Appendix 2 : Evaluation report: on-line course

Appendix 2 : Evaluation report: on-line course

1. Evaluation methods

Both formative and summative evaluation methods were adopted to assess the relevance and quality of the course model, including the impact of involvement with the course on participants' work activities:

A laboratory pilot, undertaken as part of the course development process, as described in the Project's second Annual Report;

On-going feedback from participants during the course, both informally and more formally through the "closing rounds" (reviews) at the end of each Unit;

Observation of usage levels and patterns during the course, from server statistics and transcripts of discussions;

Weekly review meetings held by the course team;

Feedback from participants during Unit 7 of the course, which focused on learning and course review;

Feedback from a post-course questionnaire, which requested information about participants' views and experience of it . The questionnaire was returned by 33 participants, representing all those who had not officially "dropped out" but including some whose participation was low. The questionnaire was based largely on the use of 7-point rating scales, in which a rating of 4 signified a mid-way (moderate) or neutral response. The use of ratings scales of this type gives a rough indication of strength of feeling or opinion within the participant group, but it should be recognised that analysis inevitably relies on subjective interpretation of what is meant by respondents' choice of the points on the scale. The quantitative data do not give many insights into the reasons for participants' different experiences or into the relationships between variables. The questionnaire is reproduced in Appendix 6.

Feedback from a post-course review workshop attended by ten participants on a voluntary basis (2nd April 1998). The workshop was led by Mrs. Edna Blackie, the Project's external evaluator, and aimed to complement the questionnaire by offering a more open-ended format for participants to discuss their experience of the course.

2. Participant feedback

This section provides an overview of the main themes of participant feedback, derived from questionnaire responses, discussion during the course, review activities in Unit 7, and points arising from the post-course workshop. The intention in this report is to summarise rather than to provide exhaustive detail on all points.
2.1 Course aims and topics

The course aimed to offer an opportunity for participants to gain an overview of current practice and issues in networked learner support and concrete, practical support for workplace activities in this field. It aimed to provide an opportunity to explore relevant technologies and skills, as well as to consider key issues. The large majority of questionnaire respondents (79%) indicated that the course had been successful in achieving its aims fully (nine cases) or to a large extent (seventeen cases).

Over half of questionnaire respondents (58%) indicated that the topics were either very relevant to their own interests in networked learner support (nine cases), or of considerable relevance (ten cases). Eleven others (33%) indicated more than moderate relevance. Three indicated only moderate relevance or less. Six indicated via the questionnaire a range of topics that they felt should have been treated in more detail:

More on specific technologies, and their effectiveness for networked learning.

More on changing roles/structures developing in institutions to facilitate NLS.

More on pedagogical theory and learning-to-learn earlier in the course.

More tutor support for personal topics (projects).

Two questionnaire respondents indicated that the topics addressed in Unit 5, "Change and innovation in institutions," were too theoretical and should have been less extensively treated.
Box 1

Course Units

1. Introduction to the course

2. Networked learner support

3. Internet as a learning environment [1] - technologies

4. Internet as a learning environment [2] - educational approaches and models

5. Change and innovation in institutions

6. Networked learner support in practice - projects

7. Learning and course review

2.2 Gains from participating

Half of the questionnaire respondents indicated that they had gained a very great deal (six cases) or a considerable amount from participating (eleven cases). A further twelve (36%) indicated more than moderate gains. Two had gained only a moderate amount and two less. However, fewer felt as positive about their achievement of personal learning goals. A minority of nine (28%) indicated that they had achieved their goals to a very great extent (three cases) or to a considerable extent (six cases). Thirteen (41%) had achieved their goals to a more than moderate extent. A significant minority of ten (31%) had achieved their goals to only a moderate extent (in 5 cases) or less.

About half (55%) said that they had made unexpected gains from the course:

A wide variety of insights gained from the experience of being networked learners.

A variety of new skills, both technical and communicative.

Access to extensive information on networked learning and NLS.

Understanding of pedagogical issues and networked learning models.

Practical application of ideas and techniques through project-work.

Extensive interaction within a professional peer community.

One of the most valued aspects of the course was its experiential element, i.e., the insight it provided into the student experience of being online, and being exposed to a pedagogic model which embodied a variety of features of good practice in emerging approaches to online learning and teaching. The quotations in Box 2 give a flavour of what participants felt they had gained from the course.
Box 2

"I certainly feel I have gone far beyond what I set out to achieve."

