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 H4

5 Impact of networked learning on institutional development

Development of networked learning and current position

The documentation, questionnaire responses and interviews provide considerable evidence of an institution that seeks to actively engage in the use of technology to support learning and teaching.

The first interview question asked the respondents to consider whether the institution was involved in large scale networked learning. All of those interviewed felt that the institution was very involved in networked learning, indicating that networked learning was quite large scale, but also that there was further expansion to come.

We’re large scale in implementation … our services are aimed at the entire institution … we don’t put on an online course as requested; we have online areas for every single module and we provide an advice service. Even in a blank course template we have library integration and … so even if there is no academic activity going on, all the generic stuff is built into that and then the academics [add their materials]. … In terms of use, there are two strands. We have wholly distance learning courses … [with] about 700 or 800 students on wholly distance learning courses, so we are quite a large distance learning provider in that context. … in support of the day to day teaching, we are probably looking at approximately 300 modules actively using [the VLE] in some role. … last year [2001 02] was probably a first full year of a lot of [on campus] teaching using it. We also probably have 300 – 400 staff now who have gone through the training. This academic year [2002 03] the numbers are likely to go up substantially. (H4I3)

We are moving towards large scale network learning. Actually no… it is quite large scale. For example, we use [the VLE] as our virtual learning platform and there are something like 11,500 students now using [the VLE], which is going on for 50% of the student population. If you add on to that all the other bits and pieces that other people are doing … it probably is quite large scale (H4I4)

The questionnaire responses suggest that networked learning was introduced by a few individuals and/or centrally. Written responses indicate that it may have been a combination of these; with individual involvement first with a later move towards centralisation.

While the initial deployment of networked learning was introduced by one Faculty, the corporate benefits were seen – and a centrally initiated, whole institution service followed – hence the faculty environment could be seen as a proof of concept; that was then supported by a whole institution initiative. (H4I5 questionnaire)

… it was probably a combination of all the above with the initial steps being taken by individuals, followed by the substantial involvement of some schools, notably Biomedical Sciences … culminating in a more Institutional approach led by the Institute of Lifelong Learning. (H4I2 questionnaire)

From interviews it became clear that, although there may have been initially many individual and faculty based activities, the respondents thought that networked learning had really begun with the involvement of the Institute of Lifelong Learning and, in particular the Director of Lifelong Learning. Later this became centralised and standardised with a formal strategy emerging. The following extracts illustrate this point.

At one stage we had TopClass being used by one section of the university, Blackboard by another section, FirstClass by another section, we had [the VLE] being piloted somewhere else, and we had some home grown systems in two of the faculties as well. So at that stage there was a lot of activity going on amongst the innovators …that would be … 1998,1999, around that era. So we recognised that we had a lot of activity there had been some pedagogic staff development and discussions about online assessments and a few other things. But it was being developed; it was been managed, at local level, almost by the individual member of staff. (H4I3)

But yes as far as I recall I think it started largely in the Faculty, what’s now called the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, in the School of Biomedical Sciences and from that I suppose what was probably personal initiatives by individual members of staff it sort of built up this critical mass. (H4I1)

… you will always get enthusiasts everywhere and I think the strategy was partly to build on that to build on the work of the various enthusiasts throughout the various faculties and to try and ensure that they were all working from the centrally supported platform and I think that has been largely achieved. (H4I2)

The university, at senior level, became aware of [the local initiatives] and it was at that particular point in time that we started to think about what we should do to rationalise things and then to go for a coordinated or strategic approach within the university. Two of the key things that took place were that we adopted [the VLE] as business institutional policy, and we established the Institute of Lifelong Learning. (H4I5)

Within the university there were lots of little pockets of excellence, people were doing things, similar to other universities but there was no overall strategy bringing this thing together and driving it forward. So what was tending to happen, like a lot of universities, was that there were little projects that were funded for a fix period of time, say a 12 month project … but at the end of the 12 months the funding ran out. There was no continuity and you lost a lot of the stuff because somebody left or moved on. So what [name] persuaded the university to do was to actually look at this as a strategic issue and to bring it right to the centre of the university develop it from the centre of the university and realise that this is a core activity, this is part of teaching and learning. (H4I4)

Drivers

Respondents were also asked about influential drivers in the development of networked learning. The responses indicate that the main drives were probably the potential to increase student numbers and increase revenue.

… there are going to be, I think a lot of possible benefits be it an additional income stream to attracting more students or attracting more FTE numbers. Also, I think most institutions are facing capital expenditure on new buildings because of expansion … and again if you can alleviate some requirements for more space, there are possible accrual of savings. (H4I3)
… the potential for generating more students, generating more income, because there would be a market out there. (H4I1)

However, for some respondents the driver seemed to be the desire to have a wider student base from which to draw through outreach and flexible provision, rather than simply to grow student numbers. This driver appeared to be related to the fact that Northern Ireland provides a limited pool of potential students. One respondent noted that they are taking a long term view.

