NLC2004 /Proceedings / Symposia / Symposium 8
Closing the Gaps in Institutional Development of Networked
Learning: How Do Policy and Strategy Inform Practice to Sustain Innovation?
Elisabet Weedon,
Kerstin Jorna and Liz Broumley
UHI
Millennium Institute, Perth College
Elizabet.Weedon@perth.uhi.ac.uk, ckjorna@ukonline.co.uk,
liz.broumley@perth.uhi.ac.uk
ABSTRACT
This paper
considers the extent to which the recently developed transformation model (Martin,
2002) can usefully be
applied to examine the institutional implementation of networked learning. In
doing so it also examines the extent to which institutional strategy is of
importance in driving such change. Four HE case studies from the JISC INLEI
study provide the empirical data; however, the use of the model is exploratory
at this stage as data analysis is currently ongoing. Preliminary investigation
suggests that whilst some institutions go through all the earlier stages
outlined by the model this is not necessarily the case for all institutions.
The evidence suggests that although the four institutions included here have
reached the embedded stage this may only apply to certain areas within the
institution. Also considered is whether the development can be considered
revolutionary or whether a continued process of evolution into a merging of
traditional and IT driven delivery is more appropriate.
Keywords
Networked learning, revolutionary or evolutionary change, strategy.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
This paper aims to consider whether a recently developed model (Martin,
Op. Cit.) can provide a useful theoretical framework for exploring
institutional implementation of networked learning and to examine the role of
institutional strategies in such development. Empirical evidence from a small
number of case studies will be used from the JISC funded INLEI project (INLEI,
2003). At this stage the use of the model is exploratory as data analysis is
still ongoing. The recently developed ‘transformation model’ (Martin, Op. Cit.)
was intended as a tool for educational institutions to examine the extent to
which the incorporation of technology in various aspects of learning has
transformed the institution. It is therefore clearly linked to the issues
explored in the INLEI project and is seen as potentially offering a useful
framework at this stage; however, as the INLEI project takes a holistic
approach to institutional development, the need for modifications to the model
may have to be considered if it is to be used in our context.
The INLEI project explores 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. It aims to provide a
web-based data bank of case studies for educational institutions involved in
the development of networked learning as well as a set of guidelines for policy
makers. It is a joint project shared by University of Highlands and Islands
Millennium Institute (UHI), Bradford University and Scottish Further Education
Unit (SFEU).
The remainder of the paper will be structured as follows:
·
a description of the model and a brief overview of its
background;
·
a brief outline of the study and its definition of
networked learning;
·
an examination of each of the stages of the model in
relation to the both the institutional documentation and the
interview/questionnaire data;
·
an analysis of the extent to which institutional
policies/strategies seem to inform the overall development of networked
learning;
·
an exploration of the extent to which the model
provides a useful framework for examining the implementation of networked
learning within institutions.
The Transformation Model
The Transformation model was based on models developed by the MIT90s
project at the Massachusetts Institute for Technology (Scott Morton, 1991). One
of these models, Venkatraman’s model, was later adapted to explore the
development of (Communications and Information Technology (C&IT) skills at
educational institutions in two UK projects: Citscapes and TALENT (Derbyshire,
1999, and Martin, 2002). Venkatraman’s model, whilst occasionally referred to
as the MIT90 model, became more widely known as the ‘Transformation Model’, as
it described the transformation from traditional to ICT (Information and
Communication Technology) led institutions.
Figure 1. Transformational model based on the MIT90
model and amended by Martin (2002)
|
|
The original Venkatraman model consisted of five stages with only the
evolutionary and revolutionary phases. Derbyshire (1999) introduced the
transitional phase and Martin added a first stage by distinguishing between the
individualised and the local level.
