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.

5.2 Staff development and training

The questionnaire responses provided some data concerning changes in the support infrastructure, and the respondents frequently discussed both the technical infrastructure and the support provided in interview. In addition, there was a question in the interview schedule that prompted further reflection on the institutional support structures.

[Interview Questions: Have there been any changes in the nature of your work? What support is there/has there been for these changes?]

Figure 5-3 below represents an overview of some of the main themes discussed.

Technical training was available in all of the case study institutions, although the type of training varies amongst institutions, with some offering only a basic introduction or the European Computer Driving Licence (ECDL) and others providing more extensive programmes. Every institution apart from H10 and F6 made many references to training. However, there appears to be less of a focus on supporting and developing staff skills in using networked learning appropriately for teaching and learning. Although eight of the 10 HE institutions made mention of this type of training it was clear that it was a new focus for some, and in other cases they appear to be very limited programmes. In five FE institutions references were made to such training, but only in F2 and F6 was it clear that extensive training was available.

It is interesting to observe that support through e-learning/ILT champions was seen as important in the same number of HE and FE institutions (six HE and six FE institutions) and that while one FE college was thinking of introducing them another had stopped their earlier support via champions. These findings could suggest that Champions may not be perceived as a necessity for staff development, unlike the provision of technical training; or they could suggest that institutions are only just beginning to address the pedagogical issues of introducing networked learning (Britain and Liber, 2004).

The type and availability of staff support appears to be different for FE and HE: informal support was more prevalent in HE than in FE, it was mentioned by six HE but only two FE institutions. Support via a separate unit or team was more often found within FE, it was mentioned by seven colleges, but only one HE institution referred to such a structure. The difference in informal support could result from the fact that most universities are large, devolved structures whereas most FE colleges are relatively small. The FE institutions referring to such informal support structures are both very large, in fact the largest studied (F2 has 8500 FTE students and F5 has 7800 FTE students).

Finally, there were some references to the provision of external training form two HE and five FE institutions shown in Figure 5-4 below.

Student induction appeared to be widely available in both FE and HE institutions, although it was not discussed in institutions F8 and F10. It seems likely that the changes in technology have meant that most institutions regard IT induction as a necessity. There is satisfactory access to computers in most of the HE institutions, although it was not mentioned at H8. However, it seems to be less well resourced in some of the FE institutions. No references were made to computer access for students in F6, F7, F9 and F10, but three FE colleges provided laptop facilities on loan to students if necessary to enable them to access the materials from off-campus; this was also mentioned in two of the HE institutions. Provision of helpdesk services to students appears to be widespread in HE institution (available in six of the case study HE institutions) but was only mentioned in one of the FE institutions.

Student induction, shown in Figure 5-5 below, appeared to be widely available in both FE and HE institutions, although it was not discussed in institutions F8 and F10. It seems likely that the changes in technology have meant that most institutions regard IT induction as a necessity. There is satisfactory access to computers in most of the HE institutions, although it was not mentioned at H8. However, access to computers seems to be less well resourced in some of the FE institutions. No references were made to computer access for students in F6, F7, F9 and F10, but three FE colleges provided laptop facilities on loan to students if necessary to enable them to access the materials from off-campus; this was also mentioned in two of the HE institutions. Provision of helpdesk services to students appears to be available in a six of the HE institutions but was only mentioned in one of the FE institutions.

Figure 5 3: Staff Development Main Themes

Figure 5 4: External training undertaken in institutions

Figure 5 5: Support for students