Home

Executive Summary

1 Introduction

2 Context

3 Methodology

4 - 9 Findings, Analysis and Discussion

10 Summary of Findings

11 Discussion of Findings

12 References

13 Case Studies

Acknowledgments & Partners

Case Study Map 

Institution H1

6 Impact of networked learning on infrastructure and support services

The infrastructure in relation to networked learning requires examination of both the technological aspects of networked learning and the support that needed by both staff and students.

Technological

The technological aspects that were identified by the participants in this study explored issues in relation to the robustness of the system, technological support, centralisation of the services and support for staff.

Robustness and security

Three respondents expressed some concern about potential systems failure and the implications in terms of the impact on the confidence of staff and students in networked learning.

Well, there can be technical problems because getting it all to work is not necessarily straight forward and that particularly applies because you raise people’s expectations for example, that they can access things off campus and then you get technical problems that make that difficult or simply one of systems going down. … systems go down, resources aren’t available in the way that books normally are unless you’ve got a building project on and then you can’t get at them but generally speaking they are usually easier to access once you get into the building. So that’s one issue. (H1I4)

So for example I was running a CAA exam for first year students, 250 of them with somebody from Management and we had to split them into two groups to run the assessment because we didn’t have enough workstation areas. … When the second group came in we discovered that suddenly one of the computer rooms had stopped working completely, there was a problem with the network. Most of the students we were able to redistribute to the other rooms as there were a few spare places and we were left with 13 people who didn’t have a computer to work on so I had to bring them over here and luckily this room wasn’t in use and I was able to sit them down here and the last one in my office, so we were that far from disaster.
Interviewer: But you learned from that experience?
Respondent: I certainly did and that’s why we are running this project now. So if any of the students had really complained about the circumstances in which this had been run they would have had very good grounds for appeal. (H1I2B)

The downside of that, when you’ve got 5000 people using the system, trying to take it down at any point for essential maintenance is a nightmare, any system failures are catastrophic in terms of that. Also with the move to lifelong learning and moving away from the traditional academic year, more summer schools and there are some nursing courses that are 76 week modules, 76 week courses. Now you try and plan a yearly upgrade in a 76 week programme and so there is never a time you can say fine, we’ll have two weeks out there and build another one….

… How we deal with that is, if we do upgrade we try and sort of build another one in parallel and then changeover. We have set a period of Wednesday morning, eight till nine as an at risk time so if there is a software upgrade, like a minor one, one that will require the system to be rebooted if you have a security pack or something to put on there, that may only take 10 minutes and then has to be rebooted so we have that hour, we tell people it may be down. (H1I5)

This last respondent reported that the systems needed regular maintenance and upgrades if failures were to be avoided or minimised and that this was increasingly more difficult because of the growth in networked learning and the increasing demands on the system. The academic year had extended to meet the demands of lifelong learning initiatives, and while there used to be times when the systems were less heavily used and maintenance could be scheduled, this was becoming increasingly more difficult.

Interoperability of the MLE

The institution is moving towards interoperability with a single user log in and password that allows access to all university systems, and their forthcoming linked MIS system.

… so that now there is a single password for students to access their email on computers and the VLE, whereas before they had a different password for email and the VLE and they were always forgetting it and were registering themselves several times on courses. So these things are happening… quite slowly but again that is good because the systems are changing and … there is a brand new student information system coming along … that that will be hooked up to the VLE and plans are quite well progressed for that so our virtual learning environment is turning into a managed learning environment but the pace which that can happen is dictated by the wider changes in the university. (H1I2B)

Centralisation of services

Four respondents discussed standardisation of software at some length. In the early stages of the development of e learning two VLEs were available. As a result of the growth of networked learning and the need to choose the most appropriate software for interoperability a decision was taken to standardise on one VLE software package. The decision appears to have been influenced by the fact one VLE was the more popular, a large number of courses had been developed for it, but far fewer had been developed for other VLE.

We got to the point as a result of bottom up interest and enthusiasm and take up of the existing platforms, [that] if we were going to step up to the next level, we couldn’t really afford to run both [VLEs], both in terms of the license costs and the support costs and so we had to take a decision to go for one. (H1I4)

[The new MIS]... the project itself includes a portal which I think we’ve also bought and it includes [a link] to the VLE. We decided not to use [VLE b], we decided to go with [VLE b], that’s the one that this university is going to support. (H1I1)

One respondent noted that this decision caused some degree of tension and resistance amongst academic staff, although this appears to have been resolved by the purchase of QuestionMark Perception assessment software.