"Personal experience of the course clearly varies. The main thing I feel I got out of the course was just how different/difficult an online course rather than f2f [face-to-face] is... From this course I've learned some fact type things and practical skills... generally I have felt that discussions have remained short and shallow."
"One of the reasons for doing the course, was to see if I could deliver any of the services we currently provide here via the network and that I wanted to learn how to use that medium as a positive learning experience. Certainly for me the course was that."

"I did miss things like having f2f [face-to-face] discussions... However, what I've got out of this course was more than I expected and I very much enjoyed it."
"Has learning taken place? has the NLS course brought about a "permanent change in our behaviour"? I think it has."
"I have learnt a lot ... not just in terms of thinking about support for networked learners in relation to my duties, but also in terms of the way I organise myself at work and what I've learnt from organising (or not as the case is!) my time and work for this course."

Just over half of questionnaire respondents indicated that they had enjoyed the course a very great deal (eleven cases) or considerably (seven cases). A further eleven (33%) indicated more than moderate enjoyment. One had enjoyed it only moderately, and three somewhat less so.

The overall design and content of most course Units were generally well-received, although not everyone participated in all Units - one person did not participate in Unit 3, another did not participate in Unit 4, seven did not participate in Unit 5, and four did not participate in Unit 6. The majority of questionnaire respondents (73%) thought that Unit 1 was more than moderately effective in providing an introduction to the course and its environment, with seventeen (51%) finding it very effective (six cases) or largely effective (eleven cases). A large majority of participants in Units 2, 3 and 4 also indicated that they had gained more than a moderate amount from these Units. In comparison, Unit 5 appears to have been less successful, with 62% indicating they gained only a moderate amount or less from it. Unit 6 was more successful, but a significant minority (41%) felt they gained only a moderate amount or less. More light was thrown on perceptions of the relative effectiveness of different Units through other means of feedback; both the timing and content of Unit 5 were perceived as somewhat problematic, and the value of Unit 6 related closely to whether or not participants had identified specific projects to work on. For instance, one participant commented that:

"[By Unit 6, I] still hadn't firmed up on a project. Feelings of inadequacy (personal) intensified as a result."

The following comment illustrates the value placed by many participants on the most clearly "practical" elements of the course, although it should also be noted that many also found the more general discussions relating to institutional change and innovation to be of value:
"I found the practical aspects of the course much more relevant and enjoyable than the more theoretical ones... I enjoyed the sessions in the MOO and in particular the exercise where we looked at different courses and evaluated them in our learning sets. I think there should have been more exercises of this nature."
2.3 Course activities

Overall, the most highly valued, and probably the most familiar, type of learning activity on the course was individual work. Twenty-five questionnaire respondents (76%) found the individual work they did on the course either very useful (twelve cases) or of considerable value (thirteen cases). Four (12%) found it more than moderately useful. One found it only moderately useful, and three less so.

Fewer were as positive about the whole-group discussions, although 36% found them either very useful (four cases) or of considerable value (eight cases). A further ten (30%) found them more than moderately useful. A significant minority (33%) found them only moderately useful (three cases), or less so (eight cases).

There was even greater variation in the experience of participating in learning sets. In discussions, it was clear that whilst some found their set very rewarding, others found learning set activities the most difficult. Nine questionnaire respondents (27%) found being in a learning set either very useful (three cases) or of considerable value (six cases). Nine others also judged their set more than moderately useful. However, twelve (36%) found the set only moderately useful (six cases) or less (six cases). Three people judged that being in a learning set had been of no use at all.

Only just over a third (36%) thought their set had worked more than moderately well; only one person thought her set had worked very effectively. Six thought their set had worked moderately effectively. Almost half, however, thought their set had been relatively or completely ineffective. The question of how to make learning sets "work" became a key issue in discussions of course process, and although many participants felt that in principle sets were a good idea, they also felt that more direction from tutors, and more support for "learning to learn" collaboratively on-line, and more clearly collaborative tasks, were required:
"I think the use of learning sets was a very good idea... I do feel I would have got more from the course if my set had been more active... we did feel in need of more direction. For distance learners who didn't know each other, I think it is important to make sure the smaller group is there for support and general discussion."
"Maybe the smaller group work could have been more tutor-led/structured to encourage participation."
2.4 Learning approach

None of the participants had taken a collaborative on-line course before. However, it was not only the on-line aspect of the course model that was unfamiliar to them. More broadly, with its emphasis on self-managed learning, the approach was unfamiliar, to a greater or lesser extent, to over half (57%), including nine who experienced it as entirely unfamiliar. Five felt moderately familiar with such an approach, six somewhat more so, and for three it was largely familiar. Getting used to the approach was a gradual process of acclimatisation for many, as conveyed by the remarks below, and has implications for future refinement of the course model:
"I began to enjoy the course more and learn, contribute more etc. when I was familiar with the new learning environment and style, therefore I would probably be more positive about this course 2nd time around or any other future course I might take."

