______
Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Lahti, Finland 22-25 September 1999.
A Paper for the ICT in Education Network
Session 21.16: Collaborative ICT-environments and Teacher Support
______
Preparing for Networked Collaborative Learning:
An Institutional View
Jonathan Foster • Nicholas Bowskill
Vic Lally • David McConnell
Centre for the Study of Networked Learning (CSNL)
Department of Educational Studies
University of Sheffield
England
______
Abstract
The following paper reports on a survey and evaluation of the views of a cross section of stakeholders on the readiness of a traditional research-led university for implementing ICT-based learning and teaching. Stakeholders included academics, management and support staff, along with members of the University's networked learning strategy group. Analysis includes an examination of a number of factors relevant to a discussion of institutional readiness for networked collaborative learning including 'what is online learning'? and whether stakeholders perceived a difference between 'online' and 'networked' learning; stakeholders' views of the current situation at the university with regard to networked learning and visions for its development; enabling and constraining factors related to the development of networked learning; and the question of institutional readiness itself. The views of individuals within each of the groups are reported accompanied by tentative suggestions as to the shared meaning for each of the peer groups. It is suggested that the university's readiness to implement networked learning is generally considered to be at an early stage, with practice in networked learning occurring within the university but conducted in the main by interested but isolated individuals with little central support. In conclusion it is suggested that if the university, as a research-led institution, wishes to engage in the development of networked learning then further attention needs to be paid both to the internal infrastructure within the institution to support the delivery of networked learning and to collaboration with external agencies.
1.INTRODUCTION
The Computer Based Collaborative Group Work Project (CBCGW) (CBCGW, 1998) is one of 32 projects in the United Kingdom supported by the Teaching & Learning Technology Programme (TLTP) Phase 3 (TLTP, 1998). Based at the University of Sheffield the project commenced funding in October 1998. The work of the project can be categorised into five strands. These are: the establishment of a web-based national professional development centre for CBCGW in higher education, based at the University of Sheffield; a full case study evaluation of generic on-line teaching and learning strategies in continuing professional development (CPD); the development, research, evaluation and dissemination of a Rich Professional Development environment (RPDE) for University Staff; a study of institutional readiness for networked collaborative learning (NCL); and an evaluation of groupware for NCL/CBCGW. This paper looks at the fourth of these interdependent strands: an institutional view on preparing for networked collaborative learning at a research-led university.
The British Educational Policy Context
In July 1997 a major review of the British higher education system, which has come to be known as the Dearing Report was published (NCIHE, 1997). The vision of higher education guiding the report is one of widening participation and lifelong learning: a 'learning society'. This vision is supported by institutional structures which meet across what had previously been treated as largely distinct domains. Academic, commercial and industrial institutions are brought together in 'a new compact':
at the heart of our vision of higher education is the free-standing institution, which offers teaching to the highest level in an environment of scholarship and independent enquiry. But, collectively and individually, these institutions are becoming ever more central to the economic wellbeing of the nation, localities and individuals. There is a growing bond of interdependence, in which each is looking for much from the other. That interdependence needs to be more clearly recognised by all participants [...] we think in terms of a compact between higher education and society which reflects their strong bond of mutual independence (NCIHE, 1997: 11, 12)
In order for higher education (and its institutions) to support the vision of a 'learning society' the Dearing report recommends, inter alia, that the higher education sector needs to:
take full advantage of the advances in communications and information technology, which will radically alter the shape and delivery of learning throughout the world (NCIHE, 1997, 10)
Indeed, consideration as to the impact of communications and information technology (C&IT) is evident throughout the report's discussion of different aspects of higher education provision: 'students and learning', 'supporting research and scholarship', 'staff in higher education' and the 'management and governance of higher education institutions'. The importance of C&IT is underlined however by the Committee's decision to dedicate to the subject a separate chapter during which the following assertion is made:
while the effective adoption of C&IT in higher education requires appropriate technology, adequate resources and staff development, success depends on the effective management of change (NCIHE, 1997: 203)
The institutional level is clearly part of the current educational policy landscape in the UK. It is this policy background, in tandem with the focus on implementation which lies at the heart of the TLTP3 programme: "embedding the use of new technologies more firmly into higher education and evaluating its effectiveness" (TLTP, 1998), which provides the rationale for the project turning its attention to an institutional view of developments in C&IT for learning and teaching at a traditional, research-led university. Before addressing our methodology and analysis, literature relevant to two areas related to our topic are reviewed. These are 'educational technology and change' and the notion of 'institutional readiness'.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Educational Technology and Change
One of the classic texts in this area is the work of Fullan (1991) who has also been an influential source for future educational technology development projects (e.g. Somekh, Whitty and Coveney, 1997). Fullan identifies three main sources of change: 'natural disasters', 'external forces', and 'internal contradictions'. It is the second of these which has arguably provided the main source of change for adopting technology in UK universities at the current time and it is with these external forces that the literature review of educational technology and change begins.
