A case study of the effectiveness of the electronic survey as a research tool for measuring students' experience of e-learning

This paper uses a case study approach to consider the effectiveness of the electronic survey as a research tool to measure the learner voice about experiences of e-learning in a particular institutional case. Two large scale electronic surveys were carried out for the Student Experience of e-Learning (SEEL) project at the University of Greenwich in 2007 and 2008, funded by the UK Higher Education Academy (HEA). The paper considers this case to argue that, although the electronic web-based survey is a convenient method of quantitative and qualitative data collection, enabling higher education institutions swiftly to capture multiple views of large numbers of students regarding experiences of e-learning, for more robust analysis, electronic survey research is best combined with other methods of in-depth qualitative data collection. The advantages and disadvantages of the electronic survey as a research method to capture student experiences of e-learning are the focus of analysis in this short paper, which reports an overview of large-scale data collection (1,000+ responses) from two electronic surveys administered to students using surveymonkey as a web-based survey tool as part of the SEEL research project. Advantages of web-based electronic survey design include flexibility, ease of design, high degree of designer control, convenience, low costs, data security, ease of access and guarantee of confidentiality combined with researcher ability to identify users through email addresses. Disadvantages of electronic survey design include the self-selecting nature of web-enabled respondent participation, which tends to skew data collection towards students who respond effectively to email invitations. The relative inadequacy of electronic surveys to capture in-depth qualitative views of students is discussed with regard to prior recommendations from the JISC-funded Learners' Experiences of e-Learning (LEX) project, in consideration of the results from SEEL in-depth interviews with students. The paper considers the literature on web-based and email electronic survey design, summing up the relative advantages and disadvantages of electronic surveys as a tool for student experience of e-learning research. The paper concludes with a range of recommendations for designing future electronic surveys to capture the learner voice on e-learning, contributing to evidence-based learning technology research development in higher education.

Leadership and management standards in the UK Lifelong Learning sector

Leadership and Management Standards in the UK Lifelong Learning Sector. Presentation on research findings on leadership and management in the LLS sector, in the context of UK government policy changes introducing the 2007 Principals' Qualifying Programme (PQP) delivered by the Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL)/Learning and Skills Improvement Service (LSIS). Discusses the role of standards in leadership and management professional practice and development and sums up the history of development of standards in relation to the National Occupational Standards (NOS) for Leadership and Management, based on the UK Management Standards Centre (MSC) Institute for Leadership and Management Standards. Discusses the Lifelong Learning UK (LLUK) Benchmark Role Specification for Principals in FE, Sixth Form and Specialist Colleges and the fact that the LSIS PQP has adopted those as part of its programme for Principal development. In the context of the implementation of standards for leadership and management, discusses the importance of values-based and research-informed leadership and the development of trust in lifelong learning sector institutions, given the multiple challenges facing vocational education and training (VET) institutions and the relative lack of recognition and support for the difficult roles taken on by Principals and senior leaders.

Reaching across organisational, sectoral and geographical boundaries: exploring the learning potential of an EU cross-border project

Research This paper outlines some of the key findings from an evaluation of the project and demonstrates that EC funded projects such as this, which seek to promote cross border collaboration and understanding (i.e. across organisational, sectoral and geographical boundaries) offer considerable learning potential – not least about variances in health politics across different communities. However, for this learning to be realised a comprehensive system of knowledge management needs to be an integral part of project planning alongside a system for sustaining embryonic professional networks. The concept of managing relationships was also a key part of the projects success. Executing a project funded by the EU demands the development of complex organisational skills to negotiate all the administrative challenges en route to successful completion and this project in particular relied for its success on the development of social relationships of trust and mutual respect across national, professional and social boundaries. Context A three–year European Commission funded project designed to exchange a wide range of staff (professional semiprofessional and voluntary staff in health and social care) project led by the University of Greenwich (UK) and the Université Catholique de Lille, France was completed this year (February 2008). The project was complex because it involved working in different national contexts, was multi-disciplinary, and demanded the negotiation of multiple boundaries. Theories A mixed method evaluation including written reports gathered immediately after each exchange visit and a post hoc series of individual interviews and focus groups was conducted in order to gain qualitative information (from the participants perspective) on their experiences and to identify any learning gained. Results Analysis of the data provided evidence of learning on a number of levels; personally, inter and intra professionally and organisationally as well as across sectors and also from a project management perspective. The learning crystallised around the extent of the differences noted by the participants between the UK and the French health and social care systems despite geographical proximity, common membership of the EU and many shared challenges in health and social care. The extent of these differences, noted at every level from policy to practice proved a rich source for reflection on organisational philosophies, ways of working, distribution of resources, professional roles and autonomy and professional registration and mobility - in short on health politics at ‘macro’ and ‘micro’ levels.

