Home |
2 ContextThis introduction aims to present an overview of the external environment within which educational institutions engage in networked learning, and to provide a review of the relevant literature. The main purpose of the literature review is to provide a context for the findings from the project rather than to give a comprehensive review of all the relevant research. 2.1 External environmentFurther and Higher education institutions have undergone considerable change in the past twenty years. These changes include the rapid growth in student numbers and student diversity, decreased government funding per student, institutions engaging in new markets and new business ventures to increase income, and the growth of borderless education - Observatory on Borderless Higher Education (OBHE) . External pressures from funding bodies, quality assurance agencies and government policy are also impacting on HE and FE institutions. In particular, the increasing scrutiny under which further and higher education operates and the developments in quality assurance mechanisms for teaching and learning have had a far-reaching influence. In higher education this is overseen by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) , which undertakes institutional audits in England and Northern Ireland, enhancement led institutional reviews in Scotland, and institutional reviews that cover both further and higher education institutions in Wales. In further education such quality assurance is provided through Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) in England, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education (HMIE) in Scotland, and the Department of Education (DENI) in Northern Ireland. The development of such external inspection has led to an increasing focus on the quality of students’ learning experiences. Most colleges and universities now have quality assurance units that set standards for the delivery of the curriculum and are involved in gathering student feedback. The role of students in such inspections is also developing and in Scotland students are now working with the Quality Assurance Agency in the area of quality enhancement. Over the past 10 years the use of technology has been seen as one way of coping with this continually changing environment while at the same time maintaining and improving the quality of teaching and learning, and providing a student centred learning experience (CUSP, 1992; NCIHE, 1997; SHEFC/SFEFC, 2003). Indeed, the UK government’s publication “Towards a Unified E-learning Strategy” (DfES, 2003) exhorts further and higher education institutions to engage in the challenge of making full use of new technologies. The government expects institutions to embrace these rapidly changing technologies that potentially allow for different modes of teaching, and also for different ways of dealing with growing student numbers and the increasing diversity of student needs. Consequently, although the growth of networked learning is only one of the many changes institutions are embracing; it is seen by many as a fundamental underpinning to enable institutions to successfully meet the educational challenges of the 21st century. Britain and Liber (2004) suggest that two of the main reasons for institutions engaging with networked learning are to provide effective management and administration of teaching and learning, and to allow for the use of pedagogies that cannot be used with large numbers of students in the traditional environment. However, Bates (1999) suggests that effective use of technology requires a revolution in institutional thinking about teaching and learning. “If universities and colleges are successfully to adopt the use of technologies for teaching and learning, much more than minor adjustments in current practice will be required. Indeed the effective use of technology requires a revolution in thinking about teaching and learning.” (Bates, 1999 in Steeples and Jones, 2002) This raises the issue of the extent to which we can chart whether today’s institutions are simply making ‘minor adjustments’ or whether they are in the process of revolutionising their thinking about teaching and learning. The government’s strategy (DfES, 2003) recognises that web-based instruction has already been developed in higher education and there is evidence that these institutions are engaging with the use of technology to deliver education (Traxler, 2002). This increase in use of web-based learning is evidenced by the rapid growth in institutional uptake and use of virtual learning environments (VLEs) to support delivery of the curriculum. In 2001 a survey by UCISA reported that 40% of 89 Higher Education Institutions surveyed used a VLE (UCISA, 2001). In 2003 (JISC/UCISA), a follow up survey of 385 further and higher institutions education reported that 84% of pre-1992 universities and 97% of post-1992 Universities used one or more VLEs. In addition, 85% of FE colleges, not previously surveyed, also reported using a VLE (JISC/UCISA, 2003). It therefore appears that the use of technology in the delivery of learning is a reality in most of our HE and FE institutions. However despite this uptake of systems that support networked learning, the survey suggests that this has not yet made a significant impact on learning and teaching. “ Enhancing the quality of teaching and learning is the key driver, identified by almost every institution, for MLE development. However, the reality appears to be that the student experience is being enhanced through improved delivery of teaching materials and course announcements, improved access to learning resources and better communication. Pedagogical issues are not (yet) a part of this, and, indeed, appear to have been of secondary concern until now.” (JISC/UCISA, 2003) This does not appear to be the revolution that Bates (1999) suggests is needed. So, although