1

Assignment 3 (Option B): Analysis and Comparison of eLearning

Implementation

Tasneem Irhouma

Master of Educational Technology (MET)

ETEC 520 66A 2021S1-2 Planning and Managing Learning Technologies in Higher

Education

Dr. Leah Macfadyen

August 12th, 2021

This paper aims to examine and compare how well e-learning has been implemented

into the inner-workings of two of the UK’s most prestigious and distinguished universities:

The University of Oxford and the University of Edinburgh. Both institutions hold vastly

impressive achievements dating back centuries, but their e-learning implementation proves to

show them at two very different stages.

The University of Oxford

The University of Oxford, located in Oxford, England, boasts the status of one of the

world’s oldest universities that presently teaches nearly 12,000 undergraduates and 12,000

postgraduates. Oxford currently only offers traditional in-person diplomas, though few

distance education programs and courses, both synchronous and asynchronous, are offered

that target professionals, part-time learners, and graduate students. To analyze Oxford’s e-

learning implementation, published Oxford strategy and action plans, coupled with

information scattered throughout the university website, will be referenced.

Recently, Oxford has invested in a new learning management system (LMS), and has

hinted towards an initiative to review its current Digital Education Strategy1 and refine it as

needed, though this still seems to be in the early planning phases; its publication is to be

expected in 2022. There is some evidence of some interest in initiating a blended course

format and support for online learning, but these seem to be a deviance in the Oxford norm.

The University of Edinburgh

With a history dating back to 1538, the University of Edinburgh (UoE) in Edinburgh,

Scotland, also boasts the status of being one of the world’s oldest universities, though its e-

learning implementation differs heavily from that of Oxford’s. UoE’s e-learning

implementation will be analyzed by evaluating its most recent UoE Strategic Plan.

11
https://www.ctl.ox.ac.uk/digital-education-strategy
 3

In addition to offering a large number of massive open online courses (MOOCs) for

anyone looking to receive addition educational opportunities, UoE also offers a blended,

distant, and traditional learning experiences for its 33,000 students. Efforts to implement e-

learning within UoE are cited as early as 2004, where the university first released an e-

learning strategy2 that aimed to have e-learning as a “part of the core business” by 2007 (The

University of Edinburgh, 2004).

Strategies and Implementation Plans

Initiatives

The e-learning initiative at Oxford is not overtly mentioned as a priority within

Oxford’s 2018-23 Strategic Plan3, but is vaguely revealed within Education’s Commitment 3:

“We will ensure that teaching is informed by best practice, an inclusive approach to learning

and the opportunities for innovation offered by digital technology” (University of Oxford,

2018, p. 3). Initiative to implement e-learning is also hinted at in Resources’ Commitment 3,

where Oxford promises to “continue to invest in our information technology capability to

enhance the quality of our research and education and to streamline our administrative

processes” (University of Oxford, 2018, p. 6). This seems to indicate that Oxford is aware of

the importance of the opportunities e-learning presents, but does not see it as important

enough to be a significant focus in their strategic plan; however, Oxford recently announced

that their Digital Education Strategy is to be reviewed and republished in 2022, citing the

pandemic as a catalyst for the review: “Since then, we have since made extraordinary

progress in our online learning offering - with our progress dramatically accelerated by the

COVID-19 pandemic” (University of Oxford, n.d.-a). This indicates that the COVID-19

pandemic may have forced Oxford to reevaluate its strategic planning priorities as it became

2
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/gasp/strategicplanning/elearningstrategy.pdf
3
https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/field/field_document/Strategic%20Plan%202018-23.pdf
 4

abundantly clear how necessary e-learning implementation is in an institution of that

prominence.

