Title: Managing the Process of Organizational Change in E-learning Development at Institutional Level
1Managing 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_at_ioe.ac.uk Web www.ioe.ac.uk
2Managing the Process of Organizational Change in
E-learning Development at Institutional Level
- Background
- Why?
- What?
- How?
3Changes 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).
4Changes 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.
5VLEBlended 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).
6- 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).
7Aims 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.
8Research 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?
9Sub-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.
10Culture Components
Role 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)
11Mintzbergs view of an organization
Strategic management Middle management The
production Teams
- Technostructure
Supporting service -
(Mintzberg,1983)
12Models of Change
- A Fordist model of changefavour
industrialization - The Ecologicallearning 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)
13E-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
14Methodological approach
15Participants
- 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
16First Case New university--A
- Factors that appear to be affecting the
implementation at departmental level from
lecturers 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
17Case 1New university
-
University culture - University top management
commitment -
-
PolicyStrategy - (Departmental level) Funding Management
commitment and support - Research Human resources Departmental
strategy and planning -
- Positive or
negative impacts - Staff involvement and
motivation
18Case 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
19Case 2 Old universityBC
- Factors that appear to be affecting the
implementation at departmental level from
lecturers point of view - E-learning technologists
- Departmental management commitment
- Students needs
20Case 3Old university--C
- Decentralized structurefunding allocation, staff
allocation. - Grass root change modes
- Open resources
- Lecturers perception of technologytutorial
system
21Preliminary 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
22Thank you!