… the outreach element is certainly enveloped in that. It’s to do with the regional university we looked very much towards penetration within Northern Ireland, the Island of Ireland, and the UK at large. We realise in that context, particularly if you think of it from the point of view of part time students and people interested in professional development, that there is a greater likelihood of been able to reach out to them in a more friendly way if we can do it through distance learning technology, rather than expecting them to hop in a car and come here and spend a whole evening... So that certainly was another driver… (H4I5)

… what we are trying to do is not to be the provider in terms of quantity of students, although it would be nice if we were, but we are in this for the long game. (H4I4)

One respondent also saw networked learning as a way to improve student support by making it more targeted and specific to individual student needs, and this was linked to a desire to improve student retention, particularly of first year students.

I think there is also quite significant potential for enhancing the student support especially in the first year when retention of student numbers is quite important. I think when you have got some courses that have large, diverse cohorts, … there is potential to learn more about those cohorts and target those that need your help. (H4I3)

The other main driver was from central and senior management, and the university’s e-learning strategy that was mentioned by four respondents.

The faculties are aware of this university priority when they are drawing up their own strategies, because they all have to reflect on their own operating statements. The university’s strategic priorities indicate how [faculties] are going to make a contribution to them, so in that sense I think that’s what the driver is. (H4I6)

Strategies

The questionnaire responses indicate that the institution has a written strategy for the development of networked learning, which contains three core strands:

1. Establishment of an enabling infrastructure.
2. Development of a suitable skills base for e-learning.
3. Prioritisation of e-learning activities. (H4I2 questionnaire)

Four of the respondents in interview spoke extensively about the planning that had already taken place, and about future plans and strategy. Once the decision had been taken to support networked learning centrally, its development appears to have been carefully planned. A group was formed to decide on the software platform, and there was a clear timescale for introduction of modules delivered and supported via the new VLE.

… and they then had to decide on what software platform was going to be used. It was a fairly representative group who looked particularly at the choice of software. So it wasn’t a single person thing saying we are going to do this. … but I think it was felt to be important that a clear decision had to be made, and not least was the whole issue of support for that package. (H4I2)

So we went for a long term commitment, for five years, to whatever product was selected. Products are now available on a perpetual licence fee but that was not available at that time. We went to five years because we thought staff would commit to this because they know it’s going to be here next year, they are not going to be looking at changes. So there is a long term commitment to our VLE provider. (H4I3)

I do know that the Vice Chancellor has asked all Deans, about two academic years ago, to deliver at least one module of every in house programme, through [the virtual campus]. (H4I5)

Part of this infrastructure included web based student application and registrations systems, provided by Student Registry, which were enhanced by a facility to enable online payments by credit card. These systems were put in place to support all students, but were perceived as particularly beneficial to students on networked learning and distance learning courses.

The questionnaire responses suggest that there may be some incentive for staff to use and develop networked learning.

Utilising e-learning to support teaching can be used to support promotion applications. (H4I3 questionnaire)

Can be used to support case for promotion. (H4I4 questionnaire)

One respondent explained the incentives scheme, which comprises two different types of incentive: one for the Faculty and one for individual staff. At Faculty level, the university does not take their full overhead from fees from Faculties that are actively engaging in networked learning, and at individual level there is an explicit promotion opportunity associated with e-learning activities. These two incentives may have helped the university to move forward to the large scale activity in which it is now involved.

… we’ve also put in this financial set of packages where the university is not taking an overhead (most universities take an overhead of the fees for a period of time) for the next six years we are feeding money back. The first three years all of the income is going back to the faculty and then the following three years 50% of the fee is going back to the faculty and at the end of six years it is wrapped up in their normal accounts, it is based on FTEs.

So the incentive is there to get them involved … the Planning Committee [gets] a list of the faculties and what they are doing. So you are sitting there with the Vice Chancellor, and there is an awful lot of peer pressure. For example, our faculty has been very conservative and really haven’t done anything, while all the other faculties have been very, very active. So there is a lot of peer pressure and now staff are starting to come forward … they only [get the money] if they get the programmes up and running…

… it is also now explicit that you can get promoted for your e-learning activities or network learning activities, and we have had staff promoted based on their activities... We have reviewed all the promotion criteria and… each [criteria] lists the sort of activities that [staff] should be doing – so within teaching it could be developing new programmes, or it could be developing new e-learning programmes, or a new approach to network teaching, but its now listed and explicit. (H4I4)

Structures

The questionnaires and interviews reveal that the university has made some quite major structural changes; the new Institute of Lifelong Learning has some overall management responsibilities, and a new central e-learning unit has been created specifically to create new teaching materials for Faculties.

