31 Jan 2009 [Horizon Scan – Second Report] CAPITAL/PDB/Draft Organisational Change Confidential CAPITAL – Curriculum and Pedagogy in Technology Assisted Learning A Harnessing Technology research project undertaken jointly by the University of Nottingham and Sero Consulting Ltd working in association with Becta CAPITAL Horizon ScanORGANISATIONAL CHANGESECOND REPORTReference:CAPITAL/horscan/round2/PDB Category:Report Author(s):Professor Paul Bacsich, Sero Giles Pepler, Sero Identifier: HS-2-PDB Verification:n/aDate:31 January 2009 Status:DraftAvailability:Confidential
Transcript
8/8/2019 IT-induced Organisational Change in FE and HE
31 Jan 2009 [Horizon Scan – Second Report] CAPITAL/PDB/Draft
Organisational Change
[Confidential] 2
Summary
Document History
Version History
Version Status Date Author(s)
0.1 First Draft 31/01/09 P Bacsich, Sero
G Pepler, Sero
1.0 Final
[1.1] note [First Review]
Summary of Changes
Version Section(s) Synopsis of Change
0.1 Not Applicable None – first draft
1.0
[1.1] note
NoteReviews after final document delivery (Version 1.0) to the project may or may notresult in modifications to the document. If modifications post review are necessary,
then the first version of the resultant document is 1.1.
8/8/2019 IT-induced Organisational Change in FE and HE
31 Jan 2009 [Horizon Scan – Second Report] CAPITAL/PDB/Draft
Organisational Change
[Confidential] 4
1. Introduction
Events, dear boy, events — Harold Macmillan
National life has been increasingly stressed and turbulent in the 6 months since theFirst Reports were finalised. Issues, such as the downturn, only hinted at or sketchedout in the Horizon Scan First Report, are now clearly in the light of day.
Within the project and in Becta circles, the World Forum in January 2009 bothsymbolised and encouraged an opening out of the English analysis to a wider worldof possibilities, exemplars and threats. It was useful to hear that not all is rosyelsewhere and that many issues and challenges thought to be English- or UK-specific are in fact found across the world – it is (as so often said) a global economy,
and increasingly so in education.
There are few new policy initiatives which directly impact on Organisational Change – those few, including the JISC OER Call, are discussed later. However, the inexorableprogress of the recession and expected changes in attitudes have worked through toa general “hardening” of approach, though with few signs yet of radical change ratherthan incremental tightening.
We still stand by the Conclusions sketched out in the First Report – with very fewmodifications. With regard to the Recommendations, it would be unfair to look forsigns of “progress” since “progress takes time”, the Recommendations are just acomponent of a much wider set of recommendations, and many Recommendationsare not up to Becta to directly activate. However, we shall note “progress” where wesee it, although in many cases readers may argue that the progress is more due tous sensing “straws in the wind” than real progress – we leave that to others to judge.
2. Major developments since the first report
This section looks first at the three sectors in England – schools, FESR and HE – and then (briefly) at the other home nations and issues beyond the UK
Since the boundary between “Organisational Change” and “Learning and TeachingRedesign” is rather permeable, this report is best read in conjunction with the other.And in keeping with the approach in the First Report, this report will say relativelylittle about schools.
SchoolsThere are no specific changes in this sector relevant to Organisational Change. Inparticular there are no new developments on modes of schools or new kinds ofpartnership, for example across the divide between the state and the private system.There is little new to say about Virtual Schools – in the UK.
A perceptual rather than an actual shift has been the realisation within the project
that benchmarking in schools is more related to benchmarking in the post-16 sectorthan many realise – this insight was one of several coming from the World Forum
8/8/2019 IT-induced Organisational Change in FE and HE
31 Jan 2009 [Horizon Scan – Second Report] CAPITAL/PDB/Draft
Organisational Change
[Confidential] 5
(see the workshop Tools for Benchmarking and Reviewing Institutions use of ICT athttp://www.latwf.org/workshops-1.html).
While there is continuing debate about the rate of progress in the Building Schoolsfor the Future programme, this is not directly relevant to our topic.
Further Education and Skills
LSC There is much informal speculation that the original timetable for transfer of theLSC‟s main functions to local authorities will not be maintained, but no reliableinformation on which to base any revised planning.
Benchmarking The e-Maturity Framework (EMF) has now been redeveloped by Becta, inconsultation with partners and providers from the sector. It is due to be launched inMarch 2009. This, like the former version (EMFFE), offers a holistic assessment of
the effectiveness of technology for providers. As is typical of benchmarking schemes,by using EMF, providers can assess their own areas of excellence and focus theirresources where technology can be harnessed to benefit stakeholders – primarilylearners but also employers, teachers, managers and the organisation.
No public information is yet available. However, Becta is running a series ofregionally based focus groups, in conjunction with JISC Regional Support Centres,offering providers the opportunity to see, try and test out EMF prior to its launch inMarch 2009.
EMF will be aligned to the Inspection Framework and Framework for Excellence.
Framework for Excellence (FFE)The Framework for Excellence – the review scheme for the complete operation of acollege (and later, other types of providers), conducts its development in a morepublic fashion. In fact, an article in TES based on a recent survey of Principalsclaimed that “Principals don‟t rate Framework for Excellence highly and most think itwill not last the course” (http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6006966).However, the commissioned evaluations take a more measured view. An Evaluation of Benefits Realisation was carried out by York Consulting (2008) and noted that:
1.8 The Framework has recently completed a pilot phase involving 100providers. This pilot was in preparation for the launch of Version 1 ofthe Framework which is to be used by all colleges and work-based
learning providers in 2008/09. Not all the results of this Version will bepublished externally.
1.9 Version 2 of the Framework will follow in 2009/10 and will apply tomost other providers, such as local authorities and specialist colleges.These results will be published in 2010. By 2010/11 it is anticipatedthat the programme will be extended to other providers such as HigherEducation Institutions (HEIs) with FE provision, and those that areonly in receipt of European Social Fund monies. A pilot with SchoolSixth Forms will take place from September 2009.
The Independent Review of Framework for Excellence by GHK Consulting (2008) isalso well worth reading. These meticulous and more public approaches toindependent baselining and review could do with being copied more widely.
31 Jan 2009 [Horizon Scan – Second Report] CAPITAL/PDB/Draft
Organisational Change
[Confidential] 6
Higher Education (including HE in FE)
Note that there are several sentences and phrases within this and future sections that relate also to FE – these are placed in italics.
Benchmarking and Pathfinder The Benchmarking programme which was run across the UK (but mainly in Englandand Wales) by the Higher Education Academy came to an end in spring 2008 andwas reported on in the First Report. (For the follow-on in Wales, see later.)
