IMPERIAL COLLEGE AND THE EMERGING ONLINE LEARNING REVOLUTION
A REVIEW OF THE PRESENT INFRASTRUCTURE FOR E-LEARNING SUPPORT
- FULL REPORT
Authors:
Omar Matar, David Lefevre, Tom Pearson, Jennifer Cooke
Owner:
The E-learning Strategy Committee (ELSC)
Version:
1.3
Date (This version):
14 December 2012
1
INTRODUCTION, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
At Imperial, we take pride in our world-leading education, we maintain high standards
and constantly strive to improve the student experience. However, we now face a new
challenge. Across the advanced economies, the adoption of e-learning by the higher
education sector has been increasing steadily over the past decade, however the past
two years have seen a rapid increase in such activity. We are witnessing the emergence
of e-learning as a transformative and disruptive technology for higher education.
It was within this context that the ELSC conducted initiated this review of current
College infrastructure for e-learning to answer the following three questions:



How should e-learning at Imperial evolve in order to further the College’s
strategic objectives?
Is the College’s existing e-learning infrastructure appropriate to achieve 1)?
If not then, what changes to the e-learning infrastructure are required to achieve
1)?
In this report ‘infrastructure’ refers to the IT systems, the staff and the organizational
structures that facilitate and support e-learning.
This report was compiled following interviews conducted with learning technologists,
student representatives, e-learning practitioners around the College, and ICT. This
review concludes that an increase in e-learning activity is urgently required for the
College to achieve its strategic objectives and to capitalize on the opportunities being
presented.
2
SUMMARY
A conclusion of this report is that the College should review its overall strategy and its
teaching and learning strategy in light of recent developments in e-learning. However elearning also has direct relevance to two of the College’s current strategic objectives: To
provide a research-led education of the highest international quality and to position
Imperial College as a global institution (College Strategy 2010-20141).
With regard to quality, research shows that the adoption of online or blended learning
leads to increases in student performance, on average, compared to courses delivered
through traditional face-to-face instruction (US Dep’t Education 20092). Recent NSS
results reveal our students to be critical of the learning experience and to increasingly
1
2
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/planning/strategy/strategicplan
http://tinyurl.com/a4b4v98
1
expect technology to be embedded throughout course delivery. Our student union has
been vocal in their support for an increase in the adoption of e-learning.
E-learning is also of critical importance to institutions aiming to act on the global stage.
Institutions are adopting e-learning to extend their global reach and influence in three
ways;