… the first major structural change was the introduction of the Institute [of Lifelong Learning] as part of the overall management structure of the university and … that sits within the portfolio for the Pro Vice Chancellor for Teaching and Learning and reports directly to him. There is also a sub committee of the university’s Teaching and Learning Committee, which particularly looks at issues relating to lifelong learning. (H4I6)

A department of Lifelong Learning was created with a Director responsible for the development of networked learning and has been generously resourced. (H4I1 questionnaire)

… we’ve created a central unit that has learning technologists, it’s got web designers, graphic artists, they work with faculty to create the material. That means then that we are creating very, very high quality material… this central unit is funded from the central university, all the faculties are top sliced to pay for it. (H4I4)

The committee structure has changed to reflect the new strategic direction of the university; there is a new e-learning sub committee, which includes representatives from each faculty, and reports to the Teaching and Learning sub committee.

… faculties have appointed people to promote e-learning within their own faculty. There is an e-learning sub committee, which is there to support the Teaching and Learning sub committee, and what was the Information Services Committee, … and there are representatives from each faculty on each committee. (H4I3)

… but the main Teaching and Learning committee in the university has a sub committee which is the e-learning sub committee … That e-learning sub committee is made up of representatives from Faculties and across the departments. The e-learning sub committee makes recommendations to Teaching and Learning about the standards and the quality of e-learning…. So that feeds into Teaching and Learning that’s the management structure. (H4I4)

Funding and resources

The questionnaire responses indicate that the university has specific budgets for staff development, hardware and software in connection with networked learning, but funding issues were not discussed in any detail in the interviews. Five of the respondents indicated that there had been good levels of funding coming from within the university, from HEFCE and from the Department of Education and Learning in Northern Ireland.

… the HEFCE capital allocations bid for 2000, the Vice Chancellor said he wanted that to be channelled to get an effective and reliable e-learning infrastructure into place. (H4I3)

… there are instances where particular initiatives do require supplementary funds, do require additional support, staff and the most recent one has been the basic skills training that we referred to. So we’ve taken that out as basic IT and called it BITs programme. That was actually funded by the Department of Education and Learning in Northern Ireland. …
… So I would say finance hasn’t been one of our problems at all. (H4I5)

Core business

Business issues were not discussed in any detail in the interviews. However, one respondent spoke about some of the business thinking within the university where e-learning is recognised as part of the university’s core business, and business processes and user needs drive the development rather than the technology, as the following extracts explain:

… we actually went down a false start... this was the time of the dot com boom, and the university established a spin off company where it was going to put all its [e learning investment], but very quickly we realised [that] this were the crown jewels, this is the core activity, this is what the university does. This needs to be embedded right at the top and right down through the university so we put the company on a shelf and we brought [e learning] right into the university and have been developing it since then... (H4I4)

… [we have set up] a business process change group. That group is charged with actually looking at all our business processes across the university. It has just been established and there have been two meetings so far. It’s not a traditional task force or committee. The people that are sitting on that are there because of their skills, not because of their position, but there are two Pro Vice chancellors, there’s a Dean, Heads of Schools, technical people etc. We are trying to look at the business processes from a users perspective and develop it very much for the end user, not to suit us within the university but to suit the people outside, so it’s looking at our processes. We are starting to map out what are our major processes within the university and we are looking to see, right, not moulding the processes to fit the technology that we have got in place at the minute but it’s looking at right where we want to be in terms of the processes, does the technology fit that, if it doesn’t, what is it going to cost us to change it, how are we going to change it, does the structure, the departmental structure within the university fit that, if not what do we need to change it? (H4I4)

Summary

There is considerable evidence that the institution seeks to actively engage in the use of technology to support learning and teaching. Networked learning appears to be quite large scale but there is further expansion to come. Historically, the introduction of networked learning began with enthusiastic individuals and faculties and later, with the creation of the Institute of Lifelong Learning, and the involvement of the Director of Lifelong Learning, the initiative became centralised and standardised.

The main drivers were probably a desire to increase student numbers and revenue by broadening the pool of potential learners and offering more flexible provision. The other main drive came from central and senior management, and from the university’s e-learning strategy.

The development of networked learning appears to have been carefully planned: there was a clear timescale for introduction of modules via the new virtual learning environment (VLE), and the provision of incentives for staff to use and develop networked learning may have helped the university to move towards more large scale activity. Some administrative systems, including online application, registration and payment systems, were already in place to support networked learning. There have also been some major structural changes; the new Institute of Lifelong Learning has some overall management responsibilities, and a new central e-learning unit has been created. There is also a new e-learning sub committee, which reports to the Teaching and Learning committee.