j.j.foster@shef.ac.uk
n.bowskill@shef.ac.uk
v.lally@shef.ac.uk
d.mcconnell@shef.ac.uk

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.

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.

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'.

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 with other societal agencies and the need for inter-institutional collaboration. This push towards external collaboration(2) is part of the notion of 'institutional readiness', a topic to which we now turn.

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).

The above literature review highlights some of the issues which are relevant in addressing the problems associated with the adoption and use of ICTs from an institutional perspective. In particular it has highlighted the need to strike a balance between responding both to externally-driven change and developing an organisation's internal capacity for change. After a brief resumé of the methodology and methods employed for researching into institutional readiness an analysis of the data collected is presented.

The purpose then of the institutional strand of the CBCGW project was to survey and evaluate the readiness of the university for implementing networked learning, mainly ICT-based open and distance learning (ODL), specifically networked collaborative learning. The underlying theoretical approach is that of action research (Elliott, 1991; Zuber-Skerritt, 1990; Winter, 1989), with empirical data generated from interviews with key stakeholders. The project first identified a number of different groups of stakeholders whom we considered to be influential in developing ICT-based teaching within the university. This included representatives from the following interest groups: academic, management, support services and members of the networked learning strategy group, the latter group comprising members from all of the former three groups. The team then designed, piloted, revised and implemented an interview instrument highlighting the main areas considered to be relevant to a survey and evaluation of the university's readiness to implement ICT-based, specifically networked collaborative, learning and teaching. The questions ranged from stakeholders' understandings of what is online learning and whether they perceived there to be a distinction between 'online' and 'networked' learning; and what stakeholders considered to be their role in supporting the development of networked learning within the university; through a characterisation of their views on the current situation via-a-vis networked learning and any internal or external factors, both enabling and constraining which affected take-up within the university (and how the CBCGW Project might help in supporting the former and overcoming the latter) towards a consideration of interviewees' understandings of what it might mean to say that the university is ready as an institution to support networked learning and the ability of the university to 'learn' about networked learning. Each member of the team was involved in the interviewing process and the interviews, 21 in number in addition to the pilot, were conducted over a four-month period from January to April 1999.

Fullan (1991) identifies two main aspects of the meaning of change, the objective meaning of the change process and the subjective meaning of change for those involved in the change situation. These subjective meanings may be different not only for individuals but also for groups of individuals (e.g. for academics, for managers, for support services). He suggests, importantly, that change depends on shared meaning. It is then a necessary but not a sufficient condition for change to provide a definition of 'institutional readiness'. One also needs to understand the meanings of readiness held by those who own the problem situation. The following analysis examines the responses to the interview questions according to four groups of stakeholders: academics, support staff and the university's networked learning strategy group. An attempt is made both to survey and grasp the subjective meanings of those involved in the problem situation and to provide some tentative suggestions as to the shared meaning for each peer group. Space does not permit consideration of all the data collected in response to the questions asked, so for the purposes of this paper analysis is focused on the following headings: conceptions of online learning and whether a distinction is seen between online learning and 'networked learning' broadly conceived; the current situation at the university; visions; enabling factors; constraining factors; and finally stakeholders' views on the readiness of the university for implementing ICT-based ODL, specifically networked collaborative learning.

Networked collaborative learning can be described as:

the bringing together of learners via personal computers linked to the Internet, with a focus on them working as a learning community, sharing resources, knowledge, experience and responsibility through reciprocal collaborative learning (McConnell, 1999b: 233)

It can be further argued that:

we are experiencing a paradigm shift at various levels in our thinking about learning. For example, there is a shift from conventional, second generation distance learning towards virtual distance learning. Face-to-face teaching and learning on campus is now also incorporating some forms of networked learning, freeing staff and learners to work at times which suit them and to use resources, and methods of working together, that were not possible a few years ago (McConnell, 1999a: 178).

One of the first questions asked is what interviewees understood by the term online learning and whether they saw any distinction between this and networked learning(3) (and by implication whether they were aware of a paradigm shift occurring). Academic views emphasised 'interaction' and 'materials' in the former, and a shift from the individual to the group and from the network to the group in the latter. Support staff emphasised 'materials' and 'access to materials' in the former and suggested a 'community', a 'collaborative environment' and much more of the learning and teaching infrastructure e.g. support, examination, assessment available online in the latter. There was no dominant view among management as to the nature of online learning. Although, raising the issue as to whether interviewees perceived a distinction between online and networked learning provoked talk of a 'collaborative element' and a 'kind of community'. In sum, we found some evidence to suggest that people use words like 'group' and 'community' in order to distinguish networked learning from online learning (the latter is something that the student can do on their own or independently through learning materials).