"The overall learning approach required a good deal of accustomisation (?) [sic] and I think a longer course would have helped us to get into it better and consequently to make it more productive."

There were indications from discussions during and after the course that many participants were challenged by the independent approach to learning on which the course model was based. For example, the need to take initiative in discussions or to create topic groups, was often experienced as difficult, and some found it difficult to set their own priorities and achieve a balance between personal flexibility and responsibility to the wider group. Thus, as might be expected, given the level of unfamiliarity with the course, the majority of questionnaire respondents indicated that they found it more than moderately difficult; only five indicated that they had experienced little difficulty (five cases) or no difficulty (one case). Nevertheless, twenty-two (67%) indicated that they had found the approach very enjoyable (three cases), enjoyable on the whole (fifteen cases), or more than moderately enjoyable (four cases). The remaining third found it only moderately enjoyable (five cases), or relatively unenjoyable (six cases).

One aim of the course design was to achieve a balance between the degree of challenge and support offered to participants. Nearly all participants reported that they felt more than moderately challenged by the course, with over half (58%) experiencing it either as very challenging (seven cases) or largely challenging (twelve cases). 81% reported that they felt more than a moderate degree of support had been available, with 70% perceiving very high or high levels of support (twelve and eleven cases respectively). Four felt the level of available support had been only moderate, and two that it had been less so. As indicated elsewhere, many participants felt that more support for "learning to learn" - for instance, for self-directed learning, on-line group-work and personal time-management - would have been valuable. On the other hand, many also felt that although a good deal of support was available, they did not take full advantage of it, and that seeking help is perhaps another dimension to learning to learn independently.
2.5 Projects

"The best and most useful [course activity] was certainly the projects... this was the connection between the course and my work, and I found it the most enjoyable part of the course."

Twenty-seven (82%) indicated via the questionnaire that they had worked on developing and/or implementing a personal project during the course, leaving six who had not. Twenty of the twenty-seven reported that the project focus was very valuable to them, and that it was very likely indeed that they would continue to take their project forward after the course was over; a further five also indicated that this was likely. Twenty felt that there had been more than a moderate amount of support for project work, with nine perceiving either that there had been a great deal of support (three cases) or a lot (seven cases). A significant minority of twelve (36%), however, perceived the level of support for projects was only moderate or less than moderate. There was some discussion amongst participants about the need to build in more time to support project development mid-way through the course; the invitation to identify projects was made early in the course, but this was not always easy for those participants with less previous experience of networked learner support activities:
"I should have started work on my project earlier, but wanted to wait and see what I was going to learn on the course, to apply it - so got myself caught up in that conundrum!"
2.6 Information resources
"I have really enjoyed it but have found the volume of information overwhelming at times. One of the things I had not appreciated was that with an on-line course you never get to the end! When you are reading books or articles you do eventually get to the end but with links it's never-ending!"

The information resources presented on the course were highly valued. Nearly everyone considered that the information resources presented in the course resource base and NetLinkS site were more than moderately useful, with 82% indicating either that they were very useful (fourteen cases) or of considerably high value (thirteen cases). 97% were positive about the information resources produced by the course team and a smaller majority (73%) were positive about the information provided by other participants about their NLS activities, projects etc.

Being presented with a wide range of information resources was overwhelming for some, who found it difficult to make the decision to look at a selection only, or felt there was not enough guidance on "key" resources. Seventeen (51%) felt that the resources were too numerous, with a third indicating either that there were far too many (four cases) or considerably too many (seven cases). Fifteen (45%) were neutral on this matter and one would have liked more.

Three indicated that they had not carried out any searches to locate resources further afield than those identified on the course and NetLinkS sites, and two felt that they had done a great deal of such searching. Between these extremes, the majority (67%) felt either that they had done a moderate amount of searching (eight cases) or less (fourteen cases). A small group of five (16%) indicated that they needed more help in locating relevant resources.

