Home

6 Impact on staffing and collaboration

This section reports on the findings relating to the impact of networked learning on staffing and collaboration. Networked learning has led to a number of changes both in terms of changes to existing roles of staff and to the creation of new roles and new members of staff being appointed. For some staff although there has been no official change in their role, the nature of the work they carry out has changed.

6.3 Workload

Changes in workload was a concern for some respondents; a number of respondents perceived that networked learning had led to an increase in workload, although the impact on administrative and registry staff seems to be mainly in terms of the changing nature of work rather than in an increase in workload.

Figure 6-3 and Figure 6-4 summarise the perceived changes in workload, with respondents in different roles perceiving the impact on workload differently. Support and academic roles are perceived as subject to the biggest increase in workload and quality assurance and registry roles subject to the least change.

Role	Impact on workload
	Temporary increase (n)	Increase (n)	Decrease (n)	No change (n)
Academic	3	4	1	This fully online tutor says work spread out differently with highs and lows but not more overall. (1 respondent)
Senior	1	5	2
Support	2	11	3
Quality assurance	2	2	0	Just what they've always done, but now applied to networked learning (3 respondents)
Registry	2	4	0	Needs to be organised differently work spread out differently with highs and lows but not more overall. (3 respondents)
Technical	0	5	0	1

Figure 6 3: Reported changes in staff workload (interviews)

This is borne out by the questionnaire responses in Figure 6 4 and Figure 6 5 below. Figure 6 4 shows that almost half of those responding to the questionnaire thought that administrative workload had not increased, and Figure 6 5 indicates that those in Registry and Quality Assurance were the least likely to feel that the balance or nature of their work had changed.

Role	Impact on workload
	Increase (n)	Decrease (n)	No change (n)
Academic	51		22
Support	53	1	19
Administrative	37	2	33
Technical	66		10

Figure 6-4: Reported changes in staff workload (questionnaires)

Has networked learning changed the balance or nature of your work significantly?
Role	Yes (n)	%	No (n)	%
Academic	20	83.3	4	16.7
Support	20	83.3	4	16.7
Senior	15	71.4	6	28.6
Technical	10	71.4	4	28.6
Registry	7	58.3	5	41.7
QA	8	50.0	8	50.0

Figure 6-5 Respondents reported changes in workload by role

Data from interviews suggest varied reasons for these changes in workload and some examples are given in Figure 6-6 below.

Two FE institutions reported a temporary increase in workload during the development phase of implementing large-scale networked learning; F5 in relation to developing materials and F6 in relation to fully rolling out networked learning.

All institutions reported some permanent increase in workload for different categories of staff as shown in Figure 6-5 above.

Respondents from seven institutions (four HE and three FE) reported a an actual or potential decrease in workload for some staff:

• technical innovations have reduced administrative workload (H2) perhaps by saving time and improving working conditions (F1),

• potential reduction in workload for academic staff through use of online assessment (H6) or as the use of networked learning becomes routine (H8),

• possible efficiency gains for undefined roles as networked learning becomes established (H7 and F8), when the systems are fully integrated (F5).

Three institutions reported that the introduction of networked learning had had no impact on the workload of administrative staff (H4, F2, F5 and F7); with H5 reporting no change in workload for Student Registry and Quality Assurance staff.

Overall, the majority of cases identify an increase in workload for technical, academic and support staff; however, it is noted by some that this is only for those engaged in the development and/or delivery of networked learning. Some respondents refer to ‘lack of time’ rather than increased workload suggesting that staff are currently working extended hours and cannot therefore increase their workload any further.

CS	Increase
H1	Some agreement of increases especially for academics and staff development/ training.
H2	Some agreement of increase overall.
H3	Agreement on an increase in workload; however, was mentioned as 'lack of time'.
H4	Interview data shows limited support for increase in academic workload; questionnaire data identifies increase for support and technical staff
H5	Increased for academic, technical and administrative staff.
H6	Lack of time rather than increased workload noted as barrier to development of networked learning materials.
H7	Increased administration noted for academics.
H8	Technical staff workload increased; Lack of integrated network currently increases workload.
H9	Limited comment citing lack of time as biggest problem.
H10	Increased workload noted.
F1	Increased workload suggested by some in relation to technical staff.
F2	Increased workload suggested by some mainly for academic staff.
F3	Technical staff and support indicated an increase in own workload. Lack of time cited as reason for lack of networked learning development.
F4	Workload for academics and technical staff increased.
F5	Increase suggested for academic, technical and to a lesser extent for support staff.
F6	Increase suggested for all staff except administrative staff.
F7	Seen as increased for academic staff, not administrative.
F8	Increased for those involved; Timetabling noted as a problem as teaching online is 'invisible'.
F9	Increased for those developing materials. Lack of time seen as problematic.
F10	Limited suggestion of increased workload in that development of materials is seen as time-consuming.

Figure 6-6: Reasons for perceived changes in staff workload