Ph.D. Defense: October 10, 2013

a Ph.D. DefenseCandidate: Vorasuang Duangchinda 49560190

| October 10, 2013Assessment of Integrative Delivery Method based on Mobility towards eMM for Education in Thailand

Assessment of Integrative Delivery Method based on Mobility towards eMM for Education in Thailand #2

Thesis title

การพัฒนาเกณฑประเมินวุฒิภาวะอีเลิรนนิงในประเทศไทย ตามหลักการพัฒนาเกณฑประเมินวุฒิภาวะอีเลิรนนิงในประเทศไทย ตามหลักวิธีนําสงสื่อการเรียนการสอนเชิงบูรณาการ ดวยคุณสมบัติของการเคลื่อนท่ี

EN

TH

Assessment of Integrative Delivery Method based on Mobility towards eMM for Education in Thailand

Keywords: e-Learning, Delivery Method, Integrative Method, e-Learning Maturity Model, Mobility


Advisory Team & the Candidate

Principle advisor

• Assistant Professor Dr. Surasak Mungsing

Co-advisors

• Dr. Kittima Mekhabunchakij

• Professor Dr. Kim YoungHwan

Candidate

• Mr. Vorasuang Duangchinda


Proposal ExaminationExaminers

• Assistant Professor Dr. Surasak Mungsing


• Dr. Sasiporn Usanavasin

• Assistant Professor Dr. Thapanee Thametar

• Assistant Professor Dr. Anuchai Theeraroungchaisri


When?

• Monday September 13, 2010

• 09.30-12.00

• Building 1, room 1-401Sripatum University, Bangkok, Thailand


Defense ExaminationExaminers

• Assistant Professor Dr. Thepparit Banditwattanawong

• Assistant Professor Dr. Surasak Mangsing

• Associate Professor. Dr. Boonlert Wajatrakul

• Assistant Professor Dr. Thapanee Thametar

• Assistant Professor Dr. Anuchai Theeraroungchaisri

Co-Advisors



When?

• Thursday October 10, 2013

• 13.00-15.00

• Building 11, room 1201Sripatum University, Bangkok, Thailand

• Video Conferencing via Google Hangout


Contents

1. Introduction

1.1 Terminology

1.2 Research Background

1.3 Research Objectives

1.4 Research Significance

1.5 Research Framework

1.6 Research Questions

1.7 Research Scope

2. Literature Review

2.1 Starting Point

2.2 eMM

2.3 IDM

2.4 Mobility

3. Research Methodology


3.2 Research Design

3.3 Research Steps

3.4 Research Tools

4. Findings & Discussion

4.1 Step 1: Thesis title

4.2 Step 2: Confirm the eMM

4.3 Step 3: Confirm the IDM

4.4 Step 4: Confirm the IDM with Mobility

4.5 Step 5: Integration with the eMM

5. Conclusion

5.1 Research Summary

5.2 Recommendation

5.3 Publications and Presentations

I. IntroductionAssessment of Integrative Delivery Method based on Mobility towards eMM for Education in Thailand


1.1 Terminology (1/3)eMM: e-Learning Maturity Model

A quality improvement framework based on the ideas of the Capability Maturity

Model (CMM) and Software Process Improvement and Capability dEtermination

(SPICE) methodologies.

Marshall, S., Mitchell, G., and Beames, S. (2007). Benchmarking for quality improvement: The e-Learning maturity model. Poster in Proceedings at ASCILITE Singapore 2007.

Marshall, S., and Mitchell, G., (2006), “Assessing sector e-learning capability with an e-learning maturity model”, Proceedings of the Association for Learning Technologies Conference, 2006, Edinburgh, UK.

Marshall, S., (2005), “Determination of New Zealand tertiary institution e-learning capability: an application of an e-learning maturity model: report on the e-learning maturity model evaluation of the New Zealand tertiary sector”, report to the New Zealand Ministry of Education, Available online at: http://www.utdc.vuw.ac.nz/research/emm/documents/SectorReport.pdf Last accessed: August 19, 2010

Marshall, S., and Mitchell, G. (2004). Applying SPICE to e-Learning: An e-Learning Maturity Model? In Proceedings of the Sixth Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE2004), Dunedin. Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology, Vol. 30. R. Lister and A. Young, Eds. pp: 185-191.


1.1 Terminology (2/3)

Integrative Delivery Methodology

One of four Program Delivery Methods in Extension Education. Integrative

Method gives opportunities for learners to discuss, clarify, or to gain better

understanding of the study content, and therefore effective learning can take

place.

Duangchinda. V., Kim. Y.H., and Mekhabunchakij. K., (2010) "Mobility and e-Learning Delivery Methods: Through the Perspectives of Thailand Cyber University Project (TCU)", Asia-Pacific Cybereducation Journal, vol. 6., no. 1 (2010), pp. 30-49. Also available online at: http://acecjournal.org/2009/Journal_Data/Vol6No1/6-1-3.pdf

Richardson, J. G., Jenkins, D. M., and Crickenberger R. G., (1994), “Program Delivery Methods in Extension Education”, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Available online at: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/resources/education/sd6/ Last accessed: February 14, 2010


1.1 Terminology (3/3)

Mobility

Using portable computing devices (such as laptops, tablet PCs, PDAs, and smart

phones) with wireless networks enables mobility and mobile learning, allowing

teaching and learning to extend to spaces beyond the traditional classroom. Within

the classroom, mobile learning gives instructors and learners increased flexibility and

new opportunities for interaction. Mobile technologies support learning experiences

that are collaborative, accessible, and integrated with the world beyond the

classroom.