At the follow-up workshop, participants indicated that they were continuing to use the course resource base and regarded it as a significant support for work activities.
2.7 Tutoring and technical support
"Thought all the NLS staff were very supportive - one of the most positive aspects of the course."

A good deal of positive feedback was received about the standard of tutoring and technical support. The majority of participants felt that the quality of technical support offered was very high (eighteen cases) or high (nine cases). The six others felt it had been moderately or more than moderately good. Twelve (36%) reported that they had not needed any technical support from their place of work, whilst sixteen (48%) reported they had needed relatively little. One indicated that s/he had needed a moderate amount of support, and four somewhat more than this.

A majority also considered either that the quality of tutoring was very high (seventeen cases) or high (seven cases). Seven others felt that it had been moderately or more than moderately good. In contrast, two participants perceived the tutoring support to be poor (one case) or very poor (one case).
2.8 Web site and instructional environment

The overall response to the Web site was very positive. The majority of questionnaire respondents were positive or very positive about the graphic design (88%), the use of Unit maps (82%), the usability of the Focus conferencing system (94%) and MOO (94%), and the organisation of the Web materials (87%). The majority (87%) agreed that orientation within the Web site and navigation around it were easy, and 91% agreed that presentation of Unit overviews and other text and resources was good.

The overall response to the instructional environment was also very positive. The majority (84%) agreed very strongly or strongly that appropriate opportunities for interactivity between participants and tutors were offered; that appropriate opportunities for collaboration between participants were offered (87%) and that appropriate opportunities for reflection by participants were offered (94%). A smaller majority (78%) agreed very strongly or strongly that appropriate coaching (guidance) and scaffolding (in the form of activities, resources) were offered. There were more divergent views on the value of the MOO, with 69% agreeing strongly or fairly strongly that it was a useful facility, whilst others were neutral or disagreed. However, the fact that the course offered a combination of asynchronous and synchronous discussion facilities proved successful for many participants, and some were happy to sacrifice personal flexibility for the opportunity to "meet" others in real time on a regular basis. Punctuating the course with real-time sessions was also seen as helpful in structuring personal participation and in personal time-management.

Although there was largely agreement that the instructional environment was appropriate and of high quality, many participants felt they had not taken full advantage of the opportunities for interaction, collaboration, reflection and tutoring support. Lack of time was a frequently cited reason, but psychological barriers were also discussed, as here in relation to online communication:
"I have found the course environment faultless in terms of layout, navigation, support etc. but I discovered things about my ability to function in such environment that have surprised me a great deal. I found it impossible to participate in the discussions in the Arboretum for a variety of reasons."
2.9 Participation and motivation

The majority (67%) indicated that they had felt more than moderately motivated during the course, including one who had felt very motivated and thirteen (39%) who had felt strongly motivated. However, strong motivation did not necessarily lead automatically to high levels of participation or time spent on the course. 54% indicated via the questionnaire that they had kept up with more than half of the course activities, including one who had kept up with them all and eight who had kept up with most. Nine (27%) estimated that they had kept up with around half and five less than half. Many participants felt guilty, as well as frustrated, about not keeping up.

Only four had kept learning journals and/or portfolios throughout the course. 58% reported that they had kept them partially, and a further 30% indicated that they had not done so. Attitudes differed to portfolios, but they were highly valued by some:
"One of the benefits was realising how useful a portfolio can be... this has been something I have been able to translate into other areas... I am gradually changing the way I operate."

Motivation was not necessarily connected to the possibility of gaining a certificate of participation for the course. For seventeen (52%) this was only moderately important or less, and it was only considered very important by three participants. At the time of writing, four people have submitted work with a view to gaining a certificate.

There was a good deal of discussion about the barriers to participation in online forums. Twenty-three (69%) saw themselves as moderate or relatively infrequent participants in the whole-group discussions, and two indicated that they had not participated at all. Only one person perceived that s/he had participated a great deal, and seven (21%) that they had participated more than moderately (three cases) or quite a lot (four cases). In contrast with whole-group discussions, nineteen (58%) saw themselves as relatively frequent participants in learning set discussions, with two indicating that they had participated a great deal. Thirteen (39%) saw themselves as moderate or relatively infrequent participants and one reported that s/he had not participated at all. Some people found it was difficult to decide how to use the different online forums within the course, and the following comments give some other perspectives on barriers to participating:
"My participation in discussion forums was minimal and a disappointment to me."
"When a lot of messages build up you don't really take on board the nuances of each reply, and also someone has often brought up something similar to your own thoughts and so you end up not participating."
"I felt far more comfortable contributing to the learning set and other "smaller" parts of Focus rather than the large Arboretum discussion space which seemed more daunting."

