Section 7: The RIPPLES survey results and discussion

Survey design

The survey was designed and administered by Dr Daniel Surry, University of South Alabama. He was particularly interested in testing out the usefulness of the RIPPLES model in the Australian VET context. There were 46 questions. Twenty-nine questions addressed each of the seven components of the RIPPLES model, eight questions collected demographic data, and four questions addressed perceptions of personal and organisational innovativeness. Four open ended questions invited respondents to identify the two biggest enablers and barriers to using innovative e-learning and suggestions for fostering the use of innovative practices in e-learning. Respondents also were invited to leave their email addresses if they were happy to answer follow-up questions. The survey questions are included in Appendix 1.

Survey distribution and response profile

The RIPPLES survey was distributed through VET networks including the Flexible Learning Leaders listserv, state and territory LearnScope managers, state and territory Framework Coordinators, state and territory Australian Council of Private Education and Training (ACPET) contacts and state and territory Toolbox Champions. The survey was also distributed to project managers of previous and current New Practices in Flexible Learning projects, the State and Territory Framework Coordinator, through individual contacts in institutes and to those who had expressed an interest in the project including those who had registered on the research wiki. Many recipients forwarded the survey to their own networks.

The survey was conducted between 15 October and 1 November 2006, with a total of 321 respondents. From that, there were approximately 260 usable surveys. 0

Survey results

Descriptive statistics

The following is a summary of the demographic profile of the sample population including provider type, primary role, gender, age, state/territory and primary work location. The number of responses to the open-ended questions is also listed.

Respondents by provider type

Respondents by primary role

Respondents by gender

Respondents by age

Respondents by State/Territory

Respondents by primary work location

Respondents by Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin

Respondents by field of VET teaching

Qualitative data

Respondents were also asked four open-ended questions:

1. In your opinion, what are the two biggest enablers that make it easier for people to use innovative practices in e-learning? (225 responses)
2. In your opinion, what were the two biggest barriers that prevent people from using innovative practices in e-learning? (229 responses)
3. If you were in charge of fostering the use of innovative practices in e-learning and you had unlimited resources, how would you do it? (211 responses)
4. Is there anything else you would like to tell us? (110 responses)

The responses to these open-ended questions were analysed using the RIPPLES framework. Themes were identified and synthesised and transferred into the appropriate components of the model. Responses that did not fit within the RIPPLES model were analysed and reported separately.

Inferential statistics

Analysis of variance was conducted on the following:

1. The extent to which individual courses employ innovative practices.
2. Provider type.
3. Role types.
4. Perceived level of personal innovativeness.
5. Perceived level of organisational innovativeness.
6. The seven components of the Ripples model.

The results of each analysis are listed below.

1. The extent to which individual courses employ innovative practices

Question 39. Thinking specifically about the e-learning courses you are responsible for, to what extent do you think those courses use innovative practices and techniques?

An analysis of variance was conducted to determine if there were differences between respondents who felt their e-learning courses used innovative practices and respondents who felt their e-learning courses did not use innovative practices. The results showed that there were significant differences based on the seven components of the RIPPLES model, perceptions of personal innovativeness and perceptions of organisational innovativeness.

More specifically, respondents were more likely to report they used innovative practices in their e-learning courses if their organisations:

• had a strong infrastructure for e-learning
• took into account peoples’ ideas, beliefs and experiences when making decisions
• engaged in shared decision making
• had appropriate e-learning policies
• had strong evaluation programs
• had strong support systems
• had strong pedagogical support.

In addition:

• The more innovative a respondent reported themselves as being, the more likely they reported use of innovative practices in their e-learning.
• The more innovative a respondent reported their organisation as being, the more likely they reported uses of innovative practices in their e-learning.
• The more their organisation used innovative practices and techniques in e learning, the more likely they reported uses of innovative practices in their e-learning.

Note: State or territory, location (metro/rural), provider type, gender, and ethnicity were also found to be statistically significant variables but subsequent analysis determined that those factors were either not practically significant or were the result of statistical anomalies. As a result, they are excluded from the discussion. Additional research is needed to determine the effect of these variables on the use of innovative practices in e-learning.

Summary: The results indicate that the extent to which e-learning courses use innovative practices is the result of a number of interrelated factors including the technology infrastructure, communication, shared decision making, policies, evaluation, organisational and personal support and perceived personal and organisational innovativeness. There were three significant differences related to the RIPPLES components of People and Support and one each to Policy, Infrastructure and Evaluation. The RIPPLES components of Learning and Resources were not significant factors in this analysis.

