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.

11.6 The management processes

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

In this section, the different aspects considered above are bought together in the context of the model of e-learning implementation depicted by Nicol et al (2004). They depicted two development trajectories for e-learning implementation – 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: concentrate on building capacity and encourage [academic] departments to deploy that capacity on policy priorities".

Our study provides some evidence for each of these trajectories: the management strategies and structures, initiators and drivers of the process have provided an indication of the level of top-down implementation, and the provision of support via champions, materials development and staff development and the level of focus on teaching and learning provided an indication of level of bottom-up implementation. Our findings have indicated that some of the case study institutions are making progress in changing both managerial processes and core competencies, others appear to have developed one trajectory more than the other, and a few institutions do not appear to have made much progress with either aspect yet.

Five other aspects of the overall findings for this study: communication; collaboration; overall staff attitudes; evidence of cultural change; and evidence of a more interactive and student-centred approach have been used to build up a profile of the impact of networked learning. The level of use of the VLE is not taken into consideration in building up the impact profile, but offers another way of examining impact.

When these two types of findings are combined there are indications that, on the whole, the case study institutions using a dual approach were also the institutions where networked learning seemed to have the greatest impact. However, there are exceptions and these may offer valuable insights into how developments impact upon institutions.

The summarised table of findings are reproduced below Figure 11-1 for convenience:

Only one institution with a dual approach has had a low impact in terms of communication; collaboration; overall staff attitudes; evidence of cultural change; and evidence of a more interactive and student-centred approach. However, this institution, H7, has a high percentage use of the VLE by both students and departments. These differences could be explained in terms of the methodology adopted; the evidence on which these measures are based was obtained from semi-structured interviews it is possible that the respondents at this university failed to refer to certain aspects that were later used in developing a view of the impact within that institution.

Two institutions, H1 and H2, appear to have a mainly core competencies approach, taking a relatively low managerial approach. Within this framework the impact of networked learning appears to be moderate, and additional evidence concerning the percentage of use of the VLE does not alter that view.

Ten institutions take a more managerialist approach, and in only one of these, F3, does the impact of networked learning appear to be high. However, in F3 the level of use of the VLE is quite low, suggesting low impact at present. Networked learning appears to have had a moderate impact on three institutions within this group, F4, F6 and F8. It is interesting that all three of these institutions also appear to have high take-up of the VLE by departments. These institutions appear to be anomalous, in that they do not appear to have the ideal dual approach and yet they seem to be making good progress with networked learning, and are thus worthy of further exploration. All three institutions are relatively small FE colleges, and it has been noted above that size might have a bearing on organisation; small institutions tended not to have specialised units to assist academic staff in the development of materials and also tended to use more bought-in materials for teaching and learning. These institutions, although small, all had a separate unit for materials development and in addition the respondents indicated they made more use of in-house materials than bought-in ones. Perhaps it is this aspect that has allowed these institutions to have a greater impact than might be anticipated, given their more managerialist approaches.

Fig 11-1 Impact on institution matched against institutional development trajectory

In conclusion, the dual approach model appears to lead to more successful implementation of networked learning as argued by Trowler et al (2003), and advocated by this study. However, there do appear to be some important exceptions where it seems that even without the dual approach an institution may have high levels of engagement with networked learning; these appear to be connected with staff support in materials development. This would be an area worthy of further investigation.