Changing Pedagogy: Does the Introduction of Networked
Learning Have an Impact on Teaching?
Mary Thornton, Amanda Jefferies, Indra Jones, Jon Alltree and
Eeva Leinonen
University
of Hertfordshire
The University of Hertfordshire’s Managed Learning Environment
initiative, known as StudyNet, was developed in-house. Throughout the
development, the enhancement of learning and teaching quality has remained a
central tenet. However, take up has been extremely variable. This research,
through questionnaire survey, sought to assess the extent of StudyNet
embeddedness, the uses to which it is put and its impact on staff working
practices and pedagogy. Analysis suggests that money, time and workload affect
staff access and use. As a communication and information distribution resource
it is well used but its impact on the enhancement of learning and teaching is,
so far, fairly limited although some examples of good practice were identified.
VLE, Pedagogy, Networked Learning, Teaching
There are multiple claims about e-learning enhancing teaching and the
teacher’s role (Britain and Liber, 1999; Allen, 2003). For example Littlejohn
and Higgison (2003) claim
However, while adding to this list more things that e-learning can
support (such as active learning, facilitative rather than didactic teaching
and the building of ‘on-line communities’), Conole (2002), in her review of the
‘learning technology landscape’ states
“The reality is more
complex, involving the context within which these systems are used and how well
they are adapted to specific student needs. Making a discussion board available
on a course will not automatically create a motivated virtual community of
collaborating students with a benevolent smiling ‘tutor on the side’.
Therefore, although VLEs can be used to significant effect… this is not an
inherent property of the technologies themselves.”
The extant literature is full of examples of small-scale studies, often
based in single institutions. While not ideal, this body of knowledge is growing
and, taken together such studies may begin to provide answers in practice to
Dearing’s (NCIHE, 1997) strategic call for technological ‘innovation’,
‘effectiveness’ and thus quality enhancement in learning and teaching. The
research reported here seeks to add to that body of knowledge. It is based on a
study of teachers in one university in England.
Following Dearing (NCIHE, 1997) the University took a strategic decision
to develop its own, bespoke, in-house, Managed Learning Environment (MLE). The
University has a history of delivering successful projects that utilise many of
the technologies that go into making a successful MLE. It chose to build on
this experience and expertise rather than purchase a commercial package such as
Blackboard or WebCT in order that the MLE integrated with systems already in
place and to tailor it specifically to institutional needs. Development work
started in November 2000 with a pilot release date of September 2001. It was
delivered on time, has a high level of integration with central systems, is
adaptable to the modularity of many of this University’s degrees, and
automated. It provides tools comparable to commercial offerings; it is Lotus
Notes based, provides portals for all modules for University staff and students
(20,000 FTE) across three campuses and includes email. The system has been
fully operational since September 2002. An introduction to StudyNet can be
viewed at http://www.herts.ac.uk/clearing/index.html.
The study was funded in-house and ran during the academic year 2002/2003.
This was the first year in which it had been fully operational. The StudyNet
pilot had targeted all teachers of first year undergraduate courses and all
teachers of postgraduate courses, but was also available to anyone else who
wished to use it. In 2002/ 2003 the target courses were extended to include
year 2 undergraduates (in 2003/2004 institutional standards require all courses
at all levels to have a presence on StudyNet). The intention of the study was
to collect and evaluate teachers' perceptions of the impact (if any) that the
introduction of StudyNet had had on their general working lives and on their
pedagogy. Specifically, the intended
outcomes were to ascertain
Questionnaires were sent to virtually all contracted academic staff (716). Two hundred and eighty-eight
questionnaires were returned, approximately 40 per cent of the sample. The
questionnaire was sent via internal mail. Follow-up interviews were conducted
with 8 Faculty/ Departmental StudyNet ‘Champions’, 14 users and 7 non-users
(randomly selected from questionnaire volunteers plus, for non-users, a staff
email request for more non-user volunteers as there were less than seven in the
volunteer category). The support of Faculty / Departmental Champions, who are
committed and proficient at using StudyNet and willing to help others in its
use, was sought (and given) in encouraging completion of the questionnaire and
a staff email reminder was posted 3 weeks after the initial mail drop.
