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 H2

5 Impact of networked learning on institutional development

Development of networked learning and current position

Networked learning at this university appears to have developed relatively rapidly, starting from a bottom up approach through small groups of individuals to its present centralised system, within which there remains flexibility for individual schools to move at their own pace within their own strategic frameworks.

Prior to the appointment of a new Principal in the late 1990s, the university’s approach to networked learning was described as ‘backward’, with small groups of individuals bidding for small amounts of money through an academic development fund. However, over the last three years (2000 2003) significant restructuring has occurred (including the centralisation of ICT and support services) and huge central investment (the purchase of a VLE, the introduction of a university portal, and the building of a new learning centre), and the development of university strategies that commit the institution to continued development of networked learning, and of the VLE and MLE.

Although the university does not have a separate e-learning strategy the documentary evidence shows that it is determined to engage in the use of technology to support learning and teaching, and to widen participation. In the questionnaire all respondents thought that networked learning was recognised at a senior level as important to the university’s core business.

Seven of the eight respondents to the questionnaire said that networked learning had not changed the focus of the institution, and additional written comments suggest that as a campus based university, networked learning is becoming part of this focus on learning, teaching and widening participation.

Most of our students are campus based, therefore networked learning is being integrated to enhance their experience rather than target new markets (at least for the present) (H2I4 questionnaire)

The respondents were asked if they thought that the institution was involved in large scale networked learning. Three of the respondents felt that the institution was involved in large scale networked learning but five others felt that it was on the way to large scale. All those who felt that the university was engaged in large scale networked learning referred to the infrastructure, whereas those who felt that networked learning was moving towards large scale referred to the numbers of people using the VLE. These differing views are represented by the following typical comments:

Because we’ve got a ubiquitous network here that every computer in the place is connected to basically. So that if you’re using a computer, you’re on the network, and most of our computers are used for learning by staff and students, so that’s undeniable, plus the fact that 75% of our serials are now online. So that’s an enormous number of our users. (H2I4A)

Different parts of the university are [engaged in large scale networked learning], for example the Business School. It is less obvious around other parts of the university but we have a huge number of people using the university’s Virtual Learning Environment and we are certainly moving towards the university using it on a very larger scale. (H2I2A)

It is clear from the documentary evidence that the institution is committed to the use of technology to support learning and teaching. The respondents were all definite that the institution is involved in networked learning and that was perceived as relatively large scale at the time of the study.

Drivers

Two key drivers were referred to by the respondents as the initial forces behind the rapid development of networked learning within the university: the Business School and key figures in senior positions. Five respondents mentioned the Business School as being instrumental in the development of networked learning; the Dean of the Business School is very committed to networked learning and the School is quite powerful because it comprises about one third of the total students within the university.

… a third of the university [students are in the] Business School [which has had a] very strong policy over the last few years of developing their own approach to learning and teaching support…and they introduced [the VLE] to the institution which is now being picked up elsewhere within the university (H2I4B)

The Business School really drove through the proposition that we needed to have a university Managed Learning Environment with the Executive. (H2I6)

There also appears to have been a strong central drive, provided in part by the principal.

I think it was taken seriously here with the change of personnel at the top. The principal that we have at the moment who has been with us for maybe five years was very committed to e-learning. … And he was very keen that we move forward in that area. So from the very [start], I think his appointment was key [to the development of networked learning]. (H2I3)

It was generally felt in the institution, [that networked learning] would be a good idea, and the decision was made by a group of people from across the institution. But I think it was centrally driven, yes absolutely, (H2I4A)

… the Principal was very keen that we should do this in a big way (H2I6)

These early developments led to more central initiatives and funding; the Business School drove the executive to centrally fund the purchase and roll out of the VLE across the whole university in 2002, the Director of Learning Resource Services drove the funding for the existing internet cafe and the building of the new learning centre.

Three respondents mentioned student numbers as a driver.