The university took the decision that they were going to not subscribe to [VLE b] any more, but to close it down and remain on [VLE a] as the preferred Managed Learning Environment. … [the chosen] VLE had well over a thousand courses [already on it]. The numbers were compelling, but nonetheless there was an issue that these three hundred plus questions from myself plus colleagues had been developed in this particular environment and they needed to be migrated across into [the selected VLE]. So there was a bit of ill feeling… because all this time had been spent on getting [VLE b] set up, and the university responded fairly well to that; the university has now invested in QuestionMark Perception, which is a more robust multiple choice setting software, and the university is going to fund the transition of the questions out of [VLE b] into QuestionMark Perception. So, yes, this is a problem which couldn’t be overcome by us maintaining and continuing with [VLE a], with its assessment mechanisms, so the university has bought in a bolt on computer aided assessment package now that will do everything and more that [VLE b] was doing. So that problem has been overcome. (H1I3)

It was clear from the responses that there was also centralisation in terms of support; Information Systems Services provide central IT support and the Centre for Learning and Teaching (CLT) provide networked learning support.

… the CLT and … [Information Systems Services] … we are both central services but slightly different. [Information Systems Services] paid for the server, [CLT] paid for the license, there was some collaboration in terms of that but LSS now fund that… the VLE and CAA everything is run centrally. (H1I5)

Access to the network, computers and support

Access to the network, computers and support were not discussed in any of the interviews.

Support

The technology itself is an important aspect of the development of networked learning but along with that goes a need for people to be able to use it effectively and to develop new skills. Senior management are aware that support for staff and students is central to the development of networked learning. This is explicitly stated in the e learning strategy and was reiterated by one respondent in interview:

I think there are issues too about the requirement for training and development and support in that both staff and students do need to be given the right sort of support. We need to ensure that they’ve got the skills in order to benefit from these new ways of doing things. It’s easy to make assumptions that people have got the confidence to work in this way. (H1I4)

Staff training

Interviews confirmed that frequent training courses are run by the CLT, as detailed in the e learning strategy, but there were some suggestions that perhaps the less confident and less enthusiastic staff would not go on such courses and would rely instead on informal contacts with colleagues.

The fact that the training courses did not appear to be reaching many of the staff who most need them seems to be recognised by three respondents who spoke of their belief that informed colleagues would help out the reluctant staff, and that enthusiastic members of staff might inspire the less positive ones. Furthermore, these respondents expressed the view that ‘evangelism’ was required if such staff members were to be converted, suggesting that the CLT department recognise the need to go out and ‘sell’ networked learning to many staff.

The CLT run various courses for anyone in the university to go onto like half day or a couple of hours at lunchtime sessions or day sessions on the use of the VLE and likewise they have done the same for computer aided assessment … But those people that are unsure, I’m not sure what the processes would be for them to get involved. There are people who are willing to help them certainly, there is the CLT, there is ISS, and there are colleagues. I’ve certainly spoken to others within my department and said I want to do this within the VLE and they’ve said yes, I’ll pop up and have a chat with you. So there are informal groupings that go on to help each other out. But for people who are at the stage [of not knowing] what a VLE is, [and] don’t have a clue how [they] can use it, I think that is more a role for CLT to help them out and for that member of staff to engage in a training course of some description which the CLT does offer. But how often they offer them and whether it is convenient times I really don’t know. (H1I3)

Now we … have lunchtime awareness raising sessions as the first point of design and training and [for] those kind of things. We go with the explicit aim that it should augment the traditional teaching and so the VLE is used in that light and does have a phenomenal take off. The first pilot of course we ran with 10 people to now some 6 or 700 tutors are using the VLE.
Interviewer: And do they come to these, do they all come to these lunchtime sessions?
Respondent: Well that’s where we have gone out into the departments as an evangelist really, because people have heard of these things and … may not fully understand what it means so this is the first, instead of them having to come to us, we go to them and give them demonstrations and they think oh that’s not so bad, I could make use of that and they have. (H1I5)

Support for staff

The strategy documents state that support for staff is seen as an essential ingredient in the successful uptake of networked learning. Two respondents felt that there was support for staff, but another did not agree, and a further respondent recognised that there would not be enough support staff if everyone enthusiastically engaged with e learning.

