E-learning for adult literacy, language and numeracy: a case study of a polytechnic

5. The evolution of the e-learning programmes

We now turn to the theoretical models that we used to identify and analyse the characteristics of LLN-related e-learning at all levels of the polytechnic. The models that we present in this section have each been simplified to include only five aspects.

The three models that we used were the Attributes of Innovation Model (Rogers, 2003), the Learning Trajectory Model of professional development (Sherry and Gibson, 2002), and the Organisational Maturity Model (Learning and Skills Network, 2008). The development and the components of each of these models are outlined in Appendix B.

5.1. The Attributes of Innovation Model

The attributes of an innovation that affect the speed and uptake of innovations are relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. Reference to these attributes allows institutions to predict if the uptake of an innovation will be sustained and helps tutors and managers increase the likelihood of success.

The m-learning initiative that we documented earlier in Section 3.2 provides an example in which the attributes of the innovation had different effects on the adults involved in it.

• Relative advantage: For the tutor, the advantage was student retention. The project was fun for the students and so increased their motivation to continue their study. The provision of external funding for the innovation gave credence not only to the tutor’s teaching approach but also to her leadership in employing m-learning. For the employers, the innovation reduced their responsibility for monitoring and assessing the apprentices’ progress. For the students, the innovation reduced their need to write and maintain records while on their employers’ premises;
  
• Compatibility: Students did not have to access computers but instead could use their own mobile phones, a technology that nearly all students of today are likely to own or be familiar with. Having students use vouchers to pay for texting and uploading pictures is also compatible with the everyday life experience of students;
  
• Complexity: Complexity retards adoption of innovations. The tutor’s decision to text four quiz questions a day to the students in order to stimulate them to use their paper-based workbooks was an innovation that the students found simple to use. The students also found taking pictures and uploading them to websites easy, given that they already knew how to do this from engaging in similar activities in their leisure time. The tutor, having gained support and advice from the e-learning coordinator, also found the innovation a straightforward one;
  
• Observability: During block courses, and informally outside of class, students and staff had opportunity to observe more expert users of mobile phones and other technologies for learning trades skills;
  
• Trialability: Before implementing the use of mobile phones as an m-learning tool, the tutor trialled, with intensive support from the e-learning coordinator, all the m-learning activities. The coordinator also set up the Moodle learning management platform for the tutor and advised on the purchase of mobile phones and other associated equipment and software. The use of a mobile phone was not compulsory, so some students were able to trial the innovation by using a peer’s mobile phone. The external funding made it economically feasible to conduct the trials.

5.2. The Learning Trajectory Model

The learning trajectory that an educator is likely to pass through during adoption of a teaching and learning innovation is learner, adopter, co-adopter, re-affirmer or rejecter, and leader (Sherry and Gibson, 2002). Our case study of the polytechnic provided several examples of staff who had led e-learning and LLN innovations and had gone on to become heads of their respective departments. One important common characteristic of each of these people was their ability to provide their colleagues with the right mix of professional development activities and support over a sustained period of time.

The Dean of Learning Services, the Dean of Trades and Engineering and the e-learning coordinator all observed that the tutors with whom they were working were at different stages of the learning trajectory in relation to the innovations we studied. For example, the Dean of Learning Services noted that, at any one time, a whole school might need help in a particular area or a tutor will “get a step up by having that ‘just now’ individualised [support]”. She reminded us that the types of support offered by her service included one-to-one, programme- and school-based workshops, and specific project-related work. The philosophy that Learning Services uses with all forms of support, she said, “is the independence model … and that means working alongside them. Just-in-time help, and so on”. The dean said that while most tutors soon get to grips with e-learning, few of them become leaders in this area. The e-learning coordinator gave us a particularly useful outline, from his perspective, of tutors’ ability to engage with e-learning across time. This process followed that outlined towards the end of Section 4.4 of this report.  

5.3. The Organisational Maturity Model

Under this model, the stages of maturity that organisations are likely to pass through when adopting an innovation are termed localised, internal integration, transformative, embedded, and innovative (Davis, 2010). E-learning is a pervasive innovation that tends to stimulate further change, and so the adoption overall of this form of learning is one that constantly moves through these stages. In short, it is an ever-evolving process.

In Table 1 (Section 4.4), we provided an overview of the stages of maturity relating to the two complex innovations specifically targeted by our case study (advancing e-learning and embedding LLN into it). During our investigation, it was clear to us from plotting these developments as a whole, or in part, against the model, that both are in a state of flux. The intertwined nature of the innovations contributes to this situation: sometimes, the two aspects enhance each other; sometimes they disrupt or prevent each other from progressing. This complexity helps explain why time and careful management are needed to bed in innovations-to bring them to an appropriate stage of maturity.

We consider, from our observations, that the polytechnic is likely to remain at the transformative stage relative to its e-learning and embedded LLN initiatives, a situation that is appropriate to its mission. To date, these initiatives have prompted-through the development of the polytechnic’s central services and increased collaboration across its programmes and various support services- transformation of the institution’s internal routines. The polytechnic has not reached a stage of forming (and informing) partnerships with other organisations and external agencies that have a stake in developing e-learning and/or addressing the LLN needs of adults, but this has not been called for. The polytechnic is unlikely to move to the later stages (embedded and innovative) of e-maturity until such outcomes and partnerships become central to its mission.