Likewise the Pathfinder programme came to an end, notionally in summer 2008, butin fact the reporting phase for this (and to some extent for Benchmarking) took a littlelonger. The summary report, Challenges and Realisations from the Higher Education Academy/JISC Benchmarking and Pathfinder Programme: An End of Programme Review by the Higher Education Academy, Evaluation and Dissemination Support Team , was published by Higher Education Academy in September 2008.
In fact reporting is in some senses not complete yet since a book is said to be inpreparation and no doubt the spring, summer and autumn series of e-learningconferences in UK and beyond will contain their share of relevant papers on thesetopics. (It is often the case that more information comes out later in books and papersthan was in the early official reports.)
JISC Curriculum Design and Curriculum Delivery The JISC e-Learning Programme invited proposals (via Circular 05/08) in spring2008 for projects to review course design and validation processes, and the waysthese are supported and informed by technology, “in order to transform learningopportunities to address an identified issue or challenge of strategic importance tothe institution involved.” (JISC 2008)
A total of 55 bids were received for this call including seven bids from Further Education colleges . The JISC Learning and Teaching Committee funded a total oftwelve proposals, including one each from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland andthe rest from England, with in this case none from FE. The projects started inSeptember 2008 and will run over a period of just under four years.
The range of institutions covered includes Open University, Cambridge, and bothresearch- and teaching-led institutions, although mostly large ones.
Somewhat later in the year, the JISC e-Learning Programme invited proposals forprojects (Circular 08/08) for projects who wish “to transform how they deliver and
support learning across a curriculum area through the effective use of technology, inresponse to a particular challenge faced by the discipline(s), department(s) orinstitution(s) involved.” (JISC 2009b)
This aspect is rather closer to the Learning and Teaching Redesign aspect of ourHorizon Scans, but since the two groups of projects are managed as one, it isconvenient to discuss them here.
A total of 65 bids were received for this call, including nine proposals from Further Education colleges seeking Becta funding (available for up to two projects). A total of15 projects were funded, 13 through JISC funding, and two by Becta (each led by aFurther Education College). The projects started in November 2008, and willcomplete by October 2010.
8/8/2019 IT-induced Organisational Change in FE and HE
31 Jan 2009 [Horizon Scan – Second Report] CAPITAL/PDB/Draft
Organisational Change
[Confidential] 7
It is interesting to note that several Critical Friends from the Pathfinder programmeplay various roles in the support scheme for this pair of programmes, which is overallcoordinated by JISC infoNet.
Enhancement Academy In January 2009 the Higher Education Academy issued a restricted Call to institutionsto take part in an e-learning focussed “Enhancement Academy”. This Call was mainlyoriented to institutions who had taken part in Benchmarking Phase 2 but it isexpected that a few other institutions may be able to join in. The general informationdocument (Higher Education Academy 2009a) goes on to state:
1.2 The EA will provide institutional teams with support over a 9-monthperiod, involving two Change Academy- type events. An expert CriticalFriend will be a member of the institution‟s team, and will coordinateinput from the relevant agencies. As with the Change Academy,participating institutions will not receive direct funding for their project,which is intended to focus on enhancement that is strategically central
to the institution‟s development... The minimum output for eachEnhancement Academy project should be a fully-implementable planfor positioning the institution‟s technology-enhanced approach within aflexible and inclusive provision, involving the development of both theinfrastructure and the workforce...
It is clear to analysts that the Call was formulated on the basis of experience fromPathfinder, but also factoring in the early experience from the Welsh EnhancementProgramme and the Change Academy (a joint project with the LeadershipFoundation for Higher Education), in order to generate a scheme to produce usefulresults but at much lower cost per institution than the Pathfinder programme.
Change Academy The Change Academy (www.heacademy.ac.uk/changeacademy) was not mentionedin the First Report, as in previous years it was not very focussed on e-learning.However, in the last two years it has contained a number of institutions interested inenhancing their e-learning, and aspects of its working have now been taken up bythe Enhancement Academy. The Change Academy Proposal Form (HigherEducation Academy 2009b) describes it as follows:
Change Academy is a year-long programme of support for teams from highereducation institutions that enables them to develop the knowledge, capacityand enthusiasm for achieving complex institutional change. It provides uniqueopportunities for team-based learning and professional development that
focus on the strategic interests and needs of the participating institutions...
Unlike the other programmes, institutions have to pay to join the Change Academy.In 2009 the fee is £8100 for an institutional team (up to 7 people). By commercialconsultancy standards, this is a bargain. Given the economic downturn, it may bethat we see more agencies take a fee-based approach, even if the fee is subsidised.
JISC OER Call Between April 2009 and April 2010, JISC (2009a) and the Higher EducationAcademy will fund pilot projects and activities that support the open release oflearning resources; for free use and repurposing worldwide. This pilot programme isintended to inform a larger programme covering a significant portion of the HESector. Institutions, subject area consortia and individuals are invited to submitfunding proposals for projects to release existing learning resources under a suitable
31 Jan 2009 [Horizon Scan – Second Report] CAPITAL/PDB/Draft
Organisational Change
[Confidential] 8
license for open use and repurposing. The background to this Call is work by JISC onone of the nine briefing papers to DIUS that have been recently published.
Briefing papers to DIUS In his speech in February 2008, John Denham announced his intention to develop aframework for Higher Education over the next ten to fifteen years. DIUS thencommissioned papers from nine key individuals in universities or agencies:
1. International issues in Higher Education2. Academia and public policy making3. Understanding Higher Education institutional performance4. Part-time studies and Higher Education5. Teaching and the student experience6. Research careers7. Demographic challenge facing our universities8. Intellectual property and research benefits9. World leader in e-learning
While all are important, the most important from a learning and teaching point of vieware numbers 5, 7 and 9 – and the most important for e-learning are directly, number9, and indirectly, numbers 4 and 7. Thus here we focus mostly on number 9.(Number 7 was discussed in the first report.) The full set of papers can be accessedfrom the site http://www.dius.gov.uk/policy/he-debate.html.
As one of three recommendations Sir Ron Cooke (2008) proposes (paragraph 1.4):
a new approach to virtual education based on a corpus of open learningcontent: the UK must have a core of open access learning resourcesorganised in a coherent way to support on-line and blended learning by all
higher education institutions and to make it more widely available in non-HEenvironments. This needs to be supported by national centres of excellenceto provide quality control, essential updating, skills training, and research anddevelopment in educational technology, e-pedagogy and educationalpsychology. All HEIs should be encouraged and helped to exploit virtualeducation technologies as appropriate to their student‟s requirements andtheir strategies.
