To What Extent Do Academic Staff See An E-learning Framework As Being Effective In Supporting Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) Discussions And Activities?

Main Article Content

Simon Thomson

Abstract

This study examines the effectiveness of e-learning frameworks in engaging academic staff in the discussions and activities associated with technology enhanced learning (TEL) development. In particular, the paper explores the effectiveness of a framework in use at Leeds Beckett University as part of the development of digital literacy as a graduate attribute.

The research investigates the extent to which staff identify with the framework and the associated activities. They are required to undertake mapping exercises in order to use the framework in their own practice to support digital literacy development.

A phenomenographic approach was taken in order to identify the variation in experiences staff had with regards to the e-learning framework activities. Using semi-structured interviews, evidence was gathered from which categories of variation were identified. Although participant numbers were limited this was overcome by the use of purposeful sampling.

Analysis revealed that staff experienced the use of the e-learning framework in three ways:

  1. as a tool for communicating their use of technology for teaching with their learners,
  2. as a mechanism for mapping and sharing best practice with peers,
  3. as a tool for measuring e-learning activity and reporting on it.

The final outcome space identified the potential for the current framework to be expanded beyond its intended audience to other prospective stakeholders. This study also spotlights opportunities to extend this research to provide a richer evidence base and identify potential practical applications.

Article Details

Section
Original Research
Author Biography

Simon Thomson, Leeds Beckett University

Simon Thomson is Head of Digital Pedagogy at Leeds Beckett University. His work focuses on open education and digital learning. In 2014 Simon was awarded an HEA National Teaching Fellow and is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. He can be contacted via Twitter: @digisim

References

Åkerlind, G. S. (2005). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(4), 321–334.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360500284672

Ashworth, P. D. & Lucas, U. (1998). What is the world of phenomenography? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 42(4), 415-431.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0031383980420407

Ashworth, P., & Lucas, U. (2000). Achieving Empathy and Engagement: A practical approach to the design, conduct and reporting of phenomenographic research. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 295–308.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713696153

Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (2007). Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age. Information Systems Journal.

Blake, H. (2009). Staff perceptions of e-learning for teaching delivery in healthcare. Learning in Health and Social Care, 8(3), 223–234.

Collier-Reed, B. I., Ingerman, Å., & Berglund, A. (2009). Reflections on trustworthiness in phenomenographic research: Recognising purpose, context and change in the process of research. Education as Change, 13(2), 339–355.

Ellis, R. A., & Calvo, R. A. (2007). Minimum indicators to assure quality of LMS-supported blended learning. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 60–70.

Elrod, P. D. E., & Tippett, D. D. (2002). The “death valley” of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(3), 273–291.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534810210429309

Englander, M. (2012). The Interview: Data Collection in Descriptive Phenomenological Human Scientific Research*. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 43(1), 13–35.

Gorden, R. (1998). Coding interview responses. Basic Inteviewing Skills, 180–198. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~educy520/sec5982/week_5/qual_data_analy_ex2.pdf.

Hos-McGrane, M. (2010). The SAMR model: From theory to practice [blog post]. Tech Transformation. Retrieved from www. maggiehosmcgrane. com/20l0/04/samr-model-from-theory-to-practice. html Upgrade Your Curriculum: Practical Ways to Transform Units and Engage Students.

Koole, M. (2012). An introduction to phenomenography. In Research in distance education symposium: Teaching and learning in a wired world (RIDES2012). Retrieved from https://landing.athabascau.ca/pg/groups/93225/cde-rides12/.

Laurillard, D. (1999). A conversational framework for individual learning applied to the “learning organisation” and the “learning society.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16, 113–122.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(199903/04)16:2<113::AID-SRES279>3.0.CO;2-C

Laurillard, D. (2002). Knowledge Society. EDUCASE Review, 37(1), 16–25.

Laurillard, D. (2003). Towards a Unified E-learning Strategy: Consultation Document. Retrieved from http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/510/.

Laurillard, D. (2006). E-learning in higher education. Changing higher education: The development of learning and teaching,pp. 71-84.

Laurillard, D. (2007). Introduction. In Beetham et al. (Eds) Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age Designing for 21st Century Learning. New York: Routledge, 2013.