From an academic point of view the current situation has been described as 'opaque'. Although informal networks of people interested in the development of networked learning exist, it is considered that there is also a lack of awareness and knowledge of what is going on generally on a larger scale. The university support structure is considered to be fragmented, with expertise present but uncoordinated. There is some concern that ICT-based teaching needs to be integrated into current teaching methods rather than to be seen as a substitute for teaching, and that there needs to be some demonstrable benefit. The university is also considered to be on a learning curve vis-a-vis structural (organisational) and infrastructural (technical) issues.

Support staff put forward the view that there exist informal pockets of expertise and practice within the university but that this is not accompanied by strategic thinking at the institutional level; that development is ad hoc, with a need for strategic management. It is suggested that there is some difficulty with the terminology and that there is no great understanding of either networked or collaborative learning. The university is regarded as a hierarchical institution which would require a cultural shift in order to assimilate networked learning.

Management views highlighted some of the barriers which need to be overcome: technological infrastructure e.g. terminals which are many years out of date, and organisational structure: faced with a need to develop and support curricula which incorporate educational technology someone would have "five or six people to go to". Further:

we are developing strategy but unless somebody sorts out the underlying structure and infrastructure we are not going to be able to deliver it that's my concern [...] it is not putting the strategy in place; it's delivering it

Other views on the current situation include the observation that there is a 'willingness to try and go for it' but that at the same time there exists a lack of an 'understanding of the investment required'; and, although 'there are a lot of staff at various levels keen to develop it', there are 'serious problems about reward mechanisms'. One manager put it this way:

we have actually not yet put together a sufficiently impressive case to convince our colleagues of what we are trying to do is sensible because there is a majority out there who are (a) skeptical or (b) think online learning means world wide web and that is it and it's trivial and their view of that if it were correct, yes it would be trivial, but their perspective is actually naive

It would appear that, taken as a whole, most stakeholders are in agreement that there exist pockets of informal academic practice and corporate expertise but that the latter is as yet uncoordinated with investment in technical infrastructure also a major concern. There also appears to be a genuine lack of understanding among some stakeholders as to the best, indeed an effective, way forward. Such comments echo other commentators (e.g. Davis, 1997; Somekh, Whitty, & Coveney, 1997) who suggest that an integrated approach to whole institutional development is needed for the successful integration of IT into institutions. This requires top-down, bottom-up and partnership approaches with attention to curriculum, support, management and students. Such advice is also suggested by Fullan (1999). One way to provide integration is through an organising vision, a topic to which we now turn.

Interviewees were asked whether they had a personal vision as to how networked learning might develop within the University over the next five or ten years. Themes included a focus on how to handle an international learning base, the impact of this on face to face teaching, how this could be organised, the subject discipline itself and how external collaboration with agencies outside of the university e.g. commercial companies could be harnessed. The University was not regarded as a site for a complete change to 100% networked learning but more of a hybrid. There are a lot of things that the university already does well and a mix would be more appropriate. Other themes included, the need to address questions of access, and not just the technical infrastructure but also the support structure in terms of telephone costs to access University services; and the need for basic incentivisation.

Support staff views included a focus on the need for a strong education base supporting developments in networked learning but also the organisational and support infrastructure for such developments, how to staff it and develop staff for it. There were calls for strategy and a wish not to move to an 'open university model'.

Management vision confirmed that it is not envisaged that a major shift will occur but that networked learning would be used to support activities that the university 'would otherwise engage in'. It would be expected that some form of networked learning would be occurring in all departments although a mixture of bottom-up and top-down approaches would be needed. The university's mission as a research-led university would mean that the implementation of a virtual university built on the distance learning model would be impossible to imagine under current conditions:

it would be consistent with this university's mission to say we are not actually interested in encouraging distance learning, we are not particularly interested in encouraging networked learning as part of our strategic mission but merely to support the activities we would otherwise engage in

Consideration was also voiced as to external collaboration, both with other universities for the standardisation of materials and some curricula for efficiency gains, and with commercial organisations in order to generate investment. Research into teaching was also raised as being relevant for the development of and raising the profile of networked learning: that, on the pedagogical side, the teaching paradigm remained unclear and research into teaching in this area would be a welcome development.