Paragraph 3.28 is compelling as to the reasons and background, and causedparticular interest because of its mentions of the UK e-University:
It is not necessary to repeat all the reasons for the failure of the UK
e-university: it fundamentally failed due to a poor business case and theinability to engage the HE community. Any new approach needs a betterthought through business case where contributors such as authors canbenefit as well as students, and where HE institutions can developopportunities they wish to exploit. The e-university was ahead of its time butthe UK can learn from its mistakes and it is not too late to try again to addressthe demand for virtual, largely on-line education in the UK and elsewhere.Indeed it is essential we do so through a national policy framework for lifelonglearning if the UK is to provide the full breadth of HE in an increasinglycompetitive international market. However, a single new university to gain thehigh ground in e-learning is not the answer and what is proposed is not in anyway linked to the concept of the UK e-university. The diversity of needinternationally, needs to be met by a diversity of provision in the UK. HEIsalready committed to e-learning should be encouraged, where appropriate to
31 Jan 2009 [Horizon Scan – Second Report] CAPITAL/PDB/Draft
Organisational Change
[Confidential] 9
their context, missions and communities, to address further the needs ofvirtual and blended education and be provided with support and leadership todevelop their international reputations given the significant organisationalcommitment and change required. The experience of Ufi/learndirect in providing high quality e-learning should also be built upon [our italics]
There are many good aspects of the paper but there is a feeling in analyst circles thatmany of the assertions need more careful building of an evidence base. Interestingly,no e-learning expert (other than one active in the OER movement) has commentedpublicly (http://hedebate.jiscinvolve.org/on-line-higher-education-learning/ ). It is notclear at this stage whether follow-up analysis would go hand in hand with fundingpilot projects, but it looks currently as though funding of pilots is all that is to befunded in the early stages. If so, that might be to repeat another of the mistakes atthe start of the (previous) e-University.
Demographic challenge The demographics paper (cited in the bibliography for the First Report – but see
http://www.dius.gov.uk/policy/demographic_challenge.html) has perhaps causedmuch less interest in e-learning circles because it was not overtly about e-learning atall. It was interesting that at the key UUK meeting on the paper there were essentiallyno academic e-learning experts in the audience (quite a large one) – and almost nointerest in the scenarios. It is perhaps relevant that the HEPI (2008) report onDemand for Higher Education to 2029 that came out a bit later than the UUK reporttook a more optimistic view than the UUK report – and did not mention e-learning atall – perhaps that reassured some technophobes. However, in these turbulent timesin the economy and society it is hard to make any confident predictions aboutimmigration/emigration, study migration and birth rates in the next few years.
In conclusion on this topic, since it is generally believed that FE colleges delivering
HE are likely to be squeezed in any demographic downturn, the slides (QAA 2008) ofthe recent Higher Education Further conference are of interest.
Costs of E-Learning A project led by JISC infoNet, in partnership with ALT and the Higher EducationAcademy, worked with 16 universities to investigate whether one could establish“tangible benefits” from developments in e-learning. The project produced 37 casestudies which showed clear evidence of a range of significant benefits resulting frominvestment in various types of e-learning activity. This was put together into a set ofpublications, web site and briefing paper entitled Tangible Benefits of e-Learning: Does investment yield interest? and published by JISC infoNet (2008). Thisgenerated a lot of interest and discussion in the sector.
The outcome of this work was presented back to the relevant JISC committee duringtheir June 2008 meeting. JISC then commissioned Paul Bacsich to produce a reviewof current resources and a discussion paper on recommendations for future fundingthat would build on the Tangible Benefits of e-Learning work. His report wasaccepted and is now available (Bacsich 2008c) but JISC are still in discussion as tothe best way forward. However, separately, various projects are under way in HE andFE to look at aspects of this including one in Wales.
The conclusions in Bacsich (2008c) can be summarised as (subsection 1.2.1):
Reports from both benchmarking teams over three phases make itclear that costing for e-learning and work planning for e-learning needattention, being noticeably weaker than many other indicators (see
31 Jan 2009 [Horizon Scan – Second Report] CAPITAL/PDB/Draft
Organisational Change
[Confidential] 10
e.g. the Pick&Mix Phase 2 carpet – Bacsich (2008b) – for a visualrepresentation of this). There is no sign of any greater attention in thisarea in Wales HE...
There is no sign of current operational work in the UK using any of theprior costing systems.
There is little sign of any operational work using Activity-BasedCosting – but a few forerunners. The evolution of TRAC(T) is not at a stage when it can be used for
costing e-learning within the official paradigm, and its current andfuture applicability outside English HE is not clear – in particular itdoes not apply to HE in Wales, nor to FE anywhere.
The Recommendations for a way forward are not public but there are someoperational clues in the paper. The paper also contains a full bibliography, glossaryand pen pictures of key methodologies.
Quality
Another of the convergences taking place largely below the radar, but facilitated by asmall grant from the Higher Education Academy, is the dialogue (it seems in HE only)between the “quality/inspection” and the “benchmarking/maturity” regimes as regardsmeasures for e-learning – with an increasing orientation to curriculum redesign. Theso-called QA/QE SIG – whose strapline is “Quality Assurance and QualityEnhancement in e-Learning” – has its own web site (http://www.qe-sig.net/ ) and anactive programme of events. In particular the next event is on February 27 in Londonwhere the European E-xcellence benchmarking methodology, also used foraccreditation, is being launched in the UK.
Benchmarking futures Despite the current lack of funding from the HE Academy, or other agencies,
benchmarking continues “below the radar”. There are two reasons for this: severalinstitutions and projects are carrying out re-benchmarking (usually but not alwaysusing their own resources and expertise, occasionally using agency funds and/orconsultants), and the lead developer of the popular open source Pick&Mixmethodology is revising the scheme in the light of feedback from the benchmarkingprogramme and the Welsh work, and linked to research in a relevant EU project.(Several schemes for benchmarking in HE have been assisted by EU projects.)
A specific challenge is to devise a scheme oriented to distance e-learning (includingoff-campus WBL and CPD) and to foster a small group of providers to take thisforward. (This is linked to a JISC Curriculum Delivery project.)
Wales
Further Education A project is under way to produce accepted definitions of distance, open, drop-in ande-learning for use in further education funding guidelines for Wales. (Seehttp://ttoole.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/funding-model-reflective-log/ .)
Higher Education As a result of the Higher Education Academy Benchmarking Exercise, seven of the11 HE institutions in Wales had been benchmarked for e-learning. Followingdiscussions between HEFCW (the HE funding body in Wales) and the Higher
Education Academy in early 2008, it was agreed that an Enhancement Programmewould be set up in Wales, along the lines of Pathfinder. The seven institutions who
31 Jan 2009 [Horizon Scan – Second Report] CAPITAL/PDB/Draft
Organisational Change
[Confidential] 11
had been benchmarked would go straight on to Enhancement; the other four wouldbe benchmarked first.