developments in networked learning are becoming an integral part of institutional strategy and policy (Conole, 2004), the deployment of VLEs and the development of managed learning environments (MLE) are not, in themselves, sufficient to support the radical change that is necessary (Boys, 2002; Britain and Liber, 2004). Boys (2002), in reporting sector progress on the development of institutional MLEs, noted that these developments can either focus on the technological integration of information, learning and administrative systems, or can take a more holistic approach that undertakes the review and redesign of existing processes and relationships necessary to support the organisational change Bates proposes. Stiles (2003) suggests that networked learning or e-learning can only have an impact when it becomes fully embedded in institutional policy, practice and culture. “… eLearning will be considered fully embedded into an institution when all policies, procedures, roles and responsibilities pertaining to the use of eLearning are fully integrated – not just with each other, but with those applying to ‘normal’ practice… " Embedding also implies that eLearning has become part of the culture of the institution, and is seen by teaching staff, learners, administrators and managers (and all the other stakeholders) as part of normal working practice.” (Stiles, 2003) This study is an investigation into whether institutions are embedding networked learning into their practice and culture, and how they are approaching this embedding, and the impact this has on their administrative and management processes. 2.2 Literature ReviewThe main purpose of the literature review is to provide a context for the findings from the project rather than to give a comprehensive review of all the relevant research. Although research into networked learning began relatively recently (for example Steeples and Jones (2002)) suggest a starting point of 1974) researchers have explored the impact of the development of networked learning on institutions in a number of different ways. This review examines models of change that may inform our understanding of how institutions effectively implement networked learning. It also examines other research that has focused on specific aspects of networked learning including those in relation to the technological and support infrastructure, community and collaboration, learning and teaching, quality assurance, monitoring and evaluation, and access to learning. 2.2.1 Models of institutional changeIn seeking to improve our understanding of the process of institutional change and, in particular, the impact of the introduction of large-scale networked learning we considered a range of models of institutional change to illuminate our findings. Foster, Bowskill, Lally and McConnell (2002) in examining the management of change within an institution resulting from the introduction of networked learning argued that the main pressure for change on HE institutions is external. They also suggest, based on Fullan (1991), that the management of change can be categorised into three distinct phases: initiation, implementation, and continuation. They describe the initiation phase as the process that precedes the change to networked learning but includes the decision to make changes. They cite Fullan (1991) who further argues that there has to be ‘relevance’, ‘readiness’ and ‘resources’ before institutions can proceed to adopt any changes. They suggest that this needs to be supported by an institutional strategy and commitment from centre of the institution. Other projects have adopted and adapted the MIT90 model (Scott Morton, 1991) shown in Figure 2-1 to provide a range of frameworks that can be used to analyse and investigate the processes of institutional change resulting from networked learning activity.
Figure 2-1 Scott-Morton's MIT90s Framework (1991, cited in Nicol et al, 2004) For example two UK projects, Citscapes (2002) and TALENT (1999), adapted one of the MIT90s models (Venkatraman’s model) to create a transformation model (shown in Figure 2 2 below), which describes the stages an institution may go through in the process of transforming from a traditional institution to an ICT led educational institution. The original model consisted of five stages which were split into two phases: the evolutionary phase and revolutionary phase. Citscapes (2002) introduced an additional transitional phase and TALENT (1999) added a new first stage by distinguishing between the individualised and the localised level of use of ICT. The TALENT model initially focused on exploring the development of students’ IT literacy skill within the institution, and as such it provided an opportunity to explore the relationship between the development of IT literacy in students and the development of the overall learning environment. TALENT also added an exploration of learning activities and support facilities. Networked learning encompasses all of these aspects; however, it also includes the interactions between learners themselves, which are not shown in the TALENT model (1999).
Figure 2-2 Transformational model based on the MIT90 model, amended by TALET (1999) Nicol et al (2004) in examining the risks associated with e-learning investments in FE and HE rearranged the MIT90 framework to depict two development trajectories for the implementation of e-learning, as shown in Figure 2-3: top-down (managerialist) and bottom-up (core competencies). As Nicol et al point out; an advantage of this framework is that it is consistent with the published literature on change management in education (Fullan, 1991; Trowler, Saunders and Knight, 2003). For example, they cite Trowler et al (2003) who argue that: " a dual approach to innovation is needed: concentrating on building capacity and encouraging [academic] departments to deploy that capacity on policy priorities."