It should be noted that Martin’s model initially focused on exploring the
development of students’ IT literacy skill within the institution. As such it
provided an opportunity to explore the relationship between the development of
IT literacy in students and the development of the overall learning
environment. To this was added an exploration of learning activities and
support facilities. Our aim here is to explore the use of this model in
relation to institutional development of networked learning. Networked learning
encompasses these aspects; however, it also includes the interactions between
learners that are not shown in the Citscapes model. It could therefore possibly
be argued that the model needs to be extended to incorporate these aspects. A
definition of networked learning and our own project will be outlined before an
exploring the case study data in relation to the strategies and the model. As
data analysis is not completed yet this paper is an exploratory study that will
draw on four of the HE case studies. The final report will include an analysis
of twenty case studies from both the FE and HE sector.
Networked Learning and INLEI Case Studies
Twenty case studies – ten from HE and ten from FE – provide the core data
for the research. The case study institutions were selected to provide as
indicative a sample as possible with such a small number: FE Colleges included
urban and rural colleges of different sizes in England, Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland, and universities from the same spread of geographical and
educational areas with both research-led and modern institutions represented.
Only institutions that used a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) were included
in the project. Each case study collected data from three main sources:
·
Interview data,
·
Questionnaire data,
·
Secondary data from institutional documents.
Within each institution staff involved with some aspect of the
development of networked learning were asked to complete questionnaires and to
take part in an 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,
·
Support staff providing a range of services for
academic staff and students engaged in networked learning.
Interview and some questionnaire data were analysed qualitatively, some
of the questionnaire data provided quantitative material with documentary
evidence providing a third source of information and hence some degree of triangulation.
Our project identified six main research questions on which to focus the
investigation: overall institutional development, infrastructure and support
services, staff, collaboration and communication, teaching and learning,
quality monitoring and evaluation and access. Within institutional development
drivers for change were examined.
The term networked learning rather than e-learning or online learning was
used in this project. It was based on that of Goodyear (2002) and was defined as “..learning in which C & IT is used
to promote connections: between one learner and other learners; between
learners and tutors; between a learning community and its learning resources.” This
definition could be considered controversial as it makes assumptions about the
range of activities that are required for a module or a course to be considered
fully as ‘networked learning’. This
then has implications in terms of interpreting the stage that an institution
has reached in terms of its development and, as suggested above, there may be a
need to extend the model to incorporate these issues.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL
DOCUMENTATION USING THE TRANSFORMATION MODEL
The model identified three main phases with sub-stages within two of
these phases. These stages will now be examined using the case study data to
identify the stages that the institutions are seen as having progressed through
and the current stage they are perceived to have achieved. Institutional
strategy and policies will then be examined in relation to each of the
institutions followed by a reflection on value of the model in examining
institutional development.
It is worth noting that since 1999 all universities funded by HEFCE were
required to produce a Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy (Thorpe &
Freewood, 2001). The four HE institutions that form part of this exploratory
study consist of one established, research led (H1) and three post 1992 universities
(H2, H3 and H4). Three of the institutions are HEFCE funded; the fourth is not.
All stated that they had such a policy but one institution explained that it
was currently being redeveloped and that this process was not complete. Two
also have strategies for networked learning.
Evolutionary Phase – Stage 1 and 2: Individualised or Localised
Stage 1 of the model suggests that development depends on individual
initiatives independent of institutional policy input. The second stage focuses
on activities moving from being dependent on individual enthusiasts working
mainly on their own to the development being supported at departmental, school
or faculty level. The evidence from interview data does not indicate that the
development necessarily started with purely individual initiatives. The
questionnaire data supports this view and also suggests that for at least one
of the institutions the development of networked learning started at Stage 3 of
the model.
