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.

6.7 Discussion

The picture emerging from this data is that there have been a considerable changes in the roles of some staff; this is particularly in the case of academics who have been seconded to support the development of networked learning, and for some library and learning resource staff. Technical staff are also noted as having had some changes in roles; however, the engagement of new staff in the area of technical support is more evident. An increase in support staff generally is also evident.

For some staff there has also been a change in the nature of their work. These changes seem to have occurred mostly in relation to administration staff. Registration of students, where online registration is available is noted as affecting working patterns. Other changes noted are that new skills are required by technical staff to deal with new systems and software and the e-moderation, and preparation of materials require new skills to be developed by academic staff.

In terms of increased workloads, the majority of cases identify an increase in workload for technical, academic and support staff that are engaged in the development of networked learning. However, in a few instances there was a suggestion that this increase was only temporary and that networked learning may, once fully implemented, allow for a decrease in workload. Increases in workload are not generally noted in relation to administration and registry staff.

Issues around research did not feature to any extent in the interviews; however, this is likely to be because the overall emphasis was on the impact of networked learning on administration and management. Where they did feature there was a clear difference between HE and FE. For the pre-92 universities (often perceived as research-led) the issue focused on the tension between teaching and research and on the fact that research is likely to take precedence over teaching, which could affect the development of networked learning. Research into networked learning was mentioned in post-92 universities (often perceived as teaching-led) and by two FE colleges.

The majority of institutions stated that there had been an increase in internal collaboration as a result of networked learning, with only a small number noting limited or no increase in collaboration. One factor that seems to have encouraged collaboration has been the development of central support units that support staff in the development of materials. Another factor is the use of ILT champions that work either within faculties but also act as a link between the support unit and the faculty or champions that work across the institution. The effectiveness of the use of ILT champions is not commented upon; however, it is interesting to note that in one of the FE institutions there had been a move away from ILT champions to ILT facilitators in order to improve effectiveness. However, while there is a general increase in collaboration there are also instances of difficulties with sharing resources, which seem to centre on issues of ownership and copyright.

Examples of external collaboration due to networked learning are also in evidence. FE colleges cite several instances of collaboration with local councils, local business and schools, and in some cases with other FE/HE partners21. There is less mention of external collaboration by HE institutions; however, lack of evidence does not mean lack of existence. It may be that research collaboration in subject related areas which impact on RAE are seen as more important to HE institutions and therefore more effort is expended on such collaborations.

Technology, in the form of email has impacted considerably on communication between staff and is increasingly noted as an important form of communication between staff and students. It is not mentioned by all of our respondents; however, its pervasiveness may have led to it having achieved ‘taken for granted’ status and therefore not worth mentioning. There are some differences in relation to its perceived use in FE and HE institutions as more FE respondents suggest resistance to the use of email. Lack of access to computers may in part be responsible for this resistance. There was some mention, more so in FE than in HE that electronic communication will lead to a loss of social interaction. Interestingly, email is seen as enabling more personal and meaningful communication between staff and students in two HE institutions.