In sum, any vision for the development of networked learning and teaching needs also to be realistic enough to take note of the university's mission as a research-led university:

The mission of the University is to maintain the highest standards of excellence as a research-led institution, whose staff work at the frontiers of academic enquiry and educate students in a research environment.

As such it is acknowledged that the university already engages in core activities of teaching and research and that the harnessing of networked technologies needs to be seen as extending and improving the current provision and core activities of the university. Factors, both enabling and constraining, which impinge on the development of networked learning at the University are discussed in the following section.

For academics, enabling factors include the ability to demonstrate something to the institution that works. In this respect the particular subject orientation of the university was considered to be important. The university is a science & engineering-oriented university, and a 'winner', which acted as a showcase for the successful deployment of networked learning for the whole institution, would be more persuasive if created in a medical or engineering context rather than, for example, a humanities or social sciences context. Not only resources but also recognition (and hence the question of incentives) were also seen to be important. In this respect quality (external accountability) was seen to be important, if not more so, than innovation. It was also suggested that resources needed to accompany debate. Nearly all aspects of any development process were considered to be potential constraints: hardware, software, resources, academic time, and the perceived lack of reward for innovations in teaching through the promotion structure over and above that for the publishing of research. Indeed it could also be argued that the university's success in teaching quality assessments also represents a constraint to action. The whole way of organising learning and teaching was also raised:

If you are going to be responding to students...through the web...I'm not sure that our notion of what is teaching is kind of geared up to that because it is pretty much geared around the idea of you go into the lecture or class and a certain amount of time set aside for tutoring also but this is a much more fluid and open ended time commitment and...I am not aware of much discussion about that.

It was felt that the new contract which networked learning and teaching involves has yet to be generally debated and that such a contract would need to be debated ahead of any implementation.

For support staff enabling factors included a focus on infrastructure and strategy to harness the current expertise latent within the organisation. A shared environment for both academics and students was also seen as important from a support staff point of view in order for the former to be aware of the problems of the latter; as was the need for top-down management to "draw upon...and acknowledge the skills of those who have the competence to develop this area of work" within the university. Constraints on the other hand included the perennial question of access: "the very volatility of online stuff" as well as, softer, attitudinal issues. For example, the fact of new ways of learning and teaching being treated with some scepticism, accompanied by resistance to changes in teaching and current academic practice being guided by the university's mission of being committed to research as well as administrative duties.

For management external enabling factors included shifts in an external funding regime more focused on regions; while internal enabling factors included a focus within the university on a tranche of different strategies. e.g. an information technology strategy; a strategy for an appropriate infrastructure for the development of networked learning, an infrastructure designed for learning and teaching; a strategy for rewards and incentives; a staff development strategy; and support from the vice-chancellor and his senior management team. For one commentator the University has, as of Spring 1999, support from the vice-chancellor and his senior management team; but with regard to strategies in the other areas mentioned "you can start with any one of those and say we are at year zero". The University's mission as a research-led university, as well as its pride in traditional methods of teaching built on the Oxbridge tutorial model, shape and constrain the type of development which can be embedded and sustained within the institution. As such there is seen to be no "crisis of confidence about conventional teaching", such that the developmental opportunity is not there; there is no perceived need for new markets and "there isn't that kind of coherent space within which learning and teaching initiatives develop". Further, in terms of curriculum development "the main drivers leading towards take-up of communication and information technology for teaching and learning tend to be efficiencies and cost savings, not enhancement and enrichment". The science-oriented cast of the university and the implications of this for how knowledge is viewed was also seen as a constraint on the development of networked learning methods. In sum, important issues included traditionalism along with established practices and politics about how to develop a mechanism for identifying key actors and champions in this area, the need for a vision as to how information technology can "inform research, administration, learning and teaching" and the need for strategy.

Enabling and constraining factors cover both internal and external domains and it is often the case that the same factor can be both enabling and constraining. Internally the lack of strategy represents both a currently constraining but also a potentially enabling factor. Such strategy would help formalise and bring together the informal and disparate developments which currently constitute the state of networked learning within the university.

The university's readiness to implement networked learning was generally considered to be at an early stage. By implication, much capacity-building e.g. motivation, resources, skills (Fullan, 1999) needs to be engaged in; but also the need to draw together in some way in a co-ordinated fashion the motivation, resources and skills which already exist within the organisation. More formal incentivisation is needed to capitalise on and extend the width of those individuals within the organisation who have initiated developments in networked learning within their own teaching practice. Not only are financial resources required but also a cultural shift which would recognise and reward quality improvement. Practice in networked learning occurs within the university but is conducted in the main by interested but isolated academics with little central support. The expertise which does currently exist within the university is uncoordinated.