Figure 2-3 Models of Institutional Change (Nicol et al, 2004) Baumeister (2004) offers yet another way of exploring the challenges that institutions face when engaging with networked learning with an emphasis on issues around knowledge and knowledge transfer. He argues that the traditional model of universities is one of research and teaching, and that the introduction of networked learning should lead to a different model that recognises the new structures through which knowledge may now be managed by these institutions. Baumeister explains that, since the interpretation of the term ‘networked learning’ varies amongst different stakeholders (having political, economic and educational meanings) networked learning cannot be limited to a single function (eg delivery mode). He argues that although university systems can cope with providing networked learning in small, localised initiatives, that “… any deployment of networked learning [networked learning] in a thorough-going systematic way will pose significant structural challenges for Universities.” (Buameiester, 2004) Baumeister argues that networked learning causes systemic challenges for the organisation in which it is deployed. Baumeister takes the ‘value chain’ model of knowledge management, based on Hilse (2000), and relates that both to the traditional ‘University’ model and also to the new structures introduced as a result of networked learning, as shown in Figure 2 4. Baumeister suggests that most universities continue to see themselves in terms of the traditional structural model, basing success on research, and yet at the same time try to introduce networked learning, which demands a different structure. He believes that if Universities are to be successful in their introduction of networked learning then they need to move to new structures (or possibly new types of university) to cope with the new value chain. These models of change provide different ways of exploring the development of networked learning. However, in order to provide a framework that would help us to organise and make sense of the complexity of the findings observed within the case studies reported on here some of these models are more useful than others. The majority of these models are 'partial' and explore only some of the issues that have been indicated in Section 1.2.1. Foster et al’s (op cit) model, although located in the same external environment as the INLEI project, and focusing on similar significant stakeholder groups, was explored within the context of a single HE institution and provides only a partial model for our analysis. Martin’s (2002) transformation model was developed with a different focus (student ICT skills and experiences) and for a different purpose and it only partially covers the aspects of networked learning we are investigating.
Figure 2-4: Value chain of knowledge management (from Hilse, 2000; in Baumeister, 2004) Baumeister's model cannot legitimately be applied to further education colleges which are not engaged in knowledge creation through research needs to be considered. Nicol et al's (2004) adaptation of the MIT90 model seems to address the range of factors and complexity of inter-relationships we are investigating and using this model will help us to present our discussion in a coherent framework. However, it is still problematic to try to capture what is a dynamic process of development within a single model. This is particularly the case where the technology changes at a rapid pace creating new and different opportunities for its use. 2.2.2 Institutional developmentBates (1999) identifies a number of strategies for change which include: a vision for teaching and learning, funding reallocation, technology infrastructure, and people infrastructure. What strategies are used and their impact on management and administration form an important part of the present investigation, but Gibbs (1999) suggests that it is not so much what strategy but how this strategy is developed that is important, and so this forms a strand of the present study. The differences between institutions may lead to characteristically different strategies related to the particular mission of the university (Gibbs, 1999), and therefore it is important that a range of institutions should be studied. Since complex, underlying issues may be operating at a variety of levels; an in-depth qualitative investigation is required to develop a full understanding of the responses of people to institutional change. 2.2.3 Infrastructure and support servicesThe role of infrastructure in supporting the development and delivery of networked learning is crucial. Evidence suggests that a strong and reliable network is of paramount importance for the successful implementation of networked learning (Minshull, 2001). This is true for both FE and HE, even although HE sector has been better resourced and has had a longer history of implementing networks. By 2003, Higher Education institutions had about one gigabit connectivity and Further Education institutions 34100 Megabits, so that bandwidth is no longer a limiting factor (SFC, 2003). Nevertheless, the introduction of new software and hardware may affect previously reliable systems and networks. This is especially true for the integration of central administration systems, in particular the student information system, with learning systems, for example a virtual learning environment (JISC, MLE Briefing Paper 8, 2001). This infrastructure also includes staff and student access to hardware and software, and access to support and training in using both of these. Minshull (2001) noted that adequate access to computers and relevant software is vital for successful development of networked learning. Therefore, the development of a sufficient technological infrastructure is of importance. 