Educause: M-Learning and Mobility (2013), Available online at: http://www.educause.edu/eli/programs/learning-technologies, Last accessed: February 14, 2010


1.2 Research Background

• Current education needs to improve, e-Learning may be possible solution.

• Credible Benchmarking for e-Learning needs to be addressed.

• Mobility plays more important role for e-Learning than before.

• Credible Benchmarking for e-Learning needs to be addressed with

characteristics of Mobility.


1.3 Research Objectives (1/3)

General Objective [GO]

To Assess Integrative Delivery Methodology based on Mobility towards

eMM for Education in Thailand



Sub Objectives

[SO 1]

To study comprehensively about Integrative Delivery Methodology

[SO 2]

To assess which mode(s) of Integrative Delivery Methodology can be

significantly improved with Mobility



Sub Objectives

[SO 3]

To apply the findings of [SO 2] to the Delivery Dimension of the e-Learning

Maturity Model (eMM), across five processes

[SO 4]

To propose a set of criteria for measuring Mobility in the Delivery Dimension

of the eMM Framework


1.4 Research Significance (1/2)

Educational institutions in Thailand can have reference criteria to measure

Mobility of their e-Learning within Delivery Dimension of eMM, and have a

reference set of the modes of Integrative Delivery Methodology with

Mobility for successful implementation of their e-Learning.


1.4 Research Significance (2/2)

For the very first time, educational institutions in Thailand will be able to

see where they stand in the eMM if they want or have deployed e-Learning or

m-Learning.

Although eMM does have a comprehensive checklist for e-Learning, but

the checklist does not take Mobility into account.


Five Processes• Learning

• Development • Support

• Evaluation• Organization


Mobility

Modes of Integrative

Delivery Methodology

Extraction ofKeys to measure eMM

Delivery Dimensionbased on Modes of

Integrative Methodology

•D

eliv

ery

•Pl

anni

ng•

Def

initi

on•

Man

agem

ent

•O

ptim

izat

ion

Five Dimensions

4

4 3 2 2 1

4 4 3 0

4 2 1 0 0

4 3 2 2 1

4 4 3 0 0

Marshall, Mitchell, and Beames,(2007), Marshall and Mitchell, (2006), Marshall, (2005), and Marshall and Mitchell (2004).

Duangchinda, Kim, and Mekhabunchakij, (2010)

Richardson, Jenkins, and Crickenberger, (1994)

Ehlers and Pawlowski (2006), Fraser (2005), [ 36 ] Weiser (1995), andBhattacharya, I., and Sharma, K., (2007), "India in the knowledge economy – an electronic paradigm", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 43-568

SO2SO1

SO3 – SO4

Presenter

Presentation Notes

ผลที่ได้คือเครื่องมือที่ สถาบันที่เกี่ยวกับการเรียนการสอนโดยตรง กำลังจะใช้ e/m/u learning ว่าเขาอยู่ระดับใดใน range 1-4 eMM ในปัจจุบัน eMM ก็มี checklist ทั่วไปใน e-Learning แต่ก็ยังไม่เข้าสู่ Mobility


1.6 Research Questions

1. What modes of Integrative Delivery Methodology is suitable for

Mobility in Thai Education?

2. Which criteria of the Delivery Process of the e-Learning Maturity

Model (eMM) can be measured to accommodate the Modes of

Integrative Delivery Methodology?


1.7 Research Scope (1/2)

• To study Education Mobility suitable in Thailand context

• Within Delivery Dimension of the e-Learning Maturity Model (eMM)


1.7 Research Scope (2/2)


EN

TH



II. Literature ReviewAssessment of Integrative Delivery Method based on Mobility towards eMM for Education in Thailand


2.1 Starting Point

e-Learning Maturity Model (eMM)

Integrative Delivery Methodology

Mobility

e-Learning Benchmarking Model?

Delivery Methodology?

Technology?


2.2 e-Learning Maturity Model (eMM)

Global Quality Assurances Modelfor Management and Products/ServicesThe International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Model

International Standards for Benchmarking Education

ELTI, eMM, MIT90s, OBHE/ACU, Pick&Mix

eMMDelivery Dimension




2.2 eMM

Example of Reference Process Model derived from the ISO quality standard ISO/IEC 19796-1

ISO standards related to e-Learning as governed by ISO/IEC JTC1 (a joint committee of ISO and IEC), an e-learning standardization body (Devedzic, 2007).



2.2 eMM



e-Learning Maturity Model (eMM)

• The eMM identified the importance of planned intentionality in relation to e-learning and reinforced the need for an institution-wide approach, involving availability of support as well as assessment and recognition of developing skills in e-learning.

• eMM reflects on the ways in which both personal and institutional factors are seen to influence experiences and engagement in e-learning Professional Development.

Juliana, M., Gordon, S., Duncan, O., and Amanda, G., (2009), "Professional development: assuring quality in e-learning policy and practice", Quality Assurance in Education, vol. 17, iss. 3, 2009, pp/ 233-249.