The University of Edinburgh prides itself as being “at the forefront of digital

education”, claiming that “students’ learning and progress are supported by the latest learning

technologies, innovative teaching methods and committed personal tutors” (The University of

Edinburgh, 2018a). Within the UoE 2016 Strategic Plan4, the institution outlines two

principle strategic objectives to focus on: Leadership in Learning, and Leadership in

Research. Within the Leadership in Learning objective, UoE outlines specific aims to

“develop flexible study pathways. These will vary across disciplines but will include online

and blended learning opportunities and other innovative approaches to teaching and

assessment” (The University of Edinburgh, 2018a) and “promote the widely available

learning opportunities that we offer our local and global communities, including

opportunities for those not able to attend the University in person, such as lifelong learning

and digital education platforms, festivals and other channels” (The University of Edinburgh,

2018a). To promote Leadership in Research, UoE cites their objective of “invest[ing] in

digital services that are key to discovery, development and sharing” (The University of

Edinburgh, 2018b). UoE also outlines four key development themes, with one focusing on

digital transformation and data; the essence of this development area is to further transform

UoE’s environment to cater for new technological demands, including “offer[ing] a digital

education experience including online programmes that widen access” and cultivating a

digital culture where “every core service is fully digital” and “every student and staff member

is constantly updating their digital skills” (The University of Edinburgh, 2018b).

Bates and Sangrà (2017) emphasize the importance of comprehensive objectives and

goals when successfully planning the use of e-learning within institutions; both these

4
https://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/strategic_plan_2016.pdf
 5

institutions contrast heavily in the initiatives and objectives they prioritize. While UoE has

made it evident that they value technology as an educational tool and continue to develop

their e-learning strategies, Oxford seems more hesitant to reform traditional teaching methods

and resorts to generic objectives and buzz words within their strategic plans, though seems to

be more open to prioritizing e-learning initiatives, as suggested by its announcement of a

revised digital education strategy.

Implementation and Monitoring

Oxford releases an annual reporting that reviews the institution’s achievements and

progress in reaching their strategic objectives. In the Oxford Annual Review 20205, very little

is focused on the progression of e-learning and instead, focuses on research breakthroughs; it

is to be expected that the top research-intensive institution in the world would give more

focus to its research. Evidently pushed by the demands of the pandemic, the Oxford Financial

Statement 2019-20206 gives some insight into new e-learning implementation, where it

claims that Oxford made “a successful transition to remote-only teaching and open book

examinations” by “invest[ing] in its virtual learning environment and expanded its digital

library access” and transforming its formerly traditional classroom formats to “a combination

of online lectures and in-person small-group teaching, laboratory and practical work”

(University of Oxford, 2020, p. 8). The exact steps Oxford took to implement these new

changes is unclear, though their COVID-19 response states that they have “a range of new

tools and technologies to support your learning” and “are also investing in technology in the

classroom, so that students can access high-quality teaching, whether that be in-person or

online” (University of Oxford, 2021).

5
https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/Oxford_2020_Annual_Review.pdf
6

https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/field/field_document/Oxford%20University%2C%20Financial%20State
ment%202019-20_0.pdf
 6

UoE’s strategy plan outlines how they plan to measure their success in achieving its

goals outlined in the plan. It mentions that performance will be measured against the

objectives though “a combination of quantitative metrics and narrative case studies” (The

University of Edinburgh, 2020); UoE’s University Court7 is responsible for overseeing the

performance levels and are responsible for monitoring “how our aims are being achieved at

operational levels and that indicate whether we will achieve our desired impacts” (The

University of Edinburgh, 2020). An annual progress report8 is published that monitors

strategic measures and offers notes on progress in terms of strengths and improvement areas.

Present e-Learning Support and Delivery

Governance

As indicated by Bates and Sangrà, “a model of governance is needed that enables both

the needs of the institution as a whole and the needs of the many end users to be

accommodated” (2011, p. 124). Oxford’s IT governance9 is led by their IT Committee, who

“develop, contribute to and implement the policies, governance and strategies for IT

provision across the University.” The exact responsibilities of the committee are restricted

behind the university’s firewall, but it is said that it is to “ensure its members get the

maximum benefit from IT – whether in research, teaching and learning or administration”

(University of Oxford, n.d.-b).

