Managing the Process of Organizational Change in E-learning Development at Institutional Level Guang YANG London Knowledge Lab Institute of Education 15 October 2009 Institute of Education University of London 20 Bedford Way London WC1H 0AL Email gyang@ioe.ac.uk Web www.ioe.ac.uk

Managing the Process of Organizational Change in E-learning Development at Institutional Level Background Why? What? How?

Changes in British higher education Changes in government spending : Dearing Committee in 1997 claimed that public funding for institutions has fallen by around 25% per student since 1979, putting considerable pressures on universities and colleges (DfEE 1998). Since the Dearing report published in 1997, public funding for higher education has also fallen significantly behind investment in other educational sectors (schools, FE etc) from 2001 to 2005 (Watson 2007).

Changes in British higher education Changes in government aims for higher education. Changes in student numbers and student diversity are also significant, the UK student numbers in higher education in 2004 tripled the numbers in 1979 from 750,000 to 2.25 million (Watson 2007) p.39). Changes in the British higher education system. The structures of courses have changed.

VLE—Blended learning A UCISA survey (Jenkins et al. 2005) has reported a 7% uptake of VLEs in 1997 compared to a 97% uptake by 2005. It is argued that there are institutions which are struggling with addressing the central issue and ways to implement e-learning effectively, strategically (Goodfellow and Lea 2007).

E-learning is not effective in isolation E-learning is not effective in isolation. New ways of learning require new forms of institutional management (Elton 1999) Many approaches that deployed e-learning have failed or wasted large amounts of money in the recent past years because universities were taken by surprise about the low conversion rate of potential markets into actual registrations and the requirements of higher levels of resources, and hence were unable to change internally sufficiently fast and well (Salmon 2005). E-learning creates further pointed tensions in these political processes due to the pace of change, the investments required, and the need for involvement of more staff and stakeholders (Whitworth 2005).

Aims and Objectives To examine the process of organizational change linked to the deployment of e-learning systems in a range of higher education (HE) institutes in UK Focusing on the experiences and perceptions of senior managers, staff and students The results could offer a framework to other higher education institutions to design and manage effective organizational infrastructures attempting to meet their own needs in e-learning development in the future.

Research Questions: 1.What are the conditions for implementing e-learning systems to be successful in HE institutions? 2.What lessons can be learned that will assist other institutions design and manage effective organizational infrastructures in e-learning development?

Sub-questions: To identify the cultural/organisational change model is being adopted by the University and the process of why and how a technology for learning and teaching is selected and implemented at institutional level, and how this relates to the level and quality of e-learning implementation. To identify the relationship between the process of departmental planning for learning and teaching and the use of new technologies. To identify the policy and management demands and support for staff relating to teaching and learning, and their role in the changes that take place throughout the process of deployment of new technologies. To identify the role of strategic developments of teaching and learning and policy have had on the change process.

Culture Components Role culture Power culture Achievement culture Bureaucratic; line management; hierarchical decision-making; clear division and demarcation of labor and strata of decision-making and responsibility; formal and inflexible operational procedures; detailed job specifications; close monitoring of performance; concern for task achievement; propensity for stagnation; limited adaptability to change Power culture Centralized control; significance of leaders; limited collegiality; high significance of micro-politics; fluid, negotiated power; competitive; frequent low morale amongst non-leaders; blame culture for failure; strong and flexible Achievement culture Emphasis on results, standards, outcomes; collaborative and collegial; task focused with task groups and teams; much autonomy of teams; using power to coordinate tasks in order to achieve results; extended and flexible use of expertise; significance of project leaders; high capability to change Support culture Person centered; formal and informal support services; consensus based; positional power replaced by the authority of expertise; individual concerns over-ride organizational concerns; personal empowerment; limited constraints on staff; resource rich Figure 2.2 (Harrison 1998)

Mintzberg’s view of an organization Strategic management Middle management The ‘production’ Teams Technostructure Supporting service (Mintzberg,1983)

Models of Change: (Laurillard 2002) A Fordist model of change—favour industrialization “The Ecological”—learning organization model of change The complete process for organizational learning can then be characterised as a succession of activities: Expending knowledge Sharing Innovating Evaluating Implementing Validating (Laurillard 2002)

E-learning Implementation Top-down Vs Bottom-up By policy and strategy development By pilot and individual funded initiated by member of upper project; Management; Not consultative and inclusive Creates some excellence and enough areas of inactivity

Methodological approach

Participants Four Cases: two research-oriented universities &two new universities Interviewees: The senior managers for teaching and learning Managers of the learning technology group Learning Technology Advisers, IS support staff Lecturers

First Case: New university--A Factors that appear to be affecting the implementation at departmental level from lecturer’s point of view: availability of the resources, staff training and extra staff time, e-learning specialist and moderator, staff involvement and motivation, policy and strategy

Case 1:New university University culture University top management commitment Policy+Strategy (Departmental level) Funding + Management commitment and support Research Human resources Departmental strategy and planning Positive or negative impacts Staff involvement and motivation

Case 1: Different images from the manager Policy and strategy document ---came out last year “going in a successful way” Most Challenging: “Not money, not time, it is understanding where people were or are”

Case 2: Old university—B&C Factors that appear to be affecting the implementation at departmental level from lecturer’s point of view: E-learning technologists Departmental management commitment Students needs

Case 3:Old university--C Decentralized structure—funding allocation, staff allocation. Grass root change modes Open resources Lecturer’s perception of technology—tutorial system

Preliminary findings Whether a top-down, bottom-up approach or a combined approach would yield better results for adopting an e-learning strategy depending on the institutional culture. Conversational, not confrontational Middle management: Agent of Change---Managing change or change manager? E-learning Champions Mixed ICT Support structure

Thank you!