2009 Tread softly - dreams of elearning
Download as PPT, PDF1 like543 views
The document discusses a project aimed at increasing the adoption of e-learning at Brighton Business School, highlighting the challenges faced by both experienced and new academics in integrating technology into their teaching practices. It identifies key barriers to technology adoption and offers strategies for fostering engagement and support among faculty. The authors emphasize the need for understanding different academic perspectives and promoting pedagogical benefits to encourage wider acceptance of e-learning technologies.
2009 Tread softly - dreams of elearning
- 1. Tread softly: making secure steps towards wider adoption of pedagogically-focussed e-learning at Brighton Business School Sue Greener and Asher Rospigliosi University of Brighton S.L.Greener@brighton.ac.uk A.Rospigliosi@brighton.ac.uk
- 2. Back story • Learning and Teaching Fellowship grant, UoB • Three phase project: – Initiation – Support – Feedback • It grew…. Annual Learning and Teaching Conference 2009 Conference Friday 10th July 2009: From spark to flame
- 3. Research enquiry (dream?) Beginning with the perceived “problem” of adoption of new technologies by academic staff How do experienced and new academics begin to fit e-learning into their personal pedagogies? Bringing a psychological and sociological perspective to the problem of adopting TEL - how does this offer us insight into wider technology adoption strategies? Could we help to enthuse, encourage, support those who were not natural early adopters?
- 4. Surfacing initial assumptions • Roger’s model (1962) of innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards – does it help? • Moore (1991) crossing the chasm between early adopters and the follower groups • Anderson et al (1998), based on Geoghegan (1994) – just two groups: early adopters (EA) and mainstream faculty (MF) • Four factors stop us crossing the chasm/gap – Ignorance of the gap – The technologists’ alliance – Alienation of mainstream faculty – Lack of compelling reason to adopt
- 5. Where do you place yourself on technology adoption • UofB (MF) • CAL (EA)
- 6. What is your job? • UofB (MF) • CAL (EA)
- 7. What VLE does your institution have? • UofB (MF) • CAL (EA)
- 8. Who do you use TEL with? • UofB (MF) • CAL (EA)
- 9. How long have you used TEL? • UofB (MF) • CAL (EA)
- 10. Why did you take up TEL? • UofB (MF) • CAL (EA)
- 11. Had you used TEL as a learner? • UofB (MF) • CAL (EA)
- 12. What barriers did you face? • UofB (MF) • CAL (EA)
- 13. What support might have helped? • UofB (MF) • CAL (EA)
- 14. Qualitative responses 1 “how motivating it is • What surprised them? when students learning becomes fun” • EA: – mainly positive • MF: more negative “learning moves out of your control” • What didn’t they like? “colleague inertia” • EA: • MF: “It takes hours”
- 15. What was familiar about this learning process? • EA focussed on problems with software, crashes, problem solving • MF focussed on time taken and related to ease of use “like learning Word only easier”
- 16. What contradicted your prior beliefs? • EA tended to find external responses contradicted their prior beliefs: “student confidence “technology is a in using software is tool not a always lower than I solution” expect” • MF focussed on personal perceptions which were contradicted: “that it would be “found it more complicated and that I would useful and less fail to understand it” scary”
- 17. When asked to reflect on the experience of first using new technology to enhance learning • EA: “it’s much more about pedagogy in my classroom, not the “regaining technology” confidence – enjoying learning new skills again” • MF: some were excited about technology, some feeling over-stretched, some more relaxed than they were, found routines difficult to remember, some, as with technologists, focussed on learning not technology. • No clear distinction with application of hindsight
- 18. Problems they faced 1. Students’ digital literacy 2. Staff resistance 3. Technology seen as gimmick 4. Lack of time to learn 5. Pressure to conform to VLE 6. Availability of software, hardware • No distinction here between two groups • Some saw problems as politically based (institutional strategies, resourcing) • Few saw problems in making sense of technologies in relation to learning and teaching • Everyone in study had persisted with using new technologies
- 19. Examples of ideas offered for encouraging adoption • Showcases, demonstrations, workshops/training – show it is relevant and useful to improve experience of teaching and learning for both students and teachers • No obvious distinction • Guest speakers in best practice • Contact with experienced colleagues, between our two groups buddying, coaching • Sharing student feedback • Strategies focus on • Shadowing those with experience pedagogic beliefs, • Team-working • Focussing on pedagogic gains (student perceived usefulness, role motivation etc) modelling (how), • Enthusing and encouraging • Time to play (sandpits) experimentation, reward, • Senior manager commitment access to resource, • Adopting technologies for peer assessment and feedback promoting awareness, • Using less jargon-ridden language • Relating adoption to promotion/career mainstreaming paths/staff review • Small project funding • Celebrating achievements, encouragement of scholarship
- 20. A touch more literature • A more complicated • Liao and Lu (2008) picture than we thought discuss TAM and • Technology Acceptance alternates and derive Model “relative advantage” and “compatibility” as drivers to new technologies adoption by teachers • Compatibility? With beliefs, values, teaching philosophy…..
- 21. So how can we better analyse the different responses of academics in relation to TEL?