The four institutions were very different: two were research-led and quite large, twowere teaching-led and quite small. Nevertheless they worked well together andvalued the collaboration, which took place at four joint meetings. As at the time ofwriting this, the four institutions have just completed the benchmarking, with all“scoring” meetings having taken place in December 2008.
The benchmarking was carried out by the same team (BELA) who had carried outabout half of the “English” benchmarking. The methodology used was Pick&Mix,called ELDDA in Wales (http://elearning.heacademy.ac.uk/wiki/index.php/ELDDA).Serendipitously however, one of the FE benchmarking experts was called in to helpwith one institution, thus providing a useful overlap of skills. In due course publicreports will be available, both on the overall benchmarking, to be done by Glenaffricas usual, and the other on the implications for the methodology, to be done by PaulBacsich. Early results are that the levels are rather similar to those in England and
the specific concerns of institutions also quite similar within the paradigm of someWelsh-specific aspects such as bilingual provision
The progress of enhancement at each institution is overseen by a Critical Friend – ina way similar to other Higher Education Academy and JISC programmes – and withsome of the same people. Each year there are two meetings of the enhancementgroup – a closed meeting each October and a more open meeting (but Welshdelegates only) held this year in April 2009 – this year it is entitled “E forEnhancement”. Because of the restriction to Welsh HE, public listing is discreet.
For both benchmarking and enhancement in Wales there is a blog set up – http://elearning.heacademy.ac.uk/weblogs/gwella/ – but it does not give much detail.
Other projects Of course Wales has its share of JISC projects in both FE and HE – in particular theUniversity of Cardiff has a large project from the JISC Curriculum Design programme(http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningcapital/curriculumdesigncardiffuniversitybid.pdf).
ScotlandSince the First Report the full report on Transformation has been produced – Glenaffric (2008b). Its conclusions are essentially as described in the First Report.
Northern Ireland
Key information is that the University of Ulster continues on its path with CampusOne (http://campusone.ulster.ac.uk/potential/courses.php) – its “virtual campus” – and that the University has a grant under the JISC Curriculum Design programme(http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningcapital/curriculumdesignulsteruniversitybid.pdf).
International
World Forum (LATWF)It is noteworthy that 191 countries were represented at the World Forum – and muchnetworking was done especially between European e-learning experts. Networkingcontinues via the “GetIdeas” site (http://www.latwf.org/getideas.html).
31 Jan 2009 [Horizon Scan – Second Report] CAPITAL/PDB/Draft
Organisational Change
[Confidential] 12
Re.ViCa Re.ViCa is a project funded under the Virtual Campus strand of the EU LifelongLearning programme. It started in autumn 2007 and runs until the end of September2009. Its aim is to produce a gazetteer of virtual campuses around the world (pastand present), a set of case studies and a set of recommendations for good practicein setting up a virtual campus phrased in terms of Critical Success Factors. Theproject public web site is http://revica.europace.org/p10.html and some publicationsand presentations can be found at http://revica.europace.org/p10.html. By aroundMarch 2009 the wiki (with currently over 2000 entries) will be opened to a larger setof readers in each of the countries but it will not be fully public till summer 2009.
A number of people from UK and other countries associated with the Re.ViCa projectwere invited to and attended the World Forum, and two were involved in a workshop(on e-Impact – http://www.latwf.org/workshops-2.html).
Occasional Re.ViCa-inspired papers and presentations now appear in the publicdomain – for example the presentation on “Future of Technology Enhanced
Learning” at the launch of the Glamorgan University Blended Learning EvaluationReport acknowledged its debt to Re.ViCa (http://celt.glam.ac.uk/file_download/353).Among the global conclusions mentioned are:
Distance learning relentlessly growing despite blips Benchmarking e-learning spreading, now in US Skills agenda little understood in EU especially TeL aspects (UK quite
good) UK comparatively bad at learning and rebuilding from mistakes –
“scorched earth” approach not the only one
PBP-VC
Another project, PBP-VC, started earlier and completes in early 2009. It focussesmore on the virtual campuses which were set up under various EU programmes. Ithas an extensive programme of dissemination including a book to be published soon – see Stansfield and Connolly (2009a, 2009b) and also Cartelli et al (2008).
UK-US work Under the general auspices of the collaboration agreement between the Associationfor Learning Technology (UK) and the Sloan Foundation (US), a joint article on“Online Education Today” (with an HE focus but including FE aspects) was draftedand submitted to Science Magazine in the US, who in fact devoted a whole edition toonline learning (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol323/issue5910/index.dtl). Thearticle (Mayadas, Bourne and Bacsich 2009) notes in its abstract:
Online education is established, growing, and here to stay. It is creating newopportunities for students and also for faculty, regulators of education, andthe educational institutions themselves. Much of what is being learned by thepractitioners will flow into the large numbers of blended courses that will bedeveloped and delivered on most campuses. Some of what is being learnedwill certainly improve pedagogical approaches and possibly affect otherimportant problems, such as the lengthening time to completion of a degree.Online education is already providing better access to education for many,and many more will benefit from this increased access in the coming years
The article was mainly US-oriented. Its conclusions on US institutions are:
31 Jan 2009 [Horizon Scan – Second Report] CAPITAL/PDB/Draft
Organisational Change
[Confidential] 13
A number of select, highly endowed elite institutions do not see offeringcredit-bearing online courses and degree programs as a high priority,although they might make available free course materials, even the content ofcomplete courses, as noted earlier. For these institutions, online teaching andcredit-bearing offerings are not a necessary strategic or competitive tool.They do not appear to believe that their futures have been dimmed at all bythe appearance of online education on a large scale at other institutions.These institutions, however, along with all others, will adopt and be affectedby the more recent growth of blended education.
What of the less highly endowed institutions that have chosen not to involvethemselves in online education? For these institutions, it appears the futuremay be more turbulent, perhaps even dim. Their income is largely dependenton students, and that supply of students may follow a downward path asonline options proliferate from other, often distant, institutions.
While one could certainly discuss the applicability of that to the UK, the very final
paragraph looked more widely including specifically at the UK. It observes:
Finally, a quick look at the situation outside the United States indicates thatthe story is less promising, even in Canada. In Europe, there have been anumber of high-profile failures of online universities and a larger number ofinitiatives that never reached their full potential... Several others havedwindled more quietly, with no news emanating in English on the Web.
Many reasons have been advanced for the far greater success of onlineeducation in the United States, greater than the higher gross domesticproduct alone should justify. Reasons suggested include the greater “travel tostudy” distances, a more “can do” culture, and more acceptance of private
universities, both nonprofit and for-profit.
