Editorial introduction: BJET special issue on critical success factors in institutional change

Abstract

In the UK, starting in 2002, the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) began two influential funding programmes. One was the Exchange for Learning (X4L) Programme, which aimed to increase the practice of re-purposing of learning objects and content for educational purposes. The other was the Digital Libraries in the Classroom Programme which aimed to integrate currently available digital resources into core undergraduate teaching.At the heart of both of these programmes was the intent to help UK institutions to build capacity to manage change, to acquire the skills needed to make informed decisions about adopting digital content within their core programmes and to understand the impact of this integration on student achievement, retention, recruitment and on institutional structures and practices. These were indeed highly ambitious programmes, and as they come to the end of their funding it seems appropriate to reflect on the achievement of these projects and others like them.In 2006 JISC helped fund a workshop on "Critical Success Factors for Institutional Change" (CSFIC '06) which was co-located with the European Conference on Digital Libraries (ECDL '06). The papers in this special issue have emerged from this workshop. The intention is to present a range of experience papers which explain the issues that these projects have faced in making real and permanent change happen within their curricula. The papers are not intended to respond to the research agenda of any particular domain, but rather the authors were encouraged to tell the story as it happened, in language that should be clear and unambiguous to University managers and practitioners from all disciplines.The seven papers presented here represent a range of projects, and present the problems of embedding change from number of different view points.Three of the papers (Breslin et al.) (Davis and Fill) (Donald and Wallace) discuss the problems of embedding funded projects from an institutional management point of view. Three of the papers discuss the same project: Davis and Fill represents the view for the Institutional management point of view, another (Martin and Treves) represents the view of the departmental/subject leadership, and a third paper (Durham and Arrell) examines the challenges and benefits of cross institutional collaboration from faculty point of view. It is informative to observe the extent to which these viewpoints differ; the casual reader might not even notice that these papers discuss the same project.While most of the projects are concerned with how the work of a funded project will be sustained after funding is completed, Cook et al. describe work on re-usable learning objects at London Metropolitan University that has matured into a funded project (The RLO-CETL).

Conceptions of e-learning and professional development for e-learning held by tertiary educators in New Zealand

“…Teachers do not work in isolation however, they are members of departments and discipline groups, as well as institutions and the wider tertiary education sector. At each level there are multiple critical factors related to management and organisation, collaboration and dissemination, e‐learning design, and people, all having an influence upon institutional (and therefore teacher) change (Davis & Eales, 2007). At the core of the change towards embedding e‐learning, it stands to reason that if appropriate professional development experiences are to be designed and implemented, then they have to be cognisant of the views of e‐learning held by staff as they are the ones who will have primary responsibility for engaging their students via e‐learning.…”

Designing for collaborative learning spaces: An academic staff development pilot program

“…The concluding showcase event was essential for management staff to recognise the teaching abilities of their staff, their readiness for implementing the BSc units in collaborative learning spaces, and the work still required to be done. This event should be included in future programs since it helps to merge innovation from a top-down policy and leadership perspective together with bottom-up innovation and change (Wilson 2007;Davis & Eales 2007). Finally, it is important to note the Bachelor of Science units will be undergoing a review process in August, 2013 and this will inform the delivery of other such programs and the required people and digital resources required to support it.…”