UoE’s Knowledge Strategy Committee10 was created for the purpose of “oversee[ing]

the University's knowledge management activities in the areas of Library, Information

Technology, technology enhanced learning, Management Information and e-Administration”

(The University of Edinburgh, 2017), which aligns with the committee structure outlined by

7
https://www.ed.ac.uk/governance-strategic-planning/governance/university-court
8
https://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/annual_progress_report_to_court_december_2019.pdf
9
https://www.it.ox.ac.uk/governance-strategy-and-policies
10
https://www.ed.ac.uk/strategic-planning
 7

Bates and Sangrà (2011, p. 111), coupled with the diffusion of technology management

(2011, p. 123).

Organizational Structure

Oxford’s Centre for Learning and Teaching11 (CLT) and its IT Service Centre12 work

jointly with students, faculty, and the institution’s constituent units to deliver available e-

learning tools. The IT Centre consists of a senior management team, with Oxford’s CIO13

heading the centre, while the CLT is headed by an executive director with an ample amount

of publications focusing on digital education and educational leadership14; this aligns with

Bates and Sangrà’s (2011, p. 124) idea of a technology professional being a potential leader.

However, the Digital Education Strategy Plan suggests that leaders within each faculty decide

what e-learning technology and direction will be implemented, indicated by Bullen (2017b)

as a collegial organizational culture. In essence, without a higher authority implementing or

incentivizing the use of e-learning, the degree of e-learning integration will depend on the

faculty.

UoE does not offer any information openly about the specific organizational structure

of the institution. However, led by the university’s CIO and librarian, UoE’s Information

Services (IS)15 is the primary body responsible for offering e-learning support and carrying

out e-learning initiatives outlined by the strategy plan. The IS seems to offer supporting tasks,

while specific colleges separately implement their own e-learning initiatives.

Learning Technologies

Oxford is currently in the process of phasing out its former virtual learning

environment (VLE), WebLearn, and replacing different tools within WebLearn with different

11
https://www.ctl.ox.ac.uk/#/
12
https://www.it.ox.ac.uk/home#/
13
https://www.it.ox.ac.uk/people/sean-duffy
14
https://www.ctl.ox.ac.uk/people/rhona-sharpe
15
https://www.ed.ac.uk/information-services
 8

programs that specialize in those tools. For example, teaching and learning activities will all

be delivered using Canvas as the primary LMS, and file sharing and online collaboration will

be delivered with Microsoft Teams. It has also recently invested in Replay Lecture Capture, a

tool to automatically record lectures. As it prepares to make WebLearn read-only by 202216,

Oxford offers a number of guides and assistance to help students’ and faculty members’

transitions to the new tools flow more smoothly.

University of Edinburgh’s IS offers a number of different technological services and

tools to enhance the quality of e-learning; the institution boasts two VLEs, Learn and

Moodle, that are used to access course materials, assignments, lecture recordings, and grades

that supports more than 5000 courses and “used to support face to face teaching, blended

learning, and fully online courses” (The University of Edinburgh, 2019b). IS also offers

different guides on how to access and use e-learning tools, as well as additional workshops

and support on how to use these tools in the different classroom types.

Both universities show evidence of offering e-learning services and addition support

for the services. Oxford’s switch to a different VLE and investment in different e-learning

tools is an optimistic sign of the institution seeing the importance of e-learning integration.

Support and Infrastructure

Oxford’s IT Services manages and supports the core IT systems, tools, and services.

The infrastructure is managed on three levels: “the data and networks that are the foundation

of the University’s IT infrastructure”, which includes access to the university’s systems; “the

server and storage management needed for hosting applications”, and “the applications

themselves, used University-wide by both staff and students” (University of Oxford, n.d.-c),

which includes the VLEs and support services. Moreover, Oxford’s Bodleian Libraries17

16
https://projects.it.ox.ac.uk/new-projects-coming-soon#/
17
https://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/home#/
 9

facilitates and manages online library services that also offers support and workshops for

online tools.