By providing public access to their teaching materials (OER – Open Educational
Resources)
By providing low cost or free online courses to a mass audience (MOOCs Massive open online courses)
By providing accredited online degree programs
Until recently this activity was primarily the preserve of teaching-focused institutions
however peer institutions, particularly in the USA, are eagerly embracing such
initiatives. Harvard University has launched ‘EdX’ through which it plans to offer a
portfolio of online courses to learners around the world, MIT provides online access to
its teaching resources via its OCW project, two Stanford academics launched Coursera,
which now delivers 200 courses to 1.3 million students, Stanford University now
provides a range of Engineering degrees delivered wholly online and the University of
Cambridge has changed its regulations to allow degrees programmes to be delivered up
to 30% online.
These initiatives have significant implications for education quality, student experience
and global standing. E-learning presents opportunities for the College but also poses a
strategic threat which must be given due consideration. A failure to act could invite the
risk of being outmanoeuvred by more agile international competitors who more
effectively optimise and blend e-learning with existing face-to-face teaching.
At Imperial, there is a perceived lack of leadership and strategic guidance with regard to
e-learning. Strategy and policy are currently owned by the ELSC which does not have
sufficient operational resource to conduct the volume of work required nor the remit to
action change in the infrastructure required to facilitate an e-learning strategy. Nor does
the College have the central resources required to consider initiating the type of
institution level e-learning initiatives found at peer institutions.
There are areas of e-learning excellence across the College. Examples include the
METRIC maths tuition tool in the Faculty of Engineering, two popular online learning
degree programmes (MSc Allergy, MSc in Paediatrics and Child Health) in the Faculty of
Medicine and the Business School’s online pre-study programme. (A more
comprehensive list of e-learning activity is presented here:
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/elearning/activities). However, there remain several
departments in which e-learning technologies are not used or where powerful tools
such as the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) are used only as a repository for
documents.
Despite this patchy pattern of e-learning activity, faculty based teams are operating at
capacity, as are the centralized components of the e-learning infrastructure that support
these departmental initiatives. E-learning staff are generally unable to plan beyond
immediate operational requirements and, as a result the College’s e-learning
infrastructure lacks the capacity to drive strategy and innovation.
This review concludes that an increase in e-learning activity is urgently required for the
College to achieve its current strategic objectives. This will require adjustment to the
elements of e-learning infrastructure together with a significant increase in overall
capacity. The principle recommendations of this review are:
2
1. The creation of a new senior level post with overarching responsibility for
College level strategy and initiatives – a ‘Director of E-learning’
2. The creation of a new e-learning strategy that considers recent developments
3. A reorganization of the current e-learning infrastructure
4. The establishment of a system of incentives to further the engagement academic
staff in e-learning work
5. An increased investment in e-learning infrastructure across the College
6. Facilitate an increase in the provision of online learning by establishing the
required policies, support and infrastructure.
3
BACKGROUND
3.1
The College Strategy
The approach taken in this report is to consider any opportunities presented by elearning in terms of their contribution to the current strategic aims of our university and
not in isolation. The College Strategy 2010-20141 states its educational aim to be:
“To provide a research-led education of the highest international quality
within an intellectually challenging and inspiring environment.“
This strategy also aims to position the College as a global institution:
“To provide an education for students from around the world that equips
them with the knowledge and skills they require to pursue their ambitions; To
engage with the world and communicate the importance and benefits of
science to society”.
This section will argue that an urgent increase in e-learning activity is a requirement to
achieve both of these objectives.
This review should also be considered in terms of the broader student experience
agenda. In particular, changing student expectations surrounding the use of e-learning
and the College’s recent poor performance in certain university rankings.
3.1.1 Changing student expectations
Increasingly, students arrive at the College with expectation that e-learning will be
incorporated across teaching delivery; students also bring a range of devices, including
smart phones or other portable devices, which they expect to use in their studies. These
expectations arise from having already been exposed to e-learning during secondary
education, especially to the use of Virtual Learning Environments and interactive
whiteboards, their frequent use of Internet based tools such as social media and the
College’s reputation for technology.
E-learning is a priority forour Student Union who believe a greater adoption of elearning will enhance the quality of the student experience. In fact, e-learning features in
a number of the student Union’s top ten key recommendations following the 2011 NSS
survey, which are highlighted in bold below:
1. College actively encourage and reward innovation in teaching.
2. The President & Deputy President (Education) sit on Strategic Education
Committee.
3. Transparent and formal training for lecturers with biennial review.
3
4. Work with the union to make teaching awards truly student led.
5. Provide model example coursework for markers with weightings for students.
6. Creation of an online automated feedback system to help reform the
personal tutor system.
7. Ensure student consultation on major changes.
8. Use technology and social media to promote NSS and SOLE and their
results.
9. Provide dedicated time and funding for buddy activities.
10. Introduce a UG Transferable Skills Programme integrated with the Union’s
representation system, Clubs, Societies & Projects.3
Upon graduation, much of the world our students then enter, the public and private
sectors of the economy that higher education is required to service and support, has
been transformed by technology over the previous decade. Employers expect graduates
of Imperial College to be adept and familiar with information and communication-based
technologies4.
In other words, one effect of the increasingly pervasiveness of technology has been to
change the definitions of education quality in the eyes of students, parents and
employers. These issues are faced by all institutions but are particularly pertinent to our
College with its focus on STEM subjects but a culture of traditional approaches towards
teaching and learning.
3.1.2 Student experience as reflected in university rankings
The College faces a disparity between its position in international league tables (see
Table 1), based on peer review and its position in domestic league tables (see Table 2)
which include measures of the student experience, for example those relating to
feedback on examinations and coursework.
Our students are critical of the learning experience we offer. In the Sunday Times
university guide 2012 Imperial College ranked 66 out of 122 universities for 'student
satisfaction' and, more significantly, ranked 119 out of 122 universities for 'Teaching
Excellence'. This review proposes that an increase in the adoption of e-learning will
contribute to addressing this issue and therefore constitutes one avenue through which
the College can improve its ranking in the domestic league tables.
Table 1 University rankings provided by Times Higher
Times Higher World University Rankings
World
1
California Institute of Technology
2
Harvard University
3
Stanford University
4
University of Oxford
5
Princeton University
6
University of Cambridge
7
MIT
3
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/planning/strategy/strategicplan
4
Edge Foundation 2011: http://bit.ly/R4LWSX
4
United Kingdom
4
University of Oxford
6
University of Cambridge
8
Imperial College London
17
University College London
36
University of Edinburgh
47
LSE
48
University of Manchester
8
9
10
Imperial College London
University of Chicago
University of California Berkeley
56
66
83
King’s College London
University of Bristol
Durham University
Table 2 University rankings provided by UK newspapers
United Kingdom League Tables
Guardian 2013
1
University of Cambridge
2
University of Oxford
3
London School of Economics
4
University of St Andrews
5
University of Warwick
6
University College London
7
Durham University
8
University of Lancaster
9
University of Bath
10
University of Exeter
11
University of Loughborough
12
University of Surrey
13
Imperial College London
14
University of Glasgow
3.2
Sunday Times 2012
1
University of Cambridge
2
University of Oxford
3
Durham University
4
LSE
5
University of Bath
6
University of St Andrews
7
University College London
8
University of Warwick
9
University of Exeter
10
University of Bristol
11
Loughborough University
12
Newcastle University
13
University of Sheffield
14
Imperial College London
The rapid development of e-learning technology
The capacity of e-learning to enrich education has increased as learning technology has
developed and matured over the past decade. E-learning and distance learning are no
longer the preserve of teaching-focused institutions. This was observed by David Brooks
in an influential article in the New York Times (May 20115) titled the ‘The Campus
Tsunami’:
‘Over the past few months, something has changed. The elite, pace-setting
universities have embraced the Internet. Not long ago, online courses were
interesting experiments. Now online activity is at the core of how these schools
envision their futures.’
The College faces the challenge of not only continuing to improve the student experience
in a climate of higher tuition fees (and therefore expectations), but also of ensuring that
an Imperial education remains world-leading in the context of rapid developments in elearning.
E-learning can enable institutions to increase the outcomes of their teaching provision,
reduce the resources required and facilitate delivery to a wider audience. As a result, elearning is emerging as a transformative and disruptive source of innovation within
higher education.
3.2.1 Increase outcomes
Online learning can be used to enhance traditional face-to-face campus based teaching.
Such a blended learning approach leads to increases in student performance. To
illustrate research in this area, the most significant study comparing online, blended and
5
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/opinion/brooks-the-campus-tsunami.html
5
face-to-face teaching was conducted by the US Department of Education in 20096 as
follows;
"A systematic search of the research literature from 1996 through July 2008
identified more than a thousand empirical studies of online learning. Analysts
screened these studies to find those that (a) contrasted an online to a face-toface condition, (b) measured student learning outcomes, (c) used a rigorous
research design, and (d) provided adequate information to calculate an effect
size."
A key result was that:
"Students who took all or part of their class online performed better, on
average, than those taking the same course through traditional face-to-face
instruction."
The benefits of online learning being incorporated into face-to-face classes can be
summarized as follows:




6
Enables face-to-face class time to focus on meaningful engagement
between staff, students and peers –A common pattern in face-to-face classes is
that the delivery of new concepts occurs in the classroom and the
application/practice of these concepts occurs unsupervised, outside of the
classroom. The “flipped classroom” approach argues that it is during the latter
that the presence of a tutor is of most benefit to student. In the flipped
classroom, the delivery of new concepts is performed online prior to a class and
the application/practice occurs in the classroom. In a World in which content for
all subjects is publicly accessible all via the World Wide Web, it is the latter that
represents the real added value of classroom attendance.
Increased provision of feedback. For example:
o Computer based assessments (formative and summative) can be used
throughout a course which provide feedback with less input from
teaching staff than human marked assessments. Such assessments can
now take a range of formats including multiple choice, calculated
questions, mathematical process problems, programming and modelling
assignments
o Data gathered from an online learning environment can be used to
inform students of their performance/activity compared to their peers
o Online activities can be used to structure and facilitate group activities
allowing greater peer review.
o Computer based marking tools can be used to reduce the time required
to mark an assessment and therefore allow more assessments to be
conducted
Tailoring of flow, pace and content – The lecture format is not the optimal
method for introducing new concepts for all subjects. Delivery via e-learning
allows students study at their own pace. E-learning is of particular relevance to
more technical subjects and also for students who are non-native speakers of
English. Delivery by e-learning also enables a degree of personalised learning in
which the curriculum varies from student to student. For example, preparation
or extension topics can be made available according to student need.
A less threatening environment –The online environment can be less
intimidating for some students than the classroom and enable then to
participate more strongly. This is of particular relevance to students who are
http://tinyurl.com/a4b4v98
6

less confident or who need to acquire additional background in order to reach
the same level as their peers.
Detailed analytics to improve the quality of learning – Online learning
systems track students’ interactions with their course. This allows lecturers to
establish the effectiveness of different course elements and target areas of
student difficulty more precisely. The emerging field of ‘learning analytics’
focuses on identifying patterns in learner behaviour that allow for sophisticated
feedback to be transferred from educator to student and vice versa.
Other benefits of e-learning for face-to-face classes include the ability to enhance the
classroom through sophisticated AV technologies and the ability to increase the
efficiency of course administration through the use of information systems.
3.2.2 Facilitate delivery to a wider audience
Technology enables institutions to engage with an external audience beyond the campus
by delivering courses via the Internet. Such initiatives are likely essential to the College’s
strategic aim to act as a ‘global’ institution. Peer institutions, particularly in the US, have
embraced this opportunity in three different ways;
By providing public access to their teaching materials:
For example:


MIT
Yale University
OpenCourseWare
OpenCourseWare
These initiatives provide significant international exposure for the institutions involved.
MIT reports 1 million visits each month to its OCW site7.
By providing low cost or free online courses facilitated primarily via software:
For example:





Harvard University:
MIT:
University of Pennsylvania
Stanford:
Carnegie Mellon
EdX
EdX
Coursera
Coursera, Udacity
OLI
These online courses aim to replicate the experience of a taught course but largely
without intervention from human tutors. Such courses are termed MOOCs (Massive
open online courses) as they aim to reach a massive global audience. To illustrate, one
course on “Machine Learning” released by Stanford University via Coursera had an
enrolment of over 100,000 students8.
By providing accredited online degree programmes
Until recently such programmes were primarily delivered by teaching-focused
institutions, however e-learning technologies have now improved to the point that it is
often possible to deliver the type of educational experiences that research-led
institutions aim to provide.
Peer institutions are increasingly engaging with this opportunity.