2.2 eMM



The answer to large-scale reform is not to try to emulate the

characteristics of the minority who are getting somewhere under

present conditions … Rather, we must change existing conditions so

that it is normal and possible for a majority of people to move

forward

Fullan, 2001, page 268 | as in Marshall, Mitchell, and Beames, 2007

2.2 eMM



e-Learning Maturity Model: The Five Processes

2.2 eMM



e-Learning Maturity Model: Processes 1

2.2 eMM




2.2 eMM




2.2 eMM




2.2 eMM




2.2 eMM



e-Learning Maturity Model: The Five Dimensions

2.2 eMM



e-Learning Maturity Model: Process & Dimensions?

From: Marshall, Stephen. Journal of Distance Education, 2010, Vol. 24 Issue 1, p143-165, 23p

2.2 eMM



The Five Dimensions of eMM

Dimension 1: Delivery

• Concerned with the creation and delivery of process outcomes.

• The extent to which the process is seen to operate within the

institution. It is important to emphasize that institutions can have

extremely effective processes operating within this dimension, but in

the absence of capability in other dimensions there is risk of failure or

unsustainable delivery and wasting resources through needless

duplication.

2.2 eMM




Dimension 2: Planning

• Assesses the use of predefined objectives and plans in conducting the

work of the process.

• The use of predefined plans potentially makes process outcomes more

able to be managed effectively and reproduced if successful.

2.2 eMM




Dimension 3: Definition

• Covers the use of institutionally defined and documented standards,

guidelines, templates and policies during the process implementation.

An institution operating effectively within this dimension has clearly

defined how a given process should be performed. This does not mean

that the staff of the institution follows this guidance.

2.2 eMM




Dimension 4: Management

• Concerned with how the institution manages the process

implementation and ensures the quality of the outcomes.

• Capability within this dimension reflects the extent of measurement

and control of the outcomes and the way in which the practices of the

process are performed by the staff of the institution.

2.2 eMM




Dimension 5: Optimization

• Captures the extent an institution is using formal approaches to

improve capability measured within the other dimensions of this

process. Capability of this dimension reflects a culture of continuous

improvement.

2.2 eMM



Example of Practical use:

2.2 eMM





•D

eliv

ery

•Pl

anni

ng•

Def

initi

on•

Man

agem

ent

•O

ptim

izat

ion

Five Dimensions

4

4 3 2 2 1

4 4 3 0

4 2 1 0 0

4 3 2 2 1

4 4 3 0 0

Marshall, Mitchell, and Beames,(2007), [ 16 ] Marshall and Mitchell, (2006), [ 17 ] Marshall, (2005), and [ 18 ] Marshall and Mitchell (2004).

e-Learning Benchmarking Model?eMM Representation:

2.2 eMM

eMM – Five Dimensions Leading to Process Capability (Marshall, Mitchell, and Beams, 2007)

Assessment of Integrative Delivery Method based on Mobility towards eMM for Education in Thailand #432.2 eMM

eMM – Five Processes with Five Dimensions and How Scoring can be applied (Marshall, Mitchell, and Beams, 2007), and Tawsopar and Mekhabunchakij (2009)

eMMUtilization

3D Graphical Interface

Application of eMM in 3D Approach Tawsoparand Mekhabunchakij (2009)


As mentioned in Petch, Jim; Calverley, Gayle; Dexter, Hilary; Cappelli, Tim. Electronic Journal ofe-Learning, 2007, Vol. 5 Issue 1, p49-58,

2.2 eMM



Related works

Embedding Learning Technologies Institutionally (ELTI)

MIT90s

Mistry, V., (2008), "Benchmarking e-learning: trialling the “MIT90s” framework", Benchmarking: An International Journal, vol. 15, iss. 3, 2008, pp. 326-340.

Observatory for Borderless Higher Education (2007)/Association of

Commonwealth Universities (OBHE/ACU)

Pick&MixRooted on a systematic review of other approaches to benchmarking e-learning and looks for commonalities of approach while also making a

fresh start.

Devised a collaborative benchmarking methodology which promotes the development of shared good practice statement

Designed to provide a framework for understanding the effect of evolutionary and revolutionary change through the development of the

use of technology in educational organizations leading to a range of increasing potential benefits.

Designed to inform the process of embedding e-learningtechnologies, and assist in developing organizational structures,

cultures and expertise by encouraging cross boundary collaborations and groupings

2.2 eMM


2.3 Delivery Methodology?


• Is one of the three delivery methods in Extension Education, as defined by the

North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service

(Richardson, Jenkins, & Crickenberger, 1994).

• The method is comprehensive and has been tested in several studies including

Adeoye, Adenle, & Adeyemo (2008), and Crocoll (2001).

Adeoye, B. F., Adenle, S. O., and Adeyemo, S. A., (2008), "Framework for Choosing Teaching and Learning Delivery Methods in Nigerian Universities", European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol.20 No.1 (2008), pp.134-140.

Crocoll, C. E. (2001), “Inspiring Volunteer Development: A Resource Book for Training Senior Volunteers in Intergenerational Programs”, National Service Fellow, Corporation for National Service, National Service Fellowship Program, USA.

Duangchinda. V., Kim. Y.H., and Mekhabunchakij. K., (2010) "Mobility and e-Learning Delivery Methods: Through the Perspectives of Thailand Cyber University Project (TCU)", Asia-Pacific Cybereducation Journal, vol. 6., no. 1 (2010), pp. 30-49.Also available online at: http://acecjournal.org/2009/Journal_Data/Vol6No1/6-1-3.pdf

22 Modes as in the Integrative Methodology

2.3 IDM


Delivery Methodology?Delivery modes should be variety, each learners do have different characteristics

Halawi, L., Pires, S., & McCarthy, R.. (2009). An Evaluation of E-Learning on the Basis of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Education for Business, 84(6), 374-380.