UoE’s IS is the primary manager of the university’s IT, library, and physical

infrastructures, while providing assistance and technology necessary to navigate them,

specifically in nine distinct directorates: “IT infrastructure and services, information security,

library services, museums and collections, learning and teaching technologies & services,

digital skills training support, web services, hardware and software management and remote

learning capabilities” (The University of Edinburgh, 2019a). Online and phone support is

offered throughout these different fields, as well as a general IT helpline.

Both institutions offer strong infrastructure and assistance that aid in creating a more

effective e-learning environment. One area of improvement for both is to offer longer support

hours; Bullen emphasizes that wide-scale implementation of e-learning requires support

hours beyond the conventional 9-5. (Bullen, 2017a) This is especially important as distance

learning and online courses become more widespread.

Budget and Funding

Oxford’s latest financial statement18 does not specifically mention e-learning as an

area of financial interest within their budget, but there are some subtle mentions that suggest

some level of funding going towards e-learning. One of the strategic priorities mentioned in

the financial statements is “to sustain high levels of investment in technology in order to

compete within a rapidly evolving digital environment” (University of Oxford, 2020, p. 7)

and “to continue to invest in our information technology capability to enhance the quality of

our research and education and to streamline our administrative processes” (University of

Oxford, 2020, p. 7); this suggests that e-learning funds are taken from other “base funded”

18

https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/field/field_document/Oxford%20University%2C%20Financial%20State
ment%202019-20_0.pdf
 10

(Bullen, 2017c) areas, specifically within their publishing and research items. The next

annual financial statements may offer more insight into the funds spent on new e-learning

implementation; as the pandemic served as a catalyst that forced Oxford to invest in new

digital technologies, Oxford claims that “it is too soon to say what the financial impact of the

pandemic will be on the University in terms of publishing income, student income, research

income and exhibition, conference and trading revenue” (University of Oxford, 2020, p. 8)

UoE’s financial statements19 show prioritization in three areas that the institution

deems of top value, with one being virtual infrastructure. Though the specific information in

their budget and funding is limited, the emphasis on virtual infrastructure and digital tools,

coupled with the aforementioned strategic goals related to e-learning, indicate that UoE offers

a budget to its colleges and administration for supporting e-learning initiatives. Furthermore,

the Institute of Academic Development20 incorporates a grant-funded model, as outlined by

Bullen (2017c).

Though both institutions are not open about a specific allocated budget for e-learning,

UoE’s consistency with prioritizing e-learning in their strategic plan for nearly 2 decades,

coupled with its emphasis on the importance of virtual infrastructure indicates that their e-

learning is more than likely sufficiently funded. Oxford, conversely, has not shown much

interest in allocating funds specifically towards e-learning, with the exception of new

technological infrastructure needed after the forced move to online learning and technological

tools needed for research.

19
https://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/202007_uoe_annual_accounts_2020_27_online.pdf
20
https://www.ed.ac.uk/institute-academic-development
 11

Conclusion

Both Oxford and University of Edinburgh rank as one of the top universities in the

world; despite their prestigious rankings and reputations, both institutions stand at two

contrasting places in terms of their e-learning implementation.

UoE has evidently recognized the importance of e-learning within an institution and

has made ample efforts to implement it at various levels throughout. Taking into account

UoE’s strategic planning and the efforts carried out to achieve their outlined goals, the e-

learning implementation in UoE has successfully reached Stage 5 of Bates’ introduction of e-

learning, sustainability: “The institution has established a stable system of e-learning that is

cost effective and scalable” (2007, p. 48).

While UoE has been acknowledging and developing a solid foundation for e-learning

since 2004, and shows initiative to enhance the quality of their e-learning through their

strategic planning priorities, budgeting, and monitoring, Oxford, by comparison, indicates

that there are several areas of improvement within their e-learning implementation. Oxford

focuses much of its efforts and planning into developing research and scientific

breakthroughs, the primary area of focus and what Oxford is most famous for; as the most

highly rated research-intensive institution in the world, coupled with its strong ties to

tradition, Oxford may not see much need to implement new technology or prioritize

technological tools to enhance the academic experience. However, in light of the COVID-19

pandemic, there have been indications that Oxford is now reevaluating its stance on e-

learning, evident by its in-progress Digital Education Strategy review and new investments

on virtual infrastructure. With these considerations in mind, it appears that Oxford is between

Stage 3, Chaos, and Stage 4, Planning, of the distinct e-learning introduction stages, as

outlined by Bates (2007, p. 48).

