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 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
|
H2 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
5 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
|
H3 |
3 |
0 |
7 |
6 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
Numbers refer
to the number of respondents interviewed who referred to this 'driving force'
Training appears to be mainly voluntary in all institutions (Table 4),
but support for further development is variable; in the FE institutions F1 did
not mention support in developing pedagogy, F2 is beginning to consider this
aspect and F3 appears to have already begun to offer this support. In the HE
institutions a similar breadth of support was indicated; in H1 it seems likely
that all support is under-resourced, in H2 there is some development of
pedagogical support and in H3 pedagogical support is seen as essential.
Table 4: Staff development and support
|
Inst |
Staff training |
Staff support |
|
F1 |
Basic technical training on a voluntary basis. |
e-learning coordinator and a team of programmers to support material
development. |
|
F2 |
Frequent technical training. |
Support for development of pedagogy is beginning. A trainer and a
dedicated training area and also an e‑learning team to develop
pedagogy. |
|
F3 |
High levels of technical training. |
A very wide range of technical support available, a dedicated trainer,
and support for pedagogy. |
|
H1 |
Frequent, voluntary technical training |
Mixed views: sufficient support (2 people), insufficient support (2
people). |
|
H2 |
Initial investment in training for VLE. Voluntary technical and
pedagogical training plus additional funded training provided for champions. |
A very wide range of technical support available, but there appears to
be limited pedagogical support. |
|
H3 |
Technical and pedagogical training available for all. Some compulsory
training in business school. |
Now focussing on pedagogical aspects of NL, on the relevance of
networked learning to pedagogy. |
Where the respondents spoke about the attitudes of staff to the use of
networked learning they spoke about positive and negative attitudes, they gave
commentary on the methods and ease or difficulty of converting staff to
networked learning, and they spoke about the cultural changes that had occurred
or were taking place within the institution. The number of respondents speaking
about each of these attitudinal aspects is shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Number of respondents referring to particular
attitudinal aspects
|
Institution |
Positive |
Negative |
Conversion |
Changing culture |
|
F1 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
F2 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
|
F3 |
6 |
3 |
8 |
8 |
|
H1 |
1 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
|
H2 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
|
H3 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
It can be seen that at F3 more was said about a changing culture and
conversion than about attitudes being positive or negative.
I suppose the
knowledge that most staff now have a genuine feel for that way of delivering
and that way of working, and that is a major change. I think that they really
see it as, that’s how the world is and we need to build on it, and I really
think that a few years ago, not that long ago, that would have been a sort of
bolt-on, it’s not any more, it’s life, I think that’s terrific really. (F3)
At F2 positive attitudes were often mentioned, as was the changing
culture.
I think it was
partly the enthusiasm from the teaching staff. It was absolutely unbelievable.
I mean I’ve worked in the FE college for 3 years and I have a rather cynical
perception, if you try to sell something new to academic staff more often than
not it would go down like a lead brick, I don’t want to do that, it will mean
extra work and stuff like that. The learning environment wasn’t like that,
there was a ‘cor, we like that, that’s good we want to use it’. There was this
enthusiasm from the shop floor and I think that’s what took the Exec by
surprise and they thought, here’s something that the teaching staff really
like. (F2)
H3 had much to say about positive attitudes and negative ones and also
focuses on conversion, but said less about a changing culture.
So it’s trying to be
encouraging and trying to provide the support essentially and the development
and the materials to make it an easy process and also to take the fear out of
it and the apprehension. (H3)
More respondents at F1, H1 and H2 spoke about negative attitudes than
about positive ones, and fewer spoke about culture change.
No doubt there will be staff who will be
dragged kicking and screaming into doing it. But by the time we get to that
point I think it will be clear that they have no choice but to do it because you
will have the majority of staff working in one way (F1)
A lot are saying they need more technical
support, I don’t feel there is any great understanding of the issues or a
wholehearted embracing of it (H1)
We’ve probably got about 40% who probably
feel they have been dragged kicking and screaming and we’ve got 20% who say
over my dead body by and large. (H2)
On the basis of these data it would appear that attitudes in Institution
F1 attitudes are less favourable than those in F2 and F3, and similarly, attitudes
in H1 and H2 are less favourable than those in H3. At the same time the least
number of respondents in Institutions F1 and H1 suggest cultural changes have
occurred or are occurring.
Another important aspect was the response of those interviewed to the
attitudes they perceived in other members of staff. After all, the respondents
were those with responsibilities for networked learning, and, to some extent,
for its acceptance by others. How do they respond to the less than positive
views they describe in other staff?