Yet, in many European countries, initiatives continue – the TelematicUniversities in Italy, the Campus Numériques in France, and the Swiss VirtualCampus collaboration...
There is also an under-current of lower-profile but sound initiatives such asthe private Hibernia College in Ireland; the U.K. universities of Derby,Leicester, Middlesex, Staffordshire, and Ulster; the collaboration of LiverpoolUniversity with Laureate Education Inc. to deliver master‟s programs; and, inaddition, the various open universities across Europe rapidly reengineeringthemselves from distance learning to online learning. Similar initiatives have
arisen in the community college sector in several other countries and regions such as England, Wales, Bavaria, and Norway ... [our italics]
The University of Liverpool (with Laureate) is one of the CAPITAL case studies justcompleted.
There are some other recent articles on the continuing growth in US e-learning(fuelled by the downturn, not inhibited by it), but it is hard to get experts – or anybodyelse – in the UK to take note of them and their implications. Such parochialismpredates the current economic downturn but now could be seen as contra-survival.
A Canadian study tour to the UK Near the end of 2008 Paul Bacsich was approached by Thompson Rivers University(TRU) in Canada to organise a visit programme for them to “similar” institutions,
8/8/2019 IT-induced Organisational Change in FE and HE
31 Jan 2009 [Horizon Scan – Second Report] CAPITAL/PDB/Draft
Organisational Change
[Confidential] 14
taking advantage of their senior staff coming to the World Forum. As part of theirfoundation/upgrade, TRU had been tasked by the British Columbia provincialgovernment to take over the ailing Open Learning Agency – this meant that TRU hasbecome a dual-mode institution with roughly 50:50 split between on-campus and off-campus programmes. (See http://www.tru.ca/about_tru.html for basic information.) Itwas decided in consultation with TRU to focus the visits on those (few) UK HEIswhere the reality or at least the aspiration is to have a substantial fraction of thestudents based off-campus – an aspect highly relevant to the paper by Sir RonCooke (2008) to DIUS. This led the delegation to a series of visits to London ExternalProgramme and to the universities of Leicester, Hertfordshire, Derby, Staffordshire,and West of Scotland. This programme of visits provided a useful reality check and avaluable non-UK perspective on such institutions – which will work through to severalof our projects, in time (note that the work was not charged to CAPITAL).
3. Informal literature
This subsection cover blogs and other grey literature (conferences, reports, whitepapers etc) relevant to the area. To discuss this fully we look also at the keycommunities interacting in the topics related to organisational change.
Grey literature, blogs etc
A community of scholars? The topics under “Organisational Change” have very little traction at conferences ine-learning relevant to the UK, with the honourable exception of Online Educa. (This isheld each year in December in Berlin – http://www.online-educa.com/ .)
There are several reasons for this, including the lack of seniority of delegates to thetypical e-learning conference and the lack of interest of the organisers of such eventsin the topic. By and large one is not interested in such topics until one is seniorenough to have tried to engender organisational change in one ‟s own institution:such individuals will thus be “managers” and not usually still “researchers” – with rareexceptions. Simply put – and one often hears it from managers – they are too busy toattend (or speak at) conferences. Sometimes this changes when they retire from theiruniversity/college role – or sell up their company – but not always – they mightbecome consultants and be even busier! A few e-learning conferences have tried(and more have talked about) a “PVC strand” or other way of nurturing senior staffattendance but none of the main conferences make this work in any formal way.
The other reason is that for many of the topics related to organisational change thereis virtually no “community of scholars” in terms of the applicability to e-learning. Forsome topics there are only one or two “experts” (defining paper-writers as experts, soa wide definition) in the country and less than a seminar group across the world.Some examples follow.
Regarding benchmarking, Bacsich (2008a) noted:
The “tone” of Phase Two was much like that of Phase One (much moreoperational than in the Pilot) and so the emphasis on developing ascholarship of benchmarking e-learning was again less pronounced than in
the Pilot. Engendering and demonstrating scholarship, however, sometimesrequires more of a “slow-burn” approach and allowing time for reflection. Forexample, it is only now that Phase One institutions are preparing the
31 Jan 2009 [Horizon Scan – Second Report] CAPITAL/PDB/Draft
Organisational Change
[Confidential] 15
conference presentations and journal papers that might be expected to arisefrom their participation in the exercise.
Despite strong encouragement from the Higher Education Academy, only a handfulof institutions among the over 70 who have taken part have produced a public report(see http://elearning.heacademy.ac.uk/wiki/index.php/Benchmarking_Reports for anindex to the few) – and only a handful of individuals have produced papers – seeBacsich (2008b) for the complete (but short) list.
And on costing of e-learning in education, Bacsich (2008c) essentially contacted allexperts in the world, and it did not take long. The situation was even more extremewith MIT90s: despite it being the basis in the past of much DfES thinking on maturity(and thus benchmarking), the current experts came down to two people both in theBELA team – see Bacsich (2006). And for some topics, like BPR, it is even worse.
Cynics might even say that the further a methodology is from usefulness andrelevance to the business world, the more popular it is in academia – an interesting
test case is Appreciative Enquiry (see the First Report).
The systemic issues with this limited pool of talent are twofold:
1. an over-reliance on gurus because there is not a wider group to discussmatters
2. a culture of “back to first principles” when non-experts come in.
There are things that ministries and agencies could do about this – such as:
more focus on consultancy teams and less on individuals – even better if (e.g.by links with universities) the teams could nurture new talent in the
methodologies as (in an ideal world) professors are supposed to nurtureresearch assistants
more longevity of funding, even if phased – in that context the HigherEducation Benchmarking Exercise was unusually good as a UK programmefor going through four phases with essentially the same approach and choiceof methodologies – normally regime or fashion change removes continuity.
Blogs This all implies that there is very little of a blogging community relevant toorganisational change. There are very few “guru blogs” relevant to organisationalchange – since most gurus do not want to and do not have experience of “boring” things like managing change. And those engaged in managing change – or evenwriting about it – say that “they do not have the time to read blogs”.
So with all those caveats what do we get? Mainly the blogs appear to be in HE – there is nothing much known in FE. (Remember we have assumed thatorganisational change in schools caused by e-learning cannot occur since the scaleof e-transformation is limited by parameters such as the classroom day and hard-to-change holidays.)
“Institutional” blogs of relevance are few in number:
1. Higher Education Academy benchmarking Programme –
http://elearning.heacademy.ac.uk/weblogs/benchmarking/ – much read, rarelywritten to or commented on – mainly used as a channel from the Academyand its consultants to institutions – most of whom have or had their own blogs
31 Jan 2009 [Horizon Scan – Second Report] CAPITAL/PDB/Draft
Organisational Change
[Confidential] 16
2. Higher Education Academy Pathfinder Programme – http://elearning.heacademy.ac.uk/weblogs/pathfinder/ – description as above
3. HEFCW/Higher Education Academy Gwella Programme – http://elearning.heacademy.ac.uk/weblogs/gwella/ – similar but even lessactive – and few institutions have their own blogs.
