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

7 Impact of networked learning on staffing and collaboration

Networked learning brings about potential for changing roles, and creating new roles and opportunities for collaboration; however, this may also impact on workloads and thus on attitudes to this form of learning. In addition, the technology allows for new forms of communication to emerge. There is evidence of these effects of networked learning within this institution.

Staffing – change of role and new staff

Little change was noted in the nature of work except by one respondent:

... it has probably made it more interesting. When they phone up now it tends to be more queries and we are problem solving for them rather than just sort of dealing with bog standard queries. (H8I1)

There was no mention of new staff being taken on; however, the lack of new staff in the face of an increasing workload was commented on.

Staffing – workload

Respondents commented on an increase in workload, which arises partially out of the integration problems identified in Section 6 above, because the administration of user accounts has to be done twice, manually. Respondents also identified an increase in workload for central support staff in supporting students and staff, and for academic staff in responding to the increased communication from their students.

The thing about [the VLE], it has caused us more work because it is not integrated fully with the record system as it stands so when a student is given a Netware account, they don’t automatically get a [VLE] account so everything has to be done separately...(H8I5)

In effect the staffing situation has remained static while the workload has increased but we put in place things like helpdesks... (H8I5)

I know that some staff have said it can be a very demanding medium because students will come back at you all the time with another email, another question … I think it can be very exhausting... (H8I6)

One respondent suggested that although there may not have been an increase in workload for academic staff as yet, it might come due to increasing pressure from students, as they recognise the potential of the new technology:

The problems with it I think are going to be around, at the moment we are doing it as an add on, so for the most part, students are having the normal kind of teaching, it hasn’t changed our teaching practice. I think there’s going to be an issue about staff burden if that continues, particularly if students become more and more enthusiastic about it, about wanting more and more things supplied this way... (H8I4)

However another respondent thought that networked learning would reduce the workload for academic staff, although this respondent was referring to experiences with postgraduate students.

We don’t think it does. We have been running the online for over three years now, about three and a half years. We probably haven’t paid as much attention to the actual level of input from the academic as we have been looking at the performance of the online students... but just when you talk to staff about how much time they are spending with the online students versus how much they are spending with full time or part time, it certainly isn’t any more and it is possibly just a wee bit less. (H8I3)

The workload issue thus seems to vary depending on the respondent’s role; with an increase in workload for technical and support staff; however, respondents were not agreed as to whether networked learning would result in an increase in workload for academic staff.

Staff attitudes

Staff attitudes to new developments are likely to vary; however, in general the approach taken by the university seems to have focused on allowing those who are interested to engage with networked learning, while at the same time trying to capture staff through raising awareness of the potential of networked learning.

Of the staff, 100 staff replied (to the survey) and by and large, we’re talking about 90% great, give us more, we are going to utilize it more etc. so it’s been very positive. (H8I2)

However two respondents acknowledged that not everybody had engaged with networked learning:

I spoke to a colleague [who] said he doesn’t [use technology] because he doesn’t feel it is suitable. I don’t know who doesn’t use it and I don’t want to know because that is their decision. (H8I2)

... it seems to be very well received by both students and academic staff. There always will be staff who don’t particularly want to use it … (H8I5)

Further feedback from the institution via the INLEI focus group suggested that staff attitudes were generally seen as positive as evidenced by the university’s annual VLE User Survey and this was attributed to the fact that lecturers had gained teaching advantages from their use of the system, and also because they had freedom of choice with respect to using it or not.

These responses suggest a general acceptance of networked learning by a large proportion of staff with no pressure on those that do not wish to engage at present. 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.

Research

Only one respondent mentioned research, and suggested that networked learning has had a positive impact on staff research into teaching and learning:

We have had the benefit of rethinking how we teach, we have had the benefit of developing our research interest in online learning, we’ve got a research group now that looks at that particular area, we have got some publications in the area, we have got at least one PhD student now that is looking at online learning... (H8I3)

The area of networked learning itself is thus providing a research topic and data for academics.

