Volume Two - Academic Conferences

Simon McGinnes
view on demand. OSD has not been used, since it is demanding of resources and previous results
were disappointing.
An enlarged website offers a variety of information including how-to guides, FAQs, news, course
calendar, module descriptors with syllabus, texts and coursework requirements, and online video.
This information is designed to empower part-time students (and part-time lecturers) who are present
on campus only infrequently and therefore less able to communicate informally with other students
and staff.
Coursework is scheduled to avoid bottlenecks and reduce stress when assignments are due. The
introduction of a small number of elective modules is intended to give students some choice over the
subjects they study. Each student is allocated a personal tutor, who provides advice and support in
case of ill-health, family, financial or course-related problems. The introduction of student surveys and
class representatives helps provide feedback about the innovations, which is incorporated into a
continuous improvement cycle.
5. Results
The innovations have largely been well-received; student feedback and external examiner comments
have in general been positive. Where negative comments have been received, they have been
addressed quickly whenever possible. However, structural change has been more challenging than
we hoped. We have learned that it can be risky to raise student expectations too much; for example,
the late withdrawal of a promised elective module by the School (on cost-saving grounds) prompted
strong dissatisfaction amongst students.
Although the institution proclaims its support for lifelong learning, this does not necessarily translate
into acceptance of, or support for, eLearning at a departmental level. The introduction of eLearning
technology itself has been relatively simple. However, ongoing efforts are necessary to alter mindsets
and practices amongst academics, administrators and students. Trinity College’s culture and
processes are often unfavourable for mature, part-time students, but they are extremely entrenched
and resist change (the College is over 400 years old). Unhelpful perceptions are encountered; many
academics and administrators see the student body only as a uniform group of full-time day (i.e. nonmature)
students; the “job of a lecturer is to lecture”, and so on. Effecting change is therefore an
exhaustive process of winning over individuals and finding workarounds where change is difficult.
Administrators have little incentive to alter processes, since change is seen as disruptive and costly;
tradition or precedent are often invoked as reasons for keeping things as they are.
It can be problematic also to motivate academics to engage in eLearning, since they have little
incentive; performance is assessed primarily through research and publication, and so investing
additional time in teaching can be viewed as wasted effort. Some have entrenched attitudes to
eLearning, perhaps borne of prior experience with earlier technologies. One senior academic made
his opposition explicit by protesting that “eLearning doesn’t work”. This experience seems to mirror
that in other established institutions (Vryonides and Vitsilakis, 2008).
Perhaps the most compelling insight which has emerged from this project is that eLearning is a team
effort and feasible only when conducted on a sufficiently large scale. Unlike conventional university
teaching, which is typically a one-person effort and inherently flexible, eLearning requires coordinated
work by academics, administrators and support staff. Isolated eLearning initiatives by individual
lecturers are time-consuming and costly, even if the technical resources are available, and difficult to
carry out successfully. This requirement for team collaboration cuts across the institution’s
management structures, which are organised along functional lines, and is therefore hard to achieve
without active management support (Jennings, 2005).
6. Conclusions and recommendations
Flexible learning is undoubtedly helpful for mature students. Our progress has been slow but we have
been encouraged by the limited successes to date with eLearning and associated improvements in
the IS programme. Our overarching experience has been that it is non-technological factors—cultural,
perceptual and organisational—which are the major barriers to eLearning, particularly in a wellestablished
university where tradition is prized (McGinnes and Dowling, 2010). A multi-pronged
approach to change is required, encompassing management, processes, assumptions, regulations,
services, methods, pedagogy and technology.
984