October 2006 Volume 9 Number 4

courses where it is has little potential benefit, or use of the technology at an incorrect or superficial level. Such
initiatives are often characterized by replication, where the technology maintains an existing teacher-centric
pedagogy without change, or simple redundancy, where the online development is both supplementary and
superfluous to the existing pedagogy.
‘Cultural’ inconsistencies arise when the institution’s policies and practice do not support pedagogical
developments, or where either teachers or students are unaccepting of it, despite the availability of both
resources and knowledge. Many technically-robust and comprehensive ‘platform’ developments at universities
have failed to solicit the appropriate utilization by those teachers and courses that could potentially benefit from
these and do not establish ‘critical mass’ that might embed the pedagogy at an institutional level.
‘Resource’ inconsistencies arise either when an institution lacks the physical resources to realize the
developments possible given the available knowledge and culture, or where it is seduced by the “rapture of
technology” (Ehrmann, 2002), and sponsors initiatives that are too resource-demanding in their development,
evolution, and maintenance to have any hope of long-term continuation. These latter ‘bells and whistles’
initiatives are characterized by focus on advanced technology rather than education, and consequently often
evolve extended and convoluted structure, and large technology costs. Such initiatives require a high level of
continuing technical support beyond that immediately available by or to the teacher. While being eminent
‘institutional show-pieces’, they demonstrate excessive cost for limited benefit, and are typically either transient,
with a lifespan tied to funding availability, or static after their initial development.
At HKU, there appear no inconsistencies within the student body that present a major impediment to online
development. It is apparent that the required technical literacy and technological acceptance of internet-based
teaching is established. Students are quick to identify the advantages of this methodology and determine which
courses would lend themselves to it. The reluctance of some students to assume the challenge of student-centered
pedagogies may be expected to reduce with growing familiarity. Resource availability is exceptionally high.
The major hindrances to the development of online learning at HKU appear to lie largely in institutional
inconsistencies, particularly those of culture, pedagogic knowledge, and non-hardware resources.
Institutional culture
The ‘culture’ within an institution is significantly framed by its strategic and internal policies, and consequent
reward structures. HKU is currently pursuing market ‘niching’ through elitism and ‘excellence’ largely
dominated by quantified research publication, as have many ‘first-founded’ state universities worldwide. This
developing and unambiguous research focus has strengthened a perception that teaching and education aspects of
scholarship are not the primary focus in university career paths, dominantly rewarding discipline-based
publication.
Stoll and Fink (1996), provide a categorization of institutional educational cultures, based on a matrix using
continua of both outcomes achieved and the changes in educational process applied (see Figure 4). It could be
asserted that HKU traditionally is placed in the scope of a cruising institution, i.e. one that possesses a
historically high ability intake where the students have achieved largely in spite of teaching quality. Rankings
based on absolute achievement in alternative criteria, such as research publication lists or inter-institutional
advantage in securing state research monies, rather than ‘value added’ education, often give the illusory
appearance of overall institutional effectiveness.
Figure 4. Educational culture: modified from Stoll & Fink (1996, figure 6.1, p.85)
90