Of the respondents 261 (91%) used StudyNet, only 25 (9%) did not (2
didn’t answer). Thus our questionnaire sample was overwhelmingly one of users
and we are able to say quite a lot about them. We have no way of telling if the
60% who did not respond were users or non-users but it is quite possible that
there were a lot of non-users among the non-respondents. The majority of the
respondents were in the 44 to 50 years age bracket. This fairly represents the
age distribution of academic staff within the institution. In terms of sex, 93%
of responding men were StudyNet users, 89% of women were users. While use is
high in both groups female staff appear less likely than male staff to use
StudyNet. Chi squared (Fisher’s exact test) indicates that this difference was
significant (p<0.01). The gap between full-time and part-time teachers was
slightly bigger with 93% of full-time responders using StudyNet and 86% of
part-timers (significant at p<0.001). There is no statistical support for
these two effects (female and part-time) in combination together being
significant. Female staff appear slightly less likely to use StudyNet and there
are clearly more women than men in the part-time category.
The first issue revolves around equality of access for both teachers and
students. Our respondents suggested
that many assumptions appeared to be made about computer literacy and skills,
about access to computers and the Internet.
They were particularly concerned that off-site, mature and ‘Widening Participation’,
i.e. non-traditional students, were at risk of having unequal access to
StudyNet and increased technology costs.
The second issue concerned perceived diversity in teaching styles across
Faculties and Departments. StudyNet was perceived more suited to ‘science’
based subjects than ‘art’ based, student-centred and professional courses, such
as teacher training and health professionals, that required more ‘hands on’ and
face-to-face teaching.
Problems and concerns centred mainly on registration, StudyNet’s
interface with the student information system (Genesis), ‘desk-top’
compatibility (particularly in Art and Design where Apple Mac computers were
used because of their graphics standards), the way StudyNet was set up, and the
recent and fairly constant changes that are made when many staff had yet to
master earlier versions.
Of the seven non-users interviewed, two could not see the advantages of
StudyNet at all and the rest would use StudyNet if problems with registering
students on Genesis were resolved, if more resources were available for ‘hands
on’ support and to reduce workload, and if they could be convinced StudyNet was
beneficial.
The impact of StudyNet on pedagogy was varied. The most used StudyNet
facilities were module information and news, teaching materials (mainly lecture
notes or power point presentations), upload of reading lists i.e. StudyNet was
used mainly as an information source and administrative tool. Group discussion
had been tried but had proved unsuccessful for several staff. However, these
teachers did recognized StudyNet’s potential for more interactive work and
greater student independence and autonomy in learning. There was some evidence
to show that staff were adapting and gradually changing their teaching methods.
“I’m not sure it
helps learning but increased (student) independence / autonomy, take more
responsibility for learning, gives students confidence… ”
“I can work through
the material much more interactively rather than wait for students to copy
slides/ write notes on handouts.
However, there was limited evidence to demonstrate that StudyNet had had
significant impact on pedagogical development and change across the university.
Face-to-face teaching was still preferred by many staff, and considered
necessary, albeit alongside e-learning.
Teacher users were generally enthusiastic about StudyNet because it was
an extra teaching resource that students “could
drop in and out of”; it was a useful repository with everything in one
place; it was useful for distance learning, and with larger and larger classes
it enhanced communication and information sharing with students.
The Natural Science and Engineering Faculties appeared to use the
StudyNet assessment facilities more than other Faculties and this may reflect a
difference between disciplines in the types of assessment used and how well
they do (or do not) transfer to the electronic environment. Articles and
papers, and students’ own contributions ranked higher in Humanities and Human
Sciences than in Natural Science and Engineering. We conclude that StudyNet was
and will be used differently by different disciplines in terms of pedagogy.
A substantial staff development programme had been put in place prior to
the launch of the StudyNet pilot in 2001. This continues, is centrally provided
and free to all teachers at the university. Teacher perceptions of the quality
of training suggest that 83% of users found the initial training useful.
Eighty-one percent found colleague support useful and 70% found Department/ Faculty
Champions useful. On the whole the training sessions were viewed positively,
ranging from comments like “fantastically
useful … We walked out of the room
buzzing with how exciting it was …” to
“helped a bit”. Where problems
were identified the following suggestions were made: repeat training for new or
reluctant staff; subject-specific training at the local level so that generic
training could be applied to teacher’s own situations; a variety of training
sessions to accommodate differing levels of IT skills and, most importantly,
these teachers needed time to gain experience by using StudyNet intensively
very soon after their training.
