Home

Executive Summary

1 Introduction

2 Context

3 Methodology

4 - 9 Findings, Analysis and Discussion

10 Summary of Findings

  10.1 Summary of Changes

  10.2 Successes & Challenges

  10.3 Impact on Case Study Institutions

11 Discussion of Findings

12 References

13 Case Studies

Acknowledgments & Partners

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?

10.3 The impact on the case study institutions

As can be seen from the preceding section, there have been some major impacts on practices across all of the institutions studied; of particular interest, however, are those which have changed only for some institutions. What can these differences between cases tell us about the development of networked learning in educational institutions?

Five 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 were used to build up a profile of the impact that networked learning appeared to have had on the case study institutions. In addition the level of use of the VLE was judged to be another useful indicator of the impact of Networked Learning on the institutions. In Figure 10-4 the institutions have been arranged in order of the apparent impact upon them and also the level of use of the VLE by students.

The findings are brought together in Figure 10-5 below; combing the evidence relating to the trajectory used and the evidence relating to the impact of Networked Learning on the institutions.

These combined findings indicate 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.

CS Discussion and interaction Student centred learning Overall inst. attitude Collab-oration Ref to a changing culture VLE % use by students VLE % use by Depts. Impact
F3 Some No Positive More collab Yes
2
33
 H
F5 Lots Yes Positive More collab, and sharing. Yes
11
100
 H
H4 Lots No Positive More collab No
15
100
 H
F2 Some No Positive More collab, and sharing. Yes
20
75
 H
H5 Lots Yes Positive More collab, closer relationships No
75
25
 H
F6 Limited Yes Negative More collab No
100
 M
H2 Some Yes Balanced More collab No
100
 M
F4 Some No Negative More collab No
20
100
 M
H6 Some Yes Negative More collab No
20
63
 M
F8 None No Positive More collab No
23
75
 M
H3 Some No Negative More collab Yes
25
19
 M
F7 Some No Negative More collab Yes
26
50
 M
H1 Some No Negative More collab, Sharing Yes
33
19
 M
H8 None No Positive Limited Yes
100
100
 M
F10 None No Negative More collab, and sharing. No
33
 L
F9 None No Negative Limited No
20
100
 L
F1 None Yes Negative Limited No
40
4
 L
H9 Some No Negative Limited No
70
30
 L
H10 Limited No Negative More collab No
75
62
 L
H7 Some No Negative More collab No
78
100
 L

Figure 10-4: A measure of the impact of networked learning on institutions

 

CS Impact Managerialist Core competencies Overall trajectory VLE % use by students VLE % use by depts
F2 H High High D
20
75
F3 H High Moderate M
2
33
F5 H High High D
11
100
H4 H High High D
15
100
H5 H Moderate Moderate D
75
25
F4 M High Low M
20
100
F6 M High Moderate M
100
F7 M Moderate Moderate D
26
50
F8 M High Low M
23
75
H1 M Low Moderate C
33
19
H2 M Moderate High C
100
H3 M Moderate Moderate D
25
19
H6 M Moderate Moderate D
20
63
H8 M Low Low Not evident
100
100
F1 L High Low M
40
4
F10 L Moderate Low M
33
F9 L Moderate Low M
20
100
H10 L High Low M
75
62
H7 L Moderate Moderate D
78
100
H9 L Moderate Low M
70
30

Figure 10 5: Impact on institution matched against institutional development trajectory