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 H5

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 a university that is actively engaged in the use of technology to support learning and teaching.

The first interview question asked the respondents to consider whether the university was involved in large scale networked learning. All five respondents agreed that the university was involved in quite large scale networked learning, although there was room for continuing development and they did not yet have 100% take up.

… I know that our use of network learning across the campus is pretty widespread … There is probably some use of it in every department now on various different programmes, its use is widespread across the institution. (H5I3)

We are definitely not right at the beginning but we haven’t got 100% cover... I would say its medium, if medium is about 50% then I think we are at about 50% of courses in the university that are using some form of network learning to support teaching and learning, so there are still areas where we haven’t seen much use and haven’t had much contact with. (H5I2)

Yes, I think we have, we’ve certainly got departments from all of our … faculties, not every department uses it and certainly within departments not all the staff use it but most of those involved with teaching do. (H5I5)

The questionnaire responses suggest that networked learning was introduced by a few individuals and also perhaps by a few departments. Written responses also indicate that it may have been a combination of these.

This was a centrally supported initiative that began in a small number of departments, but has expanded across the institution. (H5I2 questionnaire)

However, in interviews, there was agreement among all respondents that networked learning began at the university as a result of activities by individuals and a small number of departments, and also that it continued to develop in that way.

It was very much a bottom up process where individual people have thought of a good idea, have pursued it, experimented it and piloted it. Somebody else may then have picked up on that as a result of dissemination, very often people having the same idea independently in another part of the university and my own feeling, which may be wrong, is that we haven’t had a particularly systematic approach to it. There has not been a kind of top down exhortation to do this in a particular systematic way. (H5I1/6)

Eventually the demand for networked learning grew to the point where a degree of central support and coordination was necessary and a person was appointed to head up a new Learning technology unit, concerned with learning technology development.

Well the people who were using it obviously found it useful and more people started to use it … and I think it grew because of that and because more people had a computer on their desk which is obviously a crucial issue. And then it got to the point where the university decided to appoint somebody to look after learning technology developments… (H5I5)

But I think there is a lot happening and through … the Learning technology unit, obviously that has been pulling things together… (H5I1/6)

Drivers

Despite the centralisation of support for learning technology, noted in the previous section, there does not appear to have been a central drive to develop networked learning within the university.

… to say there is no standard is putting it mildly, so although we have a platform, although we have central support services, what people actually do with the VLE … is very varied and there’s no common agreement on what we are aiming to do and there isn’t … an updated institutional policy. … This partial model, which essentially depends on enthusiasts who come forward, has been funded at the departmental level simply by enthusiasm and the use of external funds where possible. … So I think it works very well in that respect and centrally there has been funding to support this partial model really by the gradual expansion of [Name’s] group. (H5I4)

Well there has never been [a situation], like in some institutions, where the Vice Chancellor can say well every module is going to have a web site, you have to put something in it, that hasn’t happened. It’s just been organic. (H5I5)

The respondents did not speak in much detail about drivers but those most commonly mentioned were specific individuals and departments, and student expectations; each being mentioned by three of the respondents. A typical extract concerning each of these is given below.

… the two main drivers were originally [two particular departments] and we’ve always maintained links with the Learning Technology group and worked closely with them in the development. … So those were kind of small pockets, primarily again at this stage it was very much that things were led by enthusiastic people within departments, (H5I3)

And also I think student demand, student expectation is that my notes are going to be on the web and if not, why not? (H5I2)

Strategies

The documentation shows that the university has started to embed networked learning within its institutional strategies. Three of the respondents in interview spoke extensively about the planning that had already taken place, and all five respondents talked about current developments and strategy. In the past the strategy seems to have been limited to learning technology rather than a university wide e learning strategy. In 1996 central support for a platform supporting computer mediated communication was agreed. This platform has continued to be developed into a more fully featured virtual learning environment (VLE). However, individuals have been allowed to experiment with different ideas and VLEs with support from the Learning Technology Unit and Computer Services. The extracts below are typical of the respondents’ comments.

So as I say (name) particularly wrote this document which set out a strategy for the small group work and that we could actually use technology to enhance the small group work, group communication and on the basis of that and the kind of developments that the university was trying to see and work on, the e learning technology group became established and [name] was put into post. (H5I3)

… these are experiments, we’ve allowed, people have different platforms, it’s a nightmare out there. You know there are different, we think there are at least four different platforms in use but that’s ok up to a point. (H5I4)

Well I mean, there was a centrally supported system since ’96 so to that extent there has been central support for it but there hasn’t been high level interest in strategy for the medium to long term until about six months ago probably. (H5I5)

Previous reviews of the process for supporting networked learning resulted in the decision to allow people to go their own way, to support enthusiasts and to provide a small, central support unit. The recent growth in interest within the HE sector in e learning led the senior management to feel that it was time for another review, looking at the platforms being used and at those available, and making an institutional decision about future development in networked learning.