2.3 IDM


2.3 Program Delivery Methods (1/4)(Richardson,Jenkins, and Crickenberger, 1994)

1. Integrative Methods

• Refers to one of Program Delivery Methods in Extension Education.

• Program delivery methods that provide the learner opportunities to

discuss, clarify, or otherwise gain greater understanding of new

information can be classified as integrative methods.

• These methods generally provide opportunities for learners to merge

new information with their existing knowledge.

2.3 IDM


2. Experiential Methods

• Audio cassette, Video cassette,

• Interactive video, Audio compact disk,

• Video compact disk, Method demonstration,

• Result demonstration, On- farm

• test, Tour, Field day, Workshop,

• Analysis of data or results, Game, Skit,

• Networking, Role play, and Case study


2.3 IDM


3. Reinforcement Methods

• Fact sheet, Notebook, Leaflet or flier,

• Pamphlet or booklet, Magazine article,

• Journal article, Poster, Book, Fax message,

• and Computer software,

• Newsletter, Letter, Home study kit


2.3 IDM


4. Others

• Broadcast television,

• Cable television, Radio,

• Newspaper, Movie (film), Film strip,

• Slide-tape presentation, Photograph,


2.3 IDM

• Bulletin board, Show, Fair, Exhibit,

• Lecture, Speech, Teletip message,

• Church bulletin, Comics, and Novelty

• items


2.4 Technology > Mobility? (1/4)

A generic term describing one's ability to use technology

while moving, as opposed to portable computers, which

are only practical for use while deployed in a stationary

configuration.

Joan., K., L., (2010), "A mobile future for academic libraries" Reference Services Review, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2010, pp. 205-213

Sumati., S., (2009), "Career Development International", Vol. 14, No. 2, 2009, p. 145, USA..

Wikipedia. (2010). Mobile Computing. Available online at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_computing Last accessed: August 19, 2010


Mobility

Using portable computing devices (such as laptops, tablet PCs, PDAs, and smart

phones) with wireless networks enables mobility and mobile learning, allowing

teaching and learning to extend to spaces beyond the traditional classroom. Within

the classroom, mobile learning gives instructors and learners increased flexibility and

new opportunities for interaction. Mobile technologies support learning experiences

that are collaborative, accessible, and integrated with the world beyond the

classroom.

Educause: M-Learning and Mobility (2013), Available online at: http://www.educause.edu/eli/programs/learning-technologies, Last accessed: February 14, 2010

Technology > Mobility? (2/4)

2.4 Mobility



Mobility is very important for education

• A better understanding might emerge on the diffusion of Knowledge… this being mobile is a key of success

Szejnwald, H., B., and Carbone., C., (2004), “Social Learning through Technological Inventions in Low-Impact Individual Mobility: The Cases of Sparrow and Gizmo”, Greener Management International, Vol. 47, pp. 77-88.

• Factors such as flexibility, mobility and technology as important issues in building design and workspace design.

an intelligent classroom on pupils' interactive beTúlio Tibúrcio, & Edward F Finch. (2005). The impact of haviour. Facilities, 23(5/6), 262-278

• Educators can benefit from the students’ inherent curiosity by allowing them to choose the interesting aspects presented in a video and either request more information or contribute to the information already stored regarding those particular aspects.

Cucu, C., Cristescu, M., & Cristescu, C.. (2010). Contributions to Using IT in Education: An Educational Video Player. Informatica Economica, 14(2), 108-119

2.4 Mobility



Mobility is very important for education

Reveiu, A., Smeureanu, I., & Dârdala, M.. (2009). Generating Multimedia Components for M-Learning. Informatica Economica, 13(3), 88-95.

The networked nature of these devices allows the communication and information sharing,so that we can share the information within them, while the devices are personal.

2.4 Mobility

III. Research MethodologyAssessment of Integrative Delivery Method based on Mobility towards eMM for Education in Thailand





Mobility

Modes of Integrative

Delivery Methodology

Extraction ofKeys to measure eMM

Delivery Dimensionbased on Modes of


•D

eliv

ery

•Pl

anni

ng•

Def

initi

on•

Man

agem

ent

•O

ptim

izat

ion

Five Dimensions

4

4 3 2 2 1

4 4 3 0

4 2 1 0 0

4 3 2 2 1

4 4 3 0 0

Marshall, Mitchell, and Beames,(2007), Marshall and Mitchell, (2006), Marshall, (2005), and Marshall and Mitchell (2004).