Bridging the gap with teamwork: collaborative leadership for communities of practice in the learning and skills sector

Collaborative approaches in leadership and management are increasingly acknowledged to play a key role in successful institutions in the learning and skills sector (LSS) (Ofsted, 2004). Such approaches may be important in bridging the potential 'distance' (psychological, cultural, interactional and geographical) (Collinson, 2005) that may exist between 'leaders' and 'followers', fostering more democratic communal solidarity. This paper reports on a 2006-07 research project funded by the Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL) that aimed to collect and analyse data on 'collaborative leadership' (CL) in the learning and skills sector. The project investigated collaborative leadership and its potential for benefiting staff through trust and knowledge-sharing in communities of practice (CoPs). The project forms part of longer-term educational research investigating leadership in a collaborative inquiry process (Jameson et al., 2006). The research examined the potential for CL to benefit institutions, analysing respondents' understanding of and resistance to collaborative practices. Quantitative and qualitative data from senior managers and lecturers was analysed using electronic data in SPSS and Tropes Zoom. The project aimed to recommend systems and practices for more inclusive, diverse leadership (Lumby et al., 2005). Collaborative leadership has increasingly gained international prominence as emphasis shifted towards team leadership beyond zero-sum 'leadership'/ 'followership' polarities into more mature conceptions of shared leadership spaces, within which synergistic leadership spaces can be mediated. The relevance of collaboration within the LSS has been highlighted following a spate of recent government-driven policy developments in FE. The promotion of CL addresses concerns about the apparent 'remoteness' of some senior managers, and the 'neo-management' control of professionals which can increase 'distance' between leaders and 'followers' and may de-professionalise staff in an already disempowered sector. Positive benefit from 'collaborative advantage' tends to be assumed in idealistic interpretations of CL, but potential 'collaborative inertia' may be problematic in a sector characterised by rapid top-down policy changes and continuous external audit and surveillance. Constant pressure for achievement against goals leaves little time for democratic group negotiations, despite the desires of leaders to create a more collaborative ethos. Yet prior models of intentional communities of practice potentially offer promise for CL practice to improve group performance despite multiple constraints. The CAMEL CoP model (JISC infoNet, 2006) was linked to the project, providing one practical way of implementing CL within situated professional networks.The project found that a good understanding of CL was demonstrated by most respondents, who thought it could enable staff to share power and work in partnership to build trust and conjoin skills, abilities and experience to achieve common goals for the good of the sector. However, although most respondents expressed agreement with the concept and ideals of CL, many thought this was currently an idealistically democratic, unachievable pipe dream in the LSS. Many respondents expressed concerns with the 'audit culture' and authoritarian management structures in FE. While there was a strong desire to see greater levels of implementation of CL, and 'collaborative advantage' from the 'knowledge sharing benefit potential' of team leadership, respondents also strongly advised against the pitfalls of 'collaborative inertia'. A 'distance' between senior leadership views and those of staff lower down the hierarchy regarding aspects of leadership performance in the sector was reported. Finally, the project found that more research is needed to investigate CL and develop innovative methods of practical implementation within autonomous communities of professional practice.