The questionnaire asked to what extent participants had felt part of a "learning community" on the course. 39% indicated either that they had felt this very strongly (two cases) or strongly (eleven cases). A further ten (30%) indicated that they had felt this to some extent. Seven (21%) gave neutral, or more negative, responses. Experiences clearly varied in this respect, but many remarked on their surprise that the online medium was capable of supporting collaborative learning:

"I have found being a networked learner much less isolated than I thought, mainly due to the tutor support, effective use of learning sets and the learning activities... I found I really felt part of a learning group."

The questionnaire asked how much social and/or work-related interaction with other participants individuals had had "behind the scenes," for instance via e-mail or telephone. The large majority indicated little (67%) or none (27%).
2.10 Pacing, course length and workload
"The pace of the course, at some points has felt so fast that often there was not time to actually digest what had been learned."

The pace of the course was a major problem for many participants, the majority of whom found it too fast (72%). Eight (25%) were neutral, or found the pace about right, and one had found it somewhat too slow. Similarly, whilst nine participants judged that the workload had been about right, the majority (73%) indicated that it had been too heavy, including six who had found it much too heavy. 45% judged the course to be too short, including three who felt it was far too short. On the other hand, 42% had found it about right, and four somewhat, or much, too long. Frustration at not being able to contribute to, or gain from, the course, as much as participants would have liked, was a key theme of discussions. Whilst it appears some would have been happy for the course to have covered less within the same timescale, others would have welcomed the opportunity to be involved in a longer programme, which would have allowed their participation to tie in better with the pace of developments at work:
"I enjoyed the course very much but feel very bad about the small amount of participation I was able to have, mostly just through lack of time... It was very frustrating to be in such a fascinating environment and company and unable to take advantage of it. I would imagine a year-long full-time course would be about the right amount of time for me to really learn it to my own satisfaction."
"I am just at the stage of getting involved in a college project on a Web-based module and it would have been useful if the NLS course was still on-going."

The questionnaire asked how many hours, on average, participants had spent on the course each week; they had been advised at the outset that they would need to spend at least six. Seventeen (51%) had spent six or more hours per week on average (around the same proportion as those who had managed to keep up with more than half the activities). Six had spent four or five hours per week on average, and a large minority (30%) had spent three hours or less. Work patterns for the course varied from week to week; for instance, 39% indicated that there had been one or more weeks when they had spent no time at all on it, and 64% indicated that there had been one or more weeks when they had spent more than seven hours. Two people indicated that they had consistently spent more than seven hours per week.
2.11 Participants' work settings

Many participants found it difficult to fit the course into their work schedules. Box 3 gives a flavour of the comments on this issue.
Box 3

"I found it difficult to fit course work into my normal work schedule. In retrospect, I think I should have involved managers/colleagues more - this would have helped re workload and in gaining the full benefit that the course had to offer."
"I have felt the time management aspect difficult, it is hard to stick to your time set aside when an urgent meeting comes up, etc. Having organised things/meetings times e.g. MOO sessions helped me."
"The course was excellently organised and thoroughly researched. I feel I have not done it justice owing to a particularly busy time at work (and at home). Trying to study at work has been difficult because "things" always seem so much more urgent!"
"I found it increasingly difficult to participate due to work commitments... But I did find exploring the technologies very useful - certainly opens your eyes to the many opportunities that NLS offers us."
"All in all, it has been an excellent course, but I don't feel I've done it justice at all, which leaves me feeling frustrated. The main problem was undoubtedly time. My work life is horribly overloaded."

Several participants pointed to the need for a quiet place from which to access the course, and the problem of interruptions and distractions in busy work environments. 51% accessed the course from a shared office, and a further 30% from a personal office. Four accessed the course from an open-plan space, and two others used terminals in a variety of locations. Eight (24%) had home Internet access and seven of these accessed the course from home at least once.

A third felt that they had had very strong or strong support from managers when registering on the course, and five others felt they had had a fair degree of support. However, this left seventeen who had received only moderate support or less at that time, including three who had received none at all. During the course, support from managers was less likely to be carried through. The large majority (73%) reported that they had received relatively little support (thirteen cases) or none at all (eleven cases), as described here:
"My experience has indicated that managers may wish their staff to undertake this kind of activity but are not always prepared to honour their side of the bargain."

