Return Home
Abstracts
Program
Participants
Evaluation
Committees
APRU Members
Sponsors

General Information

• Networking and best practice;
• Networking; learning first-hand what others are doing; seeing if a model that supports collaboration can work;
• As always, the informal interaction was a highlight;
• Small group exchanges focused on a theme; discussion around alternative approaches eg. Terry Hilsberg;
• Interactions; various keynote sessions esp. by Tony bates, Terry Hilsberg;
• To plan a distance learning project or program; to know what other universities do work and research and distance learning based on internet;
• The presentations of Tony Bates and Richard Katz; the contacts with the other delegates;
• Networking and information sharing;
• The keynote presentations; the breakout groups;
• Exchange ideas and meeting with people with similar interests and needs; some talks and paper presentations; the possibility to engage in joint ventures with other universities in DL programs;
• Meeting people and learning of their work especially some keynotes and number of Asian Pacific Rim partners;
• Identification of "proposals to action" via The Breakout Session process; discussions, formal and informal; networking;
• Richard Katz talk;
• Breakouts and calls for follow-up action with APRU leaders;
• The importance of DL in higher education; exchange of ideas and experience in DL; start to make proposals for action;
• Opportunities for networking; keynotes were very stimulating;
• Keynotes presentations;
• Instructional design;
• Keynote speakers and their topics;
• Personal networking but also, discussions of how to better understand one another's strategic interests and goals;
• Interaction with participants; keynotes were terrific;
• Keynote speakers, planned seating at last dinner; individual discussions;
• Markets and profit; promoting collaboration of APRU
• I found that there were many different opinions. I recognised that I must not forget "education doesn’t make money";
• Keynotes sessions;
• Getting up to speed as to what APRU is, and my role as an APRUNet representative.

Very well

Quite well

Not very well

NA

to raise awareness of the issues promoting inhibiting collaborations arising from the APRU network

14

16

1

Very well

Quite well

Not very well

NA

• Planning and management issues in distance education

15

12

4

• Emerging markets in distance education

6

18

6

1

• Infrastructure, network and inter-operablility matters

3

16

10

2

• Strategies for Universities to work together

8

18

5

2

21

8

Very well

Quite well

Not very well

NA

to identify opportunities for participant institutions to collaborate in distance education partnerships and markets

4

20

7

Very

Quite

Not very

Q4. If you answered "Not Very Relevant", please say why.

• The devil is in the details – we have a lack of finite information
• The conference still lacks clarity of purpose

• The level of DL’s importance; the business model to support it; how to make DL a superior experience
• Bring forward prospects/action from APRU delegates
• Developing distance education initiatives in support of my institution’s strategic initiatives in research and education. How do I align distance learning activities so they are in parallel with the grand initiatives being advanced by my institution
• Broader adoption of DL approach to augment conventional teaching
• How to plan our university’s distance learning as a program, including course development, management related to distance learning, marketing, etc
• Learning objects development; research on distance education teaching strategies
• Establishing strategic bilateral/multilateral joint programs and developing infrastructure and processes to support these initiatives
• Internal policies and procedures; enabling infrastructure and professional development
• Having a DL centre in the university to link all the DL initiatives and to organise and plan more cooperatively DL experiences and projects; strategic planning for DL; to design a website with all DL activities in the university
• Is DL a key institutional priority within my institution?
• Internal policy and procedures for facilitating development and approval of DE courses generally – whether APRU or not; intercultural learning research
• Prioritising our activities
• Using DL to improve the education for on-campus students and change the traditional education; to consider how to enlarge the educational function of the university, ie. Building DL systems and carry out DL into society
• Decide on what business model(s) make sense for us
• Not yet clear
• Build strategic partnerships in DL
• Push senior officers to consider degree to which DL or distributed learning are to be a part of institutional strategic plan
• DL support for research students; practical 24/7 student and staff support
• Realising institutional priorities (not individual faculty priorities) in developing e-learning
• Developing the best education programs for more people, especially for training courses and quality controlling
• Search for the most effective subjects to offer by DL
• To establish foreign language learning by DL
• Clarity of support commitment to DL; Clarity of business models
• Test and research pedagogical and teaching issues associated with a mix of synchronous and asynchronous teaching using high speed bandwidths. Need to communicate WITHIN my organisation what APRU is about and identify interested program and research areas