Extensive support for staff development for e Learning through a CPD Workshop Programme, PCAP, and the new CAES e Learning, opportunities to be involved in research into innovative practices, and availability of support materials including Case Studies. (H1I2A questionnaire)

There hasn’t been the support for the academic staff to do the work. Like giving them the time to develop the course or whatever, there doesn’t seem to be any sort of central push along those lines… There has been technical support available but it has not been perceived as being easily available and I think various schools have struggled on their own, tried to develop things where they could have had more support. … [it] is up to senior management to push this and say we have this available, we are putting so much resource into it, do feel that you can apply to these [support] people if you need help etc. (H1I2C)

… we have profound problems [here] … of either not wanting to, or not being able to, evaluate what we are doing well enough and I hate the idea that we are making really important decisions that are based on either the bandwagon effect, everybody else is doing it so we’ve got to do it, or even worse, influential people enthusiastic people with this top down approach and it’s almost like sort of development on a whim when it happens. (H1I2A)

There is acknowledgement from one respondent that more resource needs to be put into staff development.

I think that probably we will need quite a bit more resource in terms of people on the ground to help lecturers engage and certainly to engage beyond a threshold level. I mean it’s quite easy to post information… a programme specification or unit outline, have your class lists and be able to communicate by email with your class, that’s a pretty basic level, but to get beyond that I think there will need to be quite a bit of resource and hopefully there will be in terms of staff with innovative ideas and people like (name) get out there and help people do it. (H1I6B)

Support for students

Support for students was not widely discussed. There was a reference to an attempt to develop critical discussion and another reference to the need to provide better support for placement and part time students.

The problem was that the students didn’t really know how to engage with each other online, they kept wandering off topic and they weren’t being sufficiently critical. The aim of the discussion was to develop criticality and they just weren’t doing it … It’s very difficult in face to face courses to produce online discussion without it been fairly artificial. (H1I2B)

Now obviously a lecturer can’t be everywhere, a tutor can’t be everywhere and obviously electronic means are the way to go. I would say that’s one of the challenges for us is to be able to make it a resource available for people who don’t come into campus for example while on placement and also to part time students, to support part time students better. (H1I6B)

Library and learning resources

One respondent described the library and learning resources that currently exist for students; these include extensive web based resources, which are supported by student induction sessions. The university is also investing in developing a student portal.

We have a very sophisticated web presence that is accessible on the web for everybody and I think there is a lot of information and a lot of links there that if people take the trouble to go through it, it would improve their learning and the learning support tremendously. … We do a lot of teaching sessions for each subject and try and get [information skills courses] embedded so that students have access [to information] as and when they need. The university is doing a portal at the moment so we are going to have a big presence… [that] will be customised for each user. (H1I2C)

Summary

The infrastructure and support aspects that were identified by the participants in this study explored issues in relation to the robustness of the system, technological support, centralisation of the services and support for staff.

Three respondents expressed some concern about system failure and the implications in terms of the impact on the confidence of staff and students in networked learning. One respondent noted that increasing demands on the infrastructure and services made it ever more difficult to schedule the system maintenance and upgrades necessary to ensure a reliable and robust service.

The university has established a single user login for all student systems and is moving towards developing an MLE after their new MIS has been installed. The university standardised on a single VLE that is centrally supported. This decision was mainly due to the costs involved in providing multiple VLEs. This decision did cause some tension with staff using the discontinued VLE, but the situation has been addressed by the purchase of CAA software. Services and support for networked learning have been centralised; Information Systems Services provide central IT support and the Centre for Learning and Teaching (CLT) provide networked learning support.

The university strategy and senior staff are aware that support for staff and students is central to the development of networked learning; although one respondent suggested that more resource needs to be put into staff development. A broad range of training is provided for staff but does not appear to reach those staff that are not yet engaged or are resistant to networked learning. Some respondents believe that peer support can have a significant impact on staff attitudes and willingness to embrace networked learning. In contrast, support for students was not widely discussed by the respondents. However support for students does seem to be provided through library and learning resources; the university is also developing a student portal.

A considerable amount of resource has recently been devoted to improving the infrastructure and support, although there is perhaps more work to do in supporting both staff and students.