7
8
Harvard University:
Students can study part of their degree courses online. http://hvrd.me/QWZ6lM
http://ocw.mit.edu/about/site-statistics/).
http://eaai.stanford.edu/invited.html
7




Stanford University
Delivers a range of masters degrees entirely online http://bit.ly/ba7ytZ
Columbia University
Delivers a range masters degrees in Engineering, entirely online
http://bit.ly/U1p7iQ
Oxford University
Issues awards for online courses as part of its programme of continuing
education
http://www.conted.ox.ac.uk/courses/online/oxqualifications/index.php
University of Cambridge:
Degrees can now be up to 30% online
http://www.iceonline.cam.ac.uk/file.php/1/credit_accumulation.html
As noted in the next section, the College is active in this area and currently delivers three
degree programmes online.
It is of note that many of the above initiatives build on prior online initiatives and
organizational capacity. For example, EdX builds on the technologies developed to
delivery the online resources MIT provides through its OpenCourseWare website.
Carnegie Mellon’s Open Learning Initiative (OLI) builds on prior projects relating to
cognitive tutoring.
3.2.3 Reduce the resources required to deliver teaching
Online institutions in the US are demonstrating the ability of technology to reduce the
cost of delivering degree programmes. By focusing on online degree programmes, Rio
Salado College (Arizona, USA) has been able to deliver degree programmes at tuition
fees of between 1/3 and 1/8 of comparable fees at campus-based competitors9.
This review does not propose that such approaches can be readily adopted to the
context in which this College operates however the Business School has demonstrated
the ability of technology to reduce costs in some areas. By moving preparatory classes
in mathematics to online format, the Business School has reduced costs by 60% while
improving evaluation scores.
3.3
An environment of increasing competition and the challenge to the
traditional university model
Increasing globalization and the entrance of commercial companies into the online
education sector are changing the environment in which incumbent institutions operate.
Online technologies will lead to increased competition. Online technologies enable
institutions to deliver education globally, beyond their traditional catchment areas.
However, the same technologies enable others to deliver learning into these catchment
areas. The accreditation system that has historically protected UK HEIs from external
competition will not offer protection in the online space. Neither students nor
employers will be concerned that online degrees from Harvard University are not
accredited in the UK.
The commercial companies entering the online space can be considered to take two
forms. First as providers of education, examples being private universities such as the
9
http://www.riosalado.edu/cashier/Pages/Tuition.aspx
8
University of Phoenix (BPP in the UK). Second as specialists operating at specific
aspects of the traditional value chain of universities. For example:
Recruitment:
Curriculum:
Teaching:
Assessing
learners:
Experience:
Issuing
award:
Service specialists (E.g. Study group)
OCW and MOOCs (e.g. EdX, Coursera, Khan
Academy)
Tutoring providers (General Assembly,
LearnRev )
Private assessment ( Pearson Vue, GRE,
Tata, Western Governers Univeristy )
Networking sites (Meet-up, Kick Starter,
LinkedIn)
Alternative awards: Brookings experts,
Forum badges, LinkedIn Profiles, Thiel
Fellowships
These latter companies present institutions with the opportunity to disaggregate their
current model and focus on those aspects of the value chain to which they can add most
value.
3.4
Conclusion
E-learning has significant implications for education quality, student experience and
global standing. E-learning is emerging as a disruptive technological innovation and one
conclusion of this report is that the College should review its overall strategy and its
teaching and learning strategy in light of recent developments.
In terms of the College’s current strategic objectives, E-learning has direct relevance to
two: To provide a research-led education of the highest international quality and to
position Imperial College as a global institution (College Strategy 2010-2014).
E-learning presents opportunities for the College but also poses a strategic threat and
this must be given due consideration. A failure to act could invite the risk of being
outmanoeuvred by more agile international competitors who more effectively embrace
e-learning to compliment and supplement their existing face-to-face provision.
To illustrate: A primary advantage of Imperial College is its reputation within the
international academy. It is this reputation that makes the primary contribution to
the College’s high position in the World rankings such as the Times Higher
Education ‘World Ranking of Universities’. However, the e-learning initiatives
that facilitate delivery to a wider audience mentioned above give substantial
global exposure to the academic staff involved. Academic staff at Imperial College
are at a disadvantage while the College has no such outlet.
4
METHODOLOGY
The findings of this report have been informed principally by a series of detailed
consultations, within and outside the College, with academic staff, e-learning
practitioners and support service providers; a list of all the colleagues that were
interviewed as part of this review are found in the appendix. In addition, we have
9
carried out desk research into e-learning strategies and structures at peer institutions
together with consideration of contemporary e-learning trends.
The approach taken was to structure the investigation around the following three
questions,
1. How should e-learning be adopted in order to further the College’s strategic
objectives?
2. Is the College’s existing e-learning infrastructure sufficient to achieve 1)?
3. If not then, what changes to the e-learning structure are required to achieve 1)?
5
CONCLUSIONS
5.1
Question 1: How should e-learning at Imperial evolve in order to further the
College’s strategic objectives?
5.1.1 The provision of education at the “highest international quality”.
The greater adoption of e-learning can further the College’s ambition to provide an
education of the “highest international quality”. In this report, ‘quality’ is considered,
narrowly, to have two components: student satisfaction and learning outcomes
The section ‘Changing student expectations’ above argued that an increased provision of
e-learning will lead to an increased degree of student satisfaction. The section, ‘The
evolving face of e-learning’ argued that a blended learning approach, in which online
learning is adopted to support face-to-face teaching, improves learning outcomes.
The approaches that lead to increased learning outcomes were listed above and the
College is adopting such approaches. For example:







The Department of Biology has adopted automated marking to increase the
provision of feedback.
The Business School moved to an online provision of pre-study mathematics
courses for in-coming students which led to a significant increase in student
satisfaction compared to equivalent face-to-face classes.
The Faculty of Medicine has implemented a system of virtual patient scenarios
which allow students to apply theory to practice.
There is a College-wide adoption of the lecture recording system ‘Panopto’
which enables students to review lectures at a later stage.
The Business School has implemented an online platform, facilitated using iPads,
which has led to increased communications around course materials.
The Faculty of Medicine has implemented an ‘e-lecture programme’ to facilitate
a blended learning approach.
The Department of Mathematics’ ‘METRIC’ project provides computer based
tutoring, and feedback, in mathematics across a number of departments.
However, the distribution of e-learning activity across College is uneven with a minority
of departments accounting for the majority of such activity. There are departments in
which e-learning technologies are not used or where powerful tools such as the Virtual
Learning Environment (VLE) are used only as a repository for documents.
This review concludes that the College must broaden and accelerate the pattern of elearning / blended learning activity across campus in order to achieve the strategic aim
of providing an education of the “highest international quality”.
10
5.1.2 The adoption of e-learning can further the College’s ambition to be a “global
institution”
The section ‘The evolving face of e-learning’ above described how technology can be
adopted to promote engagement with a global audience and extend global influence.
Activity at peer institutions was highlighted.
The College has embarked on such initiatives:

Our communications department have launched an iTunes-U web service which
provides access to recordings of lectures and events to the Internet audience.
The Business School has a distance learning MBA programme delivered partly
online.
Our faculty of Medicine run two largely online degree programmes (MSc Allergy,
MSc in Paediatrics and Child Health) which receive excellent student feedback.


