Staffordshire University introduced the institution wide use of VLEs in 1997 as part of its then Learning and Teaching Strategy “Building the Learning Community”). Great effort was put in to achieving buy-in and cross-institutional involvement, and the development, use, and support of “distributed learning” (MLE as a term didn’t exist back then!) was built into a number of other institutional strategies.

(Note: As the sector editor is deeply involved with addressing the issue of embedding at his own institution, most sections will include a reflection from Staffordshire)

The outcome has been very successful, with a large number of modules using “eLearning”, a number of completely virtual awards running successfully, some evidence of the work having cultural impact of mainstream teaching and learning, and the development of links between VLEs and MIS systems, eResources and other systems.

However, a large number of “known” problems were still recognised in Summer 2002:

1. Despite years of doing it, support for development had (until recently) not been “integrative” (see sub-section 5) and had demonstrated that, like most (all?) HEIs, the University was not a “learning organisation”, in that lessons learned were not effectively disseminated.
2. Constant problems with students falling through the “administrative net”. If learners are not in the student information system no amount of links to VLEs will help.
3. Support for “eLearners” from services and academics was uneven and ranged from very good to sometimes poor.
4. Foundation Degrees with partner FEIs revealed weaknesses in a whole raft of policies and procedures, and also revealed problems with both roles and responsibilities.
5. Arrangements for approving new developments were insufficiently sharp, and, in particular, often resulted in those charged with supporting development not finding out about things soon enough to ensure smooth production and the quality desired.
6. Policies, procedures, roles and responsibilities applying to eLearning were piecemeal, (not “joined up”) and could not be described as embedded.

A received result of all of this was that the University’s approach to eLearning was not yet as sustainable as it should be (with much reinvention of wheels and a lack of reuse and repurposing of resources and approaches already adopted) nor did the current position enable the University to be agile in responding quickly to new opportunities and demands.

One way of moving forward

The problem above was outlined in an Initial paper for discussion by the University’s Information Services Senior Management Team. The Information Service had recently adopted a full “project management” approach to all its developments, and it was quickly realised that solving this problem was an issue which could neither be owned nor carried by IS in isolation. A project plan was drawn up by the Head of Learning Development and Innovation, who was to manage the initiative and sponsorship and approval for the project sought at the most senior levels of the institution and from some of its major committees.

The initial task was to identify the full range of issues and problems. To do this, the project manager has taken a “walkthrough” approach, by starting from the position of an academic (or academic group) who has an idea for a new course/module which “involve eLearning” and following this through working up the proposal, getting approval to proceed, validation, development, quality assurance, implementation delivery and support, assessment, to post course evaluation and on-going monitoring and other requirements.

The process has involved multiple interviews with staff at levels within the institution, “rock-lifting” (asking “difficult” questions of departments and services) and also group discussions. From this ongoing process small task-focussed working groups are being spun off to address specific areas. These groups involve staff from the appropriate parts of the institution plus practitioners. Progress is reported back at multiple levels and through various committees.

Getting the project “sponsored” at the most senior levels has been a vital component in opening doors and getting staff to make time available. It is also important in getting those who “own” policies and procedures to be open to the idea of changing them. A final important factor is that the project manager is both a senior manager and a professor, which again has helped to encourage participation in a wide cross-section of the institution.