While it is not possible to incorporate e-learning practice seamlessly, UoE is one

institution that can be looked at as a standard that highlights effective e-learning

implementation. Looking at the structure and planning that UoE executed may offer some

valuable insight to Oxford and other universities of similar e-learning introduction stages

looking to heighten their e-learning evolvement.

References

Bates, T. (2007). Strategic Planning for E-learning in a Polytechnic. In Making the transition

to e-learning: Strategies and issues (pp. 47-65). IGI Global.

Bates, A.W. & Sangrà, A. (2011.) Managing Technology in Higher Education: Strategies for

Transforming Teaching & Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bullen, M. (2017a). 2.2 – IT Infrastructure & Support. Planning and Managing Technologies

in Higher Education. http://blogs.ubc.ca/etec5202015/unit-2/unit-2-it-infrastructure/

Bullen, M. (2017b). 2.3 – organizational culture. Planning and Managing Technologies in

Higher Education. http://blogs.ubc.ca/etec5202015/unit-2/unit-3-organizational-

culture/

Bullen, M. (2017c). 3.4 – Funding Models. Planning and Managing Technologies in Higher

Education. http://blogs.ubc.ca/etec5202015/unit-3/unit-3-funding/

The University of Edinburgh. (2004, October 6). University of Edinburgh e-learning strategy

plus implementation plans: Knowledge management strategy chapter 4 milestones.

http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/gasp/strategicplanning/elearningstrategy.pdf

The University of Edinburgh. (2017, February 20). Knowledge strategy committee.

https://www.ed.ac.uk/governance-strategic-planning/governance/university-

committees/jointsentatandcount/knowledgestrategycommittee

The University of Edinburgh. (2018a, April 17). Leadership in learning.

https://www.ed.ac.uk/governance-strategic-planning/strategic-planning/strategic-

plan/strategic-objectives/leadership-in-learning

The University of Edinburgh. (2018b, April 17). Leadership in research.

https://www.ed.ac.uk/governance-strategic-planning/strategic-planning/strategic-

plan/strategic-objectives/leadership-in-research
 1
14

The University of Edinburgh. (2019a, November 6). About ISG.

https://www.ed.ac.uk/information-services/about

The University of Edinburgh. (2019b, November 14). Learn.

https://www.ed.ac.uk/information-services/learning-technology/virtual-

environments/learn

The University of Edinburgh. (2020, January 20). Measuring success.

https://www.ed.ac.uk/governance-strategic-planning/strategic-planning/strategic-

plan/measuring-success

University of Oxford. (n.d.-a). Digital education strategy review. Centre for Teaching and

Learning. Retrieved August 13, 2021, from https://www.ctl.ox.ac.uk/digital-

education-strategy

University of Oxford. (n.d.-b). Governance, strategy and policies. IT Services. Retrieved

August 12, 2021, from https://www.it.ox.ac.uk/governance-strategy-and-policies

University of Oxford. (n.d.-c). Networks and infrastructure. IT Services. Retrieved August

13, 2021, from https://www.it.ox.ac.uk/networks-and-infrastructure

University of Oxford. (2018, October 30). Strategic plan 2018–23.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/field/field_document/Strategic%20Plan%2020

18-23.pdf

University of Oxford. (2020). Financial Statements 2019–2020.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/field/field_document/Oxford%20University%

2C%20Financial%20Statement%202019-20_0.pdf

University of Oxford. (2021, August 9). Returning students and offer holders (2021/22

academic year) | University of Oxford.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/coronavirus/students/returning-and-offer-holders