A prescriptive study of early trends in implementing e-learning in the UK Higher Education Sector
Nicos Souleles
Cumbria Institute of the Arts, Carlisle, UK
February, 2004
Virtual
Learning Environments (VLEs) are widely implemented in the UK Higher Education
(HE) sector and many institutions are engaged in implementing
e-learning. The drivers for this rapid technological change consist of a
combination of persistent external pressures and the enticing prospect of
improvements. This paper examines whether the benefits of e-learning have materialised and how this relates to organisational
change, policies and strategies. Post-Fordist models of management and
prescriptive approaches to implementing technological change provide the
theoretical framework. This qualitative investigation focuses on the
significance in the implementation process of institutional policies, staff
incentives for development, quality control processes, inter-departmental
collaboration, the need to re-evaluate teaching methodologies, and the
importance of feedback mechanisms.
Introduction
The widespread implementation of VLEs and e-learning
within Higher Education (HE) institutions in the UK came with enticing promises.
These included improvements in quality, flexibility and effectiveness of
teaching and learning, increased opportunities for lifelong learning, scope for
reduced costs and participation in the global knowledge economy.
This paper examines the current situation of e-learning
through the perspective of new managerial approaches, and this inevitably
addresses their relevance and applicability to the HE sector. The primary
objective of the paper is to consider the relationship between institutional
policies and strategies, and the management and implementation of online
learning technologies in the English HE sector.
The first overriding question relates to the existence
or not of global external pressures relentlessly impacting upon HE institutions.
Are these global drivers for change real or perceived? Do they merit an
appropriate response? If global pressures can impact on states, how insular can
HE institutions remain? Some researchers argue that the role of education is
increasingly tied up to the world of economics, and that new technologies
facilitate organisational transformation and bring with them the enticing
prospect of global markets, flexibility, innovation and cost-effectiveness.
External pressures may trigger new opportunities, but to what extent have these
opportunities materialised? Many HE institutions are taking up the challenge of
technological change, but are the rewards forthcoming? If we accept that global
pressures are impacting on HE, the follow-up question has to relate to the
ability of institutions to adapt to the changing external environment. How are
institutions addressing the challenge of organisational change associated with
online learning? Are there organisational implications, and is there an ideal
response? What are some effective institutional policies and strategies, and
what are the characteristics of existing effective management models? Have VLEs
improved the quality and flexibility of delivery? Does the current situation
match original expectations and rhetoric? Is e-learning contributing to widening
participation and enhanced learning?
The Dearing Report (1997) proclaimed that Information
Technology (IT) would spearhead improvements in HE. The future envisaged by the
report is one of increasingly active partnerships between academic and industry,
and of expansion in global markets. In the aftermath of the Dearing Report there
is a proliferation of VLEs and many HE institutions are pursuing e-learning.
Yet, despite the large investments in online learning technologies expectations
have not always materialised (Ryan et al, 2001), and the contribution towards
learning outcomes is debatable (Holt, 2001, p.272). Laurillard (2002) suggests
that pressures for change and the rapid implementation these technologies
combined to hinder research into the theory and practice of online learning.
There is now a plethora of both qualitative and quantitative information to be
gathered, analysed and evaluated.
Early research on VLEs focused on the comparison of
functionality between different packages, but not on the learning experience per
se or the process of implementing and managing e-learning
in HE. Recent research focuses on the significance of new managerial approaches,
the need for organisational and cultural change, and the importance of
grassroots support as some of the critical elements for the effective
implementation of new learning technologies (Kenny, 2002). Equally, Uys (2002,
p.58) states that there has been a clear and consistent call from prominent
writers on management and organizational change that the functions of management
are to be practised in an entirely new way in the context of the emerging global
information and knowledge society. Another term often used in this context is
the ‘learning organisation’. These organisational models of managing
technological change share common characteristics.
This paper considers how HE institutions compare against these shared
characteristics, and in this respect it is an analysis based on prescriptive
principles which have been critiqued by a number of authors. Kezar et al. (2002)
dismiss the suitability of broad managerial approaches to the HE sector. They
consider these models as too general in nature with a common emphasis on strong
leadership, collaborative processes and a system of rewards. Organisational
changes are presented as broad and uniform. In a study conducted by the authors
the literature of organisational change that relies on general prescriptive
principles was challenged. The study highlighted the importance of recognising
distinct organisational cultures within an organisation and their inter-play.
Similarly, Alvesson (2002) dismisses management models that assume the existence
of uniform cultures and enlightened management. He labels these models as
‘Managerially-led Unitary and Unique Cultures’. They are based more or less
on a standardized script that is regurgitated; managers change from
administrators to leaders, flat decision making hierarchies giving way to
markets and entrepreneurial spirit. Alvesson argues that organisational change
involves a complicated process of negotiation of meanings and symbols among
divergent cultures within an organisation.
Carlson (2001, p.85) defines culture as the shared
values, attitudes and norms on what is acceptable and unacceptable within groups
of employees. These shared values are often taken for granted. Sub-cultures
exist within HE institutions based on discipline, school or departmental
affiliation. It is not unusual, he argues, for sub-cultures not to be congruent
with the larger institutional culture, not to mention radical organisational
change. This becomes evident when attempting institutional transformation that
requires changes in underlying assumptions and prevailing values. The fit
between existing culture and proposed change can inhibit or facilitate
organizational change, and so it becomes critical to consider organizational
culture prior to implementing change.
The drivers for change
Marginson (2000, pp.24-25) cautions against the error of attributing too
much to the term ‘globalisation’. ‘Triumphalists’ and ‘alarmists’
recognise, albeit from different perspectives, that global forces impact on
social change. Uys (1998a) suggests that online technologies facilitate and
naturally lead to the globalisation of education. The changes associated with
the introduction of these technologies should be embraced, and the challenge for
HE institutions is to establish global partnerships and educational niches in
the international educational market. In contrast, Noble (1998) is alarmed by
what he describes as ‘commodification of education’ driven by software
companies and commercial interests. He warns against the camouflage of
technological transformation which underneath hides the commercialization of
higher education; it uses technology as a vehicle and a disarming disguise.