|
Institution
|
Evidence – based on interview |
Evidence based on questionnaire data |
|
H1 No of interviews: 6 No of questionnaire
returns: 4 |
“Well I think we are not different from others in
that it probably started off very much as individuals with an interest in working
on developing online learning opportunities…” |
All four
respondents stated that the introduction of networked learning had come from
individual initiative; one added it was also by small number of initiatives
with another adding it was also institutionally driven. |
|
H2 No of interviews: 5 No of questionnaire
returns: 5 |
“It started through my contracts with the … School
and they were interested in putting resources online …” |
Four out of the
five stated that it was whole institution driven; one stated that it was
based on individual initiative. |
|
H3 No of interviews: 6 No of questionnaire
returns: 5 |
“basically it has been driven from the ground up
so it has been evangelised by anyone – it maybe has been evangelised but it
has not been forced upon anyway ...” |
Four out of the
five stated that it started within a specific unit; the fifth stated it was
whole institution driven. |
|
H4 No of interviews: 6 No of questionnaire
returns: 5 |
“I understand that it was done through our
[dept]... certainly the initiative was steered by a committee with, I would
call, a significant enthusiast from each of the schools who worked for a
proportion of their time developing [VLE].” |
All five
respondents stated that it was whole institution driven; two additionally
stated that it was dependent on a small number of schools, one stated that it
was also dependent on individuals; one stated that it was also dependent on
faculty initiative. |
This data suggests some variability in relation to the initial stages of
networked learning. Institution H1 offers the clearest evidence of individual
initiative driving the process; the other institutions all suggest that whilst
there has been some individual initiative, whole institution initiatives and
specific units within the institution are seen as responsible for development.
It is interesting to note that the strongest evidence for individual initiative
driven development is from the research led institution. H2 could potentially
be interpreted as individually driven; however, there is also a suggestion this
was dependent on collaboration between one school and an individual and could
thus be best interpreted as a local initiative.
Evolutionary Phase – Stage 3: Coordinated
This stage is characterised by individual and local activities becoming
supported centrally by the institution. The data clearly suggests that
networked learning as an activity is becoming coordinated. All of the
institutions had a unit that was concerned with the development of teaching and
learning and networked learning featured strongly within these. Within each of
the institutions there had been a range of initiatives to encourage the
development of networked learning. It was also noted by all that the
infrastructure was now sufficiently robust to support networked learning and
also that staff technical support and training was available. However, there
was variability in terms of the extent to which the infrastructure was seen as
sufficient to support further development.
The questionnaire data quoted in the previous section also supports the
notion that these institutions have reached the coordinated stage. In addition,
all institutions cited funding being provided for a number of aspects of
networked learning such as staff development, hardware and staff time. However,
not all institutions funded all of these areas. The questionnaire responses in
this section come from only one respondent as only senior management were asked
to indicate available funding.
|
Institution |
Evidence based on interview data |
Evidence based on questionnaire data |
|
H1 No of interviews: 6 No of questionnaire
returns: 4: |
“I think the catalyst that exists, there is the teaching award, there
is also a fund in the University for teaching innovation or teaching
developments and a lot of proposals that come forward are e-learning or
networked learning based… ” “ ...we are trying to encourage them through giving them Teaching
Fellowships .. another way in which the can get money is through the
University Teaching Manual Boards ..available for Faculties to bid for .. and
actually works very well…” |
Funding for staff
development and software. |
|
H2 No of interviews: 5 No of questionnaire
returns: 5 |
“...we buy 0.5 of their time, half their time to work on education
development issues in their particular school and across a range of issues.
Networked Learning being one important one, but certainly not the only one so
they might .. it very much depends on what else are the priorities within
their school.” |
Funding for staff
development, staff time, hardware and software. |
|
H3 No of interviews: 6 No of questionnaire
returns: 5 |
“It has been driven probably from two places. We used to have a
distance learning unit set up and that was the first place really where
e-learning was brought in .. then our Centre for Learning and Teaching
started bringing [VLE]q.” |
Funding for staff time and
software. |
|
H4 No of interviews: 6 No of questionnaire
returns: 5 |
“I understand that it was done through our [dept] unit .. certainly
the initiative was steered by a committee with, I would call, a significant
enthusiast from each of the schools who worked for a proportion of their time
developing[VLE].” |
Funding for staff
development. |
Transitional Phase – Stage 4: Transforming
This stage is characterised by the institution adopting these new
developments as part of the core business. The evidence shown here, from both
interviews and questionnaires, indicates that networked learning is recognised
as core. However, the name of the stage indicates that this should act to
transform core practice and the data suggests that whilst some change has
occurred this is not fully achieved yet.