… we reviewed this formally every now and then so … mid ‘90s, I thought we ought to review the kind of provision that we are making simply to support enthusiasts. … we had a look and it became quite clear that was happening, we decided … at that point not to go for a big bang model but to see what happened via the partial model and enthusiasts. But in order to make sure that didn’t fall over it became clear that the learning technology group, … needed further support so they’ve had additions to their staffing really over the last four, five years… I now think it’s reached the point where we need another review this time with a view to being much more serious about it... I think you reach that point where you’ve got to do something because the paradox is that there is enough take up within departments by staff and their students but not enough. It’s at that point that students start to ask why isn’t my whole experience organized in this way? … it’s now reached the point where the students are asking that question fairly routinely. I think that’s a really good index of having reached a non sustainable point and part of the [development]. If we go to a major adoption then that would be by way of institutional recommendation and diktat. (H5I4)

One questionnaire response suggested that there might be some incentive for staff to use and develop networked learning.

TQEF monies available for innovative teaching. (H5I3 questionnaire)

This view is supported by the documentary evidence, which speaks of rewards for excellent teaching. However, there was no mention of incentives during the interviews.

Structures

There has been a reorganisation of the management structure in which the new group supporting leaning technology was moved from within Information Systems Services to become part of the Centre for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching (CELT). CELT is responsible for student learning and development but does not include IT training and support; all the respondents tell the same story, one typical version is given below.

… there have been some changes in management structure … originally [the] group was part of Information System Services. The … group became … less associated with Computer Services and more associated with learning and teaching so there has been a definite shift to the focus been on the learning and teaching, with technology being one way that was supporting that teaching and learning... So the technological drive and push has become less so it’s more the teaching and learning through those shifts. Now the [Name] Centre has become the Centre for Enhancement of Learning and Teaching and the e learning technology group are very much a part of that, and are not directly, as far as I understand it associated with Computing Services but clearly they have to have close associations with them... (H5I3)

It was suggested by one respondent that these structural changes were introduced to support learning and teaching, rather than only to support e learning, another respondent felt that it would allow the group to focus more on pedagogical support.

There are so many factors affecting management structures. I don’t think I could identify e learning as been a paramount influence on that. It’s just … one of many… There was a whole range of issues to do with student learning and supporting academic staff involved in teaching students that needed to be looked at. (H5I1/6)

So we are now a unit that is much more focused around learning and teaching and the development of learning and teaching and although we are kind of the IT bit within that, our focus hopefully is seen as pedagogical. (H5I2)

No one felt that any new committees had been created as a result of the growth in networked learning, but everyone commented on the formation of a new review group. This group was formed as a result of the decision, described in the previous section, to have a formal review.

I don’t think we’ve set up new committees. I don’t think we needed them. (H5I4)

… the Vice Chancellor initiated a strategic review and … that has resulted in a lot of goals and objectives and project groups and this [review group] is part of that process, but I think [name] was wanting to set it up anyway because he wanted to take a more systematic look at the way in which we could exploit the technology to everybody’s advantage. So that’s not a committee as such, it’s a task force. … it’s certainly not come to my attention that any one department has sat down and said what is our e learning strategy going to be. (H5I1/6)

… there’s a small group looking at e learning at [the university] …what does it mean if you are going to use e learning at [the university] or what e learning experience do we feel students should go away with, … that’s as far as we’ve got. But that is the question we are trying to address. (H5I2)

Funding and resources

Funding issues were not discussed in any detail in the interviews.

Business

Business issues were not discussed in the interviews.

In the questionnaire all respondents answered ‘yes’ to the question ‘Is networked learning recognised at a senior level as important to your core business?’ but written comments suggest that this might be a recent change:

Only recently at a very senior level. (H5I5)

None of the respondents felt that networked learning had changed the focus of the university, and written comments supported that view:

Not really – we are still a research led, campus based institution where networked learning is very much seen as a support for on campus students. (H5I2)

Summary

The documentation, questionnaire responses and interviews provide considerable evidence of a university that is actively engaged in the use of technology to support learning and teaching, primarily for on campus students.

All respondents agreed that the university was involved in quite large scale networked learning, although there was still room for some development and they did not yet have 100% take up. In interviews, there was agreement among all respondents that networked learning began at the university as a result of activities by individuals and a small number of departments, and that it continued to develop in that way. There does not appear to have been a central drive; the most commonly mentioned drivers were specific individuals and departments, and student expectations.

In the past the strategy seems to have been limited to learning technology rather than a university wide e learning strategy. Individuals have been allowed to experiment with different ideas with support from the Learning Technology Group and Computer Services. In 1996 central support for a platform supporting computer mediated communication was agreed. This platform has continued to be developed into a more fully featured virtual learning environment (VLE).

The growth in networked learning led to the formation of a new Learning Technology Unit, concerned with learning technology development. There has been a reorganisation of the management structure in which the new Learning Technology Unit was moved from Information Systems Services to become part of the Centre for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching. It was suggested that these structural changes were introduced to support learning and teaching, and to allow the unit to focus more on pedagogical support. No new committees seem to have resulted from the growth in networked learning, but a new central review group has been created by the Vice Chancellor to inform strategic institutional decisions about future networked learning developments.