Denying the trend towards globalisation, i.e. arguing that there is nothing
distinctive in the character of contemporary global relationships is also an
error. Marginson suggests that globalisation is a collection of powerful world
systems situated outside the nation state and independent from it. These systems
are working back towards the inner core of states, affecting our practices. He
depicts these forces as ‘leaking’ through the daily activities of HE
institutions. They are exposed to constant and relentless external pressures.
One of the external forces that impacts upon HE is change in the nature
of manufacturing. There is consensus that the structure of work in advanced
economies is shifting away from traditional manufacturing modes of production,
towards the provision of services and the production, management and circulation
of knowledge through information and communication technologies (ICTs)
(Saunders, 2000, p.1006). This is compared to the change from the agricultural
age to the industrial age (Uys, 2002, p.58). The terms ‘knowledge economy’
and ‘information society’ are often used in parallel to suggest a strong
association. States are responding to growing requirements for trained citizens
as economies increasingly depend upon knowledge-related skills and the ability
to handle information. Education and training are perceived as instruments of
economic policy. States who adopt an interventionist approach through education
and training, as well as labour market policies, aim to facilitate the
development of a high-wage, high skill post-Fordist economy (Dudley, 1998,
p.23). The need for a more highly skilled workforce to service new industries
and participate in the world knowledge economy is now a high priority for many
countries. The emphasis on wider participation in HE is also known as the shift
from elite to mass education. To this can be added the need for re-skilling and
life-long learning. A person will need to retrain at least five times in a
working lifetime and such retraining requires the equivalent of three months of
full-time learning (Bates, 2000, p.10-13). The Dearing Report (1997) adopts an
‘alarmist’ rhetoric for the United Kingdom (UK): ‘Powerful forces –
technological and political – are driving the economies of the world…
competition is increasing from developing economies… the new economic order
will place an increasing premium on knowledge which, in turn, makes national
economies more dependent on HE’s development of people with high level
skills… The UK will need to invest more in education and training to meet the
international challenge.’
Sadlak (1998, p.101) defined two paradigms to encapsulate the nature of
external pressures on HE institutions. The quantitative paradigm relates to the
statistics on student populations. Increased efforts are being made on a global
scale in expanding HE education. All societies, whether modern or modernizing,
post-industrial or developing, are experiencing increased demand for access to
HE. To keep student participation rates constant in the developing world, one
sizeable new university has to open every week to meet the demands of the young
and growing population (Sadlak, 1998, p.103). Bates (2000, p.8) argues that
postsecondary education around the developed world has expanded during the last
ten years, forcing both states and institutions to seek alternative means of
funding the sector. Wide access to HE is more a rule than an exception. The
argument for the continuation of expansion is based, among other things, on
forecasts concerning the evolution of labour markets, which show that in the
course of the next decade some 40% of all jobs in the industrialized countries
will require sixteen years of schooling and training. The shift from elite to
mass HE has forced institutions to re-evaluate their role. The central policy
question has become how to deliver a high quality product to a greater
population with diminishing resources.
The informational paradigm relates to a different set of numbers. In 1998
in the United States there were three hundred colleges and universities offering
virtual degrees to over one million students. By the turn of the century the
number of ‘cyber students’ will triple (Sadlak, 1998, pp.102-103). Students
are accustomed to electronic communications and web-based retailing. They are
also accustomed to independent choice, not simply in technology but in sources
of information. The informational paradigm suggests that there is already a
significant and un-stoppable momentum towards adopting and using learning
technologies by both students and institutions. This momentum is supported by
claims that ICTs will continue to evolve exponentially, contributing even
further to rapid globalization. Computers are affordable and commonplace.
National and international networks are becoming faster and cheaper to access.
Some ‘triumphalist’ predictions claim that in ten years most
educational institutions in the United States will deliver some portion of their
curricula online (Duderstadt, Atkins, & Houweling, 2002). Similarly,
researchers attribute the rapid adoption of VLEs and e-learning in the UK to the
increased demand for HE and lifelong learning. The widespread use of the
Internet and email has almost certainly been a catalyst for these demands.
Online learning technologies are perceived as the only way to efficiently
address the huge increase in learning needs and numbers because of the
distributed and flexible potential (Uys, 1998b). ‘There has been a paradigm
shift to using the Web for teaching (Butland, Conole, Jones & Cook, 2000).
Bates (2000, pp.16-20) identified the most frequent reasons that HE
institutions adopt online learning technologies. The main motives are to improve
the quality of learning, to provide learners with information technology skills
needed for their professional development, to widen access to education, to
respond to the ‘technological imperative’, and to reduce costs and improve
cost-effectiveness. These correspond very closely with the reasons identified by
Uys (2000), which are flexibility, links to the emerging culture of
post-modernism, cost-effectiveness of delivery, improvements in the quality of
learning, and addressing the increase in demand for HE. Within HE institutions
these reasons exist in various degrees. The widespread use of ICTs and the large
investments in VLEs indicate that institutions are to some extent enticed by the
potential rewards. The position has shifted emphatically towards implementing
VLEs. The external drivers and trends, real or perceived, are no more debated
but taken for granted. This may partially explain the spread of VLEs among HE
institutions, but inevitably raises questions of management and organisational
change, particularly if original expectations are not fully met yet.
The
prescriptive model
Prescriptive approaches to change argue that the effective implementation
of technological change in HE requires significant organizational change. Uys
(2002) states that there is a clear and consistent call from prominent writers
on management and organisational design that the functions of management are to
be practised in an entirely new way in the context of the knowledge society. The
underlying theme in this literature is that historically evolved and determined
hierarchical structures within HE institutions cannot embed effectively new
learning technologies without major organisational change.
Online education is an alternative paradigm to traditional delivery, and
as such it requires new management models, appropriate for the emerging
information society. These models are informed by the ‘learning organisation’.