Duangchinda, Kim, and Mekhabunchakij, (2010)

Richardson, Jenkins, and Crickenberger, (1994)

Ehlers and Pawlowski (2006), Fraser (2005), [ 36 ] Weiser (1995), andBhattacharya, I., and Sharma, K., (2007), "India in the knowledge economy – an electronic paradigm", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 43-568

SO2SO1

SO3 – SO43.1 Research Framework

Presenter

Presentation Notes

ผลที่ได้คือเครื่องมือที่ สถาบันที่เกี่ยวกับการเรียนการสอนโดยตรง กำลังจะใช้ e/m/u learning ว่าเขาอยู่ระดับใดใน range 1-4 eMM ในปัจจุบัน eMM ก็มี checklist ทั่วไปใน e-Learning แต่ก็ยังไม่เข้าสู่ Mobility

Integration, to confirm by Step 4.1-4.2

Integration, to confirm by Step 5.1-5.2

Final Deliberation

3.2 Research Design

SO4

SO3

Mobility

Confirmed by Publication

(Step 3)

e-Learning Benchmarking

Models

e-Learning Delivery Methods

e-Learning Maturity Model

(eMM)

Integrative Delivery Method

Confirmed by Interviews

(Step 2)

Confirmed by Publication

(Step 3)

SO1

SO2

SO2


3.3 Research Steps

Step 1 Create the Study Topic

Step 2Establishment of

Fundamental Framework

Step 3Establishment of

e-Learning Delivery Method

Step 4Confirmation of the e-Learning

Delivery Method based on Mobility

Step 5Integrate finding of Step 4

within eMM Dimension 1 (Delivery)

SO1

SO1/2

SO3/4


3.4 Research Tools

Step 1Create the Study TopicAssessment of Integrative Delivery Method based on Mobility towards eMM for education in Thailand

Step 2

Establishment of Fundamental Frameworke-Learning Maturity Model (eMM): Finding and ConfirmationStep 2.1: Model ReviewStep 2.2: Qualitative Research: Interview International Experts

Step 3

Establishment of e-Learning Delivery MethodIntegrative Method: Finding and ConfirmationStep 3.1: Model ReviewStep 3.2: Qualitative Research: Preliminary Survey Thai Experts

Step 4Confirmation of the e-Learning Delivery Method based on MobilityStep 4.1: Quantitative Research: Survey of experienced lecturers in ThailandStep 4.2: Model Refinement

Step 5

Integrate finding of Step 4 within eMM Dimension 1 (Delivery)Integrative Method: Finding and ConfirmationStep 5.1: Content Analysis of eMM Dimension 1 (Delivery)Step 5.2: Integrate Finding of Step 5.1 with the Finding of Step 4.2

SO1

SO1/2

SO3/4


Step 1: Create the Study Topic

Objective

• To define research scope and topic.

Methodology

• Series of literature reviews and extensive discussion with supervisory team.

3.4 Research Tools

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5


Step 2: Establish of Fundamental Framework

Objective

• To establish framework of this study, and confirm the framework.

Methodology

• Step 2.1: Model Review

Series of literature reviews and extensive discussion with supervisory team.

• Step 2.2: Qualitative Research: Interview International Experts

Interview eight international experts.

3.4 Research Tools

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

2.1

2.2


Qualitative interview with eight world class experts at Professors level who have had

extensive experience and research on e-Learning and e-Learning quality assurance.

1. Prof. Dr. YoungHwan Kim (Pusan National University, Korea)

Also President of the Institute of APEC Collaborative Education, and Coordinator of APEC EDNET

(now as the Lead Shepherd of the APEC HRD (Human Resource Development) Working Group.)

2. Prof. Dr. Yoshida Masami (Chiba University, Japan)

Advisor to MOE of Thailand for e-Learning

3. Prof. Dr. Tsuneo Yamada (Open University of Japan)

Lead Researcher in eASEM

3.4 Research Tools


4. Prof. Dr. Kinya Tamaki (Aoyama Gakuin University, Japan)

Leader for Government Research in eQA in Japan

5. Prof. Dr. Juan Casstilo (Colima University, Mexico)

Director of Distance Education & Key Members of Mexican ICT for Education Committee

6. Prof. Ricardo Diaz (Colima University, Mexico),

Key Members of Mexican ICT for Education Committee

7. Prof. Gary Matzin

Dean of Continuing Education University Extension, University of California, Irvine, USA

8. Asst. Prof. Christian Stark (key member of e-ASEM research network, German)

Coordinator of eASEM Network and eQA European Research

3.4 Research Tools

Questions Asked

1. Have you ever used or researched about Maturity Model for e-Learning?

2. Have you heard of eMM? Why or Why not?

3. If you have never used it, will you consider using eMM or any similar models in the future? Why or Why not?

4. Open question: Tell about usage of mobile or ubiquitous learning

To maintain validity and reliability of the research, questions were constructed based on the same technique used

for the previous study, as in:

Tse, H., Peart, F., Duangchinda, V., Wong, W., & Elston, L. (2004), Australia and NewZealand Academy of

Management (ANZAM) Conference: Understanding the Conceptions of Leadership in Supervisor-Subordinate

Relationships: A Phenomenographic Approach.

3.4 Research Tools


Step 3: Establish e-Learning Delivery Method

Objective

• To establish e-Learning Delivery Method for the study, and confirm the finding.

Methodology

• Step 3.1: Model Review

Series of literature reviews and extensive discussion with supervisory team.

• Step 3.2: Qualitative Research: Preliminary Survey Thai Experts

Confirm the finding with experts in Thailand who have had extensive experience in e-Learning

Delivery Method.

3.4 Research Tools

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

3.1

3.2


• An online survey form has been used to capture expert’s choices and

opinions in relation to the Integrative Method.

• Research participants included all the 14 teachers of the e-Pro program,

who were lecturers from various universities around Thailand. The e-Pro

teachers have had hand-on experiences in teaching the program since

2006.