Institution
|
Evidence
based on interview data |
Evidence based on questionnaire data
|
|
H1 No of interviews: 6 No of questionnaire
returns: 4: |
“...it
is clear that the University is taking much more of an interest now; it has
an education strategy which is being redeveloped at the moment and within
that there is an e-learning strategy so I think it is recognised at senior
level.” “Well
the education strategy itself will be a major driver, that will be the major
driver I guess in the sense of putting forward institutional support behind
the initiatives.” |
All four respondents stated
that networked learning was recognised at senior level as part of core
business. One of these qualified the response by stating that this
recognition was ‘recent’. Two out of the four
respondents felt that core business had changed; two stated that it had not
changed, with one of these suggesting that it might change. |
|
H2 No of interviews: 5 No of questionnaire
returns: 5 |
“Primarily
through our use of [VLE] which, as far as I am aware, it is based around the
campus so that you have a system up and running on the web at module and
course level which the students can interact with and the staff can interact
with.” |
All five respondents stated
that networked learning was recognised at senior level as part of core
business. Three out of the five state
that the focus of the institution has changed; one states it has, with one
respondent undecided. |
|
H3 No of interviews: 6 No of questionnaire
returns: 5 |
“Yes….
Our online learning community is based upon the use of the [VLE] learning
system.” |
Four out of the five
respondents stated that it was recognised at senior level as core business;
the fifth stated it was not as there was a reluctance to make institutional
decisions. |
|
H4 No of interviews: 6 No of questionnaire
returns: 5 |
“..
in March this year the university academic board, the Vice-Chancellor decided
that every module would be on the VLE by this September.” |
All five respondents stated
that networked learning was recognised at senior level as part of core
business. Three out of the five
stated that core business had not changed (one suggesting it might); two
stated it had changed. |
Revolutionary Phase – Stage 5: Embedded
This stage sees the developments as having been embedded into the
institution and adopted by all courses. Each institution has adopted a VLE on
an institution wide basis to support the development of networked learning.
This could perhaps be taken to indicate that networked learning is embedded
within the institution. However, the name of the phase ‘revolutionary’ suggests
that there has been a complete change from what was happening in the past to
what is happening now. The evidence does not necessarily suggest that this is
the case across the whole institution.
Two questions in the questionnaire asked if networked learning had added
value to teaching learning and research and whether it had changed the learning
experiences. All respondents were asked these questions.
|
Institution |
Evidence based on interview data |
Evidence based on questionnaire data |
|
H1 No of interviews: 6 No of questionnaire
returns: 4 |
“if we take [VLE] as an example, mostly people have tried to transfer
traditional teaching online so they are not doing a lot incredibly different”
|
All four respondents felt
that networked learning had added value to the teaching and learning and also
that the student learning experience had been enhanced. |
|
H2 No of interviews: 5 No of questionnaire
returns: 5 |
“I mean my vision is of a blended learning environment which almost
becomes transparent in that sense in that it helps students to work with
their colleagues, with their tutors, with resources … you know we don’t at
... have a vision of being an entirely online university.” |
Only two out of the five
respondents responded suggesting that networked learning added value but
complemented traditional methods. The other three did not feel able to
comment. |
|
H3 No of interviews: 6 No of questionnaire
returns: 5 |
“Our VLE is still at the stage where some staff is using it as a
repository where they are putting material and dumping it and that isn’t
making the best use of it but then that is back down to this department or
other individuals to explain the advantages of using it.” “We have [VLE] which we use as a virtual learning environment but it
tends to be used along with traditional teaching methods so I don’t think it
is large scale, although we do have network materials, ancillary materials to
something like 80% of our student population.” |
Three out of the five
respondents responded to the two questions and all three argued that it had
changed the student learning experience and added value to teaching, learning
and research. A fourth felt that it had changed the student learning
experience. Access to resources was quoted by two as adding value, whilst a
third suggested that online learning enhanced student performance overall. |
|
H4 No of interviews: 6 No of questionnaire
returns: 5 |
“.. in March this year the university academic board, the