A number of authors have put forward similar strategies and
organisational/management models for technological change. These models embrace
the language of post-Fordism and new-managerialism. According to Marginson
(2000, p.29) it is not surprising to find business practices in universities,
because social institutions exist in an age of business. Throughout their
history universities have habitually taken in some of the features of the
organisations outside them, reworking their academic mission in new hybrid
forms. Farnes (1993) states that there is some debate on the extent that the
development of educational systems proceeds independently from the economic
system. Within broad time periods both employ similar methods and systems. It
may be, he argues, that forces leading to the adoption of particular industrial
methods may lead to similar methods applied to education. Also the requirements
of economies have an influence on the nature of educational systems and vice
versa.
Laurillard (2002, p.214) argues that the implementation of new technology
methods cannot take place without the organization around it adjusting to the
intrusion of the ‘new organism’. She defends the use of this biological
metaphor to emphasise the single critical factor for HE institutions: their
capacity to learn and generate new knowledge in response to the external
environment and subsequent internal changes. HE institutions need more
‘robustly adaptive’ mechanisms so they can become ‘learning
organizations’. This entails ‘adaptive learning’. Laurillard’s (2002,
p.215) ‘Conversational Framework’ for designing an effective organisational
structure involves a continual iteration process at all levels of the
organisation; continuous action-research with results evaluated, refined and fed
back into the process for even more evaluation. For Laurillard one of the
significant elements in the process of continuous learning is the sharing of
tacit knowledge through formal and informal gatherings. Equally, Kenny (2002)
argues that the ‘learning organisation’ needs to develop an effective
means to capture and make known the learning occurring in the range of projects
which are underway and to maximize the staff capacity to carry-on further
research and development.
Uys (2000, pp.1-4) considers that the management of networked education
is fundamentally different from conventional educational management because of
the global environment, which requires new forms of private enterprise
management, including management of the learning organisation. The functions of
management are to be practised in an entirely new way in the context of the
emerging global information or knowledge society. Institutions dedicated to the
values and practice of ‘open learning’ need to have an ‘open management
style’. Uys contrasts the mechanistic control process with an organic control
process, and represents it as the tension between a centralised administrative
approach and decentralised academic approach.
Likewise, Bates (2002, pp.36-42) dismisses the current organisational
structure of most universities based on largely historical reasons as unsuitable
to new forms of technological delivery. He accepts that there are very few
examples of previously conventional HE institutions that have significantly
restructured and made the successful transition to widespread use of
technology-based distributed learning. Bates suggests that lessons can be drawn
from organizations that are ‘fit for purpose’; they achieve their objectives
in the most effective and economical manner. He compares and contrasts
‘Fordist’ and ‘Post-Fordist’ organizational structures to argue that the
former with its emphasis on uniformity of products, economies of scale, high
volume production, hierarchical management, strict division of labour and units,
and standardization are not suitable for the knowledge-based global economy of
the present time. Newer forms of
organization known as post-Fordist or post-industrial place emphasis on ICTs,
provide for customised and tailored services, have decentralised workers
directly networked to clients, are inspired by strong leadership characterised
by a broad vision, and have senior management which integrates, co-ordinates and
facilitates. Dudley (1998, pp.31-32) describes post-Fordism as high-value added,
innovative, with market flexibility through multiskilling. For Dudley the role
of education in the post-Fordist context is more strategic contributing to a
highly skilled and flexible workforce, fostering innovation and market
leadership, and creating consensus-based objectives. The organisation is leaner
with emphasis on functional flexibility.
Kenny (2002) offers a different rationale for re-organization, which is
not driven by market language and global imperatives, but rather analyses the
unique complexity of managing the implementation of e-learning. Traditional
project management does not make much distinction between the characteristics of
different projects. Surveys indicate that projects associated with the
introduction of new technologies have a higher level of uncertainty. The
management process used in these projects became progressively more open as the
levels of uncertainty in the projects increased. To illustrate the difference
the author contrasts as low technological uncertainty the manufacturing of a
single stand-alone component, versus the high technological uncertainty
associated with the Apollo moon-landing project, which required a widely
dispersed collaboration of experts and units. The underlying theme for Kenny is
that incorporating ICTs in HE institutions is a high risk task which requires
continuous improvement through modification of plans, looser project management
approaches, and the action research process of the reflective practitioner at
all institutional levels. The more complex the project is, the more flexible the
management style becomes.
The Dearing Report (1997) recommended that all HE institutions in the UK
have in place ‘overarching communications and information strategies’ by
1999-2000. The implication is that an institute-wide approach is necessary to
achieve change. It is important that an appropriate policy framework should
inform the institute-wide approach. Prominent on the list of common themes about
the learning organisation and HE is the importance of suitable policies and
strategies emanating from the senior management level. Such policies address the
need for a collaborative and consultative approach. This can engage diverse
departments and staff. The policy framework covers strategies to reward
innovation. Research undertaken by Radloff (2001) identified a number of
challenges for institutional leaders and academic staff when introducing
learning technologies. Senior management need to develop a vision of what the
enterprise of HE should be. The vision should be championed and communicated to
all stakeholders. It should include a realistic agenda for change. It should not
attempt to quantify every activity on a micro level (Kenny, 2002, p.331).
Institutional leaders should manage the change in an environment of empathy,
with skill and understanding, taking risks and ‘going out on a limb’. Uys
(2002, p.67) considers the creation of a shared vision as the most important
function of institutional leadership. He suggests that it should involve wide
consultation and have a clear educational purpose.
Holt et al. (2001) examined environmental imperatives and stakeholder
needs when implementing IT in HE. The authors compared and contrasted the
interests of the various stakeholders, and concluded that between total
centralisation and extreme decentralisation, a balancing act is needed. This
requires the participation of all stakeholders, and a respect for different
views and rationales. Educational objectives should be at the foreground of the
process. There are recognisable themes and similarities with Laurillard’s
‘Conversational Framework’. The learning organisation has an organic quality
and is consultative while embracing technological change at all levels. There is
discursive quality in the policies and strategies that rest underneath the
overall institution-wide vision. The strategies include collaboration, sharing
of best practice and effective means of incorporating formative and summative
feedback on the implementation process. Academic staff will need to reflect on
their approach to teaching and learning. This should be underpinned by pedagogy
and not technology. Teaching innovation will require new skills and ways of
working, including being ‘brave and bold’.
