Changing Belief Systems: The Effect of Staff Attitudes on
Innovation and Sustainability
Patricia Bricheno and Carol Higgison
University
of Bradford
P.Bricheno@bradford.ac.uk, C.Higgison@bradford.ac.uk
Previous studies of UK Further and Higher education have highlighted the
growing importance of networked learning (JISC, 2002). However, little research
has been carried out into the management of large-scale networked learning.
This paper looks at the relationship between the formal strategies put in place
to enable the implementation and sustainability of large-scale Networked
Learning and the attitudes of staff. It identifies different organisational
design issues and the impact they have had on practice. The organisational foci
which inform this study include: the importance of how strategy is
developed (Gibbs, 1999); staff development and support (Hart, Ryan and Bagdon,
2000); commitment at the institutional level
(McCartan, Lewins, and Hodgson, 2000); and personal issues such as motivation (e.g. Banks and Powell, 2002; Bothams
and Fordyce, 2002).
Since research has suggested that differences between institutions leads
to characteristically different strategies (Gibbs, 1999) this study uses a
multiple case study approach, each case is an educational organization, and the
cases are selected to represent different types of educational institutions;
the types being established by prior hypothesizing (Yin, 2003). Each case study
uses data from three main sources: questionnaires, institutional documents, and
semi-structured interviews. This data is used to illustrate and discuss
relationships between staff attitudes and the types of organisational climate
and support structures within institutions. The findings are used to identify
important issues and draw out key themes to support sustainable innovation. An
in-depth qualitative investigation has been used to develop a full
understanding of complex underlying issues involved in the responses of people
to institutional change towards large-scale networked learning.
Strategy, support, attitude, motivation,
management and administration of large-scale networked learning
Previous work carried out within higher and further education (HE and FE)
has highlighted the importance of networked learning as a growing part of
education provision within the UK (JISC, 2002). However, little research has
been carried out into the management of large-scale networked learning. This study is part of the JISC funded INLEI project (INLEI, 2003) which seeks to understand and evaluate the impact of large-scale
networked learning on management and administrative systems within FE and HE
institutions. The focus of this study lies in change at an organisational
level, and the social and cultural responses of the communities involved to
these changes. In order to understand its impact we seek to understand
the structures, systems and procedures, and also the interaction of people with
those systems through an examination of certain key variables as agents of
change.
Bates (1999) identifies a number of strategies for change which include:
a vision for teaching and learning, funding reallocation, technology
infrastructure, and people infrastructure. What strategies are used and their
impact on management and administration form an important part of the present
investigation, but Gibbs (1999) suggests that it is not so much what
strategy but how this strategy is developed that is important, and so this
forms another strand of the present study. Personal issues such as staff
development and motivation have been indicated as important in the successful
implementation of networked learning.
(e.g. Banks and Powell, 2002; Bothams and Fordyce, 2002). However, these
issues may mask underlying factors of greater importance, as suggested by
Bothams and Fordyce (2002):
… Many of the
cultural issues identified centred around ownership of, and involvement in, the
decision making process, and therefore any attempts to reinvigorate the on-line
learning would have to be seen to be inclusive. (Op. Cit., 2002)
Finally, differences between institutions may lead to characteristically
different strategies related to the particular mission of the University
(Gibbs, 1999), and therefore it is important that a range of institutions
should be studied. Since complex, underlying issues may be operating at a
variety of levels, an in-depth qualitative investigation is required to develop
a full understanding of the responses of people to institutional change.
This paper will examine the interplay of
factors that influence the extent to which institutions are engaging in
networked learning and the extent to which such innovation is sustainable. It
will focus on the effect of the implementation of policy on staff attitudes,
and the impact of these attitudes on policy.