A number of government funded initiatives in the UK which have explicitly addressed change at the institutional level include the Computers in Teaching Initiative, earlier phases of the TLTP and the Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning, and the Teaching and Learning Technology Support Network (TLTSN). The Learning Technology Dissemination Initiative and the TALISMAN funded projects in Scotland have also contributed to greater exposure to the topic of integrating information and communication technologies (ICTs) into learning and teaching in the UK as a whole. A recent publication by the Joint Information Systems Committee reports "on examples of successful deployment of IT within UK HEIs" (JISC, 1998) and includes a section on "networked learning". The JISC Assist Programme (JISC ASSIST, 1998a, 1998b) has also contributed to the managerial and strategic agenda arising from the innovative exploitation of ICTs. In varying degrees, in accordance with their project aims, these projects have provided research data at the institutional level of educational technology development. As mentioned above the institutional dimension of learning and teaching is currently very much part of the UK educational policy landscape and is currently receiving attention from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) both in a funding (HEFCE, 1998b, 1999a, 1999b) and a research context (Gibbs, 1999). In the former context, the HEFCE has made the institutional level an explicit part of a three-level approach to its recent funding; while in the latter Gibbs has explored the current state of institutional learning and teaching strategies. Through his observation of strategy formulation within UK universities Gibbs suggests it is not so much what strategy but how this strategy is developed and proceeds to describe some of the options open to those institutions who have not yet fully developed their own[1].
The Dearing Report mentions that the impact of external change will depend on the particular mission of the university. Although change associated with technology is clearly part of the general educational landscape (e.g. Willis 1997), the impact of information technology on 'research-led' universities has also received special attention (Griffiths & Gatien, 1999; Young 1999; Tearle, Davis, Birbeck, 1998). Griffiths & Gatien describe how the impact of information technology may tend to support, enhance and extend the traditional activities of research universities e.g. administration and research collaboration rather than create new activities, while Young reports on a recent initiative in the United States where 14 North American research universities "plan to work together to market their distance-education efforts through a central Web directory listing all their on-line programs" (Young, 1999). As the Dearing report mentions information technology can impact on a number of different areas of higher education provision besides teaching: in supporting research, providing electronic support services generally e.g. libraries; in supporting efficiencies in management and governance and by extending the role of universities into regions and aiding inter-institutional collaboration. Indeed if the time-span of opportunity is long enough verifiable impacts can occur in a number of areas in a research institution e.g. teaching and learning projects, open learning resources, institutional policy, new staff skills (TLTSN, 1998). Although for reasons relating to their mission, research-led universities may at first present an unpromising seedbed for change in learning and teaching, a number of articles describe change processes relating to learning and teaching technology which occur within such institutions and which address the particular issues and problems which change agents in such institutions face. Davis et al. (1997) state:
The staff interviews undertaken in the case studies, the questionnaire on the WWW and the discussion at the invited seminars all recognised that consideration should be given to the management of change processes and the re-organisation of teaching and learning. It was felt this was essential to ensure the effective and efficient deployment of ITATL resources, without it results could include increased cost and decreased effectiveness (p. 67).
Further evidence as to some of the relevant issues arising in a research university context are provided by Lueddecke (1998) who reports on a study "focused on perceptions and attitudes of a cross-section of the University of Bradford's staff with respect to the use of open and distance learning (ODL)" (p.3). Themes arising from an analysis of the data include 'departmental and institutional strategies for increasing flexibility', 'effective change practices' and 'implementing open/distance learning'; this last including commitment, resourcing, collaboration and quality assurance. With regard to the first of these themes, the flexibility of provision which ICTs provides is highlighted by Daniel (1996), who highlights how:
courses will become more affordable to students, largely because opportunities will be easier to access and more directly targeted on individual needs (p. 23).
Flexibility also means that "institutions of higher education will no longer be able to count on a geographical edge" (Harasim, L., Hiltz, S.R., Teles, L., Turoff, M., 1995: 243).
Institutional strategies for the management of change are then clearly important. In a recent article Bates (1999) maintains that the "wise use of technology can simultaneously widen access, improve the quality of teaching, and improve the cost-effectiveness of education" (Bates, 1999: 208) and, prefaced by a qualifying caveat, Bates identifies a number of strategies for change:
this list certainly does not represent the full range of possible strategies...it is too soon to indicate whether these are in fact useful or validated strategies for change. Nevertheless, they do constitute a useful range of options for consideration by management. They are: 1. A vision for teaching and learning 2. Funding reallocation 3. Strategies for inclusion 4. Technology infrastructure 5. People infrastructure 6. Student computer access 7. New teaching models 8. Contract agreements and training 9. Project management 10. New organizational structures 11. Collaboration and consortia 12. Research and evaluation. (Bates, 1999: 211).
