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.

11.3 Individuals and their roles

"the way human resources are prepared and deployed (individuals and their roles) to support the implementation of ICT in teaching and learning." (Nicol et al, 2004)

Our study show that networked learning has had a considerable impact on working practices and staff roles. There have been substantial changes in the roles and in the nature of work for some staff: mostly in relation to administration staff and technical staff, but in addition, academics need to acquire new skills to engage with e-moderation and preparation of materials. A new role of 'networked learning champion' has been created for academic staff in some institutions. Most of the case studies identified an increase in workload for technical, academic and support staff. Increases in workload were not generally mentioned in relation to administration and registry staff.

Changes in the nature of work, and workload have also been noted by Beetham (2001) and Timmis (2003). The extent to which these changes have been 'organic' developments or radical changes, ie whether staff were retrained or new staff were recruited (Timmis, 2003) varied. Most new posts were in technical support and the appointment of learning technologists. Most academic, library, administrative and registry roles evolved and sometimes this was supported by training.

Staff development was an area that had undergone considerable expansion and development. Changes in the type of staff development provided were commented upon in some of the case studies; there were indications that an initial emphasis on technology skills was being augmented by an additional focus on issues relating to pedagogy in a small number of the institutions. This finding tends to confirm that of an earlier study (JISC/UCISA, 2003) which suggests that although enhancing the quality of teaching and learning was identified as an important driver by almost every institution surveyed, pedagogical issues appear to have been of secondary concern in their actual implementation of VLEs.

Institutional commitment to the development of staff is clearly evidenced in these case studies; however, the extent of staff commitment across institutions is less clear. Many respondents mentioned resistance to changes in working practices and unwillingness of some staff to engage with the necessary development and training. Staff attitudes were identified as a major issue within our report (Section 5.6), and have also been indicated as important in the successful implementation of networked learning by other research (eg Banks and Powell, 2002; Bothams and Fordyce, 2002).

Negative attitudes to change were perceived to arise from general technical fears associated with age and or lack of sufficient understanding of the technology involved and might be overcome by more carefully targeted training. Other negative reasons such as workload/time and fear of job loss are clearly issues that may be addressed through a firm commitment to networked learning at the institutional level as suggested by (McCartan, Watson, Lewins, and Hodgson, 2000). Lack of ownership was mentioned as a negative reason, but having ownership was cited as a positive reason for engagement. This could be an important issue that merits further exploration; issues of ownership and empowerment have been raised by Teare and Dealtry (1998) who recommended that organisations should seek to enact change through individuals. In particular, Teare and Dealtry noted that it was necessary to seek to embed a culture of learning by devoting time to understanding the concept of empowerment, to link this to training and development, and that it was necessary to explain and communicate this on all levels and emphasise the benefits to individuals as well as to the organisation.

Several of the institutions, with the emphasis being particularly strong in HE institutions, evidenced more organic development (Timmis, 2003), coming from the bottom up with dedicated support from the institution.

The definition of networked learning used by this study emphasised the potential of networked learning to create links between learners and also between learners and tutors. Our study finds little evidence for an actual change of role in the teacher and the value of blended learning was stressed. In addition, the difficulties of using certain types of assessment in the online environment were noted. Similarly, Britain and Liber (2004) acknowledge the affordance for interactivity and its role in changing the relationship between teachers and learners but indicate that to date no such change has taken place. Collaborative projects using the online environment were seen as problematic. Britain and Liber (2004) suggest that the architecture of many commercial VLEs may be hindering changes in role as they are structured in such a way that the control of the delivery of learning remains firmly under the control of the teacher. The majority of institutions involved in this study had purchased a commercial VLE and did not appear to have considered the effect of their choice on the nature of teaching and learning. However, if there is an emphasis on blended learning with some aspects of the delivery, for example, group work, remaining within the face-to-face part of the delivery, changes in the structure of the VLE may not impact and affect the relative roles of teachers and students.

Networked learning has clearly impacted upon collaboration, the majority of institutions stated that internal collaboration had increased, with only a small number noting limited or no increase in collaboration. One factor that seems to have encouraged collaboration has been the development of central support units that support staff in the development of materials. Another factor is the use of champions that often provide links between support units and the faculty or across the institution. Examples of external collaboration due to networked learning are also in evidence. There was a consensus amongst respondents that networked learning had led to much greater collaboration than in the past across staff in academic departments and those in support and administrative roles.