Vice-Chancellor decided that every module would be on the VLE by this
September.” “In theory yes … Well in theory all students are using [VLE]…. I
suspect that the use of it is very patchy” “I have never believed it is the total way teaching and learning is
going. I think it can enhance teaching and learning ..it is a useful
communication method ..” |
Four out of the five
respondents felt that networked learning allowed for flexible access to
resources and potentially for easier communication. One respondent did not
feel able to comment. |
It could be suggested from this data that the institutions have reached
the embedded stage; however, the extent to which this is revolutionary rather
than evolutionary is open to debate. One respondent suggested that students’
learning was improved in terms of overall achievement and that students acted
differently when engaged in networked learning. However, the students were
post-graduates who were enrolled on a specific, work-related course that had been
developed at considerable expense. The institution which had developed it
recognised that this particular programme was different from the mainstream. It
had been developed with external business funding and did not use the
university adopted VLE. Interestingly in two of the institutions the term
‘organic’ development was used and it was argued that academics should be
allowed to make use of the VLE as they wished and if this meant simply using it
for course notes that was acceptable. In another institution a minimum of web
resources had to be included in all modules; however, this minimum was limited
to the module handbook and a few basic links.
Revolutionary Phase – Stage 6: Innovative stage
This phase assumes that the new development is instrumental in changing
and reconceptualising the learning process. The questionnaire data in the
previous section also relates to this section.
|
Institution |
Evidence based on interview data |
|
H1 No of interviews: 6 No of questionnaire
returns: 4 |
“We do have a few people doing things quite differently where their
role will have perceptively changed, tutor and students ... but really I am
not quite sure how much because obviously we have different kinds of teaching
and learning going on in the university anyway, related to subject or related
to innovation.” “if we take [VLE]as an
example, mostly people have tried to transfer traditional teaching online so
they are not doing a lot incredibly different” |
|
H2 No of interviews: 5 No of questionnaire
returns: 5 |
“..some tutors seem to revert to a more kind of teaching environment
online .. others tend to take a more levelled kind of participatory approach
and we don’t quite know yet what the effects of that may be. Some students
also comment on the whole .. implying a kind of fluidity of the environment …
the way they represent themselves, the way that they behave online, students
often report it is rather different than they would in a face to face
setting.” “My personal opinion is that it is a useful tool alongside
traditional methods rather than replacing anything.” |
|
H3 No of interviews: 6 No of questionnaire
returns: 5 |
“There are benefits and there are drawbacks. I think it should never
be looked at as a replacement, it should always be looked at as something to
enhance the way that the learning is delivered.” “I think that it’s going to be a blended model, I don’t, this is my
view and it could be very different in the schools because it is going to be
academics that come forward and develop this, but at the moment I don’t see
us doing a great deal that will be wholly e-learning.” |
|
H4 No of interviews: 6 No of questionnaire
returns: 5 |
“I have never believed it is the total way teaching and learning is
going. I think it can enhance teaching and learning ... useful communication
mechanism but probably due to my background which is very much people focuses
... I still see a need for students to interact with people ...” |
The data in this section then suggests that there may be some changes
that could be seen as reconceptualising the learning process as the second
quote from H2 suggests. However, the majority of the responses suggests
development that builds on what is there and also that the subject matter may
have an impact on how networked learning will develop.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STRATEGY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF NETWORKED LEARNING
All the institutions have a strategy for
learning, teaching and assessment and two also have a policy for networked
learning. At this stage it could be argued that the implementation of networked
learning has focused on getting the infrastructure in place and in adopting a
specific VLE to support networked learning. However, the strategies, whilst
some were accompanied by specific action plans tend to state what is intended
in general terms. All of the strategies stressed the need to make creative use
of the new technologies, to provide flexible, student-centred approaches to
learning which were appropriate to an increasingly diverse student population.