2. Provider type

There were a number of statistically significant differences found between respondents based on their provider type (ie, TAFE, ACE). It should be noted, however, that the large majority of respondents to the survey (83%) were affiliated with TAFE. Therefore, it was determined that comparisons between provider types would not be valid. Further research comparing different provider types is recommended.

3. Role types

An analysis of variance was conducted to determine if there were differences between groups. The results showed that there were statistically significant differences between executive managers (6.9% of respondents) and other respondents in 10 key areas.

Compared to other respondents, executive managers:

• felt resources were allocated less appropriately in their organisation
• felt opinions, idea, beliefs and experiences were considered to a greater extent
• rated the amount of shared decision making in their organisation higher
• felt the culture of their organisation acted more as an enabler
• felt the policies of their organisation acted more as an enabler
• rated the commitment of their organisation to provide high quality e-learning experiences higher
• felt the commitment to learning outcomes of their organisation acted more as an enabler
• rated the quality and quantity of evaluations related to e-learning in their organisation higher
• felt the quality and quantity of evaluations in their organisation acted more as an enabler
• rated the quality of pedagogical support in their organisation higher.

Summary: Executive managers felt that communication, shared decision making, culture, commitment of their organisation to high quality e-learning experiences, evaluations and pedagogical support were more enabling than respondents with other roles. Conversely, executive managers believed financial resources were less appropriately allocated than other respondent types.

4. Perceived level of personal innovativeness

Personal innovativeness related to Question 38. Innovativeness is defined as being open to change and willing to adopt innovative tools and practices. In general, would you say you are more innovative or less innovative then the average person?

There were significant differences between respondents who viewed themselves as more or less innovative based on:

• the level to which they believed the RIPPLES components: People, Policies, Learning, Evaluation and Support were important
• their organisation’s infrastructure for e-learning
• the level of shared decision making in their organisation
• the degree to which they believed their organisation’s policies were rigid and difficult to change
• the appropriateness of their organisation’s policies related to e-learning
• the degree to which their organisation emphasised learning outcomes in e learning courses
• the degree to which their organisation was committed to providing a quality e-learning experience
• the quality and quantity of evaluations in their organisation
• the quality and quantity of evaluations in their organisation related to e learning
• the support system of their organisation
• the quality of training in their organisation
• the quality of technical support in their organisation
• the quality of pedagogical support in their organisation
• the extent to which they used innovative practices and techniques in their own e-learning courses
• the degree to which they felt their organisation was innovative.

Note: The majority of respondents to this survey identified themselves as either much more innovative (38.3%) or somewhat more innovative (47.7%) than the average person. This question calls for a self-reported level of innovativeness and, therefore, represents a person’s perception of their own innovativeness, not an independent measure of innovativeness. While additional research could be conducted to include an independent measure of innovativeness, the discussion for this research has focused on types of ‘innovativeness’.

Summary: Perceptions of personal innovativeness are significantly related to the extent respondents believed the RIPPLES components: People, Policies, Learning, Evaluation and Support were important. Other significant factors include the infrastructure for e-learning, shared decision making, policies related to e-learning, commitment to quality e-learning provision, the quantity of evaluations related to e-learning and in general, the quality of pedagogical and technical and training, the use of innovative practices in their own e-learning delivery and the degree they thought their organisation was innovative. Eighty-six percent of respondents rated themselves as being much more or somewhat more innovative than the average person.

5. Perceived level of organisational innovativeness

A comparison of respondents based on the extent to which they felt their organisation as a whole uses innovative practices in e-learning, and the extent to which they believed each of the RIPPLES components serves as a barrier or an enabler showed significant differences on all seven components.

From a practical standpoint, this means that respondents who felt their organisation used innovative practices in e-learning tended to view each of the RIPPLES components as an enabler rather than a barrier in their organisation. Conversely, it means that respondents who felt their organisation did not use innovative practices in e-learning viewed each of the RIPPLES components as a barrier rather than an enabler in their organisation. This finding suggests that the RIPPLES components are a valid framework for determining barriers or enablers to the use of innovative practices in e-learning.

Of the 53.1% of respondents to this survey, 10.1% identified their organisation as being extremely innovative and 43% as somewhat innovative.

Summary: Organisational innovativeness was significantly related to the seven components of the RIPPLES model and so are considered enablers of innovative e-learning practices; 53.1% of respondents believed their organisations in general were extremely or somewhat innovative.