Support staff view readiness less in terms of local practice than in terms of top-down direction. There is a need for vision and an implementation strategy as well as resources. An understanding of what are quality-produced materials was also seen to be important. There is a need to move the institution to a situation where networked access is the expected mode; accompanied by strategic planning in the following areas: the effective utilisation of information technology, staff development, curriculum development and learning opportunities for students as well as planning with regard to how such strategies are to be implemented.

Capacity building for information and communication technology-based learning and teaching for managers included attention to cultural shifts, student attitudes and student provision e.g. the provision of technical support, laptops for rent, classrooms with a central console with students plugging in instead of using dedicated computers. There was a suggestion that, ahead of a focus on information technology, there should first be a focus on improvement in teaching and learning, and to then see how technology fits into teaching and learning. The university would also have strategies in relation to information technology, learning and teaching, staff development and a system of rewards and incentives. Indeed, a focus on incentives and implementation would further contribute, in Fullan's (1991) terms, to a process of institutionalisation. It was also considered that the university would have a vision (and most probably a top-down one) that is "owned by senior - very senior people in the university". This claim on ownership is supported by Gibbs' (1999) research which provides some pointers as to how such a vision might be organised. Indeed, the institution would have resources, it would be ready technically, but information and communications technology-based learning and teaching would also be part of the fabric of the institution, "part of the institution's ethos". Leadership was seen as important and it was perceived that the University had got to its current position in research over the past decade through top-down leadership and that the same should happen for teaching.

The analysis provides a window on the views of different stakeholders at the university on the readiness of that institution for developing networked learning. The views of academic staff are informed and coloured by their own individual experiences and practice. They also appear to be aware, informally, of pockets of expertise within the university. There is a feeling that the institutional arena has been less travelled and that there has been less promotion of debate and that informal practice has yet to be recognised in any systematic way (although the university does currently fund a number of small development projects through its Curriculum Development Fund). Networked learning is a far from becoming routinised within the institution. The views of support staff appear to be more focused on materials rather than pedagogic practice, with a concern for the quality production process, a need for organisational and technical infrastructure and a favouring of top-down strategies to push forward development in this area. The views of management are various. Depending on their organisational role, there is, for example, mention of the development of partnerships with industry(4) and the use of information technology in helping to manage and govern an institution(5). There is further evidence among management views that more sustainable change requires changing concepts and attitudes, and roles, as much as the provision of materials.

In innovation terms, the picture which emerges of the development of networked learning at the university is one of early unroutinised development. The university is largely at the initiation stage (Fullan, 1981), with some evidence of implementation. Informal practice has yet to be turned into formal procedure. An organising vision or model of what the university wishes to achieve in this area has yet to be articulated, at least to the wider university community. Once this vision is articulated, it is recognised that implementation strategies need to be drawn up in key areas affecting take up e.g. information technology, learning & teaching and staff development. Networked learning also clearly affords the opportunity for some form of external collaboration, both for economic and learning purposes. Such external collaboration is consistent both with current educational policy which advocates inter-institutional collaboration (NCIHE, 1997) and recent academic thinking (Fullan, 1999). Fullan's recent framework of inside-out & outside-in collaboration appears to be applicable to the university's position with regard to the adoption and institutionalisation of ICTs. On the one hand, external educational policy advocates the increased use of ICTs in order to facilitate increased participation in education, to reduce costs and to improve teaching. On the other hand, isolated academics unilaterally adopt ICTs in their teaching, driven by both personal interest and individual careerism. It is the institution which mediates between the external, global, and internal, local, levels in providing sources of building capacity (e.g. motivational support in the form of incentives, financial resources; and skills in the form of staff development and training). The research-led nature of the university means that the university has no problem with content (Bates, 1999); more attention however 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.

Banks, S., Graebner, C., and McConnell, D., (1998). eds., Networked lifelong learning: innovative approaches to education & training through the internet, Proceedings of the 1998 International Conference held at the University of Sheffield, Sheffield: University of Sheffield, Division of Adult and Continuing Education.

Bates, A.W. (1999). Restructuring the university for technological change. In: Brennan, J., Fedrowitz, J., Huber, M., and Shah, T., eds., What kind of university? International perspectives on knowledge, participation and governance. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, 207-228.