One of the institutions also noted the need to reduce the administrative burden
on academic staff and another noted that networked learning is not a
replacement for traditional methods as blended learning is identified as the
preferred option.
It is clear that a strategy that identifies the need for technology to be
incorporated into the learning process has had an impact in institutional
development; however, the extent to which all areas within an institution are
developing networked learning in the sense of our definition is less clear.
There is variation between different schools and faculties representing
different subject areas. Differences in attitudes within schools are also in
evidence.
THE TRANSFORMATIONAL MODEL AND INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
The model has provided a framework for
exploring our data. However, at this stage the data does not fully support that
institutions go through all the stages or that the revolutionary phase is
necessarily the most appropriate label for the final phase. In terms of the
earlier stages there is some suggestion that the first, individualised stage is
not necessarily in evidence for all of the institutions. Interestingly it could
be that as networked learning becomes more fully developed across the sector
those that are not yet engaged in it will enter it at the local or even
coordinated level. There is a suggestion that this was the case for institution
H4 as the following quote suggests: “… We
said OK we need to work out what kind of VLE we need ... we got evaluations
from X ,we have got good links with them ..came up with [VLE]. We sold the idea
to the executive ... and the executive said yes.”
In relation to the final phase, the
revolutionary phase, the data at this stage suggests that there may be more of
an evolution with an increasing number of resources being made available
online. However, development of this is patchy across subject areas and also
within faculties with some members of staff not wishing to make use of
technology. The picture is unclear and staff attitudes have not been included
in this analysis due to limited space. It also worth noting that whilst some
innovative examples demonstrating considerable change were in evidence our
interviews were with people engaged in networked learning and therefore they
are likely to have been enthusiastic and be aware of innovative examples.
However, there were also frequent comments about colleagues who did not wish to
engage with these developments. In addition, the pressure to engage in research
was cited, particularly in one institution, as hampering developments of
networked learning.
CONCLUSION
This analysis has only made partial use of the data from this project.
Further analysis is required and this needs to be considered in relation to
other studies such as Banks & Powell (2002) and Cornford & Pollock
(2003). In relation to the role of strategy in influencing the development of
networked learning it could be argued that it is essential in terms of the
commitment to development but that it does not necessarily lead to innovative
development of networked learning, which makes use of the full potential of the
technology. The initial analysis also suggests that the model has provided a
useful framework for exploration but that it may need revision; however, that a
revision of the label of the later stages may be worthwhile considering.
Acknowledgements
This project is funded by the JISC and the project was developed and
undertaken in collaboration with the Univeristy of Bradford and the Scottish
Further Education Unit.
References
Banks, S. & Powell, A. (2002) Institutional Readiness
for Implementing Networked Learning. Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Networked Learning, Lancaster, pp. 41-46
Cornford, J. & Pollock, N. (2003) Putting the
University Online: Information Technology and Organizational Change. Open
University Press, Buckingham
Derbyshire, H. and The TALENT Consortium (1999) The Online
Book of TALENT Available http://www.le.ac.uk/TALENT/book/sitemap.htm
Goodyear, Peter (2001) Networked Learning. University of
Lancaster
INLEI (2003), Impact of Networked Learning on Educational
Institutions Available at: http://www.learn.uhi.ac.uk/jisc/index.htm
Martin, A., (2002) The CITSCAPES Developmental Tool.
Chapter 10 of the Citscapes Phase 1 Final Report. Available at http://www.citscapes.ac.uk/products/phase1/ch10.pdf
Scott Morton, M.S. (1991) ed. The Corporation of the 1990s:
Information technology and Organizational transformation. Oxford University
Press. New York
Thorpe, L. & Freewood, M. 2001 Policy frameworks – entering
the labyrinth or it’s not just the technology. Proceedings of the 9th
International Symposium on Improving Student Learning, The Oxford Centre for
Staff and Learning Development, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford
Venkatraman, N. (1991) IT-induced business reconfiguration.
In: Scott Morton, M.S. ed. The Corporation of the 1990s: Information technology
and Organizational transformation. Oxford University Press. New York.