The engagement of faculty and teaching staff is another critical factor
for the effective implementation of e-learning. Faculty development seems to
work best when supported by a range of strategies (Bates, 2000, pp.95-121). This
includes staff incentives and staff support and professional development. There
is some evidence that support required for staff to adapt can be under-estimated
and under-resourced (Kenny, 2001). As Laurillard (2001, p.4) argues, innovation
in course design is conditional on staff development and upskilling; new kinds
of pedagogy require new knowledge. The existence of a range of strategies to
promote staff development and reward engagement is viewed as another significant
characteristic in the post-Fordist literature on technological change.
From a pedagogical perspective the advantage of incorporating e-learning
in the curricula is compared to traditional delivery methods. The later places
the educator at the centre of the teaching and learning experience. The learners
are passive recipients. Pedagogical support for e-learning is based on the
potential to promote active and collaborative learning; the educator becomes the
facilitator of the learning process and the learner is an active participant.
The physical location of the campus is no more a critical factor. IT and
network-based advances have eroded the importance of the physical location.
Distributed learning is now possible. This however pre-supposes that online
instructional material is pedagogically sound. The current proliferation of VLEs
does not in itself entail this. Bennett et al. (1999) elaborate further on the
kind of staff development required to develop appropriate online delivery. Staff
development should raise awareness, empower academics to participate in
discussions about online learning, and enable them to understand how the
technology can be applied to their own context. Staff opportunities to discuss
online learning can contribute to dissemination of best practice. Similarly,
Bates, (2000, p.102) argues that showing how the technology works is not
sufficient. Staff need to know why
[italics by the author] it is important to use the technology in teaching. The
paradigmatic shift from tutor-centered to a learner-centered system of delivery
will not happen overnight and must be accompanied by institutional commitment to
incorporate research findings into professional development activities (Van
Dusen, 1997).
HE institutions and their organisational structures are often based on
historicity and a transformation is unlikely to occur overnight. It will require
some more time to determine which model of organisational change is indeed
appropriate for the effective implementation of e-learning, and even then it is
likely that a number of models will emerge. Hybrid and transitional forms of
management are likely to emerge. Some
common characteristics drawn from post-Fordist approaches and new-managerialism
models, emphasise the significance of central vision, with delegation,
collaboration, flexibility, engagement and adaptive learning at all levels, and
as core practices. Over-arching institutional policies are significant and the
vision should be communicated to all stakeholders. Using VLEs and implementing
e-learning effectively implies new pedagogies, and this emphasises the
importance of having a comprehensive program of staff development and
incentives.
The
research process
The research process was based on the development and circulation of a
questionnaire with the aim of recording and analysing responses on the current
state of VLEs and e-learning in HE institutions. This is a retrospective
investigation of implementation cases, and as such it has all the qualities, as
well as weaknesses and strengths, of the ex post facto research methodology (Cohen et al, 2002, pp.205-210).
There was no rigorous experimental approach. The evidence gathered does not test
a hypothesis, but attempts to represent and reflect on the current situation in
ten HE institutions. Causal links may be established in particular cases, as
well as relationships, associations and their meanings, but it is also possible
that causes may not be identified or that there are different causes for
different contexts. These weaknesses of the ‘causal’ study, or
‘co-relational’ study can be considered against its strengths. Causal
studies provide a degree of association; they are exploratory and suggestive in
character, and useful as sources
for hypotheses to be tested (Cohen et al, 2002, pp.205-208). In this respect,
this paper respresent a ‘scoping study’, designed to bring key issues into
the spotlight and identify issues and trends.
Proponents of quantitative methods have often critiqued the notion of validity in qualitative research mostly on the basis that the
later lacks explicit controls and standard means of measurement that would allow
for the formal testing of prior hypothesis. Qualitative researchers generally
respond that certain categories of validity for example, concurrent validity, convergent validity and criterion-related validity are relevant to quantitative research but have little
or no relevance to qualitative research (Maxwell, 1992, pp.279-280). There is
also the ‘widely shared view that (generalizability in qualitative research) … is unimportant, unachievable, or both…
Many researchers actively reject generalizability as a goal’ (Schofield, 2002). Maxwell (2002, p.281) suggests that understanding is more fundamental to qualitative research than validity, and validity is
relative because understanding is
relative.
However, if understanding is relative then
Hammersley’s definition of validity as
‘the truth’ (as cited in Silverman, 2000, p.175) is debatable, for in qualitative research the process can be influenced by a
number of factors including the individual perspective of the researcher. This
inherent weakness is a characteristic of qualitative research (exposure to a
degree of bias), and supports the position that validity is a matter of degree, not an absolute (Maxwell, 1992,
p.284). As Cohen et al. (2002, p.105) stated, “…at best we strive to
minimize invalidity and maximize validity…”
It is possible to identify a number of common themes in the prescriptive
literature on implementing new technologies in HE institutions. These include
the importance of developing an overall policy at institutional level, the
significance of staff incentives and training, the inclusion of quality control
processes in the implementation process, the importance of inter-departmental
collaboration, the need to re-evaluate teaching methodologies, and the necessity
of having feedback mechanisms. These common themes formed the ‘building
blocks’ for the development of the questionnaire. This process of ‘sampling
from a domain of content’ (Smith, 1975, p. 76) or simply ‘domain sampling’
(Cohen et al, 2002, p.131) provides for a degree of content
validity, i.e. that the questionnaire
examines the issues under investigation. There can be no claim for absolute content
validity.