Well students, we haven’t mentioned them. They I think they are a major driver and that was very influential … in the Business School. (H2I3)

Individual respondents mentioned other drivers: for example other schools began to be involved and to drive the process, with five respondents mentioning the School of Nursing; and one respondent noted that external funding sources (eg JISC and SHEFCE) became available, but that a centralisation of services and support was required to take advantage of them. However the recent central drive was seen as very important, with seven respondents referring to the development of this central driver as important in moving networked learning forward.

Planning

One of the Support representatives explained that the LTAS was now driving e-learning support and that in Support they were now trying to promote e-learning generally, and to work more collaboratively with other learning support services such as C & IT and administration, they are also focusing more on staff development programmes, and the provision of support materials.

… [central support services have to] work with schools to support their LTAS (Learning Teaching & Assessment Strategies) so [that] whatever e-learning requirements and network requirements [the Schools] have is also driving the work they do… As well as supporting the LTAS [they] also want to try and promote e-learning so that next year there will be more e-learning within the LTAS. (H2I2A)

So, more recently the emphasis is on staff development, trying to increase that, trying to pool together our expertise from across the university from the ICT Training Unit, and ICT services, and the Academic Practice Unit, just to get a critical mass to get things off the ground. (H2I2B)

Strategies

The university has demonstrated a firm commitment to e-learning through its published strategies, and four respondents remarked on this.

The institution in terms of its overall strategy, has a commitment to increasing the use of ICT in teaching and learning, so yes the strategic intent is there from a institutional perspective and the institution has invested and is continuing to invest quite heavily in IT infrastructure, in staff development, in IT resources generally for students and for staff and also the development side, so that intent is there. (H2I3)

However, three of those interviewed mentioned the fact that there is no centrally published e-learning strategy and, according to one respondent, this may have led to uneven development across the university. The Business and Nursing schools are very committed and have implemented their own e-learning policies, but the fact that the university decided to allow each school to implement its own e-learning strategy and set its own priorities may have been the root of motivation problems identified in some schools.

… although I think the drivers for e-learning are written into the strategies, there is not necessarily a strategy for e-learning itself. (H2I2A)

Although we had our LTAS strategy, and e-learning was part of that, the perception was that there was no real strategy for the use of [the VLE], for example (H2I2B)

The university has a learning, teaching and assessment strategy. We do not have a separate e-learning strategy or networked learning strategy. The e-learning is seen as part of and subsumed within the learning, teaching and assessment strategy. …as a result of that probably, there are no specific targets or commitments, as there is in the Business School, … to say that by certain dates all modules will be supported by networked learning or there will be network learning potential and possibilities for every student on every module …, there is nothing like that. And part of that I think is because there is not a explicit e-learning strategy or the e-learning absorption within the general learning, teaching assessment strategy is not sufficiently well developed to have these things and goals and commitments to targets to strive for. (H2I3)

There has also been some funding allocated to the appointment of learning and teaching coordinators in every school as part of a hub and spokes model of staff support, with some time release provided. This model includes an additional six half time appointments to the central learning and teaching support unit, as well as the these school based co ordinators, and e-learning is one part of their brief. However, these positions do not appear to be either widely known or regarded as incentives for the development of e-learning, for example two respondents to the questionnaire said that there were no incentives.

Structures

A number of major structural changes were mentioned, which were perceived as encouraging the growth of networked learning, rather than as a result of its growth. For example, particular reference was made to the centralisation of computer services and the formation of learning services, incorporating, among other things, the library and student services; these two changes were referred to by four of the respondents.

But then the decision was taken to centralize IT support, and that was removed from the department. (H2I1)

… ICT services first to get them into one chunk and then the other bits of learning services [which] are the library and student services, and a whole range of things like summer school, induction, e-learning, work based learning or a general degree… and all of that is now part of learning services and titles like library and ICT are in the background now; because of the way Learning Services is organised, is around the support of learners. (H2I4A)

Some new groups have been developed including: an e-learning support group, a technical group to develop and support Student Registry, and a new Learning Services Committee that deals with systems and expenditure.

