D1.3.1

=Institutional policies define the support resources and assistance available to teaching staff for e-learning design and (re)development. =

Evidence
In explaining the design of effective organisational infrastructure for e-learning Laurillard (2002) notes that, as prodigious technology use is not matched by understandings of it, prescriptive guidelines are ineffective. Rather, there is need for a systemic responsive-adaptive approach to ‘this new organism. The biological metaphor is apt. The academic system has to learn, has to be able to respond to its environment…the higher education system needs a more robustly adaptive mechanism than it has had to develop hitherto’ (p. 214).

Bates (2007) explains that institutions must plan to allocate resources for e-learning. In his case study the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology it was decided that significant increases in numbers of instructional designers, multimedia developers, and faculty development facilitators was going to be required. Also, a matrix model to manage the resources of the Centre for Instructional Technology and Development was recommended. Each year a committee would determine how to allocate the CITD resources to departments according to service agreements.

Resources
Laurillard (2002) emphasises six areas of academic management to address the considerable organisational logistics accompanying change, these are: 1. optimise the deployment of staff resources, 2. optimise the organisation of teaching, 3. encourage use of good materials developed elsewhere, 4. establish a programme of staff development, 5. set up multi-skilled development areas, 6. set up forum for teachers to discuss ideas, experiences (pp. 225-7).

Executive leadership and commitment is identified as highly significant in enabling the constructive alignment of institutional mission, pedagogical practice and e-learning success (Abel, 2005). Abel specifies key leadership elements as being: long-term commitment, significant financial and resource investment, priority for effective programmes, and clear articulation of institutional e-learning mission (p. 76).

Botturi et al. (2007) explains the difficulties of working on a new project such as e-learning development with a necessarily large and diverse team. These authors argue for the benefits of fast-prototyping, where a rough idea for a product is actually produced so that all stakeholders can experience what might be on offer. This enables rapid understanding of potential problems and trialability. Fast prototyping works best when the project is quite big or ambitious, where team members are not accustomed to working together (such as academics and web designers or instructional designers), and many of the participants have little experience in e-learning course development.