5 Impact on infrastructure and support services
This section reports on the findings relating to
the impact of networked learning on infrastructures and examines
technical issues,
technical support, staff development and library and learning resources.
The questionnaire asked about both the technical
and support infrastructure, and there were also references to changes
in the infrastructure
within the documentation. However, during interviews the respondents
were not asked any direct questions about the infrastructure,
nevertheless the interviews proved to be a rich source of information
about
both the technical and the support infrastructure. The information
presented in Figure 5-1 to Figure 5-7 below represents summaries
of some of the main issues arising.
5.1 Robustness and security of system
Robust systems are in place in all but one of the
case study institutions (see Figure 5-1); F6 appears to be experiencing
continued problems.
Five FE and five HE institutions report having earlier problems,
such as systems failure, which have now been resolved. These findings
indicate a major investment of time, funding and other resourcing
to ensure the reliability of the systems, and these were all referred
to during interviews with staff. 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.
A similar situation was found when looking at centralisation of
services and access to technical resources and support, see Figure
5-2 below; a move to centralisation of services was common to both
FE and HE.
Nine FE and seven HE institutions referred to centralised services,
although two HE institutions have devolved services. However, there
were differences in access to technical resources for staff; 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 institution; perhaps this is another
aspect of the funding concerns within these FE institutions.
| CS |
Adequate |
Problematic |
| H1 |
No problems commented on. |
There was some concern about an earlier system failure and
the implications in terms of confidence of staff and students. |
| H2 |
No serious problems with the current system. |
|
| H3 |
There has been a major investment in the infrastructure and
particularly in hardware, which is now well resources and robust. |
A major failure before the introduction of the VLE, which
led to a loss of confidence among academic staff. |
| H4 |
Systems have been introduced to reduce the risk of breakdown. |
|
| H5 |
No serious problems with the current system. |
|
| H6 |
System was referred to as no longer crashing. |
Limitations in terms of use of video streaming. |
| H7 |
Robust, reliable system operated (change from earlier on). |
|
| H8 |
It is likely to that the system is sufficiently robust as
problems are likely to have surfaced otherwise (as VLE is institution
wide). |
Issues around security when using shared drive (in relation
to exams). |
| H9 |
Reliable and robust system noted - went for 'big' system. |
Streaming video and possibly computer aided assessment (so
people are discouraged or encouraged to have alternative available). |
| H10 |
Earlier technical problems rectified.
Questionnaire data provides evidence of robust system. |
Procedures for dealing with computer misuse - minor change. |
| F1 |
No problems mentioned. |
|
| F2 |
The system was functioning effectively and there were no
particular problems. There has been a major investment in the
infrastructure and particularly in hardware. |
|
| F3 |
The network is robust. |
There are still outstanding issues in providing access for
all staff. |
| F4 |
The outsourced VLE provides a degree of reliability that
probably could not be provided internally because the cost
of staffing would be prohibitive for such a small college. |
The problem with outsourcing is the lack of control over
reliability. |
| F5 |
The system was now functioning effectively and there were
no particular problems. |
|
| F6 |
|
It was noted that there had been considerable problems with
the network during the year. Major programme underway to sort
problem Hackers noted as a problem (system not considered sufficiently
secure).
Noted that the problem was due to too rapid development and
lack of a coherent overview over complete system (lack of funding),
system crashed when additional computers used |
| F7 |
System perceived as robust. |
|
| F8 |
System perceived as sufficiently robust. |
|
| F9 |
System now perceived as robust. |
Hackers, security increasingly important; this affects provision
of student accounts (must ensure that students can only access
one). |
| F10 |
System now robust. |
|
Figure 5-1: Issues relating to robustness and security of systems
| CS |
Centralised/Decentralised Services |
Access to resources/ support for staff - technical |
Large-scale? |
| H1 |
Centralisation in terms of support; Computing Services provide
central IT support and Centre for Learning and Teaching provides
networked learning support. |
Not discussed |
Partly |
| H2 |
This was clearly an important change; the centralisation
of ICT services was referred to by all of the respondents.
The responses suggest that there was centralisation in terms
of IT support now provide by Computing Services. |
Not discussed |
Yes |
| H3 |
Central services. |
Not discussed |
Partly |
| H4 |
There was little mention was made of centralisation of services,
but one respondent indicated that this had occurred and that
it had led to some redeployment of staff. |
Not discussed |
Yes |
| H5 |
Services have not been centralised. |
Not discussed |
Yes |
| H6 |
Central IT unit provides all data networks, central computing
facilities, email, web, and corporate systems (team of people). |
Not discussed |
Yes |
| H7 |
Centralised computing services, provide central support and
implement/manage VLE. |
Not discussed |
Yes |
| H8 |
Computing services are centralised but infrastructure controlled
by separate department. |
Not discussed |
Yes |
| H9 |
Central service is available and reliable; but there are
also some services within faculties; however, faculty services
are not so reliable which is likely to lead to centralisation. |
OK and technical support available - but stretched. |
Yes |
| H10 |
Not commented upon. |
All e-moderators have access to laptops. |
Yes |
| F1 |
There is one central team at the college with responsibility
for all sites. |
|
No |
| F2 |
There was no specific mention of centralisation of services;
but there seems to be a central unit that delivers the technical
services. |
|
Yes |
| F3 |
Not commented upon. |
Not all members of staff have access to dedicated computer. |
Partly |
| F4 |
There is one central team at the college with overall responsibility
for all sites. |
|
Yes |
| F5 |
There is a central unit that delivers the technical services. |
|
Partly |
| F6 |
IT services are centralised with an IT manager. |
Not all staff have access to own computer (some 5/10 per
PC). |
Yes |
| F7 |
MLE is centrally managed as is IT service. |
Staff do not have access to own computer. |
Yes |
| F8 |
Highly centralised and a system for tracking logging of problems
from beginning to end. |
Not all classrooms have PCs; not all members of staff have
access to dedicated computer. |
Yes |
| F9 |
Centralised service indicated by responses. |
Most full-time staff have laptop or PC; part-timers share
access. |
Yes |
| F10 |
Centralised service indicated by responses. |
Access OK - but not all staff have own PCs; 85% of staff
have email accounts |
Partly |
Figure
5-2: Centralisation of services and access to technical resources
and support
|