The main aim of this project is to explore the
impact of networked learning on HE and FE institutions based on the experiences
and perceptions of key members of staff involved in the development of
networked learning. A case study
methodology is used since it allows the study of contemporary events where the
relevant behaviours cannot be manipulated (Yin,
2003). Since research has suggested that differences between institutions leads
to characteristically different strategies (Gibbs, 1999) this research uses a
multiple case study approach, each case is an educational organization, and the
cases are selected to represent different types of educational institutions;
the types being established by prior hypothesizing. Each individual case study
is used to build theory, and may also modify theory (see, for example, Yin,
p.50). The case study institutions were selected (10
from HE and 10 from FE) to provide an indicative sample.
In this paper, six of the twenty case studies
are examined. The institutional policies and strategies are compared and
the relationships between these and the perceptions and experiences of the
staff are discussed. Each case study uses data collected from three main
sources: questionnaires, semi-structured interviews and institutional
documents.
Individuals from cross-sections of case study institutions were asked to
complete questionnaires and to take part in a semi-structured interview. The
main categories of staff involved were: Senior management with responsibility
for networked learning, Technical staff with responsibility for infrastructure
support for networked learning, Registry staff, Quality assurance / quality
enhancement staff, Academic staff implementing networked learning, and Support
staff providing a range of services for academic staff and students engaged in
networked learning. By interviewing this range of individuals the study aims to
identify both different organisational design issues and the impact they have
had on practice and, conversely, the impact of practice on the mechanisms
organisations put in place to support networked learning. A study of pertinent
documents is used to identify institutional policies and strategies within each
case study organization.
Each of the case studies provides a mainly descriptive account of the
perceptions and experiences of staff holding different roles within the
institution. In this paper the approaches adopted by different institutions
(institutional policies and strategies) and the outcomes (in terms of the
perceptions and experiences of the staff interviewed) emerging from each case
are identified.
An overview of the number and type of institutions and staff who were
involved in the data collection for this paper is given in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Descriptive data
from Institutions
|
Institution |
FTE student Numbers |
Reported
time scale of involvement in NL |
No of interviews |
|
F1 An
FE College in South West Scotland. |
3500 |
4
years |
4 |
|
F2
An FE College in North East England |
8500 |
3 years |
6 |
|
F3
An FE/HE institution in South East England. |
4100 |
4 years +
10 years of small scale activity. |
9 |
|
H1 A
pre-1992 University in South East England |
19000 |
2 years +
earlier involvement with LT |
9 |
|
H2
A post-1992 University in North West England |
20000 |
2/3 years |
8 |
|
H3
A post-1992 University in Scotland. |
12000 |
4 years |
8 |
Some distinct differences, which have emerged between
the FE and HE institutions, are summarised in Table 2. For example, all the FE
colleges have a formal networked learning strategy in place, whereas none of
the HE institutions have a separate networked learning strategy. The provision
of funding linked to the development of an Information and Learning Technology
(ILT)1 strategy by FE institutions is
explicitly identified from interviews as an important reason for this
difference:
Yes, there was some
money that came into the college and this was really why BECTa did the ILT
strategy because without the ILT strategy you didn’t get your money and the
money was very clearly dedicated for virtual learning environments. (F3)
However, university interviews suggested other reasons for the absence of
such a strategy; in particular, that the devolved nature of the institution
makes such decisions the responsibility of individual faculties or schools.
The extent to which institutions translate these strategies into specific
networked learning goals for the development of teaching and learning and for
staff support and training varies but does tend to reflect the clarity of the
statements about networked learning in their strategic documents. For example,
all three FE colleges have explicitly stated goals for networked learning,
which are supported by complementary goals for learning and teaching and for
staff development.