Summary of perceived personal and organisational innovativeness

Perceptions of personal innovativeness are significantly related to the extent respondents believed the RIPPLES components: People, Policies, Learning, Evaluation and Support were important. Other significant factors include the infrastructure for e-learning, shared decision making, policies related to e-learning, commitment to quality e-learning provision, the quantity of evaluations related to e-learning and in general, the quality of pedagogical and technical training, the use of innovative practices in their own e-learning delivery and the degree they thought their organisation was innovative. Organisational innovativeness was significantly related to the seven components of the RIPPLES model so they are considered enablers of innovative e-learning practices.

While 86% of respondents rated themselves as being much more or somewhat more innovative than the average person, 44.7 % indicated they were using innovative e-learning practices and techniques to a very high or high extent in their delivery. Of the 53.1% who believed their organisation in general was extremely or somewhat innovative, only 25.7% believed their organisation was using innovative practices to a very high or high extent. Individual respondents perceived themselves to be more innovative than the organisation they worked in and using more innovative practices than their organisation as a whole.

6. The seven components of the RIPPLES model

Table 6 shows the mean for each RIPPLES component on a seven point scale with ‘1’ being a major barrier and ‘7’ being a major enabler. The component Infrastructure showed the lowest mean score (3.42). This suggests that the technological infrastructure of the organisation was viewed as the biggest barrier to the use of innovative teaching practices in e-learning by respondents in this sample. The component Learning showed the highest mean score. This suggests that an emphasis on learning outcomes by the organisation was viewed as the biggest enabler to the use of innovative teaching practices in e-learning by respondents in this sample.

It should also be noted that Learning was the only RIPPLES component to score above a ‘4’ — the mean point on the ‘7’ point scale. This suggests that Learning was the only net enabler for this sample while the other six components were all net barriers — although all six appear to be relatively weak net barriers.

Table 6: Barrier or enabler — mean for each RIPPLES component

Barriers and enablers for each component of the RIPPLES model

This section is a collation of survey responses related to the barriers and enablers specifically aligned to the seven components of the RIPPLES model. This includes survey questions specifically addressing enablers and barriers, and the importance of each component for successful use of an e-learning innovation. A synthesis of the responses to the two open-ended questions specifically related to enablers and barriers have been aligned to the appropriate component.

Resources

Question 3. Do you think the financial resources of your organisation and the way those resources are allocated act as a barrier or an enabler to the use of innovative practices in e-learning? (A barrier makes innovative practices in e-learning harder, an enabler makes innovative practices in e-learning easier) 1 = Major Barrier, 7 = Major Enabler

Summary

The RIPPLES survey provides a comprehensive analysis of the barriers and enablers to the use of innovative e-learning practice in VET delivery. The survey highlights a complex mix of a number of interrelated factors influencing e-learning innovation implementation suggesting both personal and organisational factors are required to move an innovative practice forward.

The next section will combine this data with that from other sources to identify key themes and highlight key findings.

Section 8: Feedback to the Australian Flexible Learning Framework

Contributors interviewed for this research included participants in current and past New Practices in Flexible Learning projects, intermediaries like e-learning coordinators, institute managers, Framework Coordinators, LearnScope managers, and innovative e-learning adopters who had direct or indirect links with a New Practices in Flexible Learning project. As part of the interview process participants were given Figure 12 and asked to respond to the following question:

Given your experience, what could these stakeholder groups do in the future to more effectively enable innovative practice in e-learning to be embedded?

The funding body

A significant professional development opportunity

There was unequivocal acknowledgement that participation in a New Practices in Flexible Learning project opportunity had contributed to personal growth and learning and provided a significant opportunity to explore e-learning innovations. However, there was a mixed view about the adequacy of the sponsoring organisation to enable transfer of those benefits beyond the local experience.

Have a consolidation year in 2007: In the final year of the current Framework strategy (2005-2007), have dual focuses on new practice development and new practice implementation.

• New practices need continued exploration, but they also need support to be implemented as implementation was the first stage in an embedding process.
• Develop a program to support innovation teams, early adopters, Framework Coordinators, champions and decision makers responsible for embedding an innovative practice which builds the knowledge and skills necessary to lead or influence an embedding process.
• Fund innovative practices that have demonstrated progress towards embedding regardless of their source.

Clarify purpose: Clearly define what a New Practices in Flexible Learning Project is really about — research and development of emerging technology, new pedagogies, or an organisational change process. Clearly define embedding expectations — is it local, across disciplines, or a broader national focus. Currently the New Practices in Flexible Learning Project is a product development model rather than a social influencing model which is what is required for embedding. Once the focus is on implementation the model needs to change to support that process.

