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

5 Impact of networked learning on institutional development

Although the university does not have a separate e-learning strategy it is clear from the documentary evidence that the institution is determined to engage in the use of technology to support learning and teaching, and to widen participation. In their replies to the questionnaire all respondents thought that networked learning was recognised at a senior level as important to the university’s core business, but two referred to the devolved nature of the strategies:

Although there is recognition at senior level of its importance there is no separate explicit university level e-learning strategy. Strands appear in other strategies such as the information, widening participation, and TLA strategies. However specific strategies have been developed at Faculty/School level. (H3I3 questionnaire)

Respondents were divided as to whether networked learning had changed the focus of the institution: three said yes and four said no. This probably reflects the view put forward by some respondents that:

… there is a gradual change in focus becoming apparent with the implementation of the MLE but the cultural change is progressing slowly. (H3I3 questionnaire)

Six of the respondents agreed that the institution was involved in networked learning but there was some debate as to whether it could be classified as large scale at present. Two respondents felt that it was not yet large scale. These views are represented by the following typical comments:

… yes … because we have got something like 700 or 800 modules, which are making use of [the VLE] and then we’ve got other things that we are doing outside [the VLE]. (H3I4)

Not in large scale network learning, no, but certainly involved in network learning. I’d say we’re still at the experimental stage, at the enthusiast stage. There’s a lot of interest, a lot of involvement, but I wouldn’t say that it is large scale.
… if we talk about [the VLE] as an example… all enrolled students have a [VLE] equivalent of the module that they are enrolled on. Now they may or may not be [online] material on that module supplied by the tutor, so it’s patchy in that sense. (H3I2B)

Historically, networked learning appears to have been developed by individual enthusiasts who introduced a variety of different systems into the university. However, as it became clear that the university would have to provide central resources and support it also became clear that it would not be viable to support a range of systems and that they would have to select one system. A consultation exercise was undertaken and eventually a VLE was chosen as the university supported VLE, although individuals are still free to use other unsupported packages if they wish.

It began … with a number of enthusiasts looking at options for doing it. The two that gained most support within the university were Blackboard and Web CT but then the university [had] to make a decision about which to stand by … and that was eventually ratified by the Information Strategy Steering Group … that we were going to standardise on [the VLE]… about two to two and a half years ago. We started promoting [the VLE] in a fairly big way in summer 2002 and from that point there existed a [VLE] module for every university module. Not all of them had any content, they might just have the reading list or whatever but we had the framework in place and we made it an aim… for every school in the university to have at least one module available in the VLE and I think we far exceeded that. (H3I5A)

… when we made the decision to go for [our chosen VLE] it was not universally popular but it was the result of a process which involved the academic community. So it wasn’t imposed … we actually set up a working group (H3I4)

Although there were individual references to the initial drive of enthusiasts, funding from HEFCE, and the requirement to widen participation, two main drivers were identified by almost everyone interviewed: student pressure/expectations and the central drive by the university.

Six of those interviewed mentioned student pressure in particular as a driver, for example:

… what’s going to drive it is the students. Students think it’s wonderful. Rightly or wrongly we can argue but they are going to drive it because when they’ve got some of their modules which are supported with [the VLE] and some of their modules which are not, then they say hang on, why do we get these additional resources, this additional help, this additional flexibility on these modules and not on these and they can’t see a good reason for why not. So there is significant pressure from students now on academic staff. (H3I4)

… the pressure was very much from the students for lecturers to go out and use the VLE and start investigating it. …. I think that students put some of the staff under a lot of pressure to use it. (H3I2A)

So [students] expect to able to use [the VLE], they expect to have email… they expect to be able to access the systems from outside the university. (H3I6)

The other major driving force identified by respondents is the drive of the university management. Five of the seven respondents to the questionnaire felt that the networked learning had been introduced centrally rather than by small groups or individuals, and six people also referred to this driver in their interviews. The fact that the majority of respondents spoke of the central introduction of networked learning suggests that the earlier individual initiatives have been subsumed by the central plan, and that there is now a very strong central drive.

… there was a definite target [in the] university operational plan of one module per school by … [date] …Every one of our schools has to present it’s learning strategy which has to include an assessment … of how [the school] expects to develop … [the VLE]. So it’s not prescriptive but they have to think. (H3I4)

The interviews also revealed that the move to support a VLE might have been driven by the desire to have an integrated system in place that would eventually link all the corporate information systems, ie to create a Managed Learning Environment (MLE).

I think the management were actually thinking a little bit further ahead than the introduction of a particular VLE; … the implications of the use of a VLE had to other admin systems within the university. I would suspect that in spite of the evaluation, the decision on which VLE we were likely to use, was in reality driven, not by pedagogic evaluation of the VLE, but the calculation on which VLE would best support corporate systems. (H3I2B)

One respondent probably summed up the actual situation quite accurately, in that it was both individuals and the central drive together that were moving networked learning forward.

It’s still both. In a knowledge/management economy the expertise and knowledge is in the individual members of staff and you’re dealing with professional autonomy and a whole raft of other things … and individual members of staff will not be told that their course is more appropriate to e-learning or distance learning or network learning. They will make the decision. (H3I6)

It is likely that student expectations and individual staff innovations have been instrumental in moving the university towards centralisation, and that strategies were planned in the light of funding opportunities and the requirement for widening participation. However, the central decisions and strategic planning have probably been the main drivers for the growth of networked learning within the university.

