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.

11.5 The characteristics of the technology

"the characteristics of the technology being applied." (Nicol et al, 2004)

Network infrastructures appear to be, in the main, robust and reliable. The literature has indicated the importance of a strong and reliant network (Minshull, 2004) and these findings indicate a major investment of time, funding and other resources to ensure the reliability of the systems. There are no apparent differences between FE and HE suggesting that this is an area which all saw as crucial in the development of networked learning. However, there were differences in access to technical resources; access to computer for staff appears to be an issue in a number of the FE institutions, six in all mentioned this problem, but it was not referred to in any of the HE institutions; this is probably another aspect of the funding differences between types of institution.

MLEs were being developed within several institutions, with integration of a range of information systems such as student records and the VLE, and some of the universities were beginning to integrate library resources with the VLE. These developments were linked to an increasing central control of the infrastructure in HE institutions; in FE colleges services were already centralised. In some HE institutions this centralisation of services were seen by some as potentially imposing central control on institutions that have traditionally been devolved. and the institutions studied have clearly taken the same view. All of the institutions studied were definitely focused on the technological integration of information, learning and administrative systems, but it was also clear that three HEs and seven FEs had made major structural changes to existing processes and relationships to support the organisational change. Thus, as Boys (2002) has suggested, some institutions are focusing on the technological aspects but there are also some institutions that are also focussing on the review and redesign of existing processes and relationships necessary to support major organisational change.

In nine of the HE institutions the majority of materials for networked learning were developed in-house. FE institutions also used in-house materials but to a lesser extent and there was a much greater use of bought-in/ready-made materials (over 50% of respondents indicated that such materials were frequently used, whereas in HE institutions only 32% suggested that this was common practice). The decision seems to depend on the size of institution; small FE colleges rarely used in-house products whereas all large FE colleges used mainly in-house materials. A similar situation existed in HE institutions; small HE institutions, although using mainly in-house materials also used a range of other products, including a significant proportion of bought-in materials, whereas large HE institutions used commercial products only rarely. These findings probably reflect the different levels of funding and skills available in institutions of different size and type.

There were some differences between FE and HE in that HE institutions were generally better resourced, and more staff in FE experienced difficulties in accessing computers than in HE; however, in general FE provision was, according to our evidence, improving. Difficulties of access were seen as being addressed, for example, through the provision of new buildings which would improve access. Thus, according to Minshull (2001) the resource problems of FE colleges might point to some problems in the successful implementation of networked learning.

Whilst there is evidence that the networks are now robust, there was also a suggestion that there may be problems in terms of future, more advanced developments, for example high bandwidth applications such as streaming media. In another institution the lack of suitable software on students’ computers was seen as a hindrance to development. This would suggest that the level of networked delivery at present is reliable; however, extending provision to greater number of students, increasing flexibility across wider geographical areas and the using new and sophisticated software may create difficulties for the current infrastructure unless funding is provided to enhance the infrastructure. The introduction of new software and hardware may affect previously reliable systems and networks (JISC, MLE Briefing Paper 8, 2001); this is especially true for the integration of central administration systems, in particular the student information system, with learning systems, for example a VLE.