O9.2.1

=Staff with experience in e-learning are formally involved in the (re)development of institutional learning and teaching strategies and policies.=

Evidence
Focusing on institution-wide reorganisation, Harloe and Perry (2005) comment on the challenges of implementing new roles and reform to make the university ‘fit for purpose’ whilst preserving its distinctive knowledge production functions. They argue that ‘the university has to be organised in ways that retain the active commitment of their academic staff. It also has to recognise the reality of a much more complex division of roles and responsibilities between academic and administrative staff’ (p. 40).

Using the metaphor of a compass, Kowch (2005) discusses the complexity of exploring, mapping and navigating the e-learning environment with a view to discovering its social capital opportunities. Observing that administrators with a very limited understanding of technology are directing huge investments, Kowch calls for more research and input from educational technologists. He argues that a ‘technology-integrated educational institution is an important (potential) social capital generator; so, education leaders must know both how to design it and how to lead it’ (pp. 1068-9). Kowch believes that because educational technologists readily contextualise instruction and learning as a social (relational) process that is well suited to technology-mediated environments, they have potential for e-learning environment project design and organisational (change) leadership.

The increasingly ubiquitous e-learning environment is also giving institutions cause to question and redefine their understanding of learning experiences, and to reflect on the shift in focus from content to the context and processes of learning: ‘Institutions face the challenge of developing a vision and strategic direction…to move forward while not reducing their agility to adapt to new developments’ (Garrison and Anderson, 2003, p. 105). Garrison and Anderson identify ten topics that should be considered for strategic planning and policy: 1. Vision; 2. Needs and risk assessment; 3. Description of educational principles and outcomes; 4. Implementation initiatives and strategy; 5. Infrastructure; 6. Info-structure; 7. Support services; 8. Budget and resources; 9. Research and development; 10. Benchmarking (p. 108). They also comment that sustainable innovation emerges through middle-level leadership rather top down or bottom up management approaches: ‘middle-level leaders…have the expertise and commitment, along with access to both senior management and the grass-roots…to formulate realistic strategic direction and influence institutional leadership’ (p. 108).