Strategies/Planning

The Corporate Plan and Teaching, Learning and Assessment strategy have necessitated additional planning, particularly at school and faculty level. Faculties were required to prepare an e-learning strategy for their own groups of schools, and some schools were already working on this. The heads of school were also offered the opportunity to attend a basic course on the effective uses of a VLE in support of this requirement.

NetSkills do some very good introductory courses about using a VLE, [and X] offered to fund every one of our Heads of School to attend the NetSkills course. In fact [X is] bringing NetSkills in to do [the course] here … and I think that will change their perception of what a VLE is and what it does. I haven’t done the NetSkills course myself but everyone I know who has done it says it’s excellent... That will take place this autumn and at the same time the university is requiring all [heads of school] to do the e-learning strategy for their own school. (H3I4)

… individual schools and faculties are certainly writing e-learning strategies at that level. (H3I3)

However, the university has not put aside any resources to provide incentives for academic staff to develop or to use e-learning materials. One respondent raised this in interview, confirming the questionnaire responses.

… there is no reward for that, there's no time for that, there's no structured staff development and time allowed in their deployment to develop that role. I feel that for this to go forward now you have probably got all the people on board that are prepared to do this over and above everything they are doing who just accept that if they want to do this they are going to have to make time and spend their Sunday morning working at it. If we feel that e-learning is of value… well I think that there has to be some recognition that that [it] probably does need even more resources, infrastructures and probably even more explicit direction for staff as to what's expected of them. (H3I3)

Despite all the planning and strategies, questions are being asked about the fundamental educational value of networked learning. This issue was raised by at least three of those interviewed.

I think it’s a very critical point at the moment. I think we’ve had a lot of “oh technology is new – So lets throw some money at it and get some projects going”. I think there is a lack of fundamental planning on how we want to teach our young people, how we want to update our educated people, how we want to use it for education and leisure as the industrial infrastructure changes. What constitutes education anyway? (H3I6)

Structures

The Corporate Plan states that changes in the internal structure will be considered at a later date and interviews revealed that no major structural changes have been made at an institutional level, although a few new committees have been set up. The comment below is typical of what five respondents said.

I can’t actually think of any way [the management structure] has changed. (H3I4)

According to four of the respondents, the major committee change appears to have been the formation of the e-learning systems group, which has various new sub groups such as the VLE user group. However, e-learning policies are located within the remit of the Learning and Teaching committee since it was felt that e-learning should be seen as part of learning and teaching rather than as something outside of the usual processes.

We have the e-learning systems steering group which is a major new committee and that has got a couple of offshoots, [eg] the [VLE] user group
… it’s an e-learning systems team group, it is not an e-learning steering group. We took a conscious decision that the pitfalls and policies of e-learning should be discussed at the university’s learning and teaching and assessment committee because e-learning is not different. What the e-learning systems group does is discuss how we use [the VLE] and how we use learning assessment online… (H3I4)

Well there are a few [new committees], …which actually do need to incorporate more on the [VLE] side think. (H3I1)

Although there have been few structural changes at institutional level, the questionnaire responses revealed that within certain support areas there have been quite substantial changes, in particular in Library and Information Services and Staff Support.

Library and Information services:

Development of the online learning centre (H3I3 questionnaire);

Shift of resources to e services. (H3I4 questionnaire);

The development of the student portal. (H3I3 questionnaire).

Support for staff:

Development of central training & resources. (H3I3 questionnaire).

No specific comments were made regarding structural changes at faculty or school level.

Funding

The questionnaire response from one respondent suggested that there was no separate funding for networked learning, except for software. However, three interviews revealed that funding for the development of networked learning was available via the Academic Development fund through bids from individual faculties, although it is unclear whether there is a definite policy about such funding, as the example below indicates.

… every faculty has access to [the Academic Development Fund], although it may be dependant on the Dean of the faculty as to how that money is then distributed… there is funding both for central development and support, and local development and support… it would be wrong to say that there’s a clear policy on how that funding is to be used, or how the two groups of funding relate to each other … in the absence of that we invent our own, and really what we’re doing is to work with people we can recruit and fund from the faculties… So… it’s the result of the way that people have developed a working strategy within the available time resources and funding. But that is the approach that we’re taking. (H3I2B)

Various external funding sources were referred to by one respondent, who said that these demand quite high levels of accountability, which means that more administration and resource has to be put in place to satisfy that requirement. There is also a good deal of fragmentation and overlap, and individual funding sources may offer too little to provide effective progress.

… the requirement from government for accountability, the necessity to demonstrate and evidence clearly value for money to the government and the funding agencies… has lead to a demand external to the institution for the development of systems that will meet those requirements and also the mass expansion of higher education. We’ve moved from something like 12,000 to 37,000 [students], which means that to record, track, monitor, evaluate… [which] requires different systems… One thing I do know is that there is insufficient money in higher education to sort this out… It is too fragmented. (H3I6)

Summary

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.