E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT 1

An E-learning Readiness Audit: Elk Island Public Schools

Caleb Poole - 87876141

University of British Colombia

ETEC 520 – Assignment 2

Words: 2799
E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT 2

An E-learning Readiness Audit: Elk Island Public Schools

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

Island Public Schools.

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

their academic success.

E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT 3

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.

Readiness Tool and Methodology

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

auditing tool designed to provide an impartial assessment by limiting the complications of

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

‘evidence informed practices’ initiative.

The CARI was designed as a pre-implementation assessment but can be used just as

successfully as an ongoing or end-of-cycle assessment. It features a 4-point scale with the

following possible options:

E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT 4

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

assessment would be completed by all employees or a large sample group.

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

opportunity for further conversations concerning weaknesses.

E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT 5

Staff and Student Readiness

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

prepared educators are to facilitate quality online learning experiences.

The questions for his category aim to answer the following question posed by Bates and

Sangra (2011, p. 71-74):

 What level of support and training is given to instructors to ensure good-quality teaching

when using technology?

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

service that is delivered. It is imperative that organizations have complete, well-rounded

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

Sangra (2011, p. 71-74):

 Does the institution have an advanced, comprehensive technology infrastructure that

enables all staff, students, and faculty to access computers, networks, software, and

services as required?

 Has the institution identified additional financial resources or reallocated resources to

support the integration of technology within the institution?

 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

by, in order to measure their capacity to manage e-learning going forward.

The questions for his category aim to answer the following question posed by Bates and

Sangra (2011, p. 71-74):

E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT 7

 What proportion of staff, students, and faculty are using technology and for which

activities?

 How innovative is the use of technology, particularly for teaching?

 Are students learning better and getting better services as a result of technology

integration?

Organizational Planning and Support

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,

and check whether or not there is a clear roadmap to future development.

The questions for his category aim to answer the following question posed by Bates and

Sangra (2011, p. 71-74):

 Are there “champions” with power and influence in the institution who recognize the

importance of technology for conducting the business of the institution?

 Has the institution identified a clear, strategic rationale for the use of technology within

the institution?

Assessment of Elk Island Public Schools

E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT 8

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

and are supplemented minimally by the informal interview/discussion.

Staff and Student Readiness

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

adequate and does provide regular, additional training.

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

centered on teaching with technology is virtually non-existent. (R. Marshall, personal

communication, June 30, 2017)

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

noticeable disruption to services.

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

communication, June-July 2017) However, outside of these examples, e-learning implementation

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.

Organizational Planning and Support

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

There is no influential ‘champion of e-learning’ that is readily identifiable. The sampled

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

centralized model for a developing institution. (Bischel, 2013)

Important Details from Interviews

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

educational tool, not just a technical/business necessity. (Bullen, 2015)

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

minimum level of service. (J. Peters, Peronal Communication, June-July, 2017)

In 2013, largely as a result of the organizational changes of 2012, Learning Technologies

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

Communication, July 7, 2017)

Discussion of Overall Readiness

EIPS is an organization that has experienced some positive restructuring and

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

to permit for the acquisition of new hardware.

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

students, a district e-learning plan is sorely needed.

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

them with a unified direction. (Davis et al. 2004)

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

quality-of and access-to education. (Bicchsel, 2013)

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

provided regularly, even becoming mandatory for certain staff.

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

through the use of e-learning.

E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT 14

Works Cited

Barwick, M. (2011). Checklist to Assess Organizational Readiness (CARI) for EIP

Implementation. Toronto, ON: Hospital for Sick Children Toronto.

Bates, A. W., Bates, T., & Sangra, A. (2011). Managing technology in higher education:

Strategies for transforming teaching and learning. John Wiley & Sons.

Bates, T. (2001). National strategies for e-learning in post-secondary education and

training (Vol. 70, pp. 1-134). Paris: Unesco.

Bichsel, J. (2013). The state of e-learning in higher education: An eye toward growth and

increased access. EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research.

Bullen, M. (2015). Revisiting the Need for Strategic Planning for eLearning in Higher

Education. In M. Ally & B. Khan (eds.). The International Handbook of E-

Learning,Volume 1, 139-152. London: Routledge

Davis, A., Little, P., & Stewart, B. (2004). Developing an infrastructure for online

learning. Theory and practice of online learning, 97-114.

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:

Case Studies in eLearning Project Management. Ontario: Canadian eLearning Enterprise

Alliance.
E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT 15

Moisey, S. D., & Hughes, J. A. (2008). Supporting the online learner. Theory and practice of

online learning,, 419-439.

