IV. A Case of the Regional University E-Learning Center: the CNU-University E-Learning Center

1. 
   History
   

Originally, CNU had a small division for the diffusion of e-learning for university teaching, for their own institutions. In 2007, a CNU-led consortium applied for a Support Program and was designated as a regional e-learning center by the Ministry of Education. Now, the center is under the leadership of the CNU-Education Development Institute.

2. 
   Functions and Results
   
   1. 
      Support for content development for e-learning
      

For selected proposals, 3.5-5 million Korean Won (USD 3,000-4,400) is given for course development. Development of some content was assisted by professional agencies, but most content was developed by professors by themselves using development assistance software, such as Activetutor, Expert, Presto, and Commones. In each process, an original manuscript can be redesigned and improved by professional web designers. Recently, some forms of content, developed with special software, has been loaded onto smart phones, making the content readily accessible by students anywhere.

Table 2 shows annual data of the e-learning content developed by the CNU center

Table 2. E-learning content development by the CNU center

2. 
   Transfer of credits
   

Table 3. Transfer of credits among participating universities

3. 
   Offering e-learning classes to students in military service
   

4. 
   Sharing content developed with the public
   

5. 
   Evaluations of e-learning at the CNU center
   

1. 
   Student satisfaction with e-learning
   

Students were asked to rate their satisfaction with online classes they participated in. In total, six Likert-type items (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) were used to measure satisfaction. Table 4 presents the survey results by gender.

Table 4. Survey results regarding e-learning

			n	mean	standard deviation
satisfaction with e-learning	Course design/operation	male	188	3.98	1.01
		female	105	4.10	0.84
	Instructor	male	188	3.69	1.06
		female	105	3.65	0.89
	class activities	male	188	3.47	0.98
		female	105	3.42	0.87
	evaluation/papers	male	188	3.62	1.08
		female	104	3.67	0.90
	system itself	male	188	3.60	1.04
		female	105	3.71	0.88
	general Satisfaction	male	187	3.66	1.14
		female	104	3.76	0.96

As shown in Table 4, respondents rated their satisfaction with e-learning as above average, but not very high. In particular, they reported slightly higher satisfaction with course design/operation than the other issues. Overall, female students showed more favorable attitudes to e-learning, which may indicate that female students concentrate more on lectures in class than male students.

2. 
   Course evaluations of e-learning classes
   

Table 5. Course evaluations before and after e-learning

As shown in Table 5, the mean difference of the course evaluations before and after e‑learning was statistically significant. It seems that the course evaluation was slightly better after e-learning had been adopted in the classes. It is interesting that the professors in the study got relatively high ratings (over 4 points), regardless of the adoption of e-learning. This is higher than the average of all classes. This may indicate that the professors who committed themselves to e-learning were already highly rated by the students generally.

5. 
   Challenges for e-learning at the CNU center
   

As shown in Table 6, “communication among the learners” is what the students wanted most in e-learning. They felt that they needed to communicate more with each other in the process of e-learning. Technically, such provision is not very difficult. Additionally, the students also need ‘motivation for learning’. This indicates that more enthusiasm and skills are required to stimulate e-learning on the professor’s side. Students want more communication with the professors as well as with each other.

Table 6. What the students want from e-learning

To date, we have looked at the role of regional university e-learning centers in promoting e-learning in university teaching. It is clear that these institutions have contributed to the development of e-learning content and to initiatives for sharing content among universities in the same region, with universities outside the region, and even with the public. E-learning also leads to higher course evaluations by participating students. On the quantitative side, it is no exaggeration to say that e-learning initiatives have achieved remarkable success in a short time. On the qualitative side, however, much remains to be improved.

Based on the analysis presented here, some suggestions can be made for promoting e‑learning in university teaching.

First, instructors should fully commit to e-learning. They have to enhance their skills in operating e-learning classes and invest more time in giving feedback to their students, and in motivating them for learning. Continuous training courses for instructors are essential to enhance the effectiveness of e-learning.

Second, learning systems need to be designed and operated to provide a forum where students can freely discuss issues and topics with each other online. Through such interaction, they can be motivated to be more involved in e-learning.

Third, e-learning systems operated by regional university centers have to be upgraded, based on continuous two-way communications between centers and participating students, to ensure the effectiveness of e-learning.

1. Clark, Ruth C., & . Mayer , Richard E (2003), E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers , San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

2. CNU University E -Learning Center(2011), LMS( Learning Management System) Survey Report, 2011.2.

3. T+D(2005), “ Is E-learning as Effective as Classroom Learning?” , T+D, 59:18.

4. Talent-Runnels, M.K., Thomas, J.A., Lan, W.Y., Cooper, S. Shaw, s. M., & Liew, X.(2006), Teaching Courses Online: A Review of the Research”, Review of Educational Research, 76(1): 93-135.

COOPERATION AND COMPETITION BY SEA PORTS INTERGRATION INTO HINTERLAND

Irina Dovbischuk, Nguyen Khoi Tran, Hans-Dietrich Haasis – Bremen University, Germany

Abstract

The process of a country’s international integration is, to a large degree, interdependent with the regional sustainable development. This depends strongly on transport, logistics, production, innovation and the capacity of local actors to take into account different interests, to consolidate regional resources and competences and to integrate the regional sea port based logistics cluster into regional hinterland and global supply chains. Actors taking influence in the sustainable regional development in the context of sea ports, whatever the country is, build a very complex network in the sense of cooption, i.e. a balance between cooperation and competition. After the theoretical-historical review of sea ports regionalization this paper shows the approach for improving cooperation and better maintaining the challenges in the transport and logistics. After this, the paper draws conclusions on the explanatory power of the theoretical approach of cluster management in understanding in what ways the process of the Vietnam’s international integration by sustainable regional development could be shaped in logistics regions.

A port is considered as the central part of a triptych which also encompasses its hinterland and foreland (Charlier, 1990). The former is regions where cargoes are collected or delivered by inland transportation, and the latter is seaward areas connected with the port by ocean vessels. Port hinterlands are seen as the most complex side of the port triptych with much attention in the present (Charlier, 2011). They are composed of main hinterland, an exclusive area where the port has a monopolistic position in attracting cargo, and competition hinterland, an area where the port must compete with other ports for cargo (Escap, 2005).