However, among the HE institutions only H3, has explicitly stated
networked learning goals for the entire institution which include explicit
goals for learning and teaching, and staff development. Institution H2, has a
more limited set of goals: where individual faculties have been set specific
targets for networked learning rollout, and at least one course per HE faculty
is required to trial computer based assessment. Institution H1 encourages networked learning, but the
goals/aims are not strongly and explicitly spelled out. There are stated
objectives to raise awareness of
networked learning potential and to gain more detailed understanding of the
resource implications of networked learning. Academic units are invited to set priorities. The current
Strategic Plan for Institution H3 includes the
following institutional aims: to extend and develop the University’s chosen
Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) in one Faculty to cover all level 3 modules
and postgraduate programmes, and to develop it beyond a pilot level of usage in
two further Faculties. The need to ensure all staff receive IT training
to enable effective and efficient interaction with electronically provided
learning, administration and research systems is also explicitly stated.
Table 2: A summary of the main strategic features of the
institutions
|
|
F1 |
F2 |
F3 |
H1 |
H2 |
H3 |
|
Separate Networked learning strategy |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
|
Specific networked learning goals in strategic plans |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Specific
goals for staff development and support in strategic plans |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Pay or
time incentives for staff to develop or use networked learning |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Introduction
|
Top down |
Bottom up |
Bottom up |
Bottom up |
Top down |
Bottom up |
|
Continuation |
Top down |
+ Central
support |
+ Central
support |
Bottom up |
Top down |
+ Central
support |
|
Main
Drivers |
Central drive & markets |
Students & external funding |
Central
drive, external funding, and forces |
Market
& students |
Students
and central drive |
Business
school and central drive |
In institutions F2, F3 and H3 the approach was
initially bottom-up, and central support was added later:
if you go back 3
years…. Each faculty did a different thing so they used a different approach,
had a different technology, so on and so forth. So where we’d gone from is
having lots of people doing their own thing and some people achieving things,
but nothing ever really bringing concrete results. It’s a situation where we
have much more university agreement about how we should be doing this, and a
sort of a much more unified approach to it really. (H3)
It’s just been varied, but back to ’99 was
the first changes I noticed and that goes over the two things, it was the ILT
strategy and pulling lots of things together cross college, so pulling the sort
of pools of development and things that people have been playing about with,
talking about, that was the first cross college application in saying right we
are going to pull this together and this is where we are going (F3)
In F1 and H2 it was initiated and continues as a top-down approach:
Well [the principal] was really the driving
force behind it. It has been led from the top from day one. I think that’s key
to the success that he was able to drive the cultural change as well as make
the resources available from day one. (F1)
While in H1 it began and continues to be regarded as bottom-up:
… I think the vast majority of networked
learning development at [H1] has occurred as a result of the individual
academics saying I’d quite like to experiment with this…. Different Faculties
doing things in different ways and even within those Faculties, different
Departments or Schools are doing things differently. You would be hard pressed
to find some sort of central dictate that says we are going to do this. (H1)
Another aspect of strategy, which may be important, is the provision of
pay incentives or other reward schemes; at institution F2 a pay incentive has
been provided, and at institution H3 a Teacher Fellowship scheme is being
introduced to provide additional motivation. At two of the institutions, F1 and
H2, a respondent suggested that staff had an incentive to develop and use
networked learning – the improvement it would bring to their teaching. This
could be seen as rather a naive view. Where academic staff regard teaching as
their main focus they might be expected to be motivated by new developments
that could help them to improve their teaching and students’ learning. However,
in HE institutions academic staff may feel that research and not teaching is
their main focus; and overall staff may lack an appreciation of how networked
learning could improve teaching and learning.
Turning to the drivers referred to within
each institution we can see from Table 3 that
a large majority of those interviewed have not mentioned enhancement in
teaching and learning as a driver; instead they focus on expanding student
numbers and their expectations, funding and market issues, and the driving
forces provided by groups of enthusiasts or by the most senior staff within the
institution.
Table 3: Driving forces mentioned in interviews.
|
Institution |
Increasing number of
students |
Expectation of students |
Particular groups of staff |
Central |
External forces |
Funding available |
Market |
Enhanced teaching &
learning |
|
F1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
|
F2 |
2 |
4 |
5 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
|
F3 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
|
H1 |
1 |
5 |
3 |