2.2.4 Staffing and collaborationHowever, access to technology alone is not sufficient; adequate support is also required. Staff development and support are seen as essential in building staff strengths (Hart, Ryan and Bagdon, 2000), and these are most likely to arise out of a firm commitment to networked learning at the institutional level (McCartan, Watson, Lewins, and Hodgson, 2000). One strategy for change would be to establish central units providing specialist materials development services, but such units are far from being the norm across the UK (Beetham, 2001). Development of IT skills is variable across the two sectors and within institutions. An additional aspect of the development of networked learning is the potential that it affords for collaboration. This has perhaps been most extensively explored in Wenger's ‘communities of practice’, which are frequently mentioned in the context of networked learning (eg Wenger, 1998, Harris and Ewins, 2002). Much research in this area has focused on the development of a community of practice in relation to students; however, it is clear that the development of materials for networked learning and delivery afford new opportunities for collaboration between staff with different roles (Harris and Higgison, 2003). The potential of technology to enable such collaboration, through for example the use of sharing of resources electronically, will have an impact on the nature of the work of staff in these institutions. Changes have occurred especially with regard to workload, role and nature of work (Beetham, 2001, Timmis, 2003). The extent to which these changes are 'organic' developments or radical changes, for example whether staff were retrained or new staff were recruited, depends largely on the type of institutional development (Timmis, 2003). Personal issues such as staff development and motivation have been indicated as important in the successful implementation of networked learning (eg Banks and Powell, 2002; Bothams and Fordyce, 2002). However, these issues may mask underlying factors of greater importance: “ Many of the cultural issues identified centred around ownership of, and involvement in, the decision making process, and therefore any attempts to reinvigorate the online learning would have to be seen to be inclusive.” (Bothams and Fordyce, op cit) These issues of ownership and empowerment have been raised, in a different context, by Teare and Dealtry (1998) who recommended that organisations should seek to enact change through individuals rather than by “overlaying” an agenda for organisational change on the workforce as a whole. In addition, organisations should communicate the benefits of team working as widely as possible, establish targets for team involvement and encourage shared learning. Teare and Dealtry also cite Richardson (1995), who sees the notion of “empowerment” as central to the concept of the learning community culture. Drawing on this view they suggest that organisations:
The need for a transition from task-based to value-based organizational development (Harung, 1996) seems to underlie the above ideas. Harung describes task-based organisations as command and control hierarchies, power-driven by a small group of senior managers. Value-based, process organizations require a more open, participative framework. The impact on the attitudes of staff towards networked learning is clearly important and of interest in our particular study. 2.2.5 Learning, teaching and assessmentNetworked learning also has the potential to change the nature of the relationships between lecturing staff and students. Online resources and online communication tools can provide students with access to resources and staff in a more flexible manner than the traditional lecture led university. Goodyear (2001) argues that networked learning enables interactivity, for example in group discussions, and flexibility, and that this is seen as an advantage. This interactivity allows for the development of learning communities, and supports the co-construction of knowledge. At the same time, Goodyear recognises the need for development of relevant networked learning tasks based on sound design principles that will promote and support such co-construction between learners. Britain and Liber (2004) also note the potential for interactivity provided by networked learning but suggest, that to date, there has been little enhancement of teaching and learning. They suggest that this is because the focus of implementation has been on the administrative needs. As discussed in section 2.1, issues around pedagogy and the nature of teaching and learning have become more prominent recently due to an increasing focus on the quality of teaching within further and higher education. One aspect of this debate has focused on the role of the teacher and the role of the learner and how these roles may undergo change as a result of networked learning. The QAA, for example, places emphasis on the need to develop students that are independent learners who can manage their own learning process. The use of technology in learning allows for a different forms of communication between teachers and learners and for changes in roles. Hutchings (2001) reports on two different conceptions of, and approaches to, teaching and outlines how these impact on a teacher’s relationship with students. These two conceptions are teacher-centred, content-orientated approach versus a student-centred, learning-orientated approach. Hutchings’ study explored the introduction of computer mediated communication (CMC) in two courses – one at undergraduate and one at final year/post-graduate level. Both of the teachers involved were identified as employing a student-centred approach. The study considered