Comparing departmental ‘baseline’ and ‘opt-in’ strategies for e-learning adoption across an institution: which works best?
Richard Walker, Wayne Britcliffe
University of York, United Kingdom
This paper reflects on different departmental modes of engagement with e-learning, contrasting baseline requirements for e-tools usage with project-based initiatives, where staff ‘opt-in’ to deliver blended modules. We discuss the impact and effectiveness of these methods, drawing upon survey data and qualitative feedback to reflect on departmental experiences to date.Within the context of the University of York’s Learning & Teaching Strategy, departments have been encouraged to develop their own strategies for e-learning, encompassing staff development and quality assurance measures. A group of departments have employed ‘baseline’ approaches to module development for all taught undergraduate programmes, requiring staff to maintain a minimum presence for their modules within the institutional VLE. For other departments, staff have been given a free-hand to decide whether e-learning tools are appropriate for their teaching, with the central e-learning team offering tailored training and support activities to foster innovative instructional approaches.Feedback and statistical evidence emerging from an institutional audit of e-learning activity confirm findings by Sharpe, Benfield and Francis (2006) that local strategies can achieve an element of buy-in within departments; the baseline approach has indeed raised the profile of the institutional VLE within these departments, principally as a delivery location for lecture notes and resources. However, there is little evidence to suggest that this approach has been effective in influencing and transforming staff teaching strategies. Quality assurance problems have occurred where departments have chosen to mandate VLE usage across study programmes, with staff not attending training or following approved guidelines for module development, in contrast to elective modules where staff have opted in to the module design process.Our preliminary findings concur with other research reports (e.g. Elgort, 2005) that show that by establishing minimum requirements, there is no direct enhancement to the learning culture in terms of the way that staff review their teaching to take full advantage of e-learning tools, although this approach can provide consistency in the way that content is presented to students across study programmes..Burnes, B. 2000. Managing Change, 3rd edn. Harlow. Pearson Education Ltd.Elgort, I. 2005. E-learning adoption: Bridging the chasm. Proceedings ascilite Brisbane, 2005.http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane05/blogs/proceedings/20_Elgort.pdfSharpe, R., G.Benfield, and R. Francis. 2006. Implementing a university e-learning strategy: levers for change within academic schools. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology 14: 135 – 51.