11 Discussion of Findings

This section will explore our findings in relation to the key themes within the literature, reviewed in Section 2. The Nicol et al (2004) version of the MIT90 model will be used to help us to present our discussion within a coherent framework.

Their framework assumes that an institution’s effectiveness in the use of ICT for teaching and learning is a function of six inter-related elements:

• "the external environment within which the institution is operating

• the institutional strategy in relation to ICT in teaching and learning

• the way human resources are prepared and deployed (individuals and their roles) to support the implementation of ICT in teaching and learning

• the organisational structures that support the application of ICT to teaching and learning
• the characteristics of the technology being applied.

• the management processes that facilitate the initiation, sustainability and success of the application of ICT in teaching and learning." (Nicol et al, 2004)

These can be summarised as the external environment, the institutional strategy, individuals and their roles; organisational structures; the characteristics of the technology; and the management processes.

11.2 The institutional strategy

"the institutional strategy in relation to ICT in teaching and learning" (Nicol et al, 2004)

Only two of the HE institutions had a separate formal e-learning strategy, the majority of the HE institutions studied included their e-learning strategy within their teaching and learning strategy. Nine of the FE institutions had a separate Information and Learning Technology (ILT) strategy, in response to the requirement for an ILT Strategic Plan (as defined in FEFC Circular 99/45), and only one did not appear to have developed a strategy.

In many of the institutions there has been an increase in cross-college collaboration and new teams have been created in response to the development of networked learning; new committees and groups concerned with educational strategy were formed, either at departmental or institutional level. In addition, the institutional documents that were read contained statements showing that importance was attached to the development of e learning, particularly for teaching, learning and assessment strategies, and for improving flexibility of access to learning.

All the institutions had implemented a VLE and the choice of VLE was significant: in some cases it was chosen in part because it would facilitate staff development and training, in others the move to interoperability was a guiding factor. The majority of institutions had identified the development of a managed learning environment (MLE) as a key part of their strategy: two institutions were ready to implement their MLE; a further 15 were in the process of developing their MLE with only three institutions not developing an MLE.

Several institutions had a specific staff development budget to support the development of networked learning which would suggest support at institutional level, and in eight institutions there was funding earmarked to provide an incentive for staff to use or to produce networked learning materials. However, a lack of budget in this area does not necessarily indicate lack of commitment to the development of networked learning; one institution without such a budget stated that the VLE had been chosen precisely because it did not require specialist training for staff to be able to use it.