In institutions F2, F3, H3 the way people spoke suggested a supportive
atmosphere in which the difficulties for staff were appreciated and taken into
consideration, as in these extracts:
…the idea from my point of view is to set
fairly short term realistic goals that could be achieved as a way of basically
supporting staff in making, for what to many of them is a very big cultural
shift in terms of the way that they approach their teaching (F2)
My job role is now the cultural, very, very
aware of the misconceptions, the mystery, the fear of job losses etc etc are
paramount so before I do any training at all I actually give a half hour
presentation about what all this as far as learning and teaching is and they
normally come out of there, or they have so far, with the understanding that it
is just another tool for them to use if they wish or not, well hopefully they
will do (F3)
In institutions F1 and H2 the tone was more authoritarian and there did
not seem to be a consideration of the problems faced by staff in changing their
mode of working, as these extracts indicate:
it’s been a combination of some sort of
champions taking it forward just in their department, …, to some maybe having
to think differently, because the traditional courses that they are offering …,
they were just not getting the learners through, so they are enforced if you
like into thinking, well if nobody is interested in this, they have either got
to offer something else or our own jobs are at risk. (Quality Assurance, F1)
Now we are at a level where there is enough,
what’s the word I’m looking for, almost backwash I suppose from those staff
who’ve not yet got on the boat right who are saying the reason we can’t get on
the boat is because we haven’t got the time to develop, we haven’t got the
skills or whatever and therefore what you should do is create a big central
unit to build all these things for us. Now we’ve resisted that almost
exclusively, what we are saying is when you first went into PowerPoint we
didn’t make your PowerPoint slides for you, when you first, it’s another tool,
which you as a professional tutor have to learn to use. (Senior Manager, H2)
Finally, in institution H1 neither of these positions was evident.
The data presented above suggest that some of these institutions have
staff, at various levels and in different roles, with quite positive attitudes,
whereas others take a more negative position. These attitudes appear to be
linked with particular aspects of strategy, support and staff motivation.
Only the FE colleges have separate networked learning strategies, but two
of the HE institutions (H2 and H3) have explicit networked learning objectives
within their teaching and learning strategies. If this alone was the
determining factor then there should be a difference between staff attitudes in
H1 and the rest. Although H1 does appear to have staff with less positive
attitudes it is not alone in this; F1 and H2 also appear to have quite negative
staff attitudes. Strategy and how strategy is developed may be
important, as suggested by Gibbs (1999), but is not the only significant
factor.
Although the visible and energetic support of senior management is
believed to be critical to any strategic initiative involving cultural change
(Hart, Ryan and Bagdon, 2000), the top-down approach and strong central drive
provided by F1 and H2 does not appear to have been entirely effective, since
staff attitudes do not seem to be particularly positive. Some researchers regard a bottom-up approach, as found in
H1, as essential to empower staff who may have the necessary knowledge that
senior management may lack (Richardson, 1995;
Kock et al, 1996; Teare
& Dealtry, 1998).
However, according to Brown (2000), both a top-down and a bottom-up approach
are needed for successful implementation; this approach was evident in
institutions F2, F3 and H3, where attitudes appear to be most positive. Thus,
the results from these case studies support the view of Brown (Op. Cit.); a
combination of bottom-up and top-down approaches seems to be most successful.
Where there is well resourced and readily available support, staff
attitudes appear to be more positive, and this staff development and support is
more apparent in those institutions which have a definite strategy and explicit
goals, as suggested by McCartan et al (2000). In the
present study, differences in the amount and availability of pedagogical
support appeared to be important. The data indicate that pedagogical
support was most evident in F3 and in H3, and was not referred to at all in F1.
Personal issues such as motivation have been indicated as particularly
important in the successful implementation of networked learning (e.g. Banks and Powell, 2002; Bothams
and Fordyce, 2002), and strategy could be viewed as one element of motivation.
At another level motivation may be provided through 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.
Motivation is perhaps the crucial issue; the changes in working practices
required in order to move to networked learning are not easy (Conole, 2002) and
so there is a real need for staff to feel motivated. An explicit networked
learning strategy and goals can, in themselves, have a motivating effect, in
that staff are aware of what is required of them by the institution. The
respondents in these case studies have mentioned other motivating factors,
including: pay incentives, time release, recognition, and personal
satisfaction.
