Home

Executive Summary

1 Introduction

2 Context

3 Methodology

4 - 9 Findings, Analysis and Discussion

4 Institutional Development

  4.1 Engagement With Networked Learning and Its Development

  4.2 Strategies

  4.3 Structures

  4.4 Funding and Business Issues

  4.5 Discussion

5 Infrastructure and Support Services

6 Staffing and Collaboration

7 Teaching, Learning and Assessment

8 Quality Assurance, Monitoring and Evaluation

9 Access to Learning

10 Summary of Findings

11 Discussion of Findings

12 References

13 Case Studies

Acknowledgments & Partners

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.

4.2 Strategies

Figure 4-7 below shows that the majority of HE institutions studied included their e-Learning strategy within their Teaching and Learning Strategy, with the exception of H4, which does not appear to have a Teaching and Learning Strategy. Only H4 and H6 had a separate institutional e-Learning strategy, but H2 had developed e-Learning strategies at individual school level, and H3 and H8 were in the process of doing the same. It would seem, therefore, that this group of HE institutions were meeting HEFCE requirements (H2 and H8 are funded by SHEFC) and that the majority implemented this as an integral part of their Learning and Teaching Strategy, only a handful of institutions developed a separate e-Learning strategy.

Most FE colleges in England and Wales had developed an Information and Learning Technology (ILT) Strategy to satisfy the requirements of FEFC Circular 99/45. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the majority of the institutions involved in this study have a separate ILT strategy. Nine of the FE institutions had a separate ILT strategy, only one, F8, did not appear to have developed one.

Incentives for staff to use or produce networked learning materials were only found in eight institutions, four HE and four FE, indicating that such strategies may not be widespread. There were some differences between HE and FE in the nature of these incentives; in HE the incentives focused on status via teaching awards, secondments and promotions; whereas in FE the focus was on offering staff time relief from timetabled teaching duties and, in one case, actual monetary rewards.

CS T & L strategy only T & L strategy includes E-learning Separate E-learning strategy School level E-learning strategies Incentives to develop or use networked learning materials
H1   _     None
H2   _   _ None
H3   _   Being developed None
H4     _   Faculty level incentive: some retention of fees within Faculties that are actively engaging in Networked Learning; individual level incentive: explicit promotion opportunities associated with e-learning activities.
H5   _     Documentary evidence speaks of rewards for excellent teaching, but this was not mention in interviews.
H6       _ Being developed Teaching award, fund for teaching innovation.
H7   _     Teaching fellow scheme; Funding for secondment.
H8   _ _ Being developed   None
H9   _     None
H10   _     None
F1     _   None
F2     _   Some external funding, the Teachers Pay Initiative (TPI) money provided as an incentive for staff.
F3     _   Limited rewards to staff, some time allowances to ILT Champions.
F4     _   Some time release is planned as an incentive.
F5     _   Some staff development time has been provided.
F6     _   None
F7     _   None
F8 _       None
F9     _   None
F10     _   None

Figure 4-7: Strategies employed to develop networked learning