JISC

This document reports on a scoping study to investigate the roles and functions of UK HE staff involved in the development of learning and teaching through the use communication and information technologies.

Executive summary

The objectives of the scoping study were:

• to describe the various staff functions and activities associated with the embedding, development and support of learning technologies in HE
• to describe the different categories of staff to whom these functions and activities are typically devolved
• to audit the number of staff in each of the categories across a representative range of UK HEIs
• to reveal patterns of staff recruitment and deployment across the audited institutions and, where possible, relate these to critical institutional factors
• to produce a number of case studies providing a rich picture of the roles and responsibilities of individual staff members within each of the categories identified, and across a range of different HEIs
• to make recommendations for further areas of study and strategic focus by the JISC CALT
• to provide guidelines for institutions on staff recruitment, deployment and development for effective support of C&IT for learning and teaching.

A significant proportion of staff involved in learning technologies across the sector were represented in the study either as institutional auditors or as stakeholders on the Steering Committee and in the various focus groups and workshops.

Outline methodology

The project involved several distinct studies, beginning with a role analysis of 35 diverse individuals involved with learning technologies in UK HE, with the aim of describing in greater detail the different roles and activities involved. An audit was then carried out at 23 institutions representing a quarter of all UK HEIs (not including HE colleges, from which insufficient data was received). Here the aim was to investigate the number of individuals employed in each role, their institutional locations and terms of employment, and to provide some background information about learning technology use at the institutions involved. Auditors were all 'native' members of the local learning technology team, and their contribution to the study is gratefully acknowledged. The audit looked at the number of staff employed in different roles, the coordination of learning technologies at the institution, and fourteen key factors to diagnose institutional progress in the embedding of learning technologies.

To add detail to the picture of learning technology career development, in-depth interviews were carried out with 17 learning technology staff from four representative HEIs. Key institutional managers at these institutions - heads of personnel, staff development, educational development and learning and teaching - were also interviewed to provide an overview of the institutional context of learning technology work, following indications that new staff roles had often been overlaid on existing structures (Liber 1998) without the ‘strategic overview and... new personnel structure’ which would allow them to be effective (Gibbs 1999).

A significant number of staff working with learning technologies were involved in the study either as institutional auditors (23) or as members of the focus groups, workshops and briefings which were held at crucial points (33 participants in all). Stakeholder organisations were represented on the steering group or were consulted on the recommendations during the final period of the study.

Key findings relating to learning technology staff

Staff numbers

Extrapolating from the audited institutions, the study found that around 7500 learning technology specialist staff (not including academic staff) were working in UK universities. Around 4500 of these were found in central units and around 3000 in non-central locations, though the latter figure is likely to be an under-estimate due to the difficulty of identifying these staff. In addition, around 8000 academic staff in departments (or about 10% of academic staff in audited institutions) were actively working to embed learning technologies into their learning and teaching activities. This figure showed reasonable consistency across institutions, though it is possible that the terms 'active' and' innovative' were being applied in a context-dependent fashion.

Staff roles

The role analysis identified 11 distinct roles, though these by no means corresponded with actual divisions of labour among individuals, many of whom were carrying out multiple roles. These can be summarised under three categories of individuals with a characteristic range of roles for each type. 'New specialists' included the roles of educational developer, educational researcher, technical researcher/developer, materials developer, project manager and general learning technologist: In practice these roles were rarely carried out in isolation, with most individuals having responsibilities across at least two different areas. From the study it appeared that UK HEIs employed just under 2000 such staff with a specific remit for learning technologies. 'New specialists' were likely to be young (in their late twenties or thirties) and on fixed-term contracts, often supported by external funding. They had typically been in their current post less than two years and at their current institution less than four. They tended not to have staff reporting to them, though many had project managerial responsibilities. 'New specialists' were perceived by all the groups involved in the study as the ‘true’ learning technologists: multi-skilled and peripatetic but with learning technology work at the core of their professional identity. They were often involved in the entire process of learning technology development, support and use (hence the multiple roles) and had a pivotal institutional role in terms of coordination, liaison and the facilitation of change. Many were involved in institutional working parties or committees. Almost all delivered some form of staff development via workshops, accredited programmes and training courses and/or less formal modes of skill transfer. Educational developers formed the core of this core group, both numerically and in terms of the perceived centrality of their role. Focus groups described the archetypal learning technologist as ‘an educational developer with a learning technology specialism’ and there were difficulties distinguishing this role from learning technologist. Senior managers confirmed that development skills were crucial in recruiting new specialists. Along with focus groups they also confirmed that educational development or ‘embedding learning technologies into the curriculum’ was seen as the primary task for most institutions. Academics and established professionals included academic innovators as reported above and a smaller number of academic managers (around 1000) with secure positions in the institutional infrastructure. These individuals had incorporated an interest in or formal responsibility for learning technologies into their existing professional identity without necessarily becoming learning technology specialists. They constituted both an expert resource in their own right and a client group for the services of staff in the other two categories.

Skills and activities

The initial role analysis identified 58 separate activities involved in the coordination, development, use and support of learning technologies. On average participants carried out at least 20 activities as ‘core’ or ‘central’ to their role, and a further 20 ‘regularly’ or ‘occasionally,' indicating that these staff required competence in an extraordinarily wide range of areas. Ten activities were central for a majority of respondents, regardless of their specific role, and of these ‘keeping abreast of current developments in learning technologies’ scored most highly. All of the remaining nine were educational, developmental, interpersonal/communicative or strategic rather than technical activities. Case study participants (who did not include academic staff) confirmed these findings: all gave technical skills a lower priority than interpersonal and pedagogical skills in carrying out their current role, though this may in part be due to the ease with which they acquired new technical skills ‘on the job’. Institutional managers also reported that technical skills were less important – or easier to recruit and develop – than an awareness of pedagogical issues and an ability to operate effectively within academic culture. Other skills which were important for new specialists and established professionals included: management, project management, information management (especially online information skills), strategic organisational and networking skills and an ability to develop others. New specialists to a lesser extent also required ‘traditional’ academic skills in research, publication, course design and teaching.

Recommendations for further study

Further study is needed to scope the specific needs of the different groups of staff identified in Section 4 of this study in relation to JISC services, and their specific roles in facilitating access to JISC services by other members of their institutions. This study should also consider the extent to which staff in departments are taking on learning technology support roles, to identify trends and to explore effective ways of offering JISC services to and via these staff.

An in-depth study should be carried out at a small number of institutions which have pursued different strategies for embedding learning technologies. Ideally these should include at least one example of the seven strategies identified in (7.2.2):

• academic staff secondment
• coordination/brokerage
• updating professional expertise
• supporting materials production
• small-scale projects
• cultural initiatives
• infrastructure initiatives

Read final report below