Butler, J. (1997). Which is more frustrating: achieving institutional change or herding cats? Active Learning, 6, July 1997. http://www.cti.ac.uk/publ/actlea/al6pdf/butler.pdf

CBCGW. (1998). http://collaborate.shef.ac.uk/

Daniel, J.S. (1996). Mega-universities and knowledge media: technology strategies for higher education. London: Kogan Page.

Davis, N. (1997). Strategies for staff and institutional development for IT in education: an integrated approach. In: Using information technology effectively in teaching and learning: studies in pre-service and in-service teacher education. London: Routledge, 255-268.

Deliberations. (1999). Teaching and learning policies. http://www.lgu.ac.uk/deliberations/policies/index.cgi

Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell.

Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: the sequel. London: Falmer Press.

Gibbs, G. (1999). Methodology and key findings of the review of institutional learning and teaching strategies task group [Annex D to HEFCE Invitation 99/48]. http://www.niss.ac.uk/education/hefce/pub99/99_48.html#annd

Griffiths, J-M. & Gatien, G.M. (1999). The role of the traditional research university in the face of the distance learning onslaught, The Technology Source, February 1999. http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vision/1999-02.asp

Harasim, L., Hiltz, S.R., Teles, L., Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: a field guide to learning and teaching online. London: The MIT Press.

HEFCE. (1998b). Learning and teaching: strategy and funding proposals [Report no. 98/40]. http://www.niss.ac.uk/education/hefce/pub98/98_40.html

HEFCE. (1999a). Learning and teaching: strategy and funding [Report no. 99/26]. http://www.niss.ac.uk/education/hefce/pub99/99_26.html

HEFCE. (1999b). Teaching quality enhancement funding arrangements [Invitation no. 99/48]. http://www.niss.ac.uk/education/hefce/pub99/99_48.html

Hopkins, D., Harris, A., Jackson, D. (1997). Understanding the school's capacity for development: growth states and strategies, School Leadership & Management, 17 (3), 401-411.

JISC. (1998). Deployment of IT within UK HEIs. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/pub98/it_deployment.html

JISC ASSIST. (1998a). C&IT across the institution: a year on from Dearing, Workshop 8 October 1998. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/pub98/assist6.html

JISC ASSIST. (1998b). Collaborative working, Workshop 1 April 1998. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/pub98/assist2.html

Lang, B. & Espey, L. (199?). New paradigm of change: facilitating capacity for on-going change in education. http://www.educ.drake.edu/espey/change.doc.htm

Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: a framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge.

Lueddeke, G.R. (1998). The management of change towards an open learning framework: an higher education inquiry, Open Learning, 13 (3), 3-17.

McConnell, D. (1999a). Guest editorial: networked learning [Special issue on networked learning], Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15 (3), 177-178.

McConnell, D. (1999b). Examining a collaborative assessment process in networked lifelong learning, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15 (3), 232-243.

MECPOL. (1998). The MECPOL Project. http://www.idb.hist.no/mecpol/

NCIHE. (1997). Higher education in the learning society: report of the national committee [Main report]. London: HMSO.

Somekh, B., Whitty, G. & Coveney, R. (1997). IT and the politics of institutional change. In: Somekh, B. & Davis, N., eds., Using information technology effectively in teaching and learning. London: Routledge, 187-209.

TLTP. (1998). http://www.ncteam.ac.uk/tltp.html

TLTSN. (1998). The Teaching and Learning Support Network (TLTSN) case studies: case study 4, shifting the culture of institutional change. http://www.tltp.ac.uk/tltsn/cases/csl.pdf

Tearle, P., Davis, N. & Birbeck, N. (1998). Six case studies of information technology-assisted teaching and learning in higher education in England, Journal of Information Technology in Teacher Education, 7 (1), 51-70.

Willis, J. (1996). Change and technology diffusion in teacher education [Special double issue], Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 5, 1-2.

Winter, R. (1989). Learning from experience: principles and practice in action research. London: Falmer Press.

Young, J.R. (1999). Research universities team up to create a 'portal' for on-line education, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 11 June 1999. http://chronicle.merit.edu/free/99/06/99061001t.htm

Zuber-Skeritt, O. (1990/1992). Action research in higher education: examples and reflections. London: Kogan Page.

Notes

1. For examples of institutional, including UK, learning and teaching strategies, see Deliberations (1999).

2. See MECPOL (1998) for information on a research project in this area.

3. For further research and practice in the area of networked learning see Banks, S., Graebner, Gand McConnell. D., eds. (1998).

4. See NCIHE (1997) chapter 13 section 8.

5. See NCIHE (1997) chapter 13 section 8.

This document was added to the Education-line database on 03 February 2000