
(37%)
• for interactive group work
(19%)
Video Conferencing
• for webinars (65%)
• for online consultation
hours (29%)
• for project groups with
colleagues resp. fellow
students (15%)
E-Portfolio (Mahara)
• to document a
development (57%)
• for the purpose of
representation (38%)
• for reflection (33%)
multiple items could be selected

13. Slide 13
EDULEARN 2015
Patricia Arnold, arnold@hm.edu
Findings I – Support Services Used

14. Slide 14
EDULEARN 2015
Patricia Arnold, arnold@hm.edu
Findings II – What enables & hinders the uptake?
Technical Issues
• low bandwidth, wifi instability and a
lack of support for general IT problems
Technical Issues
• long for a better integration of services
• duration of access to courses
Intellectual Property Rights
• afraid to violate legal aspects when
using technologies
Tracking Concerns
• concerns about data protection within
Moodle (grading)
Lecturer Perspective Student Perspective
Educational Design
• need to be convinced of added value
• Afraid to have to adapt to the
technological tool rather than the
tool supporting their educational
idea
• strive for sound and thought-
through educational designs
• lecturers’ motivation carriers
through in each implementation of
e-learning elements
Usability Issues
• perceived over-complexity of the
learning management system
• regard technologies as somewhat old-
fashioned (gauge web 2.0)

15. Slide 15
EDULEARN 2015
Patricia Arnold, arnold@hm.edu
 Complex change management process!
 High grade of extension possible with good support services
 Innovative educational designs with specialized tools take more time, get lecturers to
share “good practice”!
 Provide support “with a face”
 Educational design is key for both parties – clear added value, good fit of technology used
 Usability issues important for both – students gauge is web 2.0, difficult to reach!
 Technical issues not commensurate – complementing concerns
 Organizational issues: rather opposed
 fear of IPR vs. learner tracking
 – >establish clear policies information upfront!
Conclusions

16. Slide 16
EDULEARN 2015
Patricia Arnold, arnold@hm.edu
Thank you very much…
…..for your attention!
Contact:
Prof. Dr. Patricia Arnold
Munich University of Applied Sciences
arnold@hm.edu
http://patriciaarnold.wikispaces.com/
Slides on slideshare
Partially funded by