There is a new unit providing… e-learning support, which is quite small and that has now got the responsibility and there is someone in post now who has, among other things, a responsibility to coordinate staff development for e-learning. (H2I4B)

The only formal structure we have in place is we have what we're calling a registration technical group, which is composed of …[registry officer], the student records officer, the corporate systems manager and the systems analyst who's responsible for the registration part of it and the two equivalent members of admin from finance office. (H2I1)

We’ve got this restructuring within Learning Services…(H2I2B)

There are also some new cross university collaborative groups that were mentioned by two respondents, an informal focus group (The VLE Group), and a funded rapid development task force, to develop online courses for the VLE.

We formed groupings… So for example, to support [the VLE] we have a highly focussed management group, which includes [someone from academic support], someone from [ICT], a technical person, someone from staff development, etc. We bring these people together and we can all bring our issues to the table. (H2I2A)

I’d like to talk about the rapid development task force. It is something that [Name] is developing a process … [for] developing an online course, on [the VLE] or any other learning environment. [The process is] to block off two or three days, preferably off campus, and to bring together all module leaders involved and a team of experts like [e learning support] and ICT support, AVS, … all in one place and take them through this process of development and at the end of those three days you have your online course and you’ve gone through all the thinking and the development work as well and any questions you have there is somebody there to answer it and someone to give immediate help. I think that is very exciting and it has worked very well. (H2I2A)

Funding and resources

Three respondents spoke of the availability of small amounts of funding for e-learning projects through the Academic Development Fund. This fund was seen as having been a useful fund in the past, but in terms of present funding those interviewed spoke mainly of large scale central funding. There were also references to external funding; two respondents mentioned independent SHEFCE funding for an on going project, one respondent mentioned funding from Scottish Enterprise and there were indications that European and local business funding was being targeted for some fully online courses, and continuous professional development (CPD).

We had a process at the time called the Academic Development Fund and people put in bids, development bids, so you might get £2000 to do a little project. So many of the initial attempts to put material on the web or to do with anything in this area, came out of that period. (H2I6)

… for example SHEFC gave all Scottish universities the money to put in place a videoconferencing centre … so we had to get ourselves organised just to take advantage of that kind of thing. (H2I4B)

… and the REAL learning network it started up about six months before I came here and then I got involved with them when I arrived, and it involves three universities in [place name], 10 FE colleges, the City Library Service, Learning and Teaching Scotland and Scottish Enterprise. (H2I4A)

So we’ve been running [a few] e-learning courses externally for a while… [which] has been seen as an opportunity to bring in funding, for example, from the UK and European Union to try and enhance what we’re doing. And also to look at the local business scene, and see if we can perhaps move in there with some CPD courses, etc. so there’s a lot of things being bounded about just now. (H2I2B)

Business

Although all agreed that networked learning is recognised at Senior levels as important to core business, only one person felt that the focus of the university had changed. This written comment in the questionnaires typifies the general view.

Rather than change the focus, [networked learning] is seen as a tool to underpin and enhance the existing university strategies on, for example, widening participation and enhancing the student experience. (H2I2B questionnaire)

Summary

Networked learning has developed relatively rapidly, starting from a bottom up approach through small groups of individuals, particularly in the Business School, to its present centralised system through gaining the support of senior management on the appointment of the current Principal. Within this centralised system there remains flexibility for individual schools to move at their own pace and within their own strategic framework. The institution is clearly engaged in networked learning: however there were differences of opinion in terms of the extent to which this could be seen as large scale. Student numbers were also mentioned as an important driver for networked learning. Whilst the development has been supported from the top, uptake within the individual schools varies.

The university has an explicit commitment to e-learning written into its published strategies. However, there is no centrally published e-learning strategy and this may have contributed to uneven development and uptake of e leaning across the university. A number of major structural changes, including a new network infrastructure, have encouraged the growth of networked learning, and new groups and cross university collaborations have been developed.

Funding was not remarked upon as problematic; and there is evidence of major investment in the provision of new learning centres and Internet Cafés, involving a good deal of external funding.