Home

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.

4.5 Discussion

Fourteen of the twenty institutions studied were definitely involved in large-scale networked learning, five had partial development of large-scale networked learning, and only one institution was not yet involved in large-scale networked learning. Thus the institutions selected were generally well able to discuss the impact of large-scale networked learning on their institution.

A top-down introduction of networked learning was more common in FE institutions and bottom-up approach was more common in HE institutions. This could be explained in terms of the nature of these institutions; FE colleges have a focus on learning and teaching and staff rarely have time for research, nor are they expected to engage in research; whereas in the HE institutions there is a focus on research and staff are generally given some development time. It could also perhaps be explained by the different managerial structures operating in each sector; with a strong, central managerial approach common in the FE sector while a more devolved and collegiate managerial approach may be more common in the HE sector; although the extent to which this is true of post-92 institution is unclear.

In the English FE sector, the need to set up an ILT Strategy to obtain additional funding in response to satisfy the requirements of FEFC Circular 99/45 probably explains the sudden emergence of top-down centrally driven networked learning in most of the FE institutions; six colleges initiated their networked learning developments in or around 1999, and three introduced their VLE in 2000. In the HE sector, the availability of additional funding from HEFCE in 1999 may have moved some of the HE institutions from a bottom-up to top-down drive, eight of the 10 HEs initiated their networked learning developments in or around 1999.

Differences in the main drivers mentioned in FE and HE may well stem from differences in size of these institutions and in their funding arrangements; the availability of funding appears to have been important for FE institutions but less so for HE, whereas increasing student numbers and market pressures were important to HE institutions.

The impact of networked learning at an institutional level in most of the HE case studies appears to have been limited: few have made structural changes, few have introduced a separate e-Learning strategy (although all but one have integrated e-learning into their learning and teaching strategy), there seem to be few problems related to funding, and external businesses and markets appeared to be of very limited interest to the majority, although there are some exceptions.

In contrast, the impact upon FE institutions appears to have been considerable: the majority have introduced new management structures, put separate ILT strategies in place, have major funding issues and are engaged in developing business links and new markets.

However, these apparent differences should perhaps be considered in the context of the size of the institutions and the length of time that these institutions have been involved with networked learning since these factors could have a bearing on the issues described above. When these issues are matched against each other, as in Figure 4-11 below, it is apparent that both size and length of time involved are related to the structures, strategies and funding issues mentioned for FE institutions. FE institutions that had made no structural changes and had mentioned funding problems tended to be small and also to have been working in this area for a relatively short period of time (two to five years); the only small college that had made structural changes had been involved in networked learning for 10 years.

Figure 4-12 below examines the same data as above, but for HE institutions. Here no particular relationships can be seen, but none of those making structural changes are large institutions.

CS	Initiators	Drivers	E-learning strategy	Incentives	Structural changes	Funding	Length of time in NL	Size	No. of FTEs
F1	Top-down	Central and senior management	Separate E-learning strategy	No	Yes	Positive + audit issues	10 years video conferencing + admin net from 1999	M	3500
F2	Bottom-up	Particular members of staff and the availability of funding.	Separate E-learning strategy	Yes	Yes	Positive + audit issues	10y + VLE from 2000	M	8500
F3	Top-down	Central and senior management, government initiatives and funding	Separate E-learning strategy	Yes	Yes	Positive + audit issues	10y + vle from 2000	S	4099
F4	Bottom-up	Senior management, market opportunities and funding.	Separate E-learning strategy	Yes	Yes	Positive + audit issues	3 years	L	1900
F5	Top-down	Senior management and funding.	Separate E-learning strategy	Yes	Yes	Positive + audit issues	10y + vle from 2000	M	7800
F6	Bottom-up	Senior management, project funding	Separate E-learning strategy	No	Yes	Problems	4 years	M	4500
F7	Probably top-down	External forces	Separate E-learning strategy	Yes	No	Problems	2 years	S	3300
F8	Top-down	Senior management, Funding Council	None	No	Yes	Problems	4 years	L	2962
F9	Probably bottom-up	Particular members of staff, Senior management	Separate E-learning strategy	No	No	Problems	3 years	S	2000
F10	Bottom-up	Particular members of staff, Funding, Senior Management involvement	Separate E-learning strategy	No	No	Problems	5 years	S	3500

Figure 4-11: Main issues in relation to size of institution and length of time involved with networked learning in FE

CS	Initiators	Drivers	E-learning strategy	Incentives	Structural changes	Funding	Length of time in NL	Size	No. of FTEs
H1	Bottom-up	Market pressures and student numbers	Included in T & L strategy	No	No	Neutral	10 years + from 1999	L	19000
H2	Bottom-up	Individual school, senior staff	Included in T & L strategy	No	Yes	Neutral	3 years	S	12000
H3	Top-down	Student numbers and central decisions.	Included in T & L strategy	No	No	Neutral	3 years	L	20000
H4	Bottom-up	Student numbers and increased revenue.	Separate E-learning strategy	Yes	Yes	Positive	4 years	M	17000
H5	Bottom-up	Specific individuals (and departments) and student expectations.	Included in T & L strategy	Yes	Yes	Not discussed	10 years	S	11000
H6	Bottom-up	Particular members of staff, Central Unit	Separate E-learning strategy	Yes	No	Neutral	5 years	S	13500
H7	Top-down	Individual school	Included in T & L strategy	Yes	No	Neutral	5 years	M	15000
H8	Bottom-up	Individual school, but main adoption driven by central unit	Included in T & L strategy	No	No	Neutral	10 years + 3 years ago BB	S	10700
H9	Top-down	Central unit then adopted by Senior Management	Included in T & L strategy	No	No	Neutral	5 years	M	25000
H10	Top-down	Individual school, project funding and early involvement of Senior Management	Included in T & L strategy	No	Yes	Neutral	3 years	M	14480

Figure 4-12: Main issues in relation to size of institution and length of time involved with networked learning in HE