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.

4.4 Funding and business issues

Although funding and business issues were not asked about in either interviews or questionnaires, funding issues were raised in 19 of the institutions studied. An overview of the main points raised is presented in Figure 4-9 below.

In HE institutions the discussion was mainly about the various available funding sources: internal, external, European and business capital, although two HE institutions expressed some concern about the future and a potential lack of adequate funding. The situation in FE institutions appeared to be rather different. Six FE institutions (F1, F2, F3, F5, F9 and F10) appeared to have received excellent funding, but there were concerns about future funding in seven colleges. In five of the FE colleges the concerns centred on the tension between two different aspects of government policy: the promotion of the development of e-learning, and the audit procedures that affect the funding available to FE colleges. This latter concern about the basic incompatibility of current audit procedures with the nature of networked learning was seen as very serious, potentially making the access to sustained funding difficult. As noted above, business issues were not asked about specifically, and the discussion on this issue appears to be patchy; an overview is given in Figure 4-9 below.

Most of the interest in business links came from was expressed by the FE institutions; very little was said by respondents in HE institutions, as shown in Figure 4-10 below. It is worth noting though that three of the HE institutions (H7, H9 and H10) mentioned engagement with niche market course delivery in particular disciplines. All of these institutions are post-92 universities and one has experienced reduced funding recently. Two of these universities had developed specific mechanisms for dealing with the development of high quality materials for these particular courses. These courses are mainly in the area of business and computing and are aimed at what is perceived as a lucrative, post-graduate overseas market. The recent demise of the UK e-University was in part due to lack of student numbers (Darby, 2004) it will therefore be worth noting the extent to which these institutions are successful in attracting viable student numbers.

Since this issue was only raised by the respondents, and not by the interviewers, it may represent a particular concern with business and markets amongst these institutions. In terms of HE institutions, funding issues are currently of considerable interest and concern as the government prepares to introduce fees into HE in HEFCE funded institutions. FE colleges are also experiencing considerable constraints and are increasingly expected to provide HE provision within the colleges but without the level of funding that HE students attract in universities.

CS Types of funding Issues LSNL?
H1 The strategic documents indicate that funding has been provided for the development of e-learning and this was also stated in two of the questionnaires. The interviews demonstrated a difference of opinion about the level of funding for networked learning; quality assurance staff felt that there had been insufficient investment but support staff felt that there had been huge investment. Partly
H2 Small amounts of funding for e-learning projects through the Academic Development Fund, but most spoke of large-scale central funding. There was reference to independent SHEFC and Scottish Enterprise funding and there were indications of European and local business funding.   Yes
H3 Funding for Networked Learning has come from the Academic Development fund via bids from individual faculties. One respondent referred to various external-funding sources.   Partly
H4 Specific budget for Staff development, Hardware and Software in connection with Networked Learning. Good levels of funding coming from within the University, from HEFCE and from DENI.   Yes
H5 Not discussed.   Yes
H6 HEFCE funding - mostly external funding for new developments apart from teaching development fund). External funding mainly spent on infrastructure; internal funding for teaching development.   Yes
H7 Funding available - but sources not entirely clear.   Yes
H8 European funding for some development. Noted that infrastructure + VLE will require further funding to expand (however, comment from questionnaire suggests funding is available). Yes
H9 Funding for distance, niche market developments (using e-learning) which are seen as requiring considerable funding; open learning using the VLE not seen as requiring separate funding.   Yes
H10 Noted that fully online development requires considerable funding. Takes a lot of money 'up front'. Project funding runs out and leaves problems in terms of continued development. Yes
F1 There has been considerable new funding and resourcing for the college, and for e-learning in particular, since the arrival of the new Principal in 1999. A lot of external funding has been successfully brought in, including SFEFC money, rural development funding, and European funding. Despite the college's success in bidding, funding is still always an issue and the funding methodology causes particular problems for part-time students working in a Networked way. There is a serious tension between two different aspects of Government policy: the promotion of the development of e-learning and the audit procedures that affect the funding available to FE colleges. Three respondents mentioned this problem. No
 