There are two other motivational elements that arise from these case
studies: the motivation to enhance the quality of teaching and learning, and
the way in which managers responded to their staff’s attitudes to networked
learning. Only three respondents referred to enhancing teaching and learning as
a reason for engaging in networked learning, these were in F2 and F3. If those
in senior positions, with responsibility for networked learning fail to mention
such an important aspect it seems unlikely that others will recognise it
without help. Thus, one of the strongest motivators, for teachers, appears to
be absent from most of the institutions. Respondents who referred in
sympathetic terms to the difficulties faced by staff in moving towards
networked learning were found in institutions F2, F3, and H3.
Reported attitudes among staff are most positive in FE institutions F2 and
F3 with the biggest cultural changes reported in F3. It is noted that F3 has
been involved in networked learning for a longer period than the others. F2 and
F3 had explicit networked learning strategies and goals, were beginning to
provide pedagogical support and had sympathetic and supportive management. F1,
although having explicit networked learning strategies and goals, was not
providing pedagogical support and did not appear to have particularly
sympathetic management. In HE institutions attitudes were not particularly
positive but the largest number of positive aspects were reported for H3, where
there is support for the development of pedagogy and there is supportive and
sympathetic management. None of the HE institutions had a separate networked learning
strategy; although H2 and H3 did have explicit networked learning goals.
A combination of factors appears to have
positive effect on staff attitudes, and therefore sustainability, of networked
learning in these institutions: explicitly
stated strategies and goals, high levels of staff training and support,
particularly pedagogical support, extrinsic motivators for staff, such as pay
increments or time allowances, and improved relationships with students,
intrinsic motivators such as the desire to improve teaching and learning, and
supportive, sympathetic management.
The findings of present study do not allow
us to comment on many of the complex social and cultural influences that affect
attitudes, but it does illuminate our understanding of some of those
organisational factors that may be at least as important in influencing
attitudes. Furthermore, to take a pragmatic view, it might be quite difficult
for management to influence the personal factors whereas changes to the
organisational influences indicated by the present data may be more effective.
This project is funded by the JISC and the project was developed and
undertaken in collaboration with the UHI Millennium Institute and the Scottish
Further Education Unit.
Banks, S., and
Powell, A. (2002) Developing Institutional Readiness for Implementing
Networked Learning, Networked Learning
2002, Proceedings of the Third International Conference, Sheffield University.
Bates, A W (1999) Restructuring the university for
technological change. In: Brennan, J, Fedrowitz, J, Huber, M and Shah, T, eds. What kind of university? International
perspectives on knowledge, participation and governance. Buckingham: The
Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, 207-208.
Bothams, J. F., and
Fordyce, L.(2002) Barriers to on-line learning the experience of the
Scottish Executive Business Development Unit, Networked Learning 2002, Proceedings of the Third International
Conference, Sheffield University.
Brown, S. (2000) Reinventing
the university, in The Changing Face
of Learning Technology, Edited by David Squires, Grainne Conole, Gabriel
Jacobs. University of Wales Press, Cardiff, 2000.
Conole, G. (2002) The Evolving Landscape of Learning
Technology, Association for Learning
Technology Journal (ALT-J),10, 3, 4-18.
Gibbs, G (1999) Institutional
learning and teaching strategies: A guide to good practice. Higher
Education Funding Council for England (99/55).
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of
Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, Chicago.
Hart, G., Ryan, Y. and Bagdon, K. (2000) Supporting organizational change:
fostering a more flexible approach to course delivery, in The Changing Face of Learning Technology, Edited by David
Squires, Grainne Conole, Gabriel Jacobs. University of Wales Press, Cardiff,
2000.
INLEI (2003), Impact
of Networked Learning on Educational Institutions Available at: http://www.learn.uhi.ac.uk/jisc/index.htm
JISC Circular 03/02 Invitation to Submit Proposals May 2002
Kock Jr, N. F., McQueen R. J. and Baker M. (1996), Learning
and process improvement in knowledge organisations: a critical analysis of four
contemporary myths. The Learning Organization, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1996, pp 31-41
McCartan, A, W., Lewins, J, and Hodgson, B. M. (2000), Enabling learning through technology:
some institutional imperatives in
The Changing Face of Learning Technology, Edited by David Squires, Grainne
Conole, Gabriel Jacobs. University of Wales Press, Cardiff, 2000.
Richardson, B.
(1995) How to administrate the networked
organisation: tips from the theory and practice of management. Learning Organization. Vol. 2, no. 4:
95, p 4-13.
Teare, R.
Dealtry, R.
(1998) Building and Sustaining a Learning
Organization. Learning
Organization. v5 n1 p47-60 1998.
Yin, R.K., (2003) Case
Study Research (3rd Edition) Thousand Oaks: Sage.
1 UK and FE use different terminology to denote networked learning. ILT is used extensively in UK FE