Collaboration

Networked learning potentially offers new opportunities for collaboration, new partnerships and new ways of working. External collaboration between one faculty and businesses in the development of specific courses has been noted in relation to institutional development. There was also mention of other external collaborations. Some of this has been successful and others have been problematic:

... at that particular stage we were actually talking to another university about collaborating on online learning and we had developed two online programmes … we had agreed that the medium we used would be FirstClass, they were already using FirstClass... (H8I3)

It is interesting to note here that the external collaboration led to the use of a particular online communication tool and that this does not necessarily now fit in with the preferred institutional learning environment.

Other external collaborations however did not lead to further developments.

We were working closely with Scottish Knowledge until Scottish Knowledge were disbanded … We were due to start in the Middle East.... when September 11 occurred and we found... the interest wasn’t there. We then had another opportunity through Scottish Knowledge...in Malaysia and I think we had cleared most of the barriers internally to running the programme in Malaysia when Scottish Knowledge folded … (H8I3)

Internal collaboration was not mentioned to any great extent although one respondent thought that internal collaboration was improved by the ability to share information more easily.

... but certainly there are ways where there is better collaboration with it. It is easier to share data and share information. (H8I1)

In addition, the need take account of quality regulations in relation to networked learning enforces some collaboration:

I think (there is more collaboration) because as an institution we have insisted more and more that people abide by our sort of regulatory framework... because of that they have to collaborate with us to make sure they get all the information they need. (H8I1)

One respondent noted that collaboration across the institution was possibly lacking but thought that this would change in time once the new Learning and Teaching, and e Learning Strategies were in place:

I think maybe there has been a bit of singularity in what we have done... we have delivered... almost independently of say distance learning programmes that are perhaps run by nursing or by health and social science... I would hope that in the university embracing e learning, developing a separate teaching and learning strategy, that we are maybe going to see much more collaboration across the different schools … (H8I3)

One respondent commented on some difficulties that had been experienced across unit boundaries within the institution as it took time to work out the new relationships and collaborations needed to support networked learning.

Collaboration... has been a problem but it hasn’t been a problem at staff level... New collaboration at grassroots level wasn’t a problem … (H8I5)

There is thus evidence that internal and external collaborations occur in a range of settings across the institution, but that this was patchy. Initially some problems were experienced as new internal collaborations across unit boundaries were identified and worked out; however some respondents thought that this would be resolved over time and that collaboration would increase as the new Strategies and regulatory framework to support networked learning became embedded within the institution.

Communication

This section will focus on staff to staff communication. Student communication will be considered in the following section but as it has been noted in the section on MLE interoperability, the lack of integration between systems has had a negative impact on student – staff communication.

A respondent in the in the previous section suggested that staff communication has improved through easier sharing of data and information, and one respondent also suggests that it has improved through the use of email; faster, more personal and direct. However, although email is becoming the predominant mode of written communication it is not used in isolation.

We certainly communicate using email constantly which I guess has changed things… It’s a lot quicker, much quicker, much more personal because before you would have to send a memo to the Dean and ask the Dean to communicate to somebody else and now we can just communicate to the people you want to speak to... and it saves a lot of secretarial time... (H8I6)

I would say that everything that needs to be done in writing now we tend to do by email, you know if you need confirmation of it but sometimes it is easier just to pick up the phone so we use all methods... (H8I1)

Communication problems, similar to those noted under collaboration above, were identified by one respondent, suggesting that the introduction and increased use of technology can also change communication flows within an institution and that these need to be identified and understood, as in the examples identified above of how email has changed communication patterns identified.

In fact probably the most major problem that we have is the communication flow… (H8I5)

Finally a different form of communication was commented upon – raising awareness and promoting networked learning through face to face networking rather through technology:

But one of the beauties of the refectory was that, I had been going to that for the past 22 years and lots of people that I know had been going to it for 22 years, … so you have a community, an inbuilt community that is used for communicating.... (H8I2)

Different forms of communication can be evidenced here, an increase in the use of email for general communication is identified, but also that face to face communication and the telephone still have an important role to play. 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 new ways of working and new collaborations.

Questionnaire data

On the whole the questionnaire data tell a similar story to that of the interviews. One respondent suggested that there had been an increase in workload and external collaboration; another felt that this was not the case but concurred with an increase in external collaboration. A third respondent indicated that there might have been an increase in workload and also that internal collaboration had increased. Three out of the four respondents did not feel that the nature of work had changed whilst one suggested it had done so.

Summary

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 the new collaborations that are emerging.