There are many other institutional blogs – e.g. for DIUS, CETIS and JISC – but theyare usually more specialised or rather inactive.
“Personal” blogs: the main ones related to this field are:
1. Auricle by Derek Morrison – now at http://www.auricle.org/auriclewp/ . (Seehttp://jiscpowr.jiscinvolve.org/2008/09/01/auricle-the-case-of-the-disappearing-e-learning-blog/ for a history of this) However, note thatorganisational change is rarely the topic of any of Derek‟s recent postings.
2. Tony Bates‟s personal blog – at http://www.tonybates.ca/category/tonys-blog/ . Since he is one of the world experts on fostering organisational change in e-
learning, this is a must-read. And just because he lives in Canada, it does notmean that he does not know about the UK. In this context see Bates (2008).3. FM by Seb Schmoller – at http://fm.schmoller.net/ . Again this is not primarily
about organisational change but in view of Seb ‟s position (CEO of ALT, etc)readers will find much of interest.
4. e4innovation by Professor Grainne Conole – at http://e4innovation.com/ . Thisis a rare example of a blog from a person who has worked and still works at asenior level across several institutions and projects. The pictures andinternational flavour are a bonus.
5. Plan B by Donald Clark – at http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.com/ . In view ofDonald‟s career (former CEO of Epic, Board of Ufi, etc) readers will find muchto ponder. And it is lively!
Why are there so few personal blogs, especially from senior staff in institutions?
One answer is that a number of people who might be thought to be web 2.0aware have their “blogging time” taken up largely with institutional blogs.
Another is that their “web 2.0” time is taken up with other tools. See nexttopic.
Social networks Almost every major programme these days – certainly from JISC and the HigherEducation Academy, less so (yet) from Becta – sets up some kind of web 2.0 socialspace with some access to the public (even if only read-only to certain areas). Thekey problem is that they are all different – different software, different interfaces,different functionality and different user groups. Yet the community of researchersand consultants is (or feels it is) seamless, and certainly the same names tend tocrop up whatever the funding source – except in the heavily research-dominatedcommunities such as round the ESRC Technology Enhanced Learning programme(http://www.tlrp.org/tel/ ).
What follows is very much a personal view from one author (in theory supposed to beactive on all of the social networks mentioned below) but hopefully is fairly typical ofthe scene.
The Higher Education Academy Benchmarking, Pathfinder and Enhancement(Gwella) programmes each set up a blog – cited above. The Academy also set up awiki – which is currently less active – though in view of the Enhancement Academy it
31 Jan 2009 [Horizon Scan – Second Report] CAPITAL/PDB/Draft
Organisational Change
[Confidential] 17
may revive again. This is the Benchmarking, Pathfinder, and Research Observatory wiki at http://elearning.heacademy.ac.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_Page. As is notuncommon with wikis (in reality, not in theory) rather few people have editing rights tothis (and far fewer exercise them).
Some strands within these Academy programmes used a social networking siteHELGA (http://www.glenaffric.co.uk/helga/ – based on the ELGG software) – but itdoes not seem currently active and was not used within Gwella benchmarking.
The Academy Special Interest Groups in e-learning (set up as “Network Projects” during Pathfinder) use a variety of tools, for example:
PPP, the Podcasting for Pedagogic Purposes Group, uses a wiki based onthe pbwiki software – see http://podcastingforpp.pbwiki.com/ – as do manyother projects including several funded by Becta – and perhaps surprisingly,also the Research Observatory – but there are reasons for having separatewikis from the main Academy wiki (http://peer-commentaryhe.pbwiki.com/ ).
ELESIG, the Experiences of E-Learning Special Interest Group, uses Ning (asort of academic version of Facebook) – see http://elesig.ning.com/ – with atoehold on Facebook for wider dissemination in a way typical of more andmore projects and institutions.
The paired JISC programmes on Curriculum Design and Curriculum Delivery use asocial site called CIRCLE for the distributed support team – seehttp://www.circlespace.net/ . The software is licensed from a company calledMindcloud and a particular feature is the “visualisation plus networking” functionality.
The World Forum delegates had access to yet another social networking site athttp://www.latwf.org/ up to and including the event, and now have access to another
networking site GetIdeas at http://latwf.getideas.org/ using a system from LeverageSoftware (http://www.leveragesoftware.com/ ).
However, quietly, behind the scenes, more and more e-learning researchers andconsultants, including very senior ones, have found their way, one way or the other,to Facebook. Most users in the e-learning world have an eclectic mix of familymembers, real friends and work/project colleagues as “Facebook „friends‟” and anequally eclectic mix of messages flowing, mixing business and pleasure.
At this point we end our journey – with a longing glimpse at the Second Life islandfrom the Media Zoo at the Beyond Distance Research Alliance (http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/beyond-distance-research-alliance/mediazoo).
Interest groups (not in blogspace)Despite this cornucopia of social networking sites, it still comes as a shock toyounger and/or more junior staff that there are several groupings in e-learning with nilor very limited exposure to social networking, either public or non-public (i.e.internal). While the Generation Y conclusion would be that such “oldies” have lost theplot (or not found it yet), that is not the experience of those in such groups, many ofwhom are active on (other) social networking sites. Two examples will suffice.
The Goodison Group has no social networking site, in fact no web site. It “is neither aresearch group nor a think tank. It brings together experienced people from the
worlds of Business, Government and Education to consider particular aspects ofthemes to do with learning and skills that are being developed by the GoodisonGroup itself.”
31 Jan 2009 [Horizon Scan – Second Report] CAPITAL/PDB/Draft
Organisational Change
[Confidential] 18
(http://www.scotlandfutureforum.org/assets/library/files/application/1214484465.pdf).Yet the Goodison Group has been extremely successful including at bringingtogether a wide range of experts in the last few years.
Strategic learning initiatives in the public sector (SLIPs for short) is a closed group ofUK experts who meet two or three times a year. They are interested in criticalsuccess factors for such large-scale initiatives (especially Major E-LearningInitiatives). A recent meeting discussed with great interest a presentation on theCampus Numériques programme in France – their version of the UK e-University butstill active. This has been under way since 2000, across four phases. The first threephases had a total budget of around £15 million and a subsequent consolidationphase in 2004 produced seven Universités Numériques Thématiques representing110 higher education and research institutions. The French programme is almostunknown to UK analysts and yet has clear parallels with current JISC and HigherEducation Academy thinking. For some brief details see Chabert (2009).