Clarify the contribution of the New Practices in Flexible Learning Project to innovative e-learning development: Innovative practice in e-learning is already part of the fabric of VET and many initiatives are occurring outside the ‘formal’ New Practices in Flexible Learning projects. New practices are not necessarily the biggest movers of e-learning innovations in VET. There needs to be greater clarity about its unique role and contribution. What is its niche?

Consider the nature of the innovation: If the aim for a new practice is to be embedded, consideration must be given to its ‘embed-ability’ from the outset, which could include:

• a commitment to delivery integrated into the project requirements
• the new practice being generic enough for wide appeal and application.

Expand to a three year cycle: It is unrealistic to have any substantial embedding with the current funding and project management model. A longer timeframe is needed for the maturation process that leads to embedding. To date, the emphasis has been on the front end (development) but the back end (implementation) needs equal attention and this must be done up front as part of the funding methodology. A planning process that explicitly gives attention to both ends at once is an important factor.

Rethink a ‘project’ framework: It encourages short-term investment and application. The ‘one off-ness’ encourages a start-stop mentality with finite beginnings and endings and no accountability for sustained use.

Leverage new practices that are already demonstrating viability: There are many new practices that already have implementation success. Fund those that have demonstrated a user interest. These could include trials that are occurring within different RTO sectors.

Establish closer links with research bodies: Greater alliances with research bodies from other sectors disciplines and countries. This creates awareness of the latest research and emerging trends/issues questions, so there is more coherence about the most effective targeting. Analyse trends and practices of early adopters and champions to be better informed about what will work in a VET context. Otherwise there could be danger of funding the un-embeddable.

Pay more attention to organisational development: Many Framework initiatives have been personally beneficial, but there needs to be more attention paid to building the systems and organisational capability to embrace the changes. There needs to be parallel development of new practices and organisations.

Balance themes and priorities: Have a balance between targeting projects and open-ended projects to allow for diversity of opportunity.

Encourage consortiums: Partnerships provide fresh perspectives, new challenges and sharing of diverse knowledge and skills which in itself can be an embedding strategy. However, this should not be a selection requirement. Forced partnerships are not always the most productive, and some innovators with great ideas may not always have suitable connections.

Link formally to LearnScope: It is an established structure that can facilitate the embedding of investments in innovation. If New Practices in Flexible Learning represent the trends for e-learning, then it makes sense to encourage RTOs to engage with these trends. New Practices in Flexible Learning could also identify some of the new practices emerging from LearnScope and then scope a New Practices in Flexible Learning project to embed in particular industry areas.

Encourage fresh blood: There is a perception that New Practices in Flexible Learning is a fairly closed community. Several groups have received repeated funding, so consider an application limit or for repeat applicants to provide evidence of successful embedding of previous project as a pre-requisite to further funding.

Have a maintenance plan: Several potentially embeddable New Practices in Flexible Learning projects are sound, but are not being embedded because the content is redundant. A good example of this is the game-based learning for AQTF professional development. As there is often a lag time between the release of a new practice and readiness to use it, a maintenance plan is important to keep the new practice viable and encourage embedding.

The New Practices in Flexible Learning National Management Team

Level of support: It is outstanding. What is appreciated is the time to talk through projects and the suggestions for scaling back proposals so they become more manageable.

New practice identity: The source of a new practice is only important to people involved in seeking the funding. Invest in embedding the practice not in marketing the project.

Reporting process: Redirect the energy required for reporting into developing an embedding strategy. Developing guidelines and a delivery system for using a new practice would be more productive and could become a form of reporting in itself.

Be more flexible in reporting requirements: At times it seems that the reporting requirements and project management are more of a focus than the project itself. It is difficult to define and commit to deliverables at the beginning of a project as New Practices in Flexible Learning is about discovery. Deliverables can only be best guesses and mostly change. This needs a rethink.

The organisation participating in New Practices in Flexible Learning Projects

The funded organisation must drive a new practice as a business case

• Having a clear vision of where the new practice will take you and how it will live beyond the project is essential.
• The driver for considering a new practice must be the organisation and its business goals. Always think about the business case and the connection with clients/industry/students.
• You need to ask: ‘Where does this new practices opportunity fit into our business plan and how can we shape it to meet our needs’?
• Focus on the point of delivery and ask: ‘How can this new practice change teaching practice?’