Laurillard, D. (2013). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. Routledge.
Leeds Beckett University (n.d.). E-Learning Implementation Plan. Retrieved 3 May, 2015, from https://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/partners/files/CLT_E-LearningImplementationPlan-2014-15.pdf.

Limberg, L. (2000). Phenomenography: a relational approach to research on information needs, seeking and use. Retrieved from http://bada.hb.se:80/handle/2320/6846.

Marton, F. & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography - describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177-200.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00132516

Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography—A Research Approach to Investigating Different Understandings of Reality. (pp. 28-49).

Mayes, T. & de Freitas, S. (2004) Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models. London: Joint Information Systems Committee. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearningpedagogy/outcomes.aspx

Mayes, T., & de Freitas, S. (2013). Technology-enhanced learning: The role of theory. In H. Beetham, & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st century learning (2nd ed., pp. 20-29). New York, NY: Routledge.


Nicholson, P. (2007). A History of E-Learning. In B. Fernández-Manjón, J. Sánchez-Pérez, J. Gómez-Pulido, M. Vega-Rodríguez, & J. Bravo-Rodríguez (Eds.), Computers and Education SE - 1 (pp. 1–11). Springer Netherlands.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4914-9_1

Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2013). Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 1–12.

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (n.d.). Chapter B3 Learning and Teaching. UK Quality Code for Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/quality-code/Pages/Quality-Code-Part-B.aspx.

Puentedura, R. R. (2006). Transformation, Technology, and Education. Retrieved 28 May, 2015, from http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/

Puentedura, R. R. (n.d.). Learning, Technology, and the SAMR Model: Goals, Processes, and Practice. Retrieved 24 March, 2015, from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/06/29/LearningTechnologySAMRModel.pdf.

Puentedura, R. R. As We May Teach: Educational Technology, From Theory Into Practice. (2009).

Richardson, J. T. E. (1999). The Concepts and Methods of Phenomenographic Research. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 53–82.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543069001053

Salmon, G. (2005). Flying not flapping: a strategic framework for e‐learning and pedagogical innovation in higher education institutions. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology 13(3) 201-218.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687760500376439

Smyth, K., Bruce, S., Fotheringham, J., & Mainka, C. (n.d.). 2. Overview of 3E Framework. Retrieved 12 December, 2015, from http://staff.napier.ac.uk/services/vice-principal-academic/academic/TEL/TechBenchmark/Pages/overview.aspx

Smyth, K., Bruce, S. Fotheringham, J. and Mainka, C. (2011) Benchmark for the use of technology in modules. Retrieved 14 December, 2014, from http://staff.napier.ac.uk/services/academicdevelopment/TechBenchmark/Documents/3E_Framework_Nov_2011.pdf

Smyth, K. (2013) Sharing and shaping effective institutional practice in TEL through the 3E Framework. In S. Greener (Ed) Case studies in e-learning. Reading: Academic Publishing International, pp.141-159.

Stamouli, I., & Huggard, M. (2007). Phenomenography as a tool for understanding our students. In International Symposium for Engineering Education (pp. 181–186).

Thomson, S. (2014). 4E Framework. Retrieved 12 December, 2014, from https://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/partners/4e-framework.htm.

Thomson, S. (n.d.). Background | 4E Framework. Retrieved 5 May, 2015, from http://4e.digis.im/background/.

Vrana, V., Frangidis, G., Zafiropoulos, C., & Paschaloudis, D. (2005). Analyzing academic staff and students’ attitudes towards the adoption of e-learning. In ICDE International Conference.

Walker, R., Voce, J., Nicholls, J., Swift, E., Ahmed, J., Horrigan, S., & Vincent, P. (2014). 2014 Survey of Technology Enhanced Learning for Higher Education in the UK. Retrieved 2 May, 2015, from http://www.ucisa.ac.uk/~/media/groups/dsdg/Tel 2014 Final 18 August.ashx.

Yates, C., Partridge, H., & Bruce, C. (2012). Exploring information experiences through phenomenography. Library and Information Research, 36(112), 96–119.