4. Disruptions clusters
The university has been among the most conservative of institutions... hundreds of them have existed, practically unchanged, since the middle ages
— Starr Roxanne Hiltz, 1994
4.1 Clusters most relevant to the theme
It is often forgotten that educational institutions at all levels are insulated from societyin all kinds of ways – thus there is often a long lag between societal changes andchanges in institutions. An obvious example is the continued use of handwritten
exams in universities long after the university population at large uses computers tocreate the majority of documents.
In respect of schools, parents – and employers (either directly or via parental proxiesor memories) – are conservative when it comes to education of children.
Within this general theme, it is also the case that major organisational change isalways the last resort of institutions to change in the external world – they will bend(i.e. adapt) before they break (i.e. re-engineer/reconfigure).
All this leads to the conclusion that whatever the likelihood of disruptions, the effect ininstitutions will initially be like noise through an open window – the first decision willbe to shut the window. It is also a truism that schools can alleviate some of the ills inthe world but cannot cure them.
Below we discuss some of the cluster groupings where our conclusions might tosome seem surprising.
a. e-confidence/security/safety:A loss of faith in secure online learning and fear of ‘ perverted ’ or ‘ malevolent ’ intent,coupled with a growing social resistance to technology takes root.Likelihood: M – Impact: M
A good way of getting a handle on this is to replace “secure online learning” with“secure credit cards”. This leads one to see that the loss of faith probably exists
31 Jan 2009 [Horizon Scan – Second Report] CAPITAL/PDB/Draft
Organisational Change
[Confidential] 19
already. For another perspective, replace “online learning” and “technology” with“cars” – or “planes”. There is a fine line between social resistance to technology andcaution about selecting technologies – and many commentators warn after all aboutover-focus on technology push. If the technology is not “working for us”, rather than just “working”, why would we want to use it? Some of us might look forward to an erawhen there is less uncritical zeal for technology – so boring is not necessarily bad.
The impact is M not H because we have faith in teachers to mute, mediate andmoderate societal and technological effects to the best advantage of learners.
b. the supply and role of teachers:Rapid changes in the use of technology in education will bring changes to the supply of teachers and challenges to their status and role.Likelihood: H – Impact: M
News flash: we‟re there already. We are less concerned about the supply side as intimes of recession there is usually a flight to the safety of public sector jobs – and in
this recession we are “assured” of counter-cyclical funding for the public sector – forthe medium term at least. There are just-possible scenarios of socio-economiccollapse in the UK but (sadly) examples from around the world that collapse has tobe severe – and countries much poorer than the UK – before parents stop beingkeen to see their children educated, if necessary by making private contributions.
There will also be challenges to the status and role of teachers, but it is not clear whyteachers should be less able to cope with this than doctors – or bankers.
e. resources:Economic recession, a changing political climate and a re-evaluation of priorities impact upon technology resources.
Likelihood: H – Impact: M
Not even a news flash: for recession, we are there already.
But the impact side is harder to estimate. In the US, recession has led to an apparentincrease in demand for distance learning. And in the UK, it is surprising that there isas yet no strong realisation among the young that there could be alternatives to thestate-subsidised “rite of passage” leading to large debts that a full-time universityprogramme represents. It might be challenging to institutions but it would bebeneficial for e-learning and organisational change if the length of residence for adegree was cut from three years to two. However, it is much easier to cut the degreelength from four years to three – as done in the US – the techniques are by now well
established, not necessarily by studying over the summer but by taking e-learningcourses alongside face-to-face. This would apply to Scotland. For England, we mightlook at 3-year all-through Masters (down from 4), rather than worrying about theharder problem of cutting down degree programmes to 2-year accelerated degrees.
h. new divides:Promised benefits such as social cohesion and equality of access to learning are disrupted by increasing fragmentation of technology users, resulting in the emergence of new divisions in society.Likelihood: L – Impact: M
In time, there is no reason to believe that new technologies like PCs, broadband etcwill not percolate “down” to all levels of society, just like cars, washing machines,radios, televisions, phones and most recently mobile phones. So we do not believe
8/8/2019 IT-induced Organisational Change in FE and HE
31 Jan 2009 [Horizon Scan – Second Report] CAPITAL/PDB/Draft
Organisational Change
[Confidential] 20
that the digital divide is a long-term issue. If it turns out that there are cheaptechnologies that do not percolate, we should look more at why they do not – perhaps they are not relevant. But some would argue that there are existingtechnologies that do not percolate, and the reasons are not costs – like books.
We have rated the impact as M because schools can continue, as now, to containrelevant technologies for learning – which does not mean filling them up with gadgetsof unproven educational value.
4.2 Cluster ratings
In the following table we rate the clusters for “likelihood” and “significance of impact” as Low, Medium or High.
Cluster grouping
Likelihood
(L-M-H)
Significance of
impact
(L-M-H)
a. e-confidence/security/safety:
a loss of faith in secure online learning and fear of „perverted‟ or
„malevolent‟ intent, coupled with a growing social resistance to
technology takes root
M/H M
b. the supply and role of teachers:
rapid changes in the use of technology in education will bring
changes to the supply of teachers and challenges to their status
and role
H M
c. formal/informal patterns of learning:
technologies used outside the classroom are rapidly adopted in
educational contexts, challenging institutional inflexibility L M
d. learning content:
new media and software developments impact upon learning
content across all sectors of education, presenting logistical,
pedagogical, legal and intellectual challenges
H M
e. resources:
economic recession, a changing political climate and a re-
evaluation of priorities impact upon technology resources
H M
f. product ownership and consumer choice:
competition for cheapness, miniaturisation, and constant upgrading
of products lead to widespread adoption of personal technologies
for learning, with problems of either monopoly provision or lack of
standardisation
M M
g. assessment and accreditation:
the benefits of technologies to improve assessment are directed, or
mis-directed towards a narrower, more rigid testing regime
H M
h. new divides:
promised benefits such as social cohesion and equality of access to
learning are disrupted by increasing fragmentation of technology
users, resulting in the emergence of new divisions in society
L M
8/8/2019 IT-induced Organisational Change in FE and HE
31 Jan 2009 [Horizon Scan – Second Report] CAPITAL/PDB/Draft
Organisational Change
[Confidential] 21
i. technological and pedagogical innovation,
research and development:
technological innovation, creative teaching and learning and
research are inhibited by risk-averse policies and practices in
education and industry
M L
j. personalisation:
the personalisation agenda are affected not just by technologies per
se , but by re-prioritising curriculum and assessment methods
M L
k. demand for skills:
fluctuations in demand for technological skills and the changingrequirements of employers, coupled with social and economicmobility impact upon the type and level of skills required from youngpeople entering the workforce
H M
l. infrastructure:
changes to capital build projects and funding impacts on learning
and teaching
H M
4.3 Other issues
There is a danger than a cluster analysis of the above type can give rise, evenimplicitly, to the view that schools are at the mercy of events and in particular ofchildren – and that teachers are passive. That would be a dismissive view of theprofession, and one that we do not accept. Leadership and management willcontinue – as now – to be vital – and may need even more attention in the turbulenttimes ahead.