This was especially important, perhaps, for pursuing project work. Nine participants indicated that they had received more than a moderate amount of support for projects, including five who had received a great deal or a considerable amount. However, twenty-two indicated that they had received only a moderate amount of support or less, including eight who had received none at all.

Few were able to spend as much time at work doing the course as they had initially planned. Fourteen (42%) had aimed to spend the full 6 hours or more during work time, and a further fifteen (45%) had aimed to spend between three and five hours on the course during work time. Only seven indicated that they had been able to stick to their intentions. Sometimes work plans were adjusted in the light of experience:

"I also felt that I thought I would do 3x2 hour sessions or 2x3 hour sessions a week, but really daily access to [my learning set] and [the whole group forum] is needed."
3. Beyond the course
"I feel the course has been successful and I will carry on the NLS perspective into my current work."

"I have found it very interesting and will be pursuing projects over the coming months which would never have got off the ground without the impact the course has provided."
"Many, many thanks for offering me the opportunity to do this course. It has given me lots of ideas with which I am now bombarding my colleagues."

As we have seen, the majority of participants used the course to start or continue developing work-based initiatives in NLS, and there was a good deal of feedback about the general impact of the course on work initiatives. Some participants had attended Netskills and Edulib courses and felt that the NetLinkS course was complementary to these. Although many participants were frustrated during the timescale of the course, feeling that they were not "doing it justice" or were unable to keep up with the pace, many indicated that they would continue to use the resources and would like to maintain the contacts made. For instance:
"I feel that I did not benefit fully from these Units at the time, as due to my workload I was not able to participate fully. Since Christmas I have been back to these Units, have looked more closely at the resources and discussions from the Units and have learnt a great deal."

"I have really enjoyed the experience of learning in this way. I do feel, however, that I was trying to do too much in a short space of time... I have not done justice to the strength of the materials, or the potential - but I am still keen to use the site, and would definitely consider a longer course."

All participants said they would like further access to the course resources after it was over. Thirty said they would also like to maintain online contact with other participants and thirty-two that they would join an online forum for participants if available.

Thirty-one indicated that they would consider participating in an online course again. Seven were very interested in participating in the Sheffield one-year Certificate programme in NLS, and a further four indicated fairly strong or strong interest.

Opinion was divided equally about whether an e-mail discussion list or a Web-based conferencing forum should be used to continue the networking between course participants. At the follow-up workshop, it was decided that a closed, Mailbase discussion list would be set up by two participants for this purpose. It was felt that suitable activities would be to exchange progress reports and feedback on projects, and general information of interest.

Participants sometimes mentioned during the course that they were using the site to demonstrate a networked learning environment to colleagues. Workshop participants had a variety of dissemination plans relating to their activities on the course, including reporting back to colleagues, holding local meetings and workshops for special interest groups, and broadening their own project work through related initiatives with colleagues. Some believed, however, that dissemination would be problematic due to lack of management support.
4. Conclusions

Although the experience of participants clearly varied, there was a good deal of positive feedback about all aspects of the course and indications that there will be considerable impact on workplace activities in many of the institutions represented, through implementation of projects related to it or a variety of dissemination activities. The overall course model and its Web environment were viewed positively on the whole, although our experience as tutors and feedback from participants has provided a valuable critique for further initiatives. In the future, we would, for instance, anticipate building in more support for developing skills and confidence in learning actively and collaboratively online, since it is clear that both the medium and the general approach were unfamiliar and challenging to many participants. We would aim to focus on the design of collaborative activities based on activities with very concrete outcomes, as well as on discussion. It is also clear that we were over-optimistic about how much could be achieved within the timescale of the course on the basis of six hours per week. We would also want to address the issue of local, management support for work-based continuing professional development (CPD), since most participants were unable to take the time they had initially planned to spend on the course and many did not get support for practical project work. We are optimistic that with further refinement based on what we have learnt from this pilot run, the model will prove appropriate for further initiatives in networked CPD in our field.

PL. May 1998.

[Contents] [Section 1] [Section 2] [Section 3] [Section 4] [Section 5] [Appendices]

Top of page

Authors/Graphics - Nabeel Nasser and Sarah Ashton
last updated 12th December 1998