In the same article Bates argues that adoption of technology, although widespread, must also be accompanied by changes in the way learning and teaching is organised, including structural changes in the institution. The strategies identified above are designed to tackle the changes required within an institution in order to support the integration of ICTs into academic teaching and other practices. This integrated approach to change focusing on all aspects of institutional work for the effective utilisation of ICTs echoes Laurillard (1997) who writes:
as in any learning process there has to be a meta-level function that reflects on the process at the next level down in order to set up improvements to it. Therefore, in thinking about how development and implementation should be organised, we must be aware that every level of operation presupposes a higher level that is monitoring and reflecting on the way the lower level carries out its tasks. The same people may be on both levels; the two levels define different aspects of their activity (pp.225-26)
In a memorably titled article Which is more frustrating: achieving change or herding cats? Butler (1999) jokingly suggests that although "given a choice between accepting a challenge to change this institution or to herd cats, I would take the easy way out and enroll in a shepherding short course" (p.1), he also states that changes nevertheless can occur. On the basis of his experiences with others at the University of Houston, Butler argues that successful change is based on a process of forming 'on-campus partnerships' (content-led) and 'off-campus partnerships' (technology-led) including the establishment of inter-disciplinary research centres:
Unless there is a mechanism to bring together academically separated staff who share a common commitment to experiment, these departmentally isolated individuals will soon feel like the lead dog in a very short team. A faculty-initiated and driven forum is needed; a forum which encourages sharing ideas and facilities (Butler, 1997: 3).
This review has largely focused on internal developments within an institution but, as the vision of the Dearing report clearly states, there is also a need for a concomitant push towards external collaboration[2] with other societal agencies and the need for inter-institutional collaboration. This push towards external collaboration is part of the notion of 'institutional readiness', a topic to which we now turn.
Institutional Readiness
Much of the literature available on the topic of readiness for change is focused on school education, which has traditionally been a greater focus of public concern and accountability than university education. As such, the following review corresponds to this focus. However there is no reason now that the institutional spotlight has also fallen on universities that the latter cannot learn lessons developed from the former.
Ahead of deciding on how to implement change, universities may indeed wish to ask themselves what needs to change (Fullan, 1991).In this regard, the change process has been described as falling very simply into three broad phases: initiation, implementation, continuation (Fullan, 1991: 48). Fullan also "adds the concept of outcome to provide a more complete overview of the change process" (p.48). According to Fullan (1991) there needs to be, ahead of any implementation process, a focus on an initiation stage:
Phase 1 - variously labeled initiation, mobilization, or adoption - consists of the process that leads up to and includes a decision to adopt or proceed with a change (p.47).
In turn, the concept of 'institutional readiness', as described by Fullan, has the following character:
the best beginnings combine the three R's of relevance, readiness, and resources [...] readiness involves the school's practical and conceptual capacity to initiate, develop, or adopt a given innovation...readiness may be approached in terms of "individual" and "organizational" factors. For individuals: Does it address a perceived need? Is it a reasonable change? Do they possess the requisite knowledge and skills? Do they have the time? For organizations: Is the change compatible with the culture of the school? Are facilities, equipment, materials, and supplies available? Are there other crises or other change efforts in progress? The greater the number of "no's," the more reason to take another look at readiness (p.63-64)
In a more recent article on school improvement Hopkins, Harris & Jackson (1997)
argue that
in order to confront the complexities of school improvement there is a need: firstly, to outline the school's capacity for school development and to provide a framework for thinking about differential strategies for school development; secondly, to explore a range of school development strategies for different growth states of schools; finally, to recognise the complexity of the process of school development and change for all schools, whether effective or ineffective (p.402).
They also argue that the impact of any externally-driven change will be cushioned by an organisation's capacity for development. In response to a changing society where what is required is not the 'old' basic skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic but "new basic skills of critical thinking and problem solving" (Lang & Espey, 199?: 1) Lang & Espey put forward proposals as to how to address the task of facilitating an organisation's on-going capacity for change. The authors highlight a need to address:
a slower, multifaceted kind of change that affects people's attitudes, perceptions, relationships, behaviors and the way they work together. This slower kind of change is an ongoing, renewal process rather than one identifiable event. The new emphasis is on developing a systemic capacity for change. Change is part of a continuous learning process for educational professionals (Lang & Espy, 199?: 1-2).
Capacity building remains a cornerstone of Fullan's approach to change but, interestingly, has recently been coupled with a recognition of 'external accountability'; what Fullan (1999) calls 'outside collaboration' (p.53). On Fullan's account then the task facing change management is both to manage internal capacity-building and external accountability:
Two-way inside-outside reciprocity is the elusive key to large-scale reform (p.62).