5. Concluding comments
There are not many new policy initiatives which directly impact on OrganisationalChange – those, including the JISC OER Call, have been discussed. We have alsocommented from time to time on how the inexorable progress of the recession andchanges in attitudes have worked through to a general “hardening” of approach.
We see few signs of radical change in the HE and FE sectors, rather thanincremental tightening – no equivalent of the “balanced dual mode” of TRU, no“regional open universities” as in India; no local virtual colleges, no regional consortia
of universities on the lines of the US “statewide system”, very few mergers.
There is more organisational ferment in schools, but still within boundaries that lookincreasingly restrictive compared with some other countries. And still no non-nichevirtual schools, unlike in the US.
6. References
Bacsich (2006). The relevance of the MIT90s framework to benchmarking e-learning ,September 2006. Available online at
31 Jan 2009 [Horizon Scan – Second Report] CAPITAL/PDB/Draft
Organisational Change
[Confidential] 22
Bacsich (2008a), Benchmarking Phase 2 Overview Report , March 2008. Available online athttp://elearning.heacademy.ac.uk/weblogs/benchmarking/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/BenchmarkingPhase2_BELAreport.pdf.
Bacsich (2008b), “The national UK universities benchmarking e-learning programme”, paperpresented at EADTU conference , Poitiers, September 2008. Available online at
Bacsich (2008c). Costs of E-Learning Scoping Exercise: Report , October 2008. Availableonline at http://www.matic-media.co.uk/costs/CELSE%20report%20Final.doc.
Bates (2008). “Transforming distance education through new technologies” in Evans,Haughey and Murphy (Eds.) The International Handbook of Distance Education Bingley, UK:Emerald Press. Available online at http://www.tonybates.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/evans.pdf.
Cartelli, Stansfield, Connolly, Jimoyiannis, Magalhães and Maillet (2008). “Towards theDevelopment of a New Model for Best Practice and Knowledge
Construction in Virtual Campuses”, Journal of IT Education . Vol. 7, ISSN: online1539-3585; print 1547-9714; CD-ROM 1547-9706. pp121-134. Available online athttp://jite.org/documents/Vol7/JITEv7p121-134Cartelli397.pdf.
Chabert (2009). The campus numériques, an Overview of the French Virtual University ,January 2009. Available online (by agreement with the author) at the interim locationhttp://www.matic-media.co.uk/ukeu/others/SLIPs%20Sheffield.ppt.
Cooke (2008). On-line Innovation in Higher Education (32 pp), October 2008. Available onlineat http://www.dius.gov.uk/policy/documents/online_innovation_in_he_131008.pdf.
GHK Consulting (2008). Independent Review of Framework for Excellence , November 2008.Available online at
Glenaffric (2008a), Benchmarking Exercise Phase 2 Review by the Evaluation &Dissemination Support Team , April 2008. Available online athttp://elearning.heacademy.ac.uk/weblogs/benchmarking/wpcontent/uploads/Benchmarking2SummaryReport21April08F.pdf.
Glenaffric (2008b). Formative Evaluation of the e-Learning Transformation Programme , June2008. Available online athttp://www.sfc.ac.uk/information/information_learning/presentations_publications/elearning_elt_formative_evaluation_report.pdf.
HEPI (2008). Demand for Higher Education to 2029 , December 2009. Available athttp://www.hepi.ac.uk/pubdetail.asp?ID=260&DOC=reports.
Higher Education Academy (2008). Challenges and Realisations from the Higher Education Academy/JISC Benchmarking and Pathfinder Programme: An End of Programme Review by the Higher Education Academy, Evaluation and Dissemination Support Team , September2008. Available online at http://elearning.heacademy.ac.uk/weblogs/pathfinder/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/Bench_and_PathFinalReview20080926.pdf.
Higher Education Academy (2009a). Restricted call: Expressions of Interest in participating in the 2009 ‘ Enhancement Academy ’ , January 2009. Available online atwww.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/EACall8Jan09_websiteInfo.doc.
Higher Education Academy (2009b). Change Academy Proposal Form , 2009. Available at
Hiltz (1994). The Virtual Classroom: Learning Without Limits Via Computer Networks , Edition2 (384 pp) Intellect Books, 1994. ISBN 0893919284, 9780893919283.
JISC (2008). Curriculum Design Call –
Funded Projects , October 2008. Available online athttp://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearningcapital/curriculumdesign/fundedprojects.
JISC (2009a). Grant 14/08: HEFCE/Academy/JISC Open Educational ResourcesProgramme: Call for Projects, January 2009. Available athttp://www.jisc.ac.uk/fundingopportunities/funding_calls/2008/12/grant1408.aspx.
JISC (2009b). Curriculum Delivery Call – Funded Projects , January 2009. Available online athttp://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearningcapital/curriculumdelivery/fundedprojects.
JISC infoNet (2008). Tangible Benefits of e-Learning: Does investment yield interest? , April2008. Available online athttp://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/publications/bptangiblebenefitsv1.aspx.
Mayadas, Bourne and Bacsich (2009). “Online Education Today”, in: Science Magazine (pp.85 –89), Vol. 323, no. 5910, 2 January 2009. Available online athttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5910/85.
QAA (2008). Slides of all presentations from the Higher Education Further Conference.Available online athttp://www.qaa.ac.uk/education/heInFe/conference08/FULL%20SLIDES%20220108.pdf.
Stansfield and Connolly (Eds.) (2009a). Institutional Transformation through Best Practices in Virtual Campus Development: Advancing E-Learning Policies . IGI Global Publishing: Hershey(to appear – proofs have just been checked).
Stansfield and Connolly (2009b) “Identifying and Promoting Best Practice in VirtualCampuses”, in: Institutional Transformation through Best Practices in Virtual Campus Development: Advancing E-Learning Policies (Eds: Mark Stansfield andThomas Connolly), IGI Global Publishing: Hershey (to appear).
Worcester (2008), Benchmarking Exercise Phase II Report (64 pp), March 2008. Availableonline at http://ebenchmark.worc.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/university-of-worcester-hea-elearning-benchmarking-final-report.doc.
York Consulting (2008). Framework for Excellence: Evaluation of Benefits Realisation – Baseline Report , October 2008. Available online athttp://ffe.lsc.gov.uk/publications/Framework-for-Excellence-Evaluation-of-Benefits-Realisation-Baseline-Report.htm.