To provide for a degree of internal validity, i.e. that there is a level of credibility and authenticity in the
information gathered, the questionnaire starts by identifying the role of the
interviewees in relation to the implementation process. There is the explicit
recognition that the respondents are active participants in the implementation
process. They have ‘first hand’ experience albeit in different roles. The
respondents used different terms to identify their job titles, such as
‘Learning Technology Development Officer’, ‘Learning Technology
Manager’, ‘Director of Learning Technologies’, ‘Director of Information
Services’, ‘VLE Supervisor’ and ‘Lecturer’. The different and, in some
cases, overlapping roles include contribution to policy making, supervision of
implementation, staff training, technical support, pedagogical input, and
research. The majority of respondents identified their roles as members of units
which implement e-learning. The questionnaire does not identify and compare the
functions and roles of these units but recognises that they are diverse and
cater for localised needs within specific contexts. Future research can address
how these units are embedded in the overall structure of institutions; do they
interpret or simply implement policies? Is there a relationship between the
internal constitution of the different units, the implementation process and the
outcomes?
The respondents represent ten very diverse HE institutions in terms of
the size of the student population, the disciplines covered, and geographical
location. Schofield (2002, pp.100-101) argues that findings based on the study
of multiple heterogeneous sites are ‘more robust’ and ‘more likely to be
useful’ compared to findings based on the study of very similar sites; the
study of heterogeneous sites can increase the generalizability of qualitative research, i.e. the extent to which the
results can apply to a wider number of cases.
The data gathered by the questionnaire is a ‘snapshot’ of the current
situation. There is constant transformation and change to what is under
investigation. There are different stages and models of implementation at the
various institutions. There are also constant technical advancements and the
development of new instructional approaches influenced by ‘flexible
delivery’ and ‘innovation’. Online learning technologies are evolving and
this raises the issue of reliability;
at different times similar research is likely to reveal changing patterns and
new trends. The respondents reveal that all institutions have some form of VLE
and e-learning in place but the timescale of implementation differs from two
months to six years. There are also significant differences in the number of
staff and students accessing them. For example one of the institutions has seven
thousand students and two hundred staff engaging with online learning
technologies. Another institution is currently in the third month of
implementation with ten staff and sixty students using a VLE. It would seem that
the size of the institution determines the number of staff and students
accessing online technologies; rates of participation are context specific. This
investigation does not address how much time are staff and students engaging
with VLEs and e-learning, and what exactly are they doing with them.
The questionnaire consists of a number of dichotomous and open-ended
questions grouped in categories. The first category relates to factual and
background information. Respondents were asked to briefly describe their role
and position in relation to e-learning in their institution, and to provide
information on the length of time VLEs have been in place, as well as the number
of staff and students accessing them. The second group of questions addresses
the importance of institutional policies and decision-making. Does the
institution have an information management policy, an ICT policy, or an
e-learning strategy? How important is it to have a policy document? The third
group of questions relates to the management of process. At what level of the
institution are decisions made on implementing VLEs and e-learning? Was rollout
incremental of campus wide? Is collaboration between different departments and
faculties important? How is staff development handled and what support is in
place? Is staff development optional and are there any incentives? Knowledge
sharing, dissemination and feedback mechanisms are grouped in the next category.
What staff and student feedback mechanisms are in place, and how is this
incorporated in the implementation process? Is best practice shared and how? How
well is the support unit resourced? The final group of questions addresses the
comparison between original expectations and current outcomes. What are the main
reasons for using VLEs and e-learning? Has teaching methodology changed? Is
flexible delivery practised? Has the implementation increased the number of
geographically diverse students? What outcomes determine if the implementation
of e-learning is effective, and have original expectations and targets been met?
Analysis
of data
All ten institutions that responded to the questionnaire have a VLE in
place and half have augmented it with additional online facilities to deliver
some form of e-learning. There is significant variation between them on how long
the VLEs are in place and how developed e-learning is. The shortest period of
implementation is one year and the longest seven. The average across all ten
institutions is two and a half years. This is important in terms of how long it
takes to implement organisational change and to benefit from it. Long-term
studies indicate that there is a delay of some years between the time of
adapting new technologies and the point where this becomes meaningful and
beneficial to an organisation (Carlson, 2001). Considering that this
investigation provides a snapshot of the current situation, and that the average
time of implementation is relatively short, only possible trends can be
identified in terms of management of process, institutional policies and
outcomes.
As expected the data indicates that there is variation in the number of
teaching staff using VLEs and the
number of students accessing them for their learning. The highest number of
staff is one thousand and the lowest is twenty. This corresponds to the number
of students these institutions have, which range from ten thousand to just below
five hundred. High numbers of engagement suggest that the institution has
policies and support in place, but of what kind? Indeed, six institutions have
an ICT and/or an e-learning strategy in place. These policies cater for specific
objectives at the meso (faculty) and micro levels (staff and students) of the
organisation, but does an institution-wide framework inform them? Only two
institutions have a campus-wide information management policy in place and none
has a knowledge management document. To the question how important is a strategy
document in order to have an effective e-learning programme, the majority of
respondents ranked the importance of having institutional strategies from very
important and useful, to quite important and of value. A minority considers them
‘no guarantee to success’ and ‘not critical’. The data suggest that ICT
and e-learning strategies flourish but institution-wide policies are lacking.
The implication is that VLEs and e-learning are embedded in existing
organisational structures, and this is likely to result in a misalignment
between expectations and outcomes.
A significant majority of respondents (nine) stated that decisions on
implementing technological change are made at senior management level, with one
quoting the ‘highest’ level and another the ‘executive’ level.
Responsibility is firmly based at the top, but how effective have the varied
approaches been? In terms of rollout the institutions are evenly split with half
adapting a campus-wide approach and the remaining an incremental approach to
implementing e-learning. This may be indicative of context specific challenges,
such as availability of resources and funding, or may be a deliberate strategy
with the objective of gradually increasing participation. Collaboration between
faculties, departments and units even at small-scale implementations is a
positive step. To the question is collaboration between departments and
faculties important, only five respondents provided a positive answer, an
additional four claimed ‘no’, and one suggested that ‘it is helpful but
not essential’. There is no data to indicate whether this division correlates
to the size of the institution, the number of staff and students involved, and
the number of units or departments available, or any other factors such as
organizational culture.
