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 H8

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 ParticipantsInstitution H8 is a post 1992 university in Scotland that operates across multiple campuses. Student numbers in 2002 03 were approximately 10,700 full time equivalent with around 280 of these being distance learning students. A large proportion of the institution’s students come from non traditional backgrounds. During the 2002 03 academic session 1260 modules were delivered. The institution has adopted a commercial virtual learning environment (VLE); however, other systems such as discussion software combined with website delivery have also been used on a few postgraduate programmes in one school.

This case study is based on evidence gained from six interviews with staff in different roles and positions, questionnaire returns from five of these people, 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

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; one respondent suggesting that the institution was implementing blended learning rather than network learning. Networked learning was seen as being introduced by individual or a small number of individuals, which has then been taken up and driven centrally. Two main internal drivers were identified developing new markets to meet the needs of industry and the Centre for Learning and Teaching. However the institution was also responding to external drivers including students’ views and expectations of Higher Education, the need for flexibility, and the government expansion of HE. There have been corresponding developments in terms of the institution’s choice of online learning environment and the university introduced an institutional VLE in 2000. Senior management are seen as supportive of these developments.

Respondents suggested that there was a need for more coordinated and strategic development. It was felt that the new learning and teaching strategy and the associated e learning strategy, under development during 2003, would provide a suitable framework for future planning. The institution had undergone some structural reorganisation but it this was not due to the introduction of networked learning. However, this restructuring was seen as being effective in promoting e learning across the institution, particularly through the involvement of the new posts of Dean of School. The need to ensure adequate funding is noted as important, but also that development of networked learning may well open up new markets.

Infrastructure and support services

In relation to the infrastructure one key issue raised was the current lack of MLE interoperability and the impact of having several networks that do not link up. It was expected that the new student information system would move forward developments in this area and resolve any outstanding difficulties. The selected VLE has been adopted across all Schools as the primary means of the support for learning and for online learning, with an emphasis placed on a blended learning model. The only exception to this is a small group of postgraduate programmes in one School, which pioneered the development of fully online learning in 1998, which uses a web site linked with conferencing software.

All staff have access to computers and there is technological support available to both staff and students through the helpdesk.

Staff development has been provided and there are also new initiatives emerging in this area, including e tutor training. The VLE was in part chosen for its flexibility and ease of use for both staff and students, and whilst a range of training and support is regularly provided, it was not felt necessary to make training for staff compulsory. Strong emphasis is put on the VLE as a tool for academics and that they should be allowed to identify their own learning needs and retain ownership over the process of development. It was also noted that staff development for the early modules using the in house developed website supported by FirstClass for communication was largely driven by the individuals themselves. This would suggest a model of staff development that is from the bottom up but with support from the top.

Students are supported through induction at the beginning of the semester and through access to a helpdesk and online support.

Staffing and collaboration

Little change overall was noted in relation to the nature of work and there had been no new staff taken on to support the development. Most of the respondents suggested that networked learning had increased the workload for support staff. However although the workload for academic staff appeared not to have increased one respondent anticipated that as the students started using email communication to access staff there would be a further increase in workload, although this was not the view of all respondents.

There appears to be a general acceptance of networked learning by a large proportion of staff. The use of the ‘organic growth’ rather than the ‘hothouse’ model of development was cited as one reason for the university’s success in engaging with staff in the development of networked learning.

Networked learning was seen as having had a minor impact on internal collaboration and that although in some areas collaboration was initially perceived as problematic, this would be resolved over time as the new Strategies and regulatory frameworks became embedded. Some examples of external collaboration were noted but these were only affecting one area of the institution. Some specific problems in relation to intended external collaboration was also commented upon. The role of email in speeding up communication was identified but the importance of face to face communication was also considered in relation to raising awareness of the potential of the VLE. The evidence suggests that increased use of technology such as email can change communication flows and that these need to be understood and acknowledged in the new ways of working and new collaborations that are emerging.

Teaching, learning and assessment

Within the networked learning provision, blended learning was seen as the preferred option with online learning identified as adding value to other modes of learning. The role of the teaching was expected to change from a more traditional approach to one where the teacher acts as a guide and facilitator. Currently online learning was seen as having little impact on summative assessment. The main use of online assessment was for formative assessments.

Some differences were apparent in the approaches to the development of materials. Those developed for the individual MSc programmes that use the website supported by First Class had undergone a considerable process of development to ensure uniformity in the modules.

However there are a growing number of academics making use of the interactive features of the VLE to deliver learning support and to enhance the learning experience of students such as through formative assessment (using the quizzes), the use of discussion boards etc. It was appreciated that at an early stage in the role out of a VLE, that it is an achievement to get academics to use the VLE to make learning materials available. However, some respondents perceived this as an under utilisation of the VLE.

The student experience was generally seen as enhanced by the added value offered by online resources. Students, it was argued, were generally positive about the VLE but it was noted that the VLE could not provide all the types of experiences required for effective learning. Networked learning is seen as offering new opportunities for students to enter into interaction and discussion; however, the importance of face to face learning opportunities was also acknowledged.

The potential that networked learning offered for individualised skills development with links to Personal Development Plans was seen as a potential for future expansion.

Quality assurance, monitoring and evaluation

Quality assurance procedures and the evaluation of the student experience were identified as requiring further development. However, it was noted that a staff and student survey had indicated widespread support for the use of the VLE.

Access

Networked learning was seen as increasing the flexibility of access to learning resources and as enabling communication between staff and students. Respondents considered that this flexibility could provide for further and different types of development especially in relation to providing greater access for students from a range of different backgrounds and widening participation.

Summary

At the time of this study institution H8 was engaged in large-scale networked learning, with a high percentage of usage by students and departments across the institution. This engagement was supported by an institution-wide VLE and the ongoing development of an MLE. Although the VLE is centrally supported and e-learning has support from senior management, the majority of respondents viewed this development as being driven from the bottom-up.

H8 has been involved in networked learning for around 10 years and has an e-learning strategy in place as an integral part of its learning and teaching strategy. H8 does not offer incentives to staff to engage in networked learning and has not made any structural changes or appointed Champions to support the development of networked learning, although it does have a central team in place to support the development of 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. H8 scored two (out of a possible eight) for institutional effectiveness. Although there was no evidence of networked learning being used to support a more interactive student centred approach or to support discussion and interaction at the time of this study, overall the staff appeared to have a positive attitude towards networked learning and there was reference to a changing culture along with limited evidence of networked learning being used to support and encourage collaboration.