- 22. So how can we better analyse the different responses of academics in relation to TEL? • By teaching beliefs? Pedagogies in practice? student, teaching and content-centred (Greener 2008) • By discipline? Becher and Trowler (1989) work on academic tribes • By sub-discipline, including hard/soft, urban/rural, convergent/divergent and pure/applied focus? (Trowler 2009) • By internet use? Peripherals, normatives, all-rounders and active participants? (Eynon 2009) • Are Eynon’s “active participants” similar to Drent and Meelissen’s “personal entrepreneurs” (2008)? • Could other academic groupings be distinguished by skill sets (Deursen & van Dyk 2009)
- 23. Which leads us to the future of this project • New staff engagement – action learning project • Profile analysis of academic staff in HE in relation to TEL. – digital skillset – degree of digital independence – pedagogic beliefs – openness to sharing and learning • Practical application: not just focussing on technology adopters/champions . • We need to tread softly in the mainstream and understand better how to meet their needs.
- 24. Had I the heaven's embroidered cloths, Enwrought with golden and silver light, The blue and the dim and the dark cloths Of night and light and the half-light, I would spread the cloths under your feet: But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly because you tread on my dreams. William Butler Yeats
Editor's Notes
- #2: Pedagogic focussed e-learning at BBS 1. The problem domain: take up of TEL 2. The results of our surveys 2.1 CAL 2009 2.2 T&L 2009 3. The back story 3.1 Fellowsip project - funding 3.2 Three phases 3.2.1 Initiation 3.2.1.1 Included workshop at ALT-C 2008 3.2.2 Support 3.2.2.1 Interventions with colleagues (coaching, chats etc) 3.2.3 Feedback 3.2.4 It grew! 3.2.4.1 CAL 2009 - other technologists 3.2.4.2 T&L 2009 - other teachers 3.2.4.3 Data - which we will use today 4. The future 4.1 Research funding for expanded study 4.1.1 Build useful profiles of HEI teachers re TEL 5. Widely divergent rate of adoption: assumption (innovation diffusion) 5.1 We assumed Moore's chasm 5.1.1 Early adopters (EA) and Main Faculty (MF) - Anderson et al 1998 / Geoghegan 1994 5.1.1.1 Four factors stop us crossing 5.1.1.1.1 Ignorance of the gap 5.1.1.1.2 The technologists alliance 5.1.1.1.3 Alientation mainstream 5.1.1.1.4 Lack of a compelling reason to adopt 5.2 Academic tribes (Becher and Trowler 1989) 5.2.1 Trowler 2009: Soft/Hard, Pure/Applied, Con/Divergent, Rural/Urban 5.2.1.1 Business School - multidisciplinary 5.2.1.1.1 Subtopic 1 5.2.2 ICT specifically Eynon 2009 5.2.2.1 Profile of internet uses (in the young) 5.2.2.1.1 Peripheral/Normatives/All-rounders/Active-participators 5.2.2.1.2 active participators likely to personal entrepreneurs (Drent &Meelissen 2008) 5.2.2.1.3 Deursen and van Dyk 2009 internet skills: operational, formal, information, strategic. peripheral,normative, allrounders all still likely to be below mean on last two
- #3: Learning and Teaching Fellowship grant, UoB Three phase project: Initiation – included ALT C workshop 2008 – outcomes fed the project Support – coaching and one-to-ones at UoB built on several years personal support to colleagues re VLE Feedback – used Bourner questions for planned series of interviews following coaching interventions – still in process It grew…. Meanwhile our literature review, initial interviews, reflective action research led us to set up a brief survey project, using Bourner’s reflective questions. We administered this survey alongside a first stage poster at two conferences this year: CAL09 – largely delegates focussed on TEL, and Learning and Teaching conference at UoB – largely delegates focussed on learning and innovation. The review of this survey data is what we will present today, but first a little look at the literature.
- #5: These assumptions were where we started the project. Assuming that we were different. But this is not about us and them. Let’s look at what we found in our survey data.
- #15: Note that our workshop at ALT C last year supported the idea of alienation. Eg what kinds of words to use when describing technology, in what way to couch the benefits in relation to teacher’s discipline.
- #21: The survey data showed us a hint of the broader complexity of technology adoption amongst academics
- #22: Note Eynon’s work reported at BERA 2009 was looking at students rather than teachers in HE. Can we adapt the categories? Deursen and van Dyk 2009 looked specifically at age as a variable in skillsets to do with internet use. Identified four groups of skills: operational, formal (eg navigation), information (search and evaluation) and strategic (pursuing and solving a problem or goal through use of internet skills. Latter two did not show variation with age. Could we hypothesize that active participants/personal entrepreneurs are high scorers on all four skillsets but that other groups were lower on information and strategic skills? What about
- #23: Note Eynon’s work reported at BERA 2009 was looking at students rather than teachers in HE. Can we adapt the categories? Deursen and van Dyk 2009 looked specifically at age as a variable in skillsets to do with internet use. Identified four groups of skills: operational, formal (eg navigation), information (search and evaluation) and strategic (pursuing and solving a problem or goal through use of internet skills. Latter two did not show variation with age. Could we hypothesize that active participants/personal entrepreneurs are high scorers on all four skillsets but that other groups were lower on information and strategic skills? What about
- #24: We are already involved in a sub-project looking in detail at how new staff engage with technology enhanced learning at UoB We hope to expand this research to develop a profile analysis of academic staff in HE in relation to TEL. The aim is not simply to look at their sub-discipline but also degree of digital independence, pedagogic beliefs, digital skillset and openness to sharing and learning We hope that such a study may help us find a better way to support staff in TEL than just focussing on technology adopters/champions . We need to tread softly in the mainstream and understand better how to meet their needs.
- #25: Aedh wishes for the cloths of heaven 1899