the extent to which it was possible to translate this approach as used in the face-to-face setting into a CMC environment. One of the main outcomes of this study was that the students tended to focus on the value of the online resource as providing lecture notes and feedback from the teacher. This suggests that the students did not exploit the peer collaboration potential of CMC. It also shows that whilst the teachers’ conception and approaches (as measured prior to the study) were student-centred and learning-oriented, the students did not respond with a corresponding change in their roles when using CMC. Jones and Steeples (2002) use the phrase ‘from the sage on the stage to the guide on the side’ to encapsulate the envisaged change in the teacher-student relationship. However, they also note, drawing on previous research that the impact of assessment leads to an unequal power relationship between teachers and students and that this may affect the manner in which the roles of the two can change. Issues surrounding pedagogy and changing conceptions of teaching and learning are therefore an area requiring further exploration. The Britain and Liber (op cit) framework for the pedagogical evaluation of eLearning environments explores the manner in which different VLEs affect teaching and learning. It suggests that different types of VLEs affect the style of teaching differently and that such systems are not pedagogically neutral. They argue that many commercially produced VLEs currently in use lend themselves towards a teacher-led, dissemination of content style of teaching but that a more open architecture VLE is likely to be more flexible and therefore allow for the use of what they refer to as ‘alternative pedagogies’. Their framework explores these issues from the perspective of two models – one with a focus on effective teaching and learning, and one that focuses on the organisational structures and comes from management cybernetics. This framework is a document of considerable length and cannot be explored in detail here. However, there are a number of issues that are worth exploring in relation to our own study and these include the extent to which technology itself can be responsible for changing pedagogy and, if indeed changes in technology has the same effect on all of those teachers engaged in teaching using VLEs. 2.2.6 Quality assurance, monitoring and evaluationQuality assurance in relation to teaching and learning is increasingly important in both FE and HE institutions as noted in section 2.1. However, none of these quality agencies have produced specific guidelines for networked learning although guidance is available on distance learning - at the time of writing, the UK QAA was in the process of finalising a revised Code of Practice on Collaborative provision, flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning) [accessed 5 May 2004] with a publication date of July 2004. However, guidelines have been produced in USA and Australia (Inglis, Ling and Joosten, 2002). Particular issues for quality managers in a networked learning environment include: the quality of the underlying technology (ie a reliable and robust system), good pedagogical design, high quality software and delivery, well managed support, responsiveness to users' needs, agreed turnaround times for assessment, accessibility and access to computers, quality of the learning materials themselves (within the course and as Internet sources) as well as of feedback, scope and coherence of the materials and delivery. In addition, issues of authentication and plagiarism are relevant here (DfES, 2003; Cornford and Pollock, 2002; Inglis et al, 2002). If networked learning is seen as an addition to existing provision then it may be argued that the current quality procedures within an institution are adequate to deal with this mode of delivery; however, if networked learning is considered a radically changed way of delivering learning, as Baumeister (2004) suggests, then new procedures may be required. 2.2.7 Access to learningFlexible access – anytime, anywhere – has often been quoted as one of the main advantages of networked learning. It is stressed in various government publications (eg, DfES, 2003; SHEFC/SFEFC, 2003), which see flexibility in time and location as a way of widening participation by attracting people into learning who otherwise would not be able to attend classes. It is clear that networked learning can open up opportunities for access (Broumley and Weedon, 2001). For example, there is also an increasing awareness that for some students the communicative tools in the online learning environment can boost confidence (Harrison and Weedon, 2003). However, it is equally recognised that it can create barriers, with the digital divide recognising unequal access to both hardware and software in the student population. For disabled students networked learning also provides benefits and disadvantages (Phipps, Sutherland and Seale, 2002). The Disability Discrimination Act from 1995 was amended by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act in 2001 and came into force in September 2002. This Act has implications for the institutional development of networked learning. Funding is available to support disabled students in a variety of ways; however, online learning resources have to be developed in such a way that they are accessible to the majority of students with disabilities (Doyle and Robson, 2002). From an institutional perspective issues around specific learning difficulties such as dyslexia, visual and auditory impairment pose particular challenges. 