Recognise the different types of ‘innovation’ roles: Adventurers, explorers, translators, brokers, experimenters, doers. A diverse team is needed to embed a new practice.

Ensure enabling systems are in place: Take an organisational development perspective. With any innovation, it is the system sitting behind it that will enable it to be embedded. A new practice, no matter how big or how small is an organisational issue. Embedding an innovation is an active process that must be prepared for and supported.

Management support is critical: Senior management needs to be committed. Senior champions and middle level operational managers need to be excited and actively involved.

Assess the educational value of a new practice: This needs an educational analysis of what the technology can do and where it fits in the design of an educational program. Move from a focus on technology tools to implementation models.

Build new practice leadership: Those who have an eye on what is happening, can see the benefits for their organisation, bring it back and ground it. Consider a local identity like a New Practices in Flexible Learning Champion.

Take an interest in research: It can really give you the edge!

The New Practices in Flexible Learning Project Teams

1. The new practice

Ask key questions about the value of adopting a new practice

• What would this new practice allow us to do or to do better than we couldn’t do before?
• Will this be better for our learners?
• How will it fit into a larger delivery system?
• Is that system prepared to change its work practices to accommodate the innovation?
• Can we keep it going after the funding stops?
• Is this worth investing our time and money in?

In other words, how significant is it educationally and/or organisationally?

A new practice is not about the technology: The technology itself can be simple to learn. Embedding is about professional development and organisational commitment. If momentum can’t be sustained until there is a critical mass, the new practice will stop. It requires a longer term plan that is supported.

A new practice may be a better practice with new technology The practice is not necessarily ‘new’. The pedagogy is often already good, but is limited by an older technology. The new practice is to integrate a new technology to enable the delivery of good practice to be cheaper, automated and/or portable (online casting is a good example of this). The most important consideration is that as a result, the teaching and learning is ‘better’. For example, with online voice technologies, learners have better access to spoken texts, lectures, and models.

2. The Innovation Team process

Work in consortiums: This enables cross fertilisation, fresh perspectives, learning conversations and sharing of expertise beyond a local context. A consortium is an embedding enabler.

Be aware of the different drivers for investment in a new practice: For the innovation team it is the excitement of exploration and discovery. For the adopting practitioner, they are ‘up to their ears’ in the AQTF, compliance and daily work processes. Consider how a new practice will fit into their world.

New Practices in Flexible Learning is one of many funding sources A new practice is not an event or even a project, but an opportunity to improve the business. The funding is a culmination point — a time of readiness where everything comes together and the New Practices in Flexible Learning funding helps to accelerate the opportunity. A new practice is more likely to succeed if the New Practices in Flexible Learning Project is not the sole funding source, as the investment from other sources is a sign of long-term commitment which needs to be identified by other projects and incorporated into their plan or a completely new concept around what New Practices in Flexible Learning is about. Tap into a number of funding sources as part of a wider business plan and continue to do so.

Collectively and cumulatively this could include:

• Framework; repeat funding from New Practices in Flexible Learning, Toolboxes, LearnScope, Industry Engagement
• Reframing the Future
• state/territory funding
• institute funding
• commercial activities.

The intermediaries

Works in pairs or groups: Never have one person responsible for embedding as perceptions can be different and the task too hard.

Link more closely to other Framework roles: Framework Coordinators, LearnScope managers, Toolbox Champions and engage them more strategically in the embedding process. Embedding is the common focus for everyone.

Think more creatively about how to embed Start with user interest rather than the new practice. For example, a LearnScope Start Up is made up of a group of total strangers with a shared interest that has bought them together. They register their interest and in an organic way they decide what to focus on. They organise themselves and it all falls out. They are across disciplines and have different work roles and even from different organisations. At the right point, they see a need and it fires them.

Recognise the importance of the bridging role: Identify and support the ‘Captains of the Starship’ — who see the potential of a new practice and how it can fit into an educational framework. This can turn a research and development opportunity into a business proposition.

Demand implementation guidelines: Guidelines for how to introduce the new practice in a local context and how to support its growth. A brokerage role may be useful to filter information and opportunities to suit the readiness and interest of different groups.

The innovators

Be mindful of the purpose: There is a perception that some Web 2.0 innovators are operating at a professional development level. They have active networks but there is little evidence of their efforts ‘dribbling down’ to influence intentional learning. Align with early adopters who can translate new practices into educational benefits at the local level.