• Note: The online form passed IOC process for validity prior to distribution.

3.4 Research Tools


Step 4: Confirm the e-Learning Delivery Method Based on Mobility

Objective

• To confirm the e-Learning Delivery Method based on Mobility

Methodology

• Step 4.1: Quantitative Research: Survey of experienced lecturers in Thailand• Step 4.2: Model Refinement (Focus group with the experts – the 14 experts in step 3)

3.4 Research Tools

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

4.1

4.2

Step 5


Step 4.1: Quantitative Research: Survey experienced lecturers in Thailand

• Aim

To use Quantitative Research to verify the finding of step 3 with experienced lecturers around Thailand

who have at least 3 years of direct experience in teaching with e-Learning.

• Survey Form

Survey form was created, and delivered in the end of September 2010, the results will be electronically

collected and analyzed by middle of October 2010.

Note: The online form passed IOC process for validity prior to distribution.

3.4 Research Tools


Step 4.1: Quantitative Research: Survey experienced lecturers in Thailand

• The Population

There are 78 public Higher Education Institutions, 69 private Higher Education Institutions, and 19

Community Colleges around Thailand, making 166 institutions in total.

Should there be 3 e-Learning experts at their institution; the total research population is likely to be 498

persons. Through the connection of Thailand Cyber University Project (TCU), an online survey form was

sent to key contact person of each institution, the results was collected electronically and analyzed

accordingly. Basic statistical analysis approach was used.

3.4 Research Tools


Step 4.2: Qualitative Research: Focus Group to confirm the finding

• Aim

To ask experts from Step 3 to confirm the finding of 4.1

3.4 Research Tools


Step 5: Integrate Findings of Step 4 with eMM Dimension 1 (Delivery)

Objective

• To integrate finding of step 4.4 within eMM dimension 1 (Delivery)

Methodology

• Step 5.1: Content Analysis of eMM Dimension 1 (Delivery)• Step 5.2: Integrate Finding of Step 5.1 with the Findings from Step 4

Tool

• Context Analysis

3.4 Research Tools

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

5.1

5.2

IV. Findings & DiscussionAssessment of Integrative Delivery Method based on Mobility towards eMM for Education in Thailand


3.3 Research Tools


Step 2

Establishment of Fundamental Frameworke-Learning Maturity Model (eMM): Finding and ConfirmationStep 2.1: Model ReviewStep 2.2: Qualitative Research: Interview International Experts

Step 3



Step 5


SO1

SO1/2

SO3/4

Recapture


4.1 Thesis title


EN

TH




Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5


Step 2

Establishment of Fundamental Frameworke-Learning Maturity Model (eMM): Finding and ConfirmationStep 2.1: Model ReviewStep 2.2: Qualitative Research: Interview International Experts4.2 Confirm the eMM

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

2.1

2.2

4.2 Confirm the eMM

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

2.1

2.2


Step 3


SO1

4.3 Confirm the IDM

Duangchinda. V., Kim. Y. H., and Mekhabunchakij. K., (2010)

"Mobility and e-Learning Delivery Methods: Through the

Perspectives of Thailand Cyber University Project (TCU)",

Asia-Pacific Cybereducation Journal, vol. 6., no. 1 (2010),

pp. 30-49.

Also available online at:

http://acecjournal.org/2009/Journal_Data/Vol6No1/6-1-3.pdf

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

3.1

3.2

http://acecjournal.org/2009/Journal_Data/Vol6No1/6-1-3.pdf

4.3 Confirm the IDMIntegrative Delivery Modes

Number of Teachershave used? have NOT used?Person - % Person - %

• Conference 8 57% 6 43%• Convention 5 36% 9 64%• Seminar 9 64% 5 36%• Panel 3 21% 11 79%• Forum 6 43% 8 57%• Meeting 6 43% 8 57%• Symposium 1 7% 13 93%• Colloquy 2 14% 12 86%• Dialogue 5 36% 9 64%• Institute 3 21% 11 79%• Buzz group 6 43% 8 57%• Discussion group 14 100% 0 0%• Brainstorming 12 86% 2 14%• Audience reaction team 3 21% 11 79%• Listening team 2 14% 12 86%• Interview 4 29% 10 71%• Teleconference 5 36% 9 64%• Telephone conversation 9 64% 5 36%• Computer network 5 36% 9 64%• Satellite conferencing 1 7% 13 93%• Personal visit 0 0% 14 100%• Office visit 3 21% 11 79%

Which Integrative e-Learning Delivery Method have been used by TCU e-Pro teachers?

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

3.1

3.2

What are the e-Pro teachers opinions if mobility can improve the Integrative Method?

Integrative Delivery ModesWill/Does Mobility

for each modeAvg of 5 Rank

Discussion group 4.79 1Forum 4.57 T2*Brainstorming 4.57 T2*Conference 4.43 4Buzz group 4.29 5Interview 3.36 18Institute 3.29 19Listening team 3.21 20Personal visit 2.57 21Office visit 2.50 22

4.3 Confirm the IDM

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

3.1

3.2

Top 5Bottom 5



SO1/2

20

14

20

23

7

6

8

5

3

3

2

7

43

9

16

12

5

15

4

3

3

2

2

4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

< 1 Year

1 Year

2 Year

3 Year

4 Year

5 Year

6 Year

7 Year

8 Year

9 Year

10 Year

> 10 Year

Number of Responders (persons)

Responders' Experience in e-Learning

As Learner As Educator

4.4 Confirm the IDM withMobility

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

3.1

3.2

What are the e-Pro teachers opinions if mobility can improve the Integrative Method?