The data on staff development and incentives shows a clear pattern. All
respondents stated that staff development and training is optional. One said it
is ‘patchy’, and another that it is mostly ignored. When asked to describe
the support and development available answers included free training, days off
and workshops. Only one institution provides no support. There is no data on
staff participation rates. This could indicate if incentives can affect
participation rates or if there are other contributing factors such as
professional development. The incentives available are varied. They include job
progression conditional on the use of VLEs, ten days per year allocated time for
development, time off, and the development of competitive learning grants. Four
respondents indicated that there are no incentives for staff development in
their institutions. Five indicated that there was ‘cultural resistance’ in
the early stages of implementation. Here the term ‘cultural resistance’
refers to – on its simplest level – beliefs and a set of shared values among
some staff that online learning seeks to replace traditional face-to-face
delivery, and new technologies have little to offer in improving teaching and
learning. The most quoted method to address such resistance was the sharing of
best practice. The remaining five attribute the lack of cultural resistance to
the optional nature of the strategies in place. Optional opportunities for staff
development do not imply radical transformation challenging existing
organizational culture. Resistance can be perceived as an indicator that
organizational change is significant. It is not known how strong the
organizational cultures are and how amenable they are to technological change.
The lack of comprehensive staff development programmes and incentives in most of
the institutions with the exception of job progression conditional on the use of
VLEs, indicates a weak connection between staff take-up and institutional
policies.
To the question what staff and student feedback mechanisms are in place,
the responses include an online questionnaire for students, an annual survey of
staff, a course review system (offline), regular focus groups with students, and
regular staff meetings. Negative responses included ‘no formal mechanism for
staff’, ‘no formalized feedback’, and ‘online feedback not used to
support e-learning’. How feedback is gathered and evaluated reflects the
ability of the organisation to learn from practice. It is not clear from this
list how feedback can be incorporated in the process of revision and refinement.
An annual survey of staff and a course review are unlikely to yield quick
results. The online questionnaire if appropriately structured and if used widely
enough may provide some useful information. Action research models require the
long-term study of learners using online technologies, with extensive user
testing and setting up of pilot projects. There did not seem to be any
comprehensive and well-structured feedback mechanism in place for the ten
institutions in this research. The answers to the next question on how staff and
student feedback was incorporated in the early stages of implementation,
indicate a similar trend. Two responded that it was not incorporated, one that
individual responses were sought, most provided no answer and only one listed
‘formal feedback, interviewing and monitoring’.
Although feedback mechanisms did not rate well in this survey, the
sharing of best practice among staff reveals a number of varied approaches and
communities of practice. Respondents listed the following methods of sharing
knowledge: an internal university newsletter, an ‘in-house’ publication, a
series of seminars to share experiences, a mailing list (offline), inviting
champions to share their experience, ‘show and tell’ sessions, symposiums
twice a year, and word of mouth. It would seem from the data that staff are
using numerous formal and informal means to share knowledge despite the lack of
comprehensive institutional feedback mechanisms. In terms of knowledge
management this is a significant loss to the institutions, for a large
proportion of the knowledge developed and shared by staff is likely to be tacit
knowledge developed in the context of unique conditions and situations. This
pool of information can provide information for a wide range of issues, such as
staff development programmes, developing new instructional methods and improving
student retention and engagement.
There does not seem to be any prevailing reason why the HE institutions
in this investigation are implementing VLEs and e-learning. Three respondents
identified distance education as the main reason, while another three identified
widening access and participation, and three more stated enhancing teaching
practices and improving student learning. One response listed
‘experimentation’. This strengthens the argument that to some extent the
current spread of VLEs is mimetic in character and not backed by institutional
objectives to compete in global markets. VLEs have not attracted students to
online courses. Only three
institutions have an increase in the number of geographically diverse students,
which can be attributed to VLEs and e-learning, but seven do not, yet all ten
institutions are practising some form of flexible delivery. The forms of
flexible delivery described, do not indicate any significant change in the
teaching methodology. To the question how has teaching methodology changed,
answers included ‘some replacement of face to face teaching but not a lot’,
‘notes, assignments and briefs available online all the time’, ‘some
asynchronous communication’, and ‘too early to say’, ‘not yet clear’
and ‘could not answer’. Once again the issue of staff development relates to
this point. Are staff only trained to use the tools available within a VLE, or
are they aware of the educational potential and how best to embed e-learning in
teaching and learning? The evidence
suggests that the former is a possibility.
There is no data on the varied objectives and targets set by the
different institutions in this investigation. These are likely to be varied in
scale and scope, and perhaps even context specific. When asked if targets were
met, six respondents indicated that original targets were met, and four that
they were not. When asked to identify outcomes which determine if the
implementation of e-learning is successful, two identified student recruitment
and retention, another two student learning, one the number of student and staff
using them, and one the number of new students the institution attracts. Student
recruitment and retention was not identified in the literature on technological
change as one of the primary reasons HE institutions may want to implement
e-learning, but this finding should not be surprising. The informational
paradigm suggests that an increasing number of students will choose institutions
that have in place some form of e-learning. The perception that an HE
institution is online ‘savvy’ can possibly drive the adoption of a VLE.
Enhancing the learning experience remains at the foreground of
objectives, but as suggested above there is no evidence that teaching
methodologies have changed significantly as a result of using VLEs.
Cost-effectiveness was not identified as one of the strategic objectives. This
may mean that it is not a priority at the level of the respondent but cannot be
excluded as a long-term objective of any wide-scale implementation of
e-learning.
Finally, the data indicates that half of the support units are either
‘well-resourced’ to ‘reasonably well-resourced’. The remaining range
from ‘poorly resourced’ to ‘not well resourced’. This closely correlates
to the size of the institution, with the largest in numbers of staff and
students having better resources, while the smaller institutions are
under-resourced. This raises issues on the emergence of a ‘digital divide’
between HE institutions.
A summary overview of the data suggests that most institutions are at
very early stages of implementation, with varied numbers of staff and students
engaging with VLEs and e-learning. Decisions rest with senior management. Half
the institutions consider inter-departmental collaboration as significant to the
process. Staff incentives and development are weak. There are few comprehensive
feedback mechanisms in place but staff engage in communities of practice.
Teaching methodologies have not changed significantly with the introduction of
VLEs, and flexible delivery and e-learning are practised at elementary levels.