The Adopters

What matters at the coalface is relevancy: The key questions that adopters should always be asked about a new technology are:

• Does it meet business requirements and do we want it?
• Gee whiz technology — is it useful to the real teacher in the real world?
• Is it relevant and how will it make a difference to our learners?

Organisational technology infrastructure: Is the technology infrastructure robust enough to enable the utilisation of a new practice in the context of use?

Things to consider include:

• student literacy skills
• computer access for students
• clarify who is responsible for resourcing ICT upgrade requirements,if there is doubt then often nothing gets resolved and the problem persists.

Consider the attributes of the new practice Is it a manageable chunk that can be learned quickly, that you can see the relevance for, have some control over and can apply readily?

Summary

The insights, experience and expertise of participants in New Practices in Flexible Learning projects and the intermediaries who are charged with promoting, championing, supporting and implementing those new practices, reinforce the main themes emerging from this research. Embedding new practices in e-learning is a dynamic, multidimensional, complex interconnected process that is the responsibility of a range of stakeholders who may have direct or indirect influence on the process and the outcomes. It reinforces the idea of a complex adaptive system dancing between the edge of chaos and the edge of stability as outlined in Section 5.

Section 9: Key findings

To be honest with you, most people are too busy. Increasingly, a teacher’s life is fuller and fuller of expectations that haven’t often got a lot to do with teaching. More and more, it takes away your capacity to deal with industry and with relationships outside. The compliance issues and issues of administration have just become so complex and so demanding, a lot of people are just saying ‘I am struggling to do my job’, much less, let’s be honest, doing what we are talking about. It takes time and effort above and beyond what you are doing, and unless you have got people who are determined and understand that and who are committed you have to say ‘What are they committed to? TAFE campus manager

This section draws on the broad pool of knowledge collected during this research, including results of the RIPPLES survey, the three case studies, interviews with New Practices in Flexible Learning project teams, the activities in the research wiki, the guidance of research advisors and critical friends and conversations emerging from presentations in a range of forums as well as the literature review.

The underlying tenor of the general research findings is not about resistance to or disinterest in e-learning innovations. In fact, there are healthy signs of progress towards embedding innovative e-learning and a willingess to move forward. For example, in the survey, 86% of respondents considered they were much more or somewhat more innovative than average, and 44.7% believed they were delivering innovative e-learning practices and techniques to a very high or high extent. While 53.1% believed their organisation was extremely or somewhat innovative, as a whole they believed that their organisation was using only 25.7% of e-learning innovations to a high or very high extent. The high percentage of self-rated innovativeness in this sample where respondents perceived themselves to be more innovative than the organisation they worked in and using higher level innovative practices than their organisation as a whole, suggests that this survey has attracted responses from innovators and early adopters.

This is not an unreasonable assumption, since the distribution of the survey was primarily through Framework networks so it would have reached those who had participated in e-learning professional development or research initiatives. If that assumption can be made, then the research findings represent the story of what has enabled or created barriers for this sample of VET practitioners, managers and support professionals as they move to the task of embedding e-learning in their local contexts and everyday practices.

If this is primarily the story of innovators and early adopters, then the challenge is how to utilise what has emerged from this research and shape it to reach the ‘other 85%’ that Geoghegan (1995) so aptly recognises. These mainstream adopters are the critical mass who must be targeted and convinced if there is to be significant movement along the adoption, diffusion, implementation and embedding route.

What can we learn from the experiences and insights of the contributors to this research so the Framework and other stakeholders can be informed about the appropriate paths to take to support the embedding process? The story starts with logistics.

It’s time and priorities

The beginning quote for this Section is from an interview with a TAFE campus manager about the challenges of embedding e-learning innovations and sums up the reality of the working life for many VET practitioners. A significant barrier to engaging with anything new is time. Of the 229 responses to the question on barriers, time was mentioned 110 times. It is a clear message. Increasingly the work environment is becoming a crowded landscape with many agendas and priorities competing for that time. This reality was consistently recognised by managers and practitioners alike, as this manager of a regional campus observed:

I think that busyness is just incredible across the Institute at the moment where nobody has the time to do much other than what they perceive as core business.

To introduce something new is a time based process. It is a long haul commitment and individuals make choices and decisions about prioritising their time, including whether e-learning innovation is a worthwhile investment. For some it is, for some it is not and others need a tipping point to be convinced either way. While some invest their own time, others want it provided as part of their working day.

Many practitioners who contributed to this research and who were identified by their peers as innovators articulated their willingness to invest both the time and effort because e-learning innovations motivated them.