• To do what DL should do: be certain we come together with full knowledge of everyone’s abilities and needs and opportunities; we need a basis of facts
• Show value through action of APRU
• Developing collaborative projects – what works, what doesn’t, sharing of lessons learned, guidelines on creating public/private partnerships. Sharing data from the demand (student) vs supply (university) side
• Implement a centralised APRU online repository of web educational resources
• Examine education and teaching models and instruction design matters; relation of distance learners with campus teachers
• Globalisation and sharing curricula implications
• Continued sharing; identify 1 or 2 flagship activities
• Clarity of purpose and value add of membership
• Quality in DL; best practices in DL; methodologies and models to design DL; evaluation of DL
• Getting a collective initiative report/work in progress – eg on seminar series or research channel
• Reporting back to APRU on internal collaborations
• Defining the roles, goals and objectives to come out of DLI4. What defines this group? The final session was very good in helping to set objectives and provide action items.
• To discuss the real cooperation among APR universities; to identify the techniques and standards of DL systems
• All should report on our strategic view of the role of DL in our institutions based on a structured response to a questionnaire
• Content management and presentation; tools to promote collaborative learning activities; issues in content delivery across network
• Archive
• Inter-institutional access to courses
• Strategic planning/IT roles/how DL becomes part of the strategic plan of the institution
• Team building and management in DL development and delivery
• Cost effective collaborations
• Establishing partnerships and initialising some collaboration projects
• Which subject is the best by DL needs to be discussed
• High quality shared services built above APRUNet
• Incentives to faculty and researchers to participate in APRU activities in a self-financing environment. How to share knowledge about DL and institutional planning for DL-IT teaching, to help members new to these areas

Q7. Any other comments?

• More "best practice" show and tell can serve the member schools better than keynote speakers forum
• Tony Bates gave a very comprehensive coverage on [planning and management issues in distance education]
• Terry Hilsberg introduced the mass production model and its impact well [re. Emerging markets in distance education]
• Broad but superficial [coverage of infrastructure, network and inter-operability matters]. A more direct application could have been more useful.
• Richard Katz summarised the state of the struggle in DL well [re. Strategies for universities working together]
• [costing networked learning and research was] theoretically sound but not very practical
• Thank you ANU and U Sydney very much for your hospitality and hard work!
• To go forward we need to show value we have created in three years; we have to "earn" the right to go forward – have we earned that right! No basis presented to support this!
• Lack of support data on other members hurt [in collaborations arising from the APRU network]
• Tony Bates was outstanding [re. Planning and management issues in distance education]
• The alarm [re. Emerging markets in distance education] was well heard
• The poor technology [and] no real message confirmed the challenge [re. Infrastructure, network and inter-operability matters]
• Katz was outstanding [re. Strategies for universities working together]
• [Costing networked learning and research] was of questionable value and use of time
• We need more information to assess opportunities [for participant institutions to collaborate in distance education partnerships and markets]
• Overall – great conference with great promise
• Thanks to both of the institutions for organising this event and for your gracious hospitality. You’ve done a wonderful job of organising a complex event
• It would be helpful to obtain information and insight on how corporations are doing distance education and e-learning. Many millions have been invested by corporations for internet and customer training. Let’s learn from these folks about what works and what doesn’t; build in more counterpoints. The Hilsberg presentation brought in the right type of "positive tension" which led to constructive conversation. Please post these results and comments. It would be very helpful for us to read the reactions of the participants. Let us know when these are posted. Thanks - and thanks to USYD and ANU for doing a fabulous job. Well done!
• Well organised conference. Thanks to ANU and U of Sydney and APRU secretarial and APRU Net Leaders
• It’s a very good conference. Thank you, the Australian National University and the University of Sydney. It is suggested that at the next conference (DLI4) in 2003 a conference proceeding is printed or speakers’ powerpoint address is printed for delegates.
• I think it is timely to review the benefits of APRU relative to the costs of involvement
• Group work should be more focused, with clear goals and ideas. Because some papers were more interesting than some talks, papers should have more exposure to the whole audience. Do not divide them into stream sessions. APRU members should meet with a pre-designed agenda known in advance. Two or three months before the conference we should have a clear agenda and program. We should try to work things in advance virtually and leave for the conference and meetings the things that really need [face-to-face] work
• Terry Hilsberg’s presentation [re. Emerging markets in distance education] was provocative, but extremely vacuous
• Research into intercultural learning will be extremely important; and this could also (subtly) inform the "culture/s" of APRU itself – ie. What APRU values, what APRU does, how it does it
• The ANU and USydney teams have done a wonderful job putting together an excellent conference experience that I am confident will stimulate important, new APRUNet activities in the year to come. Thank you.
• Continue the DL series they are very valuable for the networking opportunities and synergies that result.
• Too much [on emerging markets in distance education]
• APRU members need to talk with non-APRU sister institutions/agencies and act as hubs to link the best in DL available. APRU members do not have a mortgage on best practice in DL
• More preparation of participants prior to the conference would be very helpful.
• The 2 site arrangement presentation wasted time.
• Thanks a lot for your efforts.
• Should/could have a collection of short biographies / job statements of all the participants. This to be in place before the conference.
• Excellent hospitality from hosts, U of Sydney and ANU, especially Simon Carlile and his colleagues. Felt that many delegates were not in a position to commit to collaborative activities, although personal networking was useful.