Integrative Delivery Modes

Will/Does Mobility

for each modeAvg of 5 Rank

Discussion group 4.79 1Forum 4.57 T2*Brainstorming 4.57 T2*Conference 4.43 4Buzz group 4.29 5Interview 3.36 18Institute 3.29 19Listening team 3.21 20Personal visit 2.57 21Office visit 2.50 22

4.4 Confirm the IDM

with Mobility

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

4.1

4.2

Step 5

Top 5Bottom 5

ExperienceIDM in Modes

% of Responders and their ExperienceTraditional Education e-Learning

1. Conference 52.54 47.46 38.14 61.862. Convention 39.83 60.17 24.58 75.423. Seminar 69.49 30.51 38.98 61.024. Panel 42.37 57.63 23.73 76.275. Forum 53.39 46.61 56.78 43.226. Meeting 72.88 27.12 51.69 48.317. Symposium 36.44 63.56 18.64 81.368. Colloquy 18.64 81.36 7.63 92.379. Dialogue 35.59 64.41 26.27 73.7310. Institute 28.81 71.19 20.34 79.6611. Buzz group 39.83 60.17 25.42 74.5812. Discussion Group 68.64 31.36 56.78 43.2213. Brainstorming 68.64 31.36 48.31 51.6914. Audience reaction team 21.19 78.81 13.56 86.4415. Listening team 33.90 66.10 22.88 77.1216. Interview 48.31 51.69 31.36 68.6417. Teleconferencing 25.42 74.58 16.10 83.9018. Telephone conversation 37.29 62.71 19.49 80.5119. Computer network 72.03 27.97 60.17 39.8320. Satellite conferencing 19.49 80.51 11.86 88.1421. Personal visit 46.61 53.39 26.27 73.7322. Office visit 41.53 58.47 19.49 80.51

Responders’ Experience with 22 Modes of IDM

4.4 Confirm the IDM

with Mobility

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

4.1

4.2

Step 5

How Significance the Applicationof Mobility will Improve EducationalOpportunities in e-Learning: Top Five most Significance IDMModes

IDM ModesLevel of Significance

5 4 3 2 1Computer network 67 40 9 2 0Meeting 42 49 18 8 1Teleconferencing 42 49 20 5 2Brainstorming 41 55 17 5 0Forum 40 43 28 7 0Satellite conferencing 40 41 23 8 6

4.4 Confirm the IDM

with Mobility


Focus group with experts for confirmationThe 14 experts confirm in consensus the findings and suggested the intersection.

• Recommended IDM modes that may provide a decisive fact that education in Thailand is open for the provision of delivering e-Learning with mobility; with the primary focus on the following modes of IDM:

• Forum

• Brainstorming

• Discussion group

• Conference

• Buzz group

• Computer network

• Meeting

• Teleconferencing

4.4 Confirm the IDM

with Mobility

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

4.1

4.2

Step 5


Step 5


SO3/4

4.5 Integrationwiththe eMM

Step 5.1: To integrate finding of step 4.4 within eMM dimension 1 (Delivery) across the

five processes.

Based on the eMM Process Assessment Workbook (Marshall, 2007), each of the five

process of eMM is described in detail and in three categories,

1) Practices

2) Sources of Information Providing Evidence of Capability, with Questions for Eliciting

Evidence of the Capability

3) Documentary Evidence

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

5.1

5.2


For each process, Marshall (2007) has indicated clearly which questions

concern with which dimension. This can be seen from the “Questions for

Eliciting Evidence of Capability” section under the “Sources of Information

Providing Evidence of Capability” of each process.

4.5 Integrate with

the eMM

Process L1.Learning objectives guide the design and implementation of coursesSources of Information Providing Evidence of CapabilityQuestions for Eliciting Evidence of Capability1. Are students made aware of the expectations that are inherent in all forms ofassessment?(Dim1/Dim2)

Example of how to filter the Delivery Dimension across five processes - showing L1(1) (Modified from Marshall, 2007: 10)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

5.1

5.2


From the total of 508 questions in eMM, 118 questions (23.23%) that concern with

Delivery Dimension across the five processes.

• Learning Process: total 104 questions, 12 questions (24.54%) filtered L1(1), L2(1), L4(1, 2, 3), L5(1), L8(1), L9(1), and L10(1, 2, 3, 4)

• Development Process: total 82 questions, 22 questions (26.83%) filteredD1(1, 2, 3, 4), D2(1, 2, 3, 4), D3(1), D4(1, 2, 3, 4), D5(1, 2), D6(1, 2, 3), and D7(1, 2, 3, 4)

• Support Process: total 129 questions, 17 questions (13.18%) filteredS1(1, 2, 3), S2(1, 2, 3), S3(1, 2, 3), S4(1, 2), S5(1, 2, 3, 4), and S6(1, 2)

• Evaluation Process: total 37 questions, 18 questions (48.65%) filteredE1(1, 2, 3, 4, 5), E2(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), and E3(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

• Optimization Process: total 156 questions, 49 questions (31.41%) filteredO1(1, 2, 3, 4), O2(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), O3(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), O4(1, 2, 3, 4, 5), O5(2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12), O6(1, 2, 3), O7(1, 2, 3), O8(1), and O9(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)

4.5 Integrate with

the eMM

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

5.1

5.2

Assessment of Integrative Delivery Method based on Mobility towards eMM for Education in Thailand #904.5 Integrate with

the eMM

Confirmation by the 14 experts via Survey

Step 5.2: Integrate finding of Step 5.1 with the finding of Step 4

All 14 experts from 11 Higher Education institutions around Thailand have answered the

survey. Their opinions are quite conclusive. All of them believe that each question is or

may concern with Mobility.

