Executive Summary

This project examined the impact of the introduction large-scale networked learning on the administration and management of educational institutions. The findings from our study are documented in 20 institutional case studies (10 from Further Education and 10 from Higher Education) and this report. The definition of networked learning underlying this project is

" Learning in which Information and Communications Technology (ICT) is used to promote connections: between one learner and other learners, between learners and tutors; between a learning community and its learning resources” (Goodyear, 2001)

This study focussed on the experiences and perceptions of key members of staff involved in the development of networked learning, which were explored through interviews and questionnaires. These key staff included academics, quality managers, registry, senior managers, support and technical staff. Their experiences were set in the context of institutional strategies and policies derived from documentary evidence.

The project focused on examining the impact of networked learning using six main themes that were prominent in the literature and that current developments in post-compulsory education had demonstrated to be of importance: institutional development; infrastructure and support services; staffing and collaboration; learning, teaching and assessment; quality assurance; monitoring and evaluation procedures; and access to learning. An additional issue of staff attitudes emerged as the study progressed (see Section 5.6).

The key findings of the project are summarised in Section 10 and discussed in Section 11. Key points arising from the study are outlined below.

Networked learning (or e-learning) is now perceived as part of the core activity of institutions, with senior management putting key strategies in place to support its development. However, the effectiveness of the implementation of these strategies is not uniform and in some cases appears to be problematic.

Large-scale networked learning appears to have the greatest impact in institutions that implement it through complementary top-down (managerialist) and bottom-up (develop core competencies) trajectories (Nicol et al, 2004). Too great a focus on a managerialist approach gives staff little ownership of the process; too great a focus on core competencies allows development without direction. However, there do appear to be some important exceptions where it seems that even without the dual approach an institution may have high levels of engagement with networked learning; these appear to be connected with staff support in materials development. It is likely that further investigation of the effectiveness of promoting networked learning through central support units and by champions might provide some interesting insights and suggest better ways of developing networked learning throughout an institution. This would be an area worthy of further investigation.

Technical issues were also identified as crucial to the successful implementation of networked learning by making the technology invisible and removing the technology hurdles. A reliable and robust infrastructure is an essential pre-requisite along with a requirement for funding to ensure the sustainable maintenance and future development of the network infrastructure. The majority of institutions are also moving towards integrating their management and learning systems and this is a major area of development.

Overall, effective support seems to favour central support units allied with academic staff acting as champions. There has been an increase in the development of materials for networked learning with many institutions creating central support units to underpin this development. HE tends to use more in-house developed materials, whilst FE uses slightly more bought in materials. Currently, the majority of materials used to support networked learning take the form of lecture notes, presentations and handouts, created by the individual lecturer and made available via the VLE. If institutions are to move beyond a ‘repository’ approach then it no longer appears feasible or sustainable to support academic staff to continue to prepare their own materials, rather the process needs to be examined, divided up and implemented by a team. However, the size of the institution is also a significant factor, suggesting that there is a size below which it is not feasible to provide effective support for networked learning, and a point that where an institution grows beyond a certain size, they need to move towards devolved support units for each school or faculty. If networked learning is going to expand towards large-scale implementation, then institutions need new ways and new structures to support this development, rather than trying to fit networked learning into existing, unsuitable and unsupportive structures.

Teamwork and internal collaboration has developed considerably as a result of the adoption of networked learning. A variety of models of collaboration exist across the institutions and further investigation would be needed to determine the most effective approaches.

Staff attitudes emerged as critical to the successful implementation of networked, in engaging staff, and in changing the culture within the institution in relation to networked learning. Staff attitudes are important both as an influence on the successful implementation of networked learning, and as a measure of its impact. The attitudes of staff towards development are seen by many of the participants as a problematic issue but a crucial factor in an institution becoming effective in implementing large-scale networked learning. This study reports on this as an issue from the perspective of those already engaged in networked learning; however, it seems that an investigation of the way that those academics not already committed to networked learning use technology could be of value in exploring the way that networked learning can be developed further.

In learning, teaching and assessment, the main emphasis is on ‘blended learning’; however, this term is used in an indeterminate manner suggesting that there is no clear definition of what this term means nor how technology can assist in developing such blended learning. In addition the term ‘networked learning’ or, more commonly, e-learning, seemed to be interpreted in a range of different ways. The development of a clear definition may assist in terms of clarifying what is involved in developing e-learning.

Possibly, because of this blended learning approach, there is little evidence of any change to the teacher role, or of a move towards student-centred learning. The potential of networked learning in terms of its ability to support interaction and discussion between learners does not appear to be developing, and there appears to be a significant time delay before institutions attain a critical mass of experience through which they can learn. Identifying effective ways of allowing institutions to learn from each other’s experiences could potentially shorten this process. Issues surrounding pedagogy and changing conceptions of teaching and learning are therefore an area requiring further exploration.

The majority of institutions reported few changes to their quality assurance and monitoring procedures, many perceiving their current systems as sufficiently robust and flexible to address the quality control of networked learning. However, the evaluation of staff and student experiences appears to be an area that institutions are just beginning to address and one that would benefit from further investigation.

The development of flexible provision through providing access to both resources and (in some cases) to staff has improved considerably through networked learning and this is seen as beneficial for students who have a range of demands on their time. However there is little evidence of the use of networked learning to develop innovative approaches and the enhancement of student learning. There is evidence to suggest that networked learning is being used effectively to widen participation, particularly by FE institutions but a minority of respondents are concerned that it presents a barrier to participation rather than enabling it. The impact of networked learning in engaging non-traditional learners in post-16 education is an area requiring further investigation.

Overall, there appears to be a basic tension between the move towards the use of networked learning to sustain mass education in an effective and efficient way, and the desire to shift the culture towards innovation in learning and teaching. The former seems to be the current priority for most institutions. In order to move teaching and learning forward, the vision of the management needs to be clear and supported by strategies and structures. It also needs to be supported by the development and training so that all staff understand the institutional vision and policy and its implications for their practice. These initiatives need to be both top-down and bottom-up. The issue of ‘lack of ownership’, could be an important issue that merits further exploration, since issues of ownership and empowerment have been raised by Teare and Dealtry (1998) who recommended that organisations should seek to enact change through individuals.