2.3 SummaryThis section has identified the main issues in relation to networked learning, and reviewed the major UK research evidence concerned with the key areas affected when networked learning is implemented. The main themes that emerge relate to the current context of change, to models of change and to specific aspects of networked learning. In the present context it is reported that over 80% of all educational institutions are making use of technology in the delivery of learning, but that this has not yet made a significant impact on learning and teaching (JISC/UCISA, 2003). This recent research suggests that there are two significant drivers for institutions to engage with networked learning: the provision of effective management and administration of teaching and learning, and to allow use of alternative pedagogies with large numbers of students, which are not possible face-to-face (ibid). However, the research indicates that only the first of these drivers is operating in UK institutions. In addition the technical issues concerning the integration of a MLE may lead to two different approaches within an institution: focusing only on the technical integration of systems or on a holistic approach which includes the redesign of processes (Boys, 2002). These two different approaches are likely to have differential impacts on management and administration. Evidence suggests that for networked learning to be effective it has to be embedded in institutional practice and culture (Stiles, 2003), thus requiring a revolution in thinking, not simply incremental change (Bates, 1999). Only one of the models of change reviewed here, Nicol et al (2004), appears to address the complex and multi-faceted aspects of the proposed study of the impact of networked learning within educational institutions. This model will be used to assist in the evaluation of the findings from the case studies. The framework of this model assumes that an institution’s effectiveness in the use of ICT for teaching and learning is a function of six inter-related elements: external environment, the institutional strategy, individuals and their roles; organisational structures; the characteristics of the technology; and the management processes (Nicol et al, 2004). These specific aspects of networked learning are also prominent in the literature and are of importance because of the current developments in post-compulsory education. The ways in which strategy is developed and an open, facilitative and inclusive approach are regarded as important in the effective development of Networked Learning. It has been suggested that the effective use of technology requires a revolution in institutional thinking about teaching and learning (Bates, 1999): e-Learning must become part of the culture of the institution, and seen as part of normal working practice (Stiles, 2003). Evidence suggests that a strong and reliable network is of paramount importance for the successful implementation of networked learning (Minshull, 2001). In addition, staff and student access to hardware and software, and access to support and training is vital for successful development of networked learning (ibid). There is also considerable research evidence to suggest that networked learning is likely to have an affect on the nature of work, including: workload, collaboration with colleagues and relationships between lecturing staff and students (Beetham, 2001; Timmis, 2003, Goodyear, 2001). Staff development and support are seen as essential in building staff strengths and these are most likely to arise out of a firm commitment to networked learning at the institutional level (Hart et al 2000; McCartan et al, 2000). Two different conceptions of, and approaches to, teaching have been reported; teacher-centred, content orientated versus student-centred, learning orientated (Hutchings, 2001). Issues surrounding pedagogy and changing conceptions of teaching and learning are therefore an area requiring further exploration. It has been argued that networked learning enables interactivity, for example in group discussions, and flexibility (Goodyear, 2001). But, to date there appears to have been little enhancement of teaching and learning, and it is suggested that this is because the focus of implementation has been on the administrative needs (JISC/UCISA, 2003). An exploration of the manner in which different VLEs affect teaching and learning has indicated that the technology may constrain the pedagogies used (Britain and Liber, 2004). Quality assurance in relation to teaching and learning is increasingly important in both FE and HE institutions. If networked learning is seen as an addition to existing provision then it may be argued that the current quality procedures within an institution are adequate to deal with this mode of delivery; however, if networked learning is considered a radically changed way of delivering learning then new procedures may be required. Flexible access has often been quoted as one of the main advantages of networked learning (DfES, 2003). It is stressed in various government publications, which see flexibility in time and location as a way of widening participation by attracting people into learning who otherwise would not be able to attend classes. Since differences between institutions may lead to characteristically different strategies related to the particular mission of the institution, it is important that a range of institutions should be studied (Gibbs, 1999). Research focusing on institutional development has tended to examine single institutions (eg Beaty, Cousin and Deepwell 2002; Banks and Powell, 2002; Foster et al, 2002) and the current study explores the impact of networked learning across twenty institutions. The main aim of our project is thus to explore the impact of networked learning on a range of higher and further education institutions by examining the impact of networked learning using these identified themes.
|
