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 H3

1 Executive Summary

The case study reported on here forms one element in a set of twenty studies conducted as part of the JISC funded INLEI study into the impact of networked learning on FE and HE institutions.

Purpose of the study

The main aim of this project is to explore the impact of large scale networked learning on HE and FE institutions based on the experiences and perceptions of key members of staff involved in the development of networked learning. For the purpose of this project we define networked learning as

Learning in which Information and Communications Technology (ICT) is used to promote connections: between one learner and other learners, between learners and tutors; between a learning community and its learning resources. (Networked Learning in Higher Education Project, 2001)

The findings from this project, along with the case studies, provide a set of recommendations and resources for policy makers and institutions that are involved in developing networked learning and e learning.

Context and Participants

Institution H3 is a post 1992 university in England. It is an urban, multi campus institution and during 2002 2003 it catered for over 41,000 students, with 3,000 staff spread across approximately 20 academic schools, and offered more than 250 different programmes. Approximately 7000 modules/units were delivered during 2002 2003 and around 700 of these actively used Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) with all schools used VLEs during that period. It is estimated that around 25% of all the university students use VLEs.

This case study is based on evidence gained from eight face to face interviews with staff in different roles and positions, questionnaire returns from all of these people (NB one questionnaire was answered jointly by two respondents in a similar role), and significant documentary evidence.

The respondents represented the following roles:

• Academic staff implementing networked learning,
• Quality manager,
• Registry staff responsible for student records,
• Senior management with responsibility for networked learning and academic quality,
• Support staff providing a range of services for academic staff and students engaged in networked learning,
• Technical staff with responsibility for infrastructure support for networked learning.

Institutional development

Most respondents felt that the institution was involved in networked learning but there was some debate about how large scale this was at present. The two main drivers in developing networked learning referred to by almost all interviewees were student pressure and expectations, and the central drive by the university. The majority of respondents spoke about the central introduction of networked learning, suggesting that the earlier individual initiatives in e learning had been subsumed by the central plan, and that there was now a very strong central drive.

Faculties were required to prepare an e learning strategy for their own groups of schools, and some were already working on this. Resources had been put aside to support this and, in addition, Heads of School were also offered a basic course about using a VLE for learning and teaching. However, the university has not put aside any resources to provide incentives for academic staff to develop or to use e learning materials.

In line with the Corporate Plan, interviews revealed that no major structural changes have occurred at an institutional level, although a few new committees have been set up. It was felt that e learning should be seen as an integral part of learning and teaching rather than as something different and so e learning policies are still within the remit of the Learning and Teaching Committee. Although there have been few structural changes at university level there have been quite substantial changes within certain support services: in particular Student Support Services, Library and Information Services and Staff Support.

There is separate funding earmarked for the development of networked learning, which is available through the Academic Development Fund. Interviews confirmed that monies for networked learning has come from the Academic Development fund via bids from individual faculties, although it is unclear whether there is a definite policy about such funding.

Infrastructure and support services

Over the past few years the university has made considerable investment in the underlying network infrastructure and considerable effort is being invested in planning the next phase – a fully interoperable MLE. However there are resource implications arising from these increasing demands on the network that are having to be met by the existing team.

Staff support had increased with a wide range of support available to all staff. However, it is suggested that training is limited by staff’s knowledge of what is available, or by their lack of time, or by policy decisions to provide training but not support for materials development. ‘VLE Champions’ were appointed in each school and were tasked with providing help and training to their colleagues. Each champion received extensive training but did not get any additional resources to enable them to transfer their knowledge and understanding to their peers. So, it is possible that only the real enthusiasts are taking up development opportunities and that the support and development on offer might need to be expanded if the university is to support networked learning on a large scale.

Staffing and collaboration

There appear to have been a small number of formal changes of role for some staff. Some of these changes related to an increased workload and the creation of new tasks, and there was some agreement that workload had increased, particularly for support staff. The workload for Technology Services increased and they created one new post and employ contract staff on a temporary basis.

Attitudes to networked learning range from enthusiastic to resistant. On balance there appeared to be slightly more emphasis on the negative attitudes than on the positive, which suggests that although some staff feel that the culture is slowly changing, there is still progress to be made.

Internal collaboration appeared to have increased as a result of networked learning and seemed to involve more face to face communication and an increased use of online contact, but few examples of new external collaborations were cited. Networked learning seemed to have made communications easier, and possibly the improved communication has had a social benefit as well as a work benefit; it was suggested that the newly created web portal had helped to build community links. However, there was also perceived to be a possibility of greater social isolation as a result of the increased use of e mail.

Teaching, learning and assessment

The use of a VLE by academic staff had expanded considerably, although the way in which it was being used varied a lot from ‘filing cabinet/repository’ use through to interactive materials. A number of staff are making use of the technology to develop and change their assessment practices to support student learning.

Reported changes to learning and teaching seemed to be minor, but some references in interviews to discussion and interaction suggest that changes were occurring, and respondents felt that students had a more positive learning experience.

There is a view that blended learning may be the best way forward, although one respondent felt that student pressure might be moving the university towards more fully online courses.

Quality assurance, monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation of networked learning was being developed, and the quality assurance department is working towards change. However, the responses suggest that little change had occurred as yet.

Access

There has been a considerable investment in providing flexible access for students but little was said specifically about widening participation other than in the documentary evidence. The focus appeared to be on how to ensure provision for students on and off campus. Issues in relation to disabled students and the way that technology could support these students were also noted.

Summary

In 2002 03 institution H3 was partially engaged in large scale networked learning. The proportion of usage by students (25%) and departments (19%) showed that further developments were needed to ensure take up across the whole institution, a process that institution was already starting. This engagement was supported by an institution wide VLE and the ongoing development of an MLE. In H3 the decision to introduce and support an institution wide VLE was taken by senior management and this was generally regarded as the point at which networked learning was introduced (questionnaire data). So, although some respondents in interview talked about individual initiatives the majority of respondents viewed the development of networked learning as occurring from the top down.

H3 had been involved in networked learning for about three years; it has an e learning strategy in place as an integral part of its learning and teaching strategy and has appointed champions to support the development of networked learning. However H3 does not offer incentives to staff who engage in networked learning, it has not made any structural changes to support the development of networked learning and it provides very limited support to staff in developing online learning materials.

Five aspects of the overall findings for this study: communication; collaboration; overall staff attitudes; evidence of cultural change; and evidence of a more interactive and student centred approach were used to build up an ‘effectiveness score’ for the case study institutions (Brichno, Higgison and Weedon, 2004). The findings have been condensed to encapsulate the main changes (if any) that were noted from the interviews and questionnaires. These summary words were then given a numerical value and these were added together for each institution to produce a total effectiveness score. It must be noted that this is an arbitrary scoring system at the moment and is used only to give an indication of effectiveness. H3 scored two (out of a possible eight) for institutional effectiveness. There was no evidence of networked learning being used to support a more interactive student centred approach although there was some evidence to show that it was being used to support discussion and interaction. Overall the staff appeared to have slightly negative attitude towards networked learning, although there was reference to a changing culture, and there was evidence of increased collaboration.