F2 Support for the development of e-learning came from internal and external sources. The initial development within one Faculty was resourced out of the Faculty's own budget. Later Government (Standards Funds) money was used to allow further development, particularly for staff development. There was also further external funding that allowed the college to move towards a centralised VLE and MLE. There is a serious tension between two different aspects of Government policy: the promotion of the development of e-learning and the audit procedures that affect the funding available to FE colleges. Three people mentioned this problem. Yes
F3 There continues to be excellent funding and resourcing for the college and for e-learning. The LSC provides the majority of the college funding but there was also specific funding as a result of developing an ILT strategy. The Board of Governors have agreed large sums of money for the development of the infrastructure and for e-learning in general, and there have also been a variety of external sources such as European initiatives, JISC funding and local collaborations. There is a tension between two different aspects of Government policy: the promotion of the development of e-learning and the audit procedures that affect the funding available to FE colleges. These auditing and tracking problems make the access to further funding difficult. Partly
F4 The main funding sources mentioned by two respondents were the (LSC), the LEA, European funding, and five people referred to local business funding. The development of a new online course was initiated with local enterprise funding, but has since become self-funding and is also beginning to generate income. The multi-media team, which was set up initially to support academic staff, may now also be generating income. There is a serious tension between two different aspects of Government policy: the promotion of the development of e-learning and the audit procedures that affect the funding available to FE colleges. Five people mentioned this problem. These problems seem to have been overcome largely by careful attention to logging and tracking of online students. Yes
F5 There continues to be excellent funding and resourcing for the College and for e-learning in particular. DENI provides the majority of the college funding but there has also been considerable European funding for Northern Ireland, which has benefited the college. There is a serious tension between two different aspects of Government policy: the promotion of the development of e-learning and the audit procedures that affect the funding available to FE colleges. Three people mentioned this problem. Partly
F6 ILCs have been funded by college - successful for learners, but very costly. Once they are in place there is a suggestion that there will not be much further development due to lack of funding.
There had been some project funding for staff to develop materials, but that is no longer available.		 Difficult to assess costs of network (grey areas in the middle).
Lack of funding for infrastructure is problematic; and it is noted that there is no overall coherent funding strategy for all aspects of development.		 Yes
F7 One respondent suggests support from Senior Management. One respondent commented on total lack of investment in IT. Yes
F8 Money (external) for infrastructure, eg VLE, computers etc; but funding to release staff more problematic. One respondent commented on the need for the institution to fund its own ILT champions and that differs from colleges elsewhere in the UK who get external funding for this.  
Yes
F9 External (funding council) money available for IT developments; consortium participation - VLE bought for all those that were part of a European project to adapt basic skills for online delivery; Extra funding for ILT champions; Internally, staff can bid competitively, but bids exceed available funds. Much money into infrastructure - less for staff (and as numbers of computers increase more staff needed to support). Yes
F10 European funding for project; Funding model being developed that accounts for all costs of networked learning; Some staff now paid from core budget Costs increase as development takes place - recurring costs will become a problem. Partly

Figure 4-9: Funding issues

CS Existing markets New markets
H1 No references made  
H2 No references made  
H3 No references made  
H4 No references made  
H5 No references made  
H6 No references made  
H7 Niche markets, which are mainly in business that are linked to the enterprise strand of the institution rather than core business.  
H8 No references made Seen as providing opportunities for accessing new markets: wider audience, and overseas.
H9 The role of niche marketing, especially business type courses noted (hence a separate distance learning strategy).  
H10 Development of separate business based on e-learning, which is profit making. Changing nature of delivery since 9/11 noted resulting in more online delivery. Niche marketing of specific types of courses that are paid for by students.
F1 One of the major changes has been in the focus on the market, and in particular in developing a strategy to access the potential market within the region by making greater use of networked learning. Although this began about 10-12 years ago the links have been substantially augmented in the last few years, as a result of the growth of networked learning. There is a perceived need to take the learning out to the community; this is also seen as a market waiting to be tapped.
F2 There were three references to a joint venture with other colleges and universities in the region, which should help to improve their infrastructure and spread the costs of enhancing learning opportunities in the region.  
F3 Networked Learning is recognised at a senior level as important to the core business of the college. In interview, all respondents mentioned one or more business collaborations that are providing funding for the college; local industry and local college collaborations were mentioned as was the UfI and Learndirect, which appear to be doing very well at the college.  
F4 Business development and commercial activity was regarded as an important area for this institution. It is noted above that collaboration with business allowed for the development of a new multi-media group and a variety of e-learning materials. Other links with local businesses and industries have also been developed.
F5 Business as such was not commented upon during the interviews, but there were two references to a collaborative venture that involves the production of a distance learning programme.  
F6 Involvement with external projects (eg Shell project); also with schools. Potential for entering global market through the use of e-learning noted but also seen as problematic as network has to be robust for this to work.
F7 Working with UK online, Learndirect to provide courses;
Working with local employers.		  
F8 Working with local employers to provide specific training.  
F9 There is no specific mention of business; however, there is mention of external employers as one of the drivers.  
F10 There is no specific mention of business; however, it was noted that one of the drivers for development was the need to provide training opportunities to businesses in the region.  

Figure 4-10: Institutional markets - current and new