Teacher users chose ‘human’ rather than text or textual support when
starting to use StudyNet. Face-to-face hands-on training sessions, ‘Champions’
and colleagues were preferred to hard copy or electronic guides, although these
were found useful when actually used. Most needed time after the training
courses to explore StudyNet further. Time was a recurrent theme, and was linked
to workload both for teachers and students. More support from mangers was
requested in understanding the pressures teachers (and students) are under with
reorganisation, dwindling administrative support and rising staff-student
ratios, the need for more resources for training (particularly for part time
staff and hourly paid lecturers), for computer hard ware (access and upgrades)
and for extra support. ‘Human and hands on’ support at the local level was
considered vitally important. These teachers also believed that the work of
such ‘helpers’, namely their IT literate colleagues and peers (especially
‘Champions’), should be properly recognised and that they should be rewarded
for the work that they did, if not in money then in time release.
Teachers' views on the use of StudyNet for supporting students’ learning
were limited. Most suggested that we ask students this question! Those who did
respond thought StudyNet was helpful to students through information being
available in one place plus electronic links to the library and other
resources, and several thought it made students more independent.
There was some evidence that good practice was evolving and being
disseminated throughout all faculties but with varying degrees of success. Teachers used StudyNet for quizzes and
question and answer sessions, for web links, posting seminar papers and good
examples of an essay (anonymised and with permission), as a discussion facility
to extend classroom time, for case studies and to provide skills booklets to
students.
“The class
discussion facility is used quite extensively … staff respond to students
queries that are raised, I also post up information of interest … draw students
attention to it and have a discussion around it on the class discussion
facility.”
“Last year we had a
quiz … very simple multiple choice thing on (X) for the students which was
again just a basic knowledge testing exercise which the students quite enjoyed
and things like that are time consuming to write but once they are written they
can be used again and again … it’s a gradual building up of resources.”
The authors made the following recommendations to management as a result
of the study. Resolve compatibility and access issues with Genesis and staff
desk-top facilities.
The final recommendation has already been implemented and a follow-up
study of students is currently underway. The final report was delivered in
September 2003 so it is early days in terms of actions resulting from it.
However, it has been well received and the information it contains considered
useful.
Our sample of teachers was predominantly users of StudyNet (91%) so these
data can say little about non-users. We had to search for seven ‘laggards’
(Moore, 1991) for the non-user interview sample. However, our users cover the
full gamut of Moore’s Technology Adoption Life-Cycle, from ‘innovators’ to
‘late majority’. The ‘innovators’ tended to come from engineering and
information sciences, some of whom expressed a degree of reluctance to adopt
StudyNet whole-heartedly given their personal, established and highly developed
web sites. ‘Early adopters’ and ‘early majority’ teachers were the most
enthusiastic users of StudyNet. While not at the forefront of e-learning
developments in general they quickly took on-board StudyNet as a strategic,
centrally resourced facility and experimented with all its functions, prompting
further developments and using the facilities they found most productive and
beneficial to good effect in their teaching. These teachers in our sample might
be better termed ‘new innovators’. They conform to Johnson and McCormack’s
(1996) ‘early adopters’ who want the latest technology, are prepared to try new
ideas, are strong risk takers and prepared for revolutionary change.
“The best thing the university has introduced for many years. From a
staff point of view, it is brilliant.”
The ‘late majority’ teachers in our sample tended to fit more closely a
pattern of compliance rather than convinced commitment. They met the required
institutional ‘standards’ of use, which revolved around information posting but
were not creative interactive users of StudyNet in the ways in which the
literature claims enhanced learning can be achieved.
“It has changed the way material and information are made available to
students, not how I teach.”
For these teachers in particular, StudyNet is an extra work burden rather
than an enhanced mode of working. They may eventually become committed, but if
Johnstone and McCormack (1996) are correct then these teachers will want good
educational reasons for using StudyNet. They will need opportunities to explore
their own thinking and to develop personal confidence in making changes to
their traditional teaching practices.
The infrastructure is in place, training and support are