JISC

This is a report of an investigation into The TLT Group’s Teaching, Learning and Technology Roundtable (TLTR) concept, which has been used in over 400 post-16 institutions in North America.  The basic premise of the idea was to allow such institutions make better informed decisions vis-à-vis the integration of ICT with teaching and learning.  It is stated that this is most effectively done by engaging individuals and groups, at the vanguard of teaching, into a dialogue with one another. 

Executive Summary

The TLTR approach was trialed in two diverse UK institutions: a pre-1992 university and a further education college.  A post-1992 university, which had a structure that closely resembled a TLTR was also examined.  To better understand TLTRs, the team conducted face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews and focus groups with US and Canadian TLTRs.  This report highlights the critical success factors that initiate TLTRs and make them effective bodies.

Recommendations

In our view a TLTR can be defined as a sliding scale.  At one end of the scale there is the ‘purist’ form, a highly structured, prescriptive methodological ‘cookbook’; at the other end there lies a very loose definition, a general approach characterised by broad membership, discussion, information-sharing and mutual respect.  Between the two exists a ‘partial’ TLTR that picks and chooses tasks appropriate to the requirements of each situation and its corresponding challenges.  All seek to effect technological change and organisational effectiveness through learning. 

The ways in which one hopes to use TLTR may well define at what point along the sliding scale one positions oneself.  Institutions that have a very specific project to implement may well utilise the full strict methodology, while roundtables with a long-term strategic management remit seem to use less.

In the strictest sense it is our view that TLTRs are neither a new nor are an effective way of managing technological change for a whole community.  However, there are many lessons that may be drawn from our research into the international experience of the TLT Group and the roundtable methodology.  Our data suggests that there is little distinction between the ‘roundtable’ experiences of North American institutions and the ‘collaborative’ or ‘collegial’ experiences found within the UK.  As such we present recommendations that seek to enhance what many UK institutions are engaged in already. 

We present our recommendations in the following three areas:

• recommendations for institutions wishing to create collaborative change structures or enhance existent ones in order to manage technological change
• recommendations for JISC
• recommendations for researchers who may wish to extend our work or be informed by it

Recommendations for institutions wishing to create collaborative change structures or enhance existing ones to manage technological change

• We have found that while pure TLTRs are not easy to implement, nor are they impossible.  We have found that they may be an effective way of managing short-term technological projects with a defined end date.  The methodology has not been proven to be sustainable over a long period of time.
• Though TLTRs are a seemingly simple concept, engineering the introduction of multiple viewpoints into the decision-making process increases its complexity.  The starting point for sustaining technological change is not a prescription, but an understanding of the organisation.  In order to gain such an understanding, managers need to comprehend the organisation’s values, culture, structure, leadership and micro-political dynamics.  In addition the managers should be aware of their own sphere of influence.
• We have found a correlation between the successful introduction of a highly structured TLTR and institutional size.  In smaller organisations the acceptability of prescriptive methods is generally higher, however even in these cases evidence suggests that the sustainability of the prescription was not great.
• From this we would argue that the introduction of a purist TLTR is highly unlikely to benefit many institutions in F/HE in the UK.
• We have overwhelming evidence to suggest that the United Kingdom Post-16 education sector has similar experiences and structures to those seen in North American institutions.  We see the enhancement of already existent structures to be more appropriate than the creation of new and specific bodies. 

We feel from our experiences that the critical success factors for any collaborative change forum are as follows:

• Purpose  The constitution, terms of reference, decision-making processes and location of the forum within the organisational structure have to be clearly stated.  The purpose of the forum should be known and agreed upon not only by its membership but across the entire institution
• Space The way in which individuals within the forum are allowed to think and reflect should encourage creativity, break down barriers and allow experiences to be seen as equally valid regardless of an individual’s position within the organisation
• Informality  The more informal forums tend to be the ones which are more creative and which engender open and honest debate
• Time  The frequency and length of meeting time are important factors governing the success of the forum.  We have found that optimum frequency is about twice a term, with a maximum meeting length of ninety minutes.  A great many institutions, particularly those with very heavy teaching commitments, report that freeing up staff teaching time for participation in meetings is crucial
• Timescale  Collaborative change requires long-term commitment by both senior management and participants
• Resources  There is correlatory data to suggest a link between funding and the implementation and sustainment of collaborative structures
• Broad interpretation of cost  In institutions with very heavy teaching loads we have found that drawing staff members to participate in meetings occurs at a cost.  This is generally borne by either the students (in terms of cancelled lectures) or by fellow staff covering sessions. We have found that if this cost goes unrecognised, it may result in institutional tension that undermines the success of the forum
• Membership  Collaborative bodies should be diverse.  They should include senior management (to provide legitimacy to the body), technologists, teachers, technical staff, librarians, administrators and students, to reflect the totality of the institution
• Disposition of the group  A group can include the sceptics or non-sceptics.  If you choose to include non-sceptics in the forum, it may engender greater stability.  If you choose to include the sceptics, it may result in more heated exchanges, but it may also provide for a more realistic appraisal of technology in your institution.  If sceptics are brought into the forum it is vital that they be allowed to express themselves; the forum should not be used to cajole individuals into accepting the ‘world view’ of the group.  It has been our experience that this can result in disenchantment, disengagement and widespread loss of respect, for both the roundtable itself and any senior management that are closely identified with it
• Leadership  It is not essential that the most senior individual lead the forum.  In our experience the best forums were the ones in which the leader exerted respect, specific knowledge and charisma, while displaying sufficient understanding of the social networks and political dynamics to keep the forum vibrant and productive.  In summary, we recommend a view of leadership that veers away from the traditional, hierarchical models
• Commitment The organisational resources and effort required to ensure that a roundtable be effective are such that a considerable sustained commitment is required, going beyond (but also including) the senior management team to encompass the whole organisation

It is essential when considering approaches to organisational and technological change that no single method be discounted or given disproportionate weighting.  In fact we have found that where roundtables are implemented, they are often best used as part of a portfolio of initiatives. The initiatives selected and the weight given to each one is entirely contingent upon the organisation.

The authors feel that an obvious extension of collaborative mechanisms is at the LEA level of secondary education.

Project Management recommendations

Over the research period the project ran into distinct problems that may well have been associated with the conceptualisation of the original project remit.  These were as follows:

• Access  As originally conceived, this project sought to trial a change management methodology within three educational institutions operating within turbulent environments.  This presented the authors with two distinct problems: a) ensuring that the project acquired appropriate management support, and b) seeing that this support was maintained.  Changes in senior managers, strategic direction and the policy environment often conspired to put the project team in difficult situations, with modifications made to the structure of the project more or less 'on the hoof'.  The project team would recommend that future calls reflect flexibility in accordance with the changing nature of the participant organisations.
• Duration  This was also a project that sought to inquire into the effectiveness and impact of management intervention (TLTRs) on an organisation’s culture and effectiveness.  We strongly recommend that any future project tackling issues of organisational change be allowed the time to evaluate any policy shifts made as a result of the intervention itself.  In this case, the project would have had to be extended by at least an additional 24-36 months.
• Focus  The genesis of the methodology was tailored to a particular sector: the University Sector in North America.  With minor modifications this was altered to suit the community college sector.  In the UK we found a diversity of structures and mechanisms that echoed the North American experience and crossed sectoral boundaries.  Despite this correlation a suspicion remains within the project team (which is possibly reflected in this report) that this is a methodology that blurs distinctions between sectors but is led by HE.  Given the challenges that face the whole of the post-16 education sector, the project team would like to add its voice in calling for more specific research into the organisational impact of technology on Further Education and the skills sector, and in particular on Adult and Community Learning Centre settings.

Recommendations for further research

We accept that individuals within any educational organisation are unlikely to share a vision for technological change.  Even when those visions do coincide, individuals are unlikely to agree on the ways in which to articulate and realise that vision.  We do not feel that highly structured TLTRs are able to bring divergent viewpoints together meaningfully and translate that into institutional action.

Report available electronically only. Read the final report below.