4 Impact on institutional development

This section reports on the findings relating to the impact of networked learning on institutional development, including strategies and structures.

4.1 Engagement with networked learning and its development

In interview the participants were asked to consider the extent to which their institution was engaged in large-scale networked learning, who they regarded as the initiators, and what they saw as the main drivers behind this development. They were also invited to talk generally about the early development of networked learning. The questionnaire responses provided information concerning the proportion of students and schools, within the institution, who were using a VLE. In the context of this report the term ‘school’ is used as a generic term to represent all institutional structures including department and/or faculty structures.

When the data from interviews and questionnaires is combined a ‘snapshot’ of the institution emerges, which is then used as a representation of that institution.

In defining whether an institution was engaged in large-scale networked learning the following criteria were adopted:

• the institution should have a VLE,

• the VLE should be used by a significant percentage of students and across a wide range of schools (ideally > 50% usage under one or more of these criterion).

The presence of a managed learning environment (MLE) (JISC, MLE Briefing Paper 8, 2001) was not regarded as essential. It was also decided that the views of those interviewed about the extent of networked learning within the institution, should be considered; the views of the majority of the respondents within an institution was taken as a representation of that institution. Figure 4-1 shows evidence that fourteen of the institutions studied were involved in large-scale networked learning. It is suggested that H1, H3, F3 and F5 and F10 may not yet be involved in large-scale networked learning because of the low proportion of use by students and/or across schools and also because those interviewed felt that their institution was not involved in large-scale networked learning. One institution, F1, was identified as not yet engaged in large-scale networked learning; it had developed its own VLE, was not currently developing an MLE and had a very low take-up (4%) of networked learning by schools.

Those who stated that their institution was involved in large-scale networked learning offered a number of reasons for this. The most common reason was that the institution had adopted an institution wide VLE. Another reason offered was that technology was used to support learning and that it allowed for collaboration between learners and tutors. Finally, one person suggested that it was large-scale because they were involved with the development of an online college that delivered accredited learning at a distance jointly with other institutions.

The main reason for those within an institution identifying it as not being engaged with large-scale networked learning was that take-up across the institution was patchy and this is clearly shown in Figure 4-1. Where those interviewed saw the development of large-scale networked learning as partial, it is clear from the proportion of students and/or school use that further development was needed to ensure take up across the whole institution. A second reason was that the technology was used mainly to provide resources and there was a lack of collaborative communication.

For reasons of anonymity, we have chosen not to identify which VLE was used by each institution in Figure 4-1. However, 17 of the participating institutions use a commercially available VLE with only three FE institutions developing their own in-house solutions. There were six different commercial VLE systems in use across the case study institutions: The VLE (5 HE; 2 FE); Web-CT (4HE; 1 FE); Learnwise (2 FE); Fretwell Dowling (1 FE), TopClass (1 FE) and Lotus Domino (1 HE).

Figure 4-1: The extent to which the institutions can be considered to be engaged in large-scale networked learning

Figure 4-2, Figure 4-3 and Figure 4-4 below show how the respondents thought networked learning had been introduced into their institution. When respondents discussed the introduction of networked learning it was clear that in some institutions the introduction had been driven by senior management (top-down), whereas in others initial developments came from enthusiastic individuals (bottom-up). These differences were mirrored to a great extent in the responses to one of the questions in the questionnaire, which asked how networked learning was introduced into the institution.

There are some minor differences in terms of the categories used, and these can be seen Figure 4-2 to Figure 4-4 below. The interview data did not always distinguish between one and a small number of faculties and the questionnaire data does not distinguish between centrally driven by a unit or centrally driven by senior management.

Where there are discrepancies between interview and questionnaire data, for example F4 and H3 in Figure 4-4, these institutions are better understood by looking at what was said in the interviews. In F4, all respondents agreed that one particular department initiated networked learning but also highlighted that the most senior members of staff, the College Principal and Vice-Principal, were part of that department. In H3, although in interviews respondents talked about individual initiators (interview data), the later central decision to introduce the VLE was generally regarded as the point at which networked learning was introduced (questionnaire data). In terms of H7, it is worth noting that the interview data stressed organic development and thus possibly supported bottom-up development. However, part of this bottom-up development related to a specific set of courses for a niche market and when these courses were developed the institution was not using an institution wide VLE. An institution wide VLE has now been adopted and, as with H3, this could be interpreted as supporting a top-down approach. Figure 4-2 to Figure 4-4 above suggest that a top-down introduction was more common in FE institutions and bottom-up approach was more common in HE institutions. However, the difference is not large and is shown graphically in Figure 4-5: Initiators of networked learning by type of institution, below.

Figure 4-2: Initiators of networked learning (questionnaire responses)

Figure 4-3: Initiators of networked learning (Interview responses)

Figure 4-4: Initiators of networked learning combined views
(questionnaire and interview)

Figure 4-5: Initiators of networked learning by type of institution

The interviews indicated a range of drivers for the development of networked learning. The drivers may be regarded as slightly different from the initiators of networked learning since they might refer to initiators or to later motivators. The main drivers most often mentioned in interview are listed in Figure 4-6 below.

As with the initiators, the drivers most frequently mentioned by respondents in FE institutions were senior and central management. However many respondents in HE institutions also mentioned these drivers suggesting that, even if central/senior management had not initiated the move to networked learning, they were important in moving it forward. Differences between FE and HE emerged in that student numbers and market pressures were seen as drivers in many HE institutions, but were not mentioned by FE institutions; and funding was frequently referred to by FE colleagues but not by those in HE. The role of individual schools in promoting development only surfaced in relation to HE institutions, but this is probably due to the larger size and more devolved nature of the HE institutions.

Figure 4-6: Main drivers for development of networked learning based on interview data