2.3. How might an institution approach answering this question?
The issue of an MLE has cemented itself in the minds of the planners and managers in your institution. They are looking for clear guidance as to how they can begin to answer the question of whether they need an MLE. You have been asked to suggest possible methods they could use.
We'll now go on to look at how other institutions have begun to answer the question 'Do we need an MLE?', and the processes and methods they have adopted. As was noted in the overview this should happen right at the start of any MLE implementation. [N.B. This whole area is also explored in the section 'Finding and using information'.]
The initial impetus behind why your institution might be considering an MLE can be varied. It might be as a result of seeing other institutions demonstrating their MLEs, or reading case studies, or seeing project funding from JISC, or being told to do this by a Senior Manager. In fact any of the reasons outlined in the previous section could initiate investigations into MLE implementation.
What methods then, have others adopted to start to tackle the issue? The first thing to understand is that there is no need to be alarmed. The methods adopted do not involve any radical processes and are the same tried and tested practices most FE or HE institutions are used to. In short institutions have adopted the following practices:
They have charged a single individual to simply investigate the area and provide an answer. This person may be a member of staff or possibly an external consultant, although the latter is rare.
They adopt a committee approach by either:
using an existing group already working in the area. For example FE/HEIs often have in place ILT groups or appropriate senior management committee which could be charged with this, or
creating a new committee charged specifically with assessing the benefits of an MLE (which in most cases becomes the committee charged with implementing the MLE)
In many cases it is not just one single committee that is given the task. De Montford University, for example, set up a three-committee structure involving a management group, a steering group, and an interest group. In cases like this you need to ensure the lines of communication are clear and effective.
The main discussion on stakeholders is in the section 'Gathering Requirements' and later we will look at the focus of the committee(s) and systems which can assist them. For now though, it is worth noting some key points that are continually in the support studies:
You need to be clear whether the group is a decision-making body and, if so, its reporting structure; or alternatively is it just there to offer advice and share information.
You need to make sure that all stakeholders are represented and in the case of split-sites all locations and institutions are a part of the process (see the next section).
Groups will often have to work both horizontally and vertically (using the terminology of the MARTINI project). For example a stakeholder will have to work vertically within their own unit (such as a department), whereas the horizontal activity of the group will cut across units in such areas as data provision.
It is advisable to set a defined date for the groups to finish, complete their work, or to review their progress.
Any such groups will need to work within the existing committee structure and this will need to be defined.
The group needs to be wide in its focus. Boys (March 2002) concludes that it must have the willingness to possibly rethink processes. It should be 'problem-seeking' rather than just seeking solutions, and to consider all 'visualisations' of what an MLE could be. As the TeRG project noted 'even where specific groups or individuals have been established to manage this process, there have been charges that they have focused narrowly on either the technology or the teaching or the learning.'
Boys (March 2002, p.3) notes that two views often emerge early on when forming these groups. The first is that implementing an MLE is fairly straightforward process that simply needs technical solutions. The second is that MLE development is so wide-reaching it must be seen as a major managerial exercise in change. Boys recommends that the latter is the correct approach.
It is natural to link this kind of process with 'established' methods suggested elsewhere for groups engaged in the process of discussing, evaluating, and implementing major ICT initiatives. Therefore as part of the JISC Building MLEs in HE programme two projects (one at Sheffield-Hallam University, the other at Queen Margaret University College Edinburgh) investigated the possibilities of using the material coming out of the American Association for Higher Education, Teaching, Learning and Technology Group and in particular their 'roundtables'. These are groups working to accepted practices aimed at moving forward ICT initiatives.
Details of the Roundtable projects can be found in the key resources section. However, it is worth summarising some of the key points that have emerged in the analysis of how 'roundtables' might be applicable to the UK.
Roundtables are designed to collect data, assist in decision-making, disseminate information, and facilitate structural change. Moreover they are intended to be flexible and to change. They, or something similar, could assist in:
using IT strategically to meet initiatives and develop goals,
co-ordinating integration of ICT into departments, schools, and the syllabus,
overcoming individualistic approaches by departments by raising awareness, facilitating training and support, and
developing a communication structure - providing input into the decision making process, sharing information, providing informed debate, and bringing together those resistant to change with those who have experience of technology
Mistry et al (2002, p. 39) note that many roundtables started as groups '[needing to] choose an appropriate VLE' and suggested that this particular focus on a single topic will increase their chances of success. They also observed that roundtables tended to vary in format ranging from a highly structured body, to a much looser approach. They noted that the former stood a better chance of success in smaller institutions, whereas bigger organisations were less receptive to prescriptive recommendations and a more informal approach did not 'usurp anyone's authority' (Mistry et al 2002, p. 51). At the same time a 'talking shop' without any leadership, remit, or line of authority will probably not be well received (Mistry et al 2002, p. 65). Roundtables might provide a framework to bring stakeholders together and a structure to work to.
Yet although roundtables sound like they provide an 'off-the-shelf' solution to assessing the benefits of an MLE, there is a decided lack of enthusiasm for them in the UK studies. For example, Mistry et al concluded that 'it is our view that (roundtables) are neither a new nor an effective way of managing technological change for a whole community.' (p. 8). They also noted (p.38) that the majority of F/HEIs have an IT committee in place that looks at teaching and learning and could perform the role of analysing the potential of an MLE without the need for using roundtables (though they did note that many of these committees were recent phenomena (p.39)).
Regardless of whether you wish to pursue roundtables or not, it is likely that one of the first steps you will take when assessing the potential benefits of an MLE is to form a new group, or use an existing one, charged with this responsibility. The alternative is to put this into the hands of a single individual (or consultant), but this is not recommended. It is possible to elect a 'champion' who will take the initiative forward on a voluntary basis but it is recommended that they are part of a wider group. Ideally resources will be found to support the group and the champion even to the point of funding an FTE (or part thereof) to concentrate on this task. Boys (August, 2002), for example, warned that many projects in the Building MLEs in HE JISC initiative failed to meet early timetables because there were not sufficient staff in place to move forward. Champions are often self-selected but this may cause problems if the person does not wield sufficient authority or respect within the institution. The champion will need to be motivated, have some knowledge of technical, administrative, and support issues, and the needs of teachers and learners. Moreover they must be perceived as being unbiased, and at the centre of existing networks (this is especially important in FE where one might be dealing with split sites). Many of the JISC projects lacked a champion from the outset which impacted on their ability to proceed.
Follow this link for key resources for this section (these open in a new window)