All of the questions does concern with Mobility with at least 79% level of confidence.

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

5.1

5.2


the eMM 118 questions of Delivery Dimension in eMM across five processes

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

5.1

5.2


the eMM

Radar of the expert’s opinion

IV. ConclusionAssessment of Integrative Delivery Method based on Mobility towards eMM for Education in Thailand


5.1 Research Summary (1/6)

• 8 International experts have confirmed the eMM a suitable framework

• 14 Thai experts have confirmed the IDM with the following modes with their

highest preference when incorporate Mobility:1. Discussion group2. Forum3. Brainstorming4. Conference5. Buzz group



• 118 Thai lecturers have confirmed the IDM with the following modes with

their highest preference when incorporate Mobility:1. Computer network2. Meeting3. Teleconferencing4. Brainstorming5. Forum 6. Satellite conferencing



• 14 Thai experts have confirmed the all preferred modes of IDM are as vital

when incorporate Mobility:1. Discussion group2. Forum3. Brainstorming4. Conference5. Buzz group

6. Computer network7. Meeting8. Teleconferencing9. Brainstorming10. Forum 11. Satellite conferencing



• Filtered eMM on Dimension 1 (Delivery) reveals that from the total of 508 questions in

eMM, 118 questions (23.23%) that concern with Delivery Dimension across the five

processes. About 41.55% of that are in the Optimization process.

• 14 experts have confirmed with consensus that all 188 questions are valid when

integrating Mobility concept to each question. The experts have strong preference on the

Development Process.

• 14 experts have recommended that the notion of Mobility based upon the 11 modes of the

preferred IDM can be incorporated with the filtered eMM (Dimension 1: Delivery). This is

the Model Recommendation.


5.1 Research Summary (5/6)Major Contributions

Academic Contributions

• Introduction of eMM for academic management

• Identify which criteria of the Delivery Process of the e-Learning Maturity Model (eMM) can be

measured to accommodate the Modes of Integrative Delivery Methodology

• Introduction to IDM and with Mobility integration

• Identify modes of Integrative Delivery Methodology that are suitable for Mobility in Thai Education

Social Contributions

• Introduction of eMM

- part of assessment for Office of the National Standards and Quality Assessment of Thailand



5.2 RecommendationLimited number of SME (Subject Matter Expert)

• Since there are not many e-Learning Quality Assurance/benchmark experts around the world, let alone

in Thailand, this research serves as a recommended guideline for further investigation in all directions.

This includes but not limited to:

• Repeating the process across the other dimensions

• Modification of the eMM questions based upon the findings

Research Technique

• Refine the model recommendation using Delphi Technique



3 1 1 1InternationalConference

InternationalJournal

Excellent Paper Certificate from

one InternationalConference

Republished in another

InternationalJournal


International Conference (1)• Duangchinda. V., Kim. Y.H., and Mekhabunchakij. K., (2011), "Towards a Mobile

Learning Maturity Model: Application of Mobility into the e-Learning Maturity Model (eMM)", The OAR International Conference 2011: Educational Leadership, technology innovations, knowledge innovation and cultural diversity, Prince of Songkla University, Thailand.

• Duangchinda. V., Kim. Y.H., and Mekhabunchakij. K., (2011), "Mobility and e-Learning Delivery Methods: Perspective from Higher Education of Thailand", Proceeding of The International e-Learning Conference 2011, Thailand Cyber University Project, Office of the Higher Education Commission, Ministry of Education of Thailand, pp. 51-59.



International Conference (2)• Duangchinda. V., Kim. Y.H., and Mekhabunchakij. K., (2010), "Holistic Systemic

Approach for the Sustainable Development and Inclusive Growth of APEC Future Education: Higher Education: Policy, ICT & Systemic Change - Mobility and e-Learning Delivery Methods: Through the Perspectives of Thailand Cyber University Project (TCU)", The 6th APEC Future Education Forum & The 8th International ALCoB Conference, pp. 131-142.

(Receiver of Excellent Paper and has been republished in an International Journal: Journal of International Collaboration in Education)


Excellent Paper Award



International Journal• Duangchinda. V., Kim. Y.H., and Mekhabunchakij. K., (2010), "Mobility and e-

Learning Delivery Methods: Through the Perspectives of Thailand Cyber University Project (TCU)", Asia-Pacific Cybereducation Journal, vol. 6., no. 1 (2010), pp. 30-49.Also available online at:http://acecjournal.org/2009/Journal_Data/Vol6No1/6-1-3.pdf

• Duangchinda. V. (2011), "Higher Education: Policy, ICT & systemic Change: Holistic Systemic Approach for the Sustainable Development and Inclusive Growth of APEC Future Education", Journal of International Collaboration in Education, vol. 6(1), pp. 43-60.

(Republished after the Excellent Paper award)


Questions & Comment PleaseThank you for attending and contributing