However the scale of this activity is notably less than that at peer institutions,
particularly those in the USA. This review concludes that an acceleration in our
engagement with such activities is necessary for the College to achieve its strategic aim
positioning itself as a ‘global institution’.
5.1.3 Conclusion
This report imagines a future in which teaching quality across the College is enhanced
by a significant increase in the adoption of e-learning technologies and in which the
College’s global reach and influence are furthered through the provision of
online/blended degree programmes and global online access to our teaching materials.
E-learning needs to be elevated to a higher position on the College agenda. Historically,
e-learning has been considered a ‘hygiene factor’ but is emerging as an opportunity (and
threat) of strategic importance.
E-learning should not be considered in isolation but in relation to a long-term education
strategy that defines the unique value proposition of an Imperial education. E-learning
should also be considered as one component of an overarching digital strategy for the
College. The College’s overall strategy should also be reviewed the developments
described above.
5.2
Question 2: Is the College’s existing e-learning infrastructure appropriate to
achieve 1)?
This report concludes that the current infrastructure is not capable of facilitating the
growth in e-learning activities required for the College to fulfil its strategic objectives.
This current infrastructure consists of the following principal units:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Faculty based e-learning teams
ICT e-learning Services
Educational Development Unit (EDU)
Cross-College users and practitioners
(Including the Library, Careers Advisory Service, Centre for Professional
Development, Graduate School, Health and Safety Department, Learning and
Development Centre, Outreach. The Education Office support of the e-learning
committee structure.)
The above units are coordinated via the committee structure illustrated in Figure 1.
11
Figure 1: An organogram depicting the organisational structure of e-learning across the College.
Within the faculties, the e-learning Implementation Groups (ELIGS) work with Faculty
Teaching Committees (FTCs) to agree and implement faculty level priorities (except for
the Business School, in which the ELIG is subsumed into the FTC). The ELIGS coordinate
their activities at the College level via the e-learning Advisory Panel (ELAP) which in
turn advises the e-learning Strategy Committee (ELSC) on educational, technological
and organisational matters. The ELSC advises the Strategic Education Committee (SEC)
on strategic e-learning priorities and allocates funding for College-wide e-learning
initiatives. Note that there are also a number of related but more general (i.e. not
specifically focused on e-learning) ICT advisory committees and user groups not present
in this diagram.
In this review, interviews were conducted with colleagues working at all levels of this
organogram. Eight specific issues were identified that prevent the College from
capitalizing on the opportunities afforded by e-learning:
Issue 1: The ELSC does not provide strategic leadership in its current form.
Respondents felt that the ELSC lacks influence being largely advisory in nature, without
clear powers with weak integration into the Strategic Education Committee (SEC).
Respondents also felt that the ELSC did not provide strategic guidance on e-learning
matters.
This ELSC is an advisory body and lacks clear power to progress e-learning. This has
resulted in the perception that the ELSC does not offer sufficient strategic guidance on elearning matters. The ELSC budget was considered to be ‘token’ and the committee is
not able to secure funding for e-learning initiatives beyond small scale pilot projects.
Concerns were also expressed regarding a weak integration with the Strategic
Education Committee (SEC).
The top level e-learning committee in the College needs to be able to determine and then
implement a College e-learning strategy. To do this effectively, this committee requires
direct influence over the e-learning infrastructure including the IT systems that support
e-learning.
At present the ELSC does not have this influence. The ELSC is represented on the
Information Technology and Services Strategy Group (ITSSG), the top level advisory
committee relating to ICT activity, however ELSC members expressed concerns
12
regarding the cyclical reporting lines for this committee. The committee is chaired by a
senior College academic and the Director of ICT is a member, however the committee
then reports back to the Director of ICT. A particular issue in this structure it the
disconnect between the ITSSG and the Management Board. It is felt that ITSSG should
report directly to the Management Board in order to ensure greater awareness and
influence at a Senior Management level.
Issue 2: There are insufficient central resources for e-learning at the strategy and
policy level
Strategy and policy are currently owned by the ELSC who do not have sufficient
operational resource to conduct the work required. Respondents pointed to a lack of
progress towards a policy on the IPR held in e-learning resources and a similar lack of
progress towards a policy on OER (Open Educational Resources).
Issue 3: There are insufficient central resources for the College to engage with
significant institution-wide online initiatives
The section ‘The evolving face of e-learning’ above gave examples of how international
peer institutions have adopted online initiatives to engage with an external audience
beyond the campus by delivering courses via the Internet. This review concludes that a
lack of central e-learning resource is a barrier to the College evaluating and initiating
such initiatives in a strategic manner.
Issue 4: There are insufficient resources at the departmental level
The majority of e-learning staff consider their unit to be under-resourced and, with
some notable exceptions, are unable to look beyond immediate operational
requirements. As a result, departments lack the human resources required for strategic
thought and management with regard to e-learning.
There was broad agreement that e-learning support is most effective when delivered at
the local level, close to the point of need. However, in most parts of the College –
particularly in the Faculties of Engineering and Natural Sciences – there are too few
learning technologists and these staff are shared between too many Departments.
The lack of learning technologists in some departments is compensated for to a degree
by training and support available centrally from EDU and ICT, however these
departments provide only a starting point or an overview of approaches that can be
taken. They also feel significantly under resourced.
This lack of resource at the department level is considered to have a direct and negative
impact on the engagement of academic staff. Without support, academic staff conclude
that the barriers and costs of adopting e-learning are too high.
Issue 5: Innovation is hindered by the time required for initiating and delivering
new IT systems for e-learning
Issue 6: A lack of academic engagement is considered the main barrier to the
wider adoption of e-learning.
There was praise for individual ‘champions’ of e-learning among academic staff however
the need for broader engagement across the academic body was considered a key issue.
Respondents noted the following barriers encountered by academic staff


There are a lack of incentives to engage with e-learning projects
Academic staff do not feel adequately supported and consider e-learning activity
to contain unacceptable risk as a result.
13

Low levels of engagement by academic staff has inevitably resulted in low levels
of knowledge and expertise in e-learning. This restricts staff’s ability to identify
opportunities for e-learning and to embark on e-learning initiatives.
Respondents noted the risk of e-learning activity existing in a different ‘silo’ to
mainstream teaching strategy within the College unless this issue is addressed.
Issue 7: Roles and responsibilities within the e-learning infrastructure are not
clear.
The components of the present e-learning infrastructure have largely developed
organically in response to need. There is broad agreement over roles:




Faculty based e-learning teams
Promoting the adoption of e-learning within a faculty or department, providing
support for centrally supported IT systems, developing e-learning materials and
blended/online courses, facilitating faculty-specific initiatives.
ICT e-learning Services
Responsible for centrally supported e-learning IT infrastructure. For example
Blackboard, the Equella learning object repository and the Panopto lecture
recording system.
Educational Development Unit (EDU)
Providing training in e-learning with a focus on pedagogy.
Cross-College users and practitioners
Providing the services of the faculty based e-learning teams in departments
outside of the faculty structure.
However, these roles are not explicit and there was some disagreement as to who
should be providing aspects training and support. A conclusion is that documenting the
roles of these teams, in broad terms, would help avoid duplication and enable this
infrastructure to grow in a coordinated manner.
Issue 8: The present e-learning infrastructure lacks the capacity for innovation.
E-learning is an emerging field and in a period of innovation. However, the current elearning infrastructure does not have the capacity to innovate. The College does not
have any teams or individual staff members whose focus is on innovation. Virtually all
support teams feel under resourced and unable to look beyond immediate operational
concerns. In addition, there are no structures in place to enable academic staff to focus
on innovation and the current structure of relationships between faculty based elearning teams and ICT is considered to put too many obstacles in the way of innovation.
5.2.1 Conclusion
This report concludes that the current e-learning infrastructure is insufficient for the
College is to embrace e-learning to the degree required to capitalise on the
opportunities being provided or to fulfil the strategic objectives stated in the Current
College Strategy.
5.3
Question 3: If not then, what changes to the e-learning infrastructure are
required to achieve 1)?
This report makes the following six recommendations:
14
Recommendation 1: The creation of a new senior level post with overarching
responsibility for College level strategy and initiatives.
At present there is a lack of leadership for e-learning. The Chair of the ELSC is tasked
with this responsibility. However, due to increasing e-learning activity, the volume of
work has increased so that the part-time nature of the committee chair is insufficient to
conduct the role effectively. The College lacks a dedicated “Director of e-learning” with
the time and expertise to evaluate opportunities, develop an e-learning vision for the
College and to coordinate institution level strategy and policy.
This report recommends the creation of a full-time post, likely reporting to the ProRector (Education). This would be a senior, strategic position. Responsibilities would
include:








The creation, implementation and maintenance of a College e-learning strategy
Responsibility for the budget required for the above.
Chairing the ELSC - which will hold responsibility for the e-learning strategy
Attending the Strategic Education Committee (SEC) to ensure that e-learning
matters are represented.
The creation and maintenance of College policies with regard to e-learning. For
example: A policy on intellectual property.
To hold relevant support services accountable with regard to the e-learning
strategy.
To evaluate, initiate and oversee College level e-learning initiatives. For example:
OER (Open Educational Resources and MOOCs (Massive open online courses).
To engage with faculties, departments and peer institutions to ensure that the
quality of our e-learning is of international standing.
Recommendation 2: The creation of a new e-learning strategy that considers
recent developments
This report recommends that the current College Teaching and Learning Strategy be
critically reviewed in light of the recent increase in e-learning activity described under
‘3.2: The rapid development of e-learning technology’ and ‘3.3: An environment of
increasing competition and the challenge to the traditional university model’ above. The
overall College strategy should also be reviewed.
Following this, a new e-learning strategy should be developed. This review recommends
that this strategy focus on:


Creating an environment which enables e-learning to flourish at the
departmental level. For example: An increase in the creation of blended learning
courses and online degree programmes.
Creating the necessary central resource for the College to embark on institution
level initiatives. For example: OER (Open Educational Resources, MOOCs
(Massive open online courses).
Recommendation 3: A reorganization of the current e-learning infrastructure

A restructuring of the two College e-learning committees
We recommend that the ELSC be reorganised to focus solely on strategic issues.
Its primary purpose should be to hold responsibility for a College E-learning
strategy and to monitor progress on this strategy. We recommend that ELAP be
tasked with responsibility for all operational issues currently on the agenda and
terms of reference of the ELSC.

A restructuring of the governance structure that connects the ELSC to ICT.
At present, the ELSC holds responsibility for the College e-learning strategy. In
15
order to enact this strategy the committee requires direct influence over the IT
systems that support e-learning. At present, it operates in solely an advisory
capacity.
There are currently two formal links between the ELSC and ICT. A
representative from ICT sits on the ELSC and the chair of the ELSC sits on the
Information Technology and Services Strategy Group (ITSSG), the committee
which guides ICT activities. However, members of the ELSC expressed concerns
regarding the governance of the ITSSG in that it reports back to the Director of
ICT. This committee should have stronger links to senior College level strategic
committees.
In response to role of e-learning moving from being a ‘hygiene factor’ to a driver
of strategic change, the ITSSG should be moved higher within the organizational
structure of the College. For example, the committee should chaired by a senior
member of the Management Board, such as the Provost or Deputy Rector.