Institutional assistance for support units can depend on the size of the
organisation. There are numerous strategies at the meso level with very few
institutions having institute-wide policies. Overall, there is a misalignment
between having the required technology and not having the appropriate policies
in place to enable effective technological change. The main reasons for
developing e-learning are not clear, but an emerging trend is student demand for
access to these technologies.
Conclusion
The shift from traditional manufacturing to the
knowledge economy necessitates a re-definition of the role of HE. The issue is
not the commodification of education but rather the commodification of
information. The emphasis on wider access to HE is pursued on the premise of
states participating in the global information society and benefiting from the
knowledge economy. Consequently HE is increasingly becoming central to the
economic policies of states. A high-skilled workforce requires continues
training and life-long learning is prominent on the agenda of governments and HE
institutions. ICTs are perceived as a contributing factor to the globalisation
of education but they are also perceived as facilitating change, assisting with
issues of access, quality, flexibility, and introducing cost-effectiveness. This
investigation did confirm that distance education and widening access and
participation are reasons that HE institutions implement VLEs and develop
e-learning.
Post-Fordist approaches to implementing technological
change argue that if organisational change is not transformative, the benefits
are unlikely to materialise. The framework adopted by this paper draws from such
approaches to implementing technological change. This may be problematic, for
these largely prescriptive strategies can be too general to address the
specifics of individual institutions and the significant role of organizational
culture. However, as a general reference point post-Fordist approaches to
implementing technological change may also provide some valuable insights and
guidelines that can be modified and adapted for individual institutions and
their specific contexts. The implication is that the successful implementation
of e-learning requires some
level of organisational change. The reason HE institutions are advised to become
robustly
adaptive and learning organisations is not to
follow a monolithic and prescriptive approach to the management of process, but
rather to follow a process of continuous evaluation and adaptability. This is at
the core of most post-Fordist approaches to technological change.
This investigation did not examine radical change, but
did attempt to define a number of critical elements for organisational change
and compare the current status of online learning against a set of criteria.
These elements include the significance of having in place appropriate
overarching communications and information policies, the ability of the
institution to learn from the implementation process, comprehensive strategies
for rewarding and training staff, effective inter-departmental collaboration,
thorough mechanisms for feedback and dissemination, and improvements in teaching
and learning.
The evidence suggests that there is already a
significant and un-stoppable momentum towards adopting and using learning
technologies by both students and institutions. The benefits have not been
forthcoming in terms of widening access, flexible delivery, improvements in
teaching and cost-effectiveness. There is an emerging recognition that student
recruitment and retention may correlate to the implementation of VLEs and
e-learning, and that an increasing number of HE applicants choose institutions
which offer online facilities to support learning. The extent and state of an
institution’s online facilities may affect enrolments. The existence of a
small number of institute-wide policies indicates lack of central vision, and
this reflects on the role and contribution of senior management. It raises
question about whether institutions have appropriate policies and whether the
vision has been communicated to staff. Approaches to the implementation of
e-learning are varied ranging from campus-wide to incremental, and this may be
attributed to a number of factors that are context specific, including the role
of different cultures within institutions. A campus-wide approach is preferred
for it entails the existence of participative strategies and a culture of
inter-departmental collaboration, while an incremental approach may disguise
some degree of cultural resistance.
This investigation highlighted the lack of
comprehensive and well-structured feedback mechanisms, and the relatively low
importance attached to inter-departmental collaboration. Post-Fordist approaches
to organisational change view these as significant weaknesses. The circular and
iterative process required in successfully implementing online learning is
incomplete. The tacit knowledge generated by supportive staff is not evaluated
beyond the communities of practices set up by the staff themselves. Low levels
of inter-departmental collaboration imply weak conversation and learning across
institutional boundaries. Additional weaknesses relate to the lack of
comprehensive strategies for rewarding and training staff. Staff training will
need to include use of online tools and how best to embed e-learning in the
curricula, including the development of flexible delivery. The proliferation of
VLEs does not in itself indicate that appropriate instructional approaches are
developed and practised. The data shows that VLEs are mostly used in supporting
traditional delivery, and instructional innovation facilitated by online
technologies is non-existent.
Cost-effectiveness was not identified as one of the
reasons institutions implement VLEs and e-learning. However it should not be
excluded as a long-term consideration of any wide-scale implementation. Although
the data suggests it is not of primary significance to the respondents, the
rhetoric associated with online learning does contend that electronically
produced material is less expensive to produce and virtual universities can save
in terms of real estate and teaching costs. The possibility of such savings is
normally disputed on the grounds that development expenses are under-estimated,
and the introduction of new practices entails additional costs. Long-term
studies may be required to quantify the level of cost-effectiveness e-learning
can introduce if properly implemented. Studies reveal that the introduction of
ICTs in the business sector has not resulted in any evidence that new
technologies can raise profitability and productivity, mainly because they were
poorly integrated in existing organisational patterns (Carlson, 2001).
The outcomes of this investigation represent only a
‘snapshot’ drawn from varied timelines and stages of implementation. The
synthesis of the data is likely to reflect trends from the early stages of
implementation rather than persistent trends over long periods of time. Thus the
lack of significant gains as envisaged by the Dearing Report may be partially
attributed to the relatively short period of implementation. The situation is an
evolving one, and so are the models for technological change. The contribution
of this survey is in identifying a number of trends and characteristics of the
early stages of implementation.
References
Armitage, A., et al. (2001). Management
and implementation of Virtual learning Environments: A UCISA funded survey.
UCISA (Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association). University of
Lancaster.
Bates, A.W. (2000). Managing Technological
Change. Strategies for College and University Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bennett, S., Priest, A. and Macpherson, C. (1999). Learning about online
learning: An approach to staff development for university teachers. Australian
Journal of Educational Technology, 15(3), 207-221. [Online] Available: http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/ajet/ajet15/bennett.htm
Butland, G., Conole, G., O’Leary
R., Jones, S., Cook, J. (2000). The Evolution of Learning Technology in UK
Higher Education: The Bristol Solution. ASCILITE Conference. [Online] Available:
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/coffs00/
Carlson, P. (2001). Information Technology and Organizational Change. Technical
Writing and Communication. 31(1), 77-95.