National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (2014). Pre-implementation

Organizational Readiness Assessment Tool. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University.

(Updated 22 June, 2017) Retrieved from http://www.nccmt.ca/resources/search/215.

Pasian, B., & Wooddill, G. (Eds.). (2006). Plan to Learn: case studies in elearning project

management. Ontario: Canadian eLearning Enterprise Alliance.

E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT 16

Appendix 1 - Readiness Assessment Document

Not even Some way Nearly We’re there

close to go there
(Absolutely not) (Somewhat) (A fair bit) (Absolutely)

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?

A.2 Do you feel this training

prepared you to
effectively teach with 1 2 3 4
technology?

A.3 Do you have experience

using a Learning
Management System such
1 2 3 4
as Blackboard or Google
Classroom?

A.4 Have you had any formal

training focused on the
design of online learning 1 2 3 4
environments?

A.5 Do you consider yourself

comfortable with learning
1 2 3 4
technologies?

A.6 Do you consider your use

of technology in the
classroom to be of an 1 2 3 4
excellent nature?

A.7 Do you feel teachers in the

district as a whole are well 1 2 3 4
E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT 17

trained in the use of E-

learning technologies??

A.8 Do you feel your students

have the skills to use the
different technologies 1 2 3 4
they are presented with?

Not even Some way Nearly We’re there

close to go there
(Absolutely not) (Somewhat) (A fair bit) (Absolutely)

B. Infrastructure
B.1 Do you have a computer
provided by EIPS?
1 2 3 4
(Exclusively for your use)

B.2 Is internet bandwidth

sufficient for student
learning and other teacher
1 2 3 4
responsibilities (e-mail,
reporting assessments. Etc.)

B.3 Do you have access to all

the technology you require
1 2 3 4
to be a successful educator?

B.4 Do you have access to all

the technology you
desire/request in order to
1 2 3 4
be a more successful
educator?

B.5 Are their sufficient

resources to purchase new
1 2 3 4
technology when required?

B.6 Do your students have one-

to-one access to
1 2 3 4
technology?
E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT 18

B.7 In your opinion, do your

students have sufficient,
1 2 3 4
daily access to technology?

B.8 Do district administrative

systems run in a way that
benefits your role as an
educator? (Attendance 1 2 3 4
program, Online
Gradebook, etc. )

B.9 Are district administrative

systems easily accessed
online from off-campus 1 2 3 4
locations?

B.10 Do you have access to

further technology training?
(E-learning focused 1 2 3 4
professional development)

B.11 Do you have reliable, timely

access to IT services when
1 2 3 4
problems occur?

Not even Some way Nearly We’re there

close to go there
(Absolutely not) (Somewhat) (A fair bit) (Absolutely)

C. Current
Implementations
C.1 Do you use technology daily
in your classroom? 1 2 3 4

C.2 Do you use a Learning

Management System?
(Google Classroom, Moodle, 1 2 3 4
etc.)
E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT 19

C.3 In the past year have you

used learning technologies
in any novel or original 1 2 3 4
ways?

C.4 Do you independently

search out new
technologies that could help 1 2 3 4
in your teaching practice?

C.5 In your opinion, is EIPS

currently a leader in
1 2 3 4
teaching with technology?

C.6 In your opinion, are you a

leader in regards to
1 2 3 4
teaching with technology?

C.7 Does your current

technology use provide a
better education for your 1 2 3 4
students?

Not even Some way Nearly We’re there

close to go there
(Absolutely not) (Somewhat) (A fair bit) (Absolutely)

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)

D.2 Does EIPS have a

department that provides a
clear direction for learning 1 2 3 4
technologies?
E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT 20

D.3 Has EIPS communicated a

clear District plan or vision
1 2 3 4
in regards to E-learning?

D.4 In your opinion, are

individual teachers opinions
included when making E- 1 2 3 4
learning decisions?

D.5 In your opinion, are

individual principals
opinions included when
1 2 3 4
making E-learning
decisions?

D.6 In your opinion, is EIPS

headed in a cohesive
direction in terms of E- 1 2 3 4
learning?

D.7 Do you personally

understand why EIPS makes
certain decisions regarding
1 2 3 4
various learning
technologies?

D.8 I believe EIPS E-learning is

primarily being led by:
(select one with a
checkmark)

A single leader

A department or planning team

School based leadership

(principals)

EIPS IT Professionals

Individual teachers with a passion

for technology
E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT 21

Are there any additional comments you would like to make in regards to Elk Island Public
Schools and E-learning?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________