The clarification of roles and responsibilities within the e-learning
infrastructure.
Broad and mutually agreed roles should be established for the different
components of the e-learning infrastructure.
Recommendation 4: The implementation of measures to further the engagement
and effectiveness of academic staff in e-learning work.
This report recommends that the Strategic Education Committee (SEC) establish a
working group to this end. Measures should include:
1. A review of the current training provision to ensure this is appropriate
towards achieving the aims of a revised e-learning strategy. There are factors
known to affect the effectiveness of online courses10. Those who teach online
need to have the skills and knowledge necessary to facilitate online learning. The
acquisition of these skills is not a wholly intuitive process and training is
required. Current levels of skills and knowledge among academic staff were
perceived to be insufficient by some respondents to this review and a review of
current training provision is recommended, this should be informed by feedback
from staff to ensure that it is relevant and informative.
2. The establishment of a system of incentives that recognises the e-learning
work performed by academic staff and therefore encourages broader adoption.
The components of such a scheme could include the following:




The inclusion of e-learning activity within job descriptions, promotion criteria
and bonus schemes.
The inclusion of e-learning work in teaching allocation frameworks.
The creation of academic secondments which enable academic staff to focus
their teaching related work on e-learning projects
The creation of an annual award scheme to recognise achievement with elearning
“Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of
Online Learning Studies” (DoE. 2010),
10
16
3. The implementation of technology tools for academic staff that simplify the
task of adopting e-learning into courses. For example tools that clarify issues
relating to IOR or Pedagogy planning software.
Recommendation 5: An increased investment in e-learning infrastructure across
the College.
E-learning is more likely to take hold where there are strong local teams of academics
and learning technologists working together, as has been the case in areas of the College
such as the Business School, the Department of Biology and the Faculty of Medicine.
In order to accelerate the recruitment of learning technologists in areas of the College
where there is insufficient resource, we suggest the allocation of central resources to
fund positions for a fixed period. Following this period, the funding for these positions
should be incorporated into faculty or departmental budgets.
Recommendation 6: Facilitate an increase in the provision of online learning by
establishing the required policies, support and infrastructure.
In order to achieve its aim to position itself as a global institution, the College should
increase its provision of high quality distance-education and increase open access to
teaching materials via the Internet.
6
IMMEDIATE ACTION
This report does not propose a project plan or outline budget in order to progress the
six recommendations listed above.
This report does recommend that recommendation 1 be enacted with immediate effect
and that the Director of E-learning be tasked with the implementation of
recommendations 2 to 7.
Acknowledgement
We would like to take this opportunity to thank the people who have contributed to the
review. In return, we hope that this document may provide a practical blueprint for a
coordinated, student-focused and locally-driven structure that will result in the College
embracing the opportunities presented by e-learning.
17
7
APPENDIX 1: STAFF CONSULTED FURING THIS REVIEW
The following staff were interviewed as part of this review.
Paul Allatt
Paul Chauncy
John Conway
Sarah Couter
Dot Griffiths
Ruth Harrison
Martyn Kingsbury
David Lefevre
Shireen Lock
Omar Matar
Karlie O’Hara
Dave Riley
Moira Sarsfield
Alan Spivey
Julie Voce
Peter Wren
Betty Yue
Deputy Director of ICT
AV/IT support
Senior Learning Technologist, FoNS
Learning and Development Administration Manager
Acting Principal, Imperial Business School
Team Leader, Education and Research Support, Library Services
Principal Teaching Fellow, Educational Development Unit
Director, Educational Technology Unit, Imperial Business School
Senior Learning Technologist, FoE
Director of Undergraduate Studies,
Department of Chemical Engineering
Senior Learning Technologist, Imperial Business School
Senior Consultant in Educational Development,
Educational Development Unit
Senior Learning Technologist, FoNS
Director of Undergraduate Studies, Department of Chemistry
E-learning Services Manager, ICT
Tutor in Educational Development, Educational Development Unit
Head of Continuing Professional Development,
School of Professional Development
18
8
APPENDIX 2: TEMINOLOGY
“E-learning infrastructure
In this report ‘infrastructure’ refers to the IT systems, the staff and the organizational
structures that facilitate and support e-learning.
”“E-learning”
We define “e-learning” as learning experiences mediated and supported through the use
of technology. An alternative expression would be “technology-enhanced learning.”
According to this definition, e-learning encompasses College initiatives such as online
learning (self-paced courses, live online lectures and tutorials), in-class technology (e.g.
personal response systems, lecture recording systems and simulations), the provision of
course materials in online format, and the provision of tablet devices.
“Blended learning”
We define “blended learning” to be a course or a degree programme, partly delivered
through e-learning and partly through traditional methods.
“Distance learning”
We define “Distance learning” to be a course or a degree programme delivered via elearning to students who do not visit the campus.
19