Carter, B., Mistry, V. (2001). Enduring Change: Technological Management in
Education. ASCILITE Conference. [Online] Available:
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne01/pubs/index.html
Cohen, L., et al. (2002). Research Methods
in Education (5th ed.). London: Routledge.
Currie, J. (1998). Introduction. In J. Currie & Nerwson J. (Eds.), Universities
and Globalization. Critical Perspectives (pp.1-13). London: Sage.
Dearing, R., et al. (1997). The
National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. [Online] Available: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/ncihe/sr_008.htm
Dudley, J. (1998). Globalization and Education Policy in Australia. In J. Currie
& Nerwson J. (Eds.), Universities and
Globalization. Critical Perspectives (pp. 21-43). London: Sage.
Duderstadt, J., Atkins, D., Van Houweling, D. (2002). The Development of
Institutional Strategies. In J.
Duderstadt, D. Atkins, D. Van Houweling,
(Eds.), Higher Education in the Digital
Age: Technology Issues and Strategies for American Colleges and Universities.
ACE/Praeger Series on Higher education, The Oryx Press.
Farnes, N. (1993). Modes of production: Fordism and distance education. Open
Learning, 8(1), pp.10-20.
Geertz, C. (2000). Thick description: Towards an interpretive theory of culture
(2nd ed.). In C. Geertz (Ed.), The
Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, pp.3–30.
Hailes, S., Hazemi, R. (2002).
Universities, Dearing, and the Future. In R. Hazemi & S. Hailes (Eds.), The
Digital University, Building a Learning Community (pp.7-25). London:
Springer.
Holt, D., et al. (2001). Towards Institution-Wide Online Teaching and Learning
Systems: Trends, Drivers and Issues. ASCILITE Conference. [Online]
Available: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne01/pubs/index.html
James, D. (2000). Answer the
Strategic Questions Please. ASCILITE Conference. [Online] Available:
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/coffs00/a2k_main_conf04.html
Issrof, K., Hazemi R. (2002). Using
the WWW for Teaching and Learning: Raising Awareness within University College
London. In R. Hazemi, S. Hailes & S. Wilbur (Eds.), The Digital University, Reinventing the Academy. (pp.85-97). London:
Springer.
Kenny, J. (2002). Managing innovation
in educational institutions. Australian
Journal of
Educational Technology. 18(3), 359-376. [Online] Available:
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet18/kenny.html
Kenny, J. (2001). Where Academia Meets Management: A model for the effective
development of quality learning materials using new technologies. ASCILITE
Conference. [Online] Available: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences
Kezar, A., Eckel, P.D. (2002). The Effect of Institutional Culture on Change
Strategies in Higher Education. The
Journal of Higher Education. 73(4), 435-460.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking
University teaching. A conversational framework for the effective use of
learning technologies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Laurillard, D. (2001). The
E-University: What have we learned? The
International Journal of Management Education. 1(2), 3-7.
Marginson, S. (2000). Rethinking Academic Work in the Global Era. Journal
of Higher Education Policy and Management. 22(1), 23-35.
Maxwell, J.A (1992). Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research. Harvard
Educational Review, 62(3), 279-299.
Miliam, John H. (2001). Knowledge Management for Higher Education. (ERIC
Document No. ED464520).
Noble, D. (1998). Digital Diploma Mills: The Automation of Higher Education. First
Monday, Peer-Reviewed Journal on the Internet. University of Illinois, Chicago Library. [Online] Available:
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_1/noble/
Picket, Sarah M. (1992). Preparing for a Global Community. Achieving an
International Perspective in Higher Education. (ERIC Document No. ED350971).
Radloff, A. (2001). Getting Online: The Challenges for Academic Staff and
Institutional Leaders. ASCILITE Conference. [Online] Available:
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences
Ryan, Y., & King, R. (2001). Australian-based global aspirants. Extract from
The Impact of the Internet in Higher
Education in Australia and Asia. HEFCE unpublished report.
Sadlak, J. (1998). Globalization and Concurrent Challenges for Higher Education.
In P. Scott (Ed.), The Globalization of
Higher Education (pp.100-107). Buckingham: The Society for Research
into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Saunders, M. (2000). Understanding Education and Work: Themes and Issues. In R.
Moon, B. Pereetz, M. Brown (Eds.), The
International Encyclopeadic Dictionary of Education (pp.1003-1029).
Routledge.
Schofield, J.W. (2002). Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research
(2nd ed.). In M.Hammersley (Ed.),
Educational Research, Current
Issues (pp. 91-113). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Silverman, D., (2000). Doing Qualitative
Research. A Practical Handbook. London: Sage.
Smith, H.W. (1975). Strategies of Social
Research. The Methodological Imagination. London: Prentice Hall
International.
Tam, M. (1999). Managing Change Involves Changing Management: implications for
transforming higher education. Quality in
Higher Education. 5 (3), 227-232.
Uys P. (2002). Managing Tertiary Education in a Global Virtual Environment:
Networked Educational Management. In R. Hazemi, S. Hailes & S. Wilbur
(Eds.), The Digital University –
Building a Learning Community (pp.57-70). London: Springer.
Uys, P. (2000). Managing Tertiary Education in a Global Virtual Environment:
Networked Educational Management. [Online] Available:
http://www-globe.online.com/philip.uys/www-globe.online.com/philip.uys,cape2000.htm
Uys, P. (1998a). New Educational Technology and the Global Village: Key
Management Issues in Higher Education. Available: http://www-globe.online.com/philip.uys/www-globe.online.com/philip.uys,tours1998.htm
Uys P. (1998b). Towards the Virtual Class: On-line Hypermedia in Higher Education. In R. Hazemi, S. Hailes & S. Wilbur (Eds.), The Digital University, Reinventing the Academy. (pp.55-72). London: Springer.
Van Dusen, Gerald C. (1997). What are
the implications of teaching on the virtual campus? (ERIC Document No.
ED412815).