Definitely, play time. It takes time to come up with, and try out, new ideas. What many people don't realise is that innovators make just as many, possibly more, mistakes as anyone else. We just try things out a *lot* more, we experiment, we tweak, we fix, and some things we simply discard. We may be guided by technical expertise or clarity of vision, but often we simply compact a *lot* of experimentation into a short amount of time to maintain our edge in the field. Other times, we need time to just think — to draw sketches of ideas, to muse, to bounce ideas off colleagues, peers and mentors, or to sort things out in our head.

It was the excitement of the chase that often sustained them.

A lot of the time we progress, fuelled by half a sandwich and a big idea and not much more.

They are propelled along if the conditions are right.

I thrive in my workplace because of supportive managers, who allow me to be relatively self-directed in my investigation and application of new ideas. They see the value in letting me pursue the avenues I feel have the most potential for enhancing teaching and learning in my institute and elsewhere. I also have a very understanding work team who are themselves exceptionally talented, and don't laugh at me too much when I get into a creative mood and come up with all sorts of new ideas for doing things better (well, "differently"); sometimes they even agree with some of them!!! :)

Some struggle if the conditions are not.

The greatest problems I face are from short-sighted dogmatic, bureaucratic technical or financial managers, who can only see the little impediments, and not the big possibilities. They talk about security and money, and not about teaching and learning; they understand a business case for systems that support accounting or managing of staff, but not for systems that can give our students freedom, opportunity, and new horizons. They often don't understand education, but somehow manage an educational institution.

Most are aware of the reality of what enables an innovation.

It is fine to come up with an innovation but if the overall corporate view is to not support its implementation then the opportunity is lost and a division is created between those who may have tried it and those who did not get the chance.

There is recognition of the critical role of an internal champion.

I think we have all had to overcome some amazing barriers to innovation in order to take steps forward and we will continue to do so — I had a very supportive director who left and the acting person was the opposite; I never realised quite how many barriers a single person could throw up in such a short space of time!

The message is clearly articulated about the reality of the crowded landscape.

...all the time you're competing with people who are trying to just stay afloat, and manage the everyday burdens that swamp them constantly. You're competing with a whole range of other things that need to be done. Unless innovation is seen as a basic and primary objective for an organisation that needs to be relevant .. there's no time for this 'extra' luxury.

Other contributors to this research, though not averse to effort or to innovative e-learning, had different criteria for making a decision. These criteria are reflected in the survey analysis which indicated that the extent to which e-learning courses use innovative practices is the result of a number of interrelated factors including the technology infrastructure, communication, shared decision making, policies, evaluation, organisational and personal support, personal innovativeness and organisational innovativeness.

This was also reflected in the responses to the open-ended survey questions. In other words, criteria for engagement include: a work culture that embraces and supports innovation and demonstrates that commitment by providing time to engage and learn; a robust technology infrastructure; technology tools that are appropriate for teaching and learning purposes, a senior champion to drive the process; a willingness to consult and share and supportive managers, peers and support professionals. This cluster of enablers that includes individual and organisational commitment provides a signal that e-learning is a desired and valued component of a teaching and learning repertoire.

These findings have mirrored what other researchers have found in other countries and in other education and training sectors and were highlighted in the literature review. While the reflection is not quite the same, it is not much different either. Embedding innovative practice in e-learning is perceived by contributors as a holistic process comprising a rich and complex mix of several interrelated factors, and a decision to engage is influenced by time and whether e-learning was perceived as a priority by the organisation.

It’s learning not technology

The survey results revealed that for this sample, the most enabling component is Learning, and the biggest barrier is Infrastructure. This gets to the heart-of-the-matter of issues currently being debated both in the literature and more informally in the conversations across the practitioner networks within VET, namely

... the issue of the hype of technology and e-learning, ie the over expectation of what is possible with technology, rather than what actually is achievable and worthwhile with technology (Price et al., 2005, p. 65).

It is not surprising that the RIPPLES component of Learning is identified as the major enabler as this is VET’s core business. As a component of the RIPPLES model, Learning is described in the survey as ‘...the learning outcomes of a training or educational program. This also refers to a focus on the learner's overall experience within a training or educational program’. Responses to the open-ended questions about enablers of learning focused around an emphasis on pedagogy, client perspectives and demonstration of good working models for integrating technology into learning delivery. This highlights that pedagogy is replacing the focus on technology.

Barriers such as lack of understanding of e-learning pedagogy, the benefits of innovative practices and the difficulties of letting go of old practices suggest that the role of the ‘e’ is being reviewed. The following posting in a Framework wiki is a sample of the current perspectives being offered:

It is extremely important that when moving into a flexible delivery mode that involves e-learning that the basic principles of good teaching and learning are kept at the forefront. I know we often get caught up with what the technology can do but lose sight of what would be best for learners.

I know I am talking to the converted but I believe that until we remove the ‘e’ and just focus on learning, irrespective of whatever method we use, we will not have reached a stage where 'e' is a part of all learning.

(LC. wiki post, November, 2006)

Considering whether the ‘e’ is still required or is becoming a distractor signals a change in thinking by VET practitioners about the role and status of the ‘e’ in learning. The question that may need to be asked is what new practice are we aiming to embed — new technologies (e), or new pedagogies (learning)? It is an important question as new technologies do not necessarily mean new practices.

Currently, technologies are often used where they support existing teaching practice, rather than creating experiences or activities that change the practice itself and create new ways of teaching and learning (Price et al., 2005, p. 65).

This stance is supported by Collis and Moonen’s (2001) ‘18 lessons’ derived from their experiences with ICT over a number of years. ‘Lesson 5 After the core, choose more’ emphasises that a core technology — the dominant teaching method — requires ‘pervasive contextual pressure’ to change and therefore technology usually complements that core. In other words, the dominant practice remains. If this is the case, then the nature of the innovation rather than the technology becomes the focal point. What innovation are we seeking? Is it improvement to existing practices (incremental innovation), is it the transformation of those practices (radical innovation), or is it both? Indications from this research suggest that the major efforts to date have been on improvements to existing practice — incremental innovation.

An executive manager commented that with all the attention on e-learning and innovation, it was important not to lose sight of the most critical embedding issue.

It’s not the new practice we want to embed, it’s the results we want to embed. We must not forget it has to serve the needs of the students to be effective.

In other words, while new practices are about processes, the outcome is what is important — results.

It’s a readiness chasm

While the role of ‘e’ is being challenged, what was challenging for many respondents were technology Infrastructure barriers. With the advent of Web 2.0 the e-learning landscape is changing and many tools now invite, facilitate and even demand a change in practice. But practitioners indicate significant barriers to the use of and access to these tools.

While 51.7% of respondents identified technology infrastructure as a barrier, 20.1% percent were neutral and 28.2% considered it an enabler. Enablers identified in the open-ended responses included a robust baseline infrastructure, state-of-the-art equipment in training rooms and classrooms, access to software and networks, and competent, interested and friendly technical support professionals. For example, one enabler was described as:

The kindness and enthusiasm of individual teachers and technicians. In TAFE, if you keep trying to get something new going, someone, somewhere will help you if you are persistent.

Barriers focused more on access issues, lack of consultation in decision making and a conservative approach by IT managers. Red tape and blocking access without consultation with teachers were significant barriers as reflected by this respondent:

Security rules every decision.

This is a significant barrier as 98.7% of respondents believed an appropriate technology infrastructure was important to successful use on an e-learning innovation.

This appears to be a common issue in other countries and sectors, as other studies have highlighted technology infrastructure as a major barrier to the progress of e learning innovations (Burkman 1987; Ely 1999; Surry and Ely 2001; Farquhar and Surry 2001; Grunwald 2002; Seufert and Euler 2003; Elgort 2005; White 2006).

As highlighted in the literature review in Section 4, several chasms have been identified that create barriers to the progress of e-learning implementation. Moore (1999) identified a chasm between early and mainstream adopters. Geoghegan (1994) identified a chasm between the support structures required for early and mainstream adopters which he labelled as ‘the other 85%’. Elgort (2005) identified a chasm between innovative technology and innovative teaching practice.

This research proposes another chasm — a readiness chasm.

It’s context — the knowledge society

Context is the circumstances or the environment in which something is placed. What is the role of innovative e-learning in the current VET context? While response to local, state/territory and national priorities are emphasised as key drivers for innovative e-learning, there is also a wider context to be considered — the knowledge era.

The knowledge era is gaining momentum as a focus of attention in VET. Recent research by Staron et al. (2006) on developing capability for working and learning in the knowledge era has started to influence how some TAFE institutes are re-conceptualising their organisational development strategies. For example, the proposed model of life-based learning which incorporates a strength-based approach to capability development is being used for innovation and organisational development planning at Sydney Institute, TAFE NSW.

Julie Collareda, Manager of Learning and Innovation explains this orientation.