10 Summary of findings

This previous sections have focused on the case study findings; in this section the findings will be examined to consider what impact networked learning has had on practices within the institutions and on the effectiveness of these practices for the institutions.
The following aspects will be considered:

• What has changed and what has remained the same within the institutions as networked learning has been introduced?

• What do the institutions see as their main successes because of introducing networked learning into their institutions?

• What do the institutions see as their main challenges as they continue to develop networked learning?

• What has been the overall impact of the introduction of networked learning on the institutions?

10.1 Summary of changes resulting from networked learning

Below is a summary of what has changed and what has remained the same within the institutions as network learning has been introduced.

Impact on institutional development

• Drivers – there has been a change towards central support of networked learning both in terms of a central support unit and senior management endorsement.

• Strategies - some institutions (11) have developed separate and specific e-learning strategies, some institutions (8) are addressing e-learning within their central teaching and learning strategy, and one has no explicit strategy in place for e-learning.

• Structures - new teams and committees have been developed in many of the institutions to implement networked learning. In six institutions it appears that overall structures have not changed; however, this does not fully represent what seems to be an organic change in committee structures and the creation of new teams. (In three institutions, although there have been major structural changes these were not the result of the introduction of networked learning.)

• Funding – this is still uncertain for both types of institutions. Project funding has supported some development of networked learning but this leads to uncertainties in terms sustainability and future development.

• Business and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - There has been some growth in fully online distance courses in niche markets in HE, and FE has developed new ways of delivering training in a more flexible manner to local communities and businesses.

Impact on infrastructure and support

• Systems and network - The systems and network infrastructure are generally seen as robust now, which was not always the case previously.

• Centralisation of services - For some institutions, mainly in HE, there has been an increasing centralisation of services (eg management of the VLE and support for networked learning), whereas in FE services were already centralised.

• MLE developments - The majority of institutions are in the process of developing a managed learning environment (MLE) with greater integration of different information systems and service, particularly student information systems and the VLE.

• Access to resources - Staff in HE are likely to have access to their own PCs whereas in FE, although the ratio of PCs to staff is improving, in some cases they still have to share which is causing some problems.

Impact on staffing and collaboration

• Staff development - There has been a considerable increase in staff development with a focus on the effective use of networked learning, evolving beyond the purely technical ‘how to’ skills. However, uptake is often problematic.

• Staff and student technical support - Technical support has increased for both staff and students but is still identified as problematic. Student technical support in particular, appears to be limited in FE, with little mention of student helpdesks being available; however, this may reflect the FE approach to the introduction of networked learning through learning resource centres with support provide in these centres.

• Type of work - There has been little apparent change for the majority of academic staff. There has been some change in the roles of librarians and other staff who support students' learning.

• New roles - There have been new roles for some academics that have been seconded to support colleagues in development of networked learning, as 'champions', across both HE and FE.

• New posts - There have been new posts created for technical staff and learning technologists to support networked learning. There appear to have been no new posts created amongst academics and administrative staff.

• New working practices - New working practices have evolved for administrative staff, particularly those involved in the registration of students, eg online registration, changes in timing of tasks. However there have been no apparent changes in working practices for academic staff, except those in new roles.

• Increased workload - Workload appears to have increased for technical, academic and support staff. However there appear to have been no perceived increase in workload for administrative staff, although they are involved in new working practices.

• Research - There has been a limited increase in research into networked learning. Networked learning has not led to a shift in the ‘supremacy’ of research over teaching in research led HE institutions.

• Internal collaboration – there has been an increase in internal collaboration through the development of new teams, and the creation of the networked learning champion roles.

• Communication - The use of email is firmly embedded in HE institutions, and there has been considerable increase of its use in FE institutions.

Impact on learning, teaching and assessment

• Teaching and Learning - little impact as yet. There has been an increase in the use of ‘blended’ learning, ie using networked learning to support traditional forms of delivery, and this appears to be the preferred mode of delivery that is emerging. There has been no large-scale adoption of networked learning as sole means of delivery.

• Role of the teacher - Overall little change in the role of the teacher. Some respondents are clear about the potential of networked learning to change the role of the teacher although there was little evidence of this having happed, but others are less clear.

• Assessment - There has been an increase in the use of online formative assessment, but this has not been extended to summative assessment.

• Development of materials - There has been a considerable increase in team development of online learning materials, with new support units being set up.

• Types of learning materials in use - There has been an increase in the use of reusable, freely available resources in FE. However, the vast majority of learning materials in use, particularly in HE, are standard handouts and module information uploaded into the VLE.

• Student experiences - There has been an increase in the use of the VLE and/or email for staff/student and student/student communication. However the VLE has generally not been used for collaborative and/or interactive learning activities.

• Student centred learning - This has been promoted in FE using learning centres; however, this is focused on individual students with individual learning plans.

Impact on quality assurance, monitoring and evaluation

• QA and monitoring procedures - There have been changes in a small number of institutions and within limited areas. The majority of institutions felt their QA procedures were sufficiently flexible and robust to address the quality requirements of networked learning.

• Evaluation of staff and student experiences - This is increasing and appears to becoming an area of current or planned priority and action.

Impact on access to learning

• Flexibility of access - There has been a considerable increase in the flexibility of access to resources for students in both HE and FE.

• Disabled students’ access - Some change has been noted in a small number of institutions as well as an increase in awareness of some disability issues.

• Widening participation - Networked learning has had a positive impact on widening participation. However also noted was the conflicting evidence suggesting that networked learning could impact negatively on widening participation due to lack of IT literacy, access to computers and local face-to-face support.

10.1.1 Discussion

The above summaries of what has changed and what has remained the same shows that there are some aspects of development that have been successfully accomplished by all of the case study institutions. For example: the systems are generally seen as robust now, the majority of institutions are developing an MLE with greater integration of different information systems, and the use of email is firmly embedded in HE institution with considerable increase of its use in FE institutions.

On the other hand, there are a number of areas where some institutions have changed but others do not appear to have done so. For example: some institutions are still operating within a central teaching and learning strategy; in many institutions overall structures have not changed to accommodate the introduction of networked learning; and the development and type of teaching and learning materials, and collaborative and interactive activities do not appear to have changed significantly in many institutions. Finally, there are also a number of institutions where staff development remains problematic.

In the context of the model of e-learning implementation depicted by Nicol et al (2004) we recognise two development trajectories for e-learning implementation – top-down (managerialist) and bottom-up (core competencies). Our study provides some evidence for each of these trajectories: the management strategies and structures, initiators and drivers of the process provide an indication of the level of top-down implementation, and the provision of support via champions, materials development, staff development, and the level of focus on teaching and learning provides us with an indication of the level of bottom-up implementation.

Thus, our findings indicate that some of these 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. The evidence from our case studies which is relevant to the model (Nicol et al, 2004) is summarised in Figure 10 1 and is used to assess which trajectory each institution appeared to be following during the study. In summary, two institutions appear to be implementing networked learning solely from the bottom-up (H1 and H2), whilst nine are implementing networked learning solely form the top-down (H9, H10, F1, F3, F4, F6, and F8 to F10), and eight institutions are combining top-down and bottom-up approaches (H3 to H7, F2, F5 and F7). H8 appears to have adopted no obvious development trajectory.

Figure 10-1 Summary of institutional development trajectories (Nicol et al, 2004)