Home

Executive Summary

1 Introduction

2 Context

3 Methodology

4 - 9 Findings, Analysis and Discussion

4 Institutional Development

5 Infrastructure and Support Services

6 Staffing and Collaboration

  6.1 Changes In Role and New Roles

  6.2 Changes To Working Practices

  6.3 Workload

  6.4 Research

  6.5 Collaboration

  6.6 Communication

  6.7 Discussion

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

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.

6.5 Collaboration

The majority of HE and FE institutions reported an increase in internal collaboration as a result of the introduction of networked learning. Two HE institutions (H8 and H9) reported a limited increase in collaboration and suggested that this was more likely to be within specific units or faculties rather than across the whole institution. One FE institution (F9) reported that there had been little increase in collaboration. It would seem from this evidence that a range of developments within the institutions have helped promote collaboration and these include both the provision of a central support unit that works with academics to develop materials and also the use of ILT champions or facilitators that work across the faculties within the institution. Our data only provides evidence that collaboration within institutions is perceived as having increased; however, the effectiveness of these units and individuals to develop networked learning cannot be assessed. There was some suggestion of differences among institutions in terms of the way they used champions, for example within one HE institution (H7) an academic was seconded from within a particular school and acted as a link between that school and the central unit. In one FE institution (F8) the champions worked within different subject clusters in order to promote development and there was some suggestion that this system did not always work effectively in terms of engaging other academics in further development. However, this comparison is between FE and HE and it may be that differences in size and internal structures necessitate this way of organising the champions. It is likely that further investigation of the effectiveness of promoting networked learning by champions might provide some interesting insights and suggest better ways of developing networked learning throughout an institution.

It is worth noting that in two institutions the sharing of resources is seen as problematic. Reasons for this reluctance were suggested in the interviews and the main issues seem to centre on ownership and copyright. Whilst our evidence here is only limited, the copyright issue was also raised in relation to business issues.

Institutions are also engaging in external collaboration but, except for H10, there seems to be less evidence for this in HE institutions than in FE institutions in relation to networked learning. It is interesting to note that several FE institutions mentioned collaboration with local councils, local business, and schools. However, lack of evidence for such collaboration does not necessarily mean it does not exist. For example, it may be that research collaboration in subject related areas which impact on the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) in HE are seen as more important to these institutions. The pressure of research and the RAE obviously do not affect FE colleges and they are therefore more likely to engage with local partnerships using networked learning as a vehicle for any collaboration.

CS Internal collaboration External collaboration
H1 Considerable increase in internal collaboration with more sharing, closer working relationships, and more cross-department working. External collaboration noted but to a lesser extent.
H2 Most respondents agreed that networked learning had led to more cross-university group collaboration. Two respondents noted external collaboration in one discipline area with a European partner and a partner from Asia.
H3 Increased internal collaboration instigated by T & L strategy, eg to produce reusable learning objects and Teacher Fellow Network, also prompted by introduction of VLE. External collaboration referred to in limited way and no examples were cited.
H4 Agreement by all that the growth of networked learning has led to greater interactions between staff from different departments, between staff and students, and between students. Very limited mention of external collaboration.
H5 Respondents confirm increase in internal interactions between departments and closer working relationships. External collaboration is clearly evidenced through international collaboration in networked learning research and other UK collaborative research.
H6 New teams created which include lecturers and technical staff noted as increased internal collaboration. External collaboration with schools mentioned in relation to one faculty.
H7 Considerable internal collaboration noted through seconded staff joining new teams, Taskforce project, and more contact IT/academic staff. Yearly internal conference. Initial external collaboration re VLE but less now.
H8 Limited mention of internal collaboration within faculties but not between faculties. Earlier external collaboration in joint distance delivery now decreased.
H9 A mixed message about internal collaboration, increased for some, eg involvement on committees by LRC staff, but more limited for others. Competition between schools (for students) cited as reason for lack of collaboration. Earlier external collaboration mentioned, eg with UK e-University.
H10 Internal collaboration increased for those involved in delivery of e-learning due to creation of new teams; collaboration with other departments, eg LRC and Careers, and projects. Considerable mention of external involvement with FE colleges and other UK universities.
F1 Some limited mention of internal collaboration in relation to sharing of resources. External collaboration with universities mentioned (joint FE/HE campus), local school/community groups
F2 Considerable evidence from all respondents of increased collaboration, more teamwork and sharing of resources. Evidence for the development of a learning community. Considerable evidence for external collaboration through links with schools, other educational (FE/HE) institutions, local industry.
F3 Evidence that networked learning has created collaboration through new teams; however, there was also some evidence of tensions within these new teams and limited evidence of little change in some cases. Considerable evidence (backed by mission statement) of external collaboration with schools, colleges and businesses through the use of a community web link and Ufi and Learndirect.
F4 Considerable evidence that networked learning has led to greater interactions between staff from different departments. Evidence for external collaborations with schools, local council, local and distant businesses, and a National Union.
F5 Evidence that networked learning has led to new teams and is beginning to develop a culture of sharing; some limited evidence of a decrease in some areas. Considerable evidence for external national and international collaboration with other colleges and with large local business.
F6 Increased internal collaboration eg through project collaboration with new teams and different specialisms collaborating. External project referred to but only in relation to internal collaboration.
F7 Evidence of collaboration within central unit, and collaboration with it and academics; though some reluctance in terms of sharing resources. Evidence for a range of external collaborations with the local council, and Learning Skills Development agency.
F8 Evidence of internal collaboration through new central teams operating across disciplines using shared network. External collaboration was mentioned but not clearly linked to networked learning.
F9 Generally little increase in internal collaboration and there is evidence of reluctance to share materials. External collaboration evidenced through links with consortium (shared purchase of VLE); Learning Skills Council e-learning group.
F10 Evidence for internal collaboration through eg ILT champions role; lecturing staff part of team; sharing of resources. Evidence for external collaboration with university on an e-college project; and other UK project collaboration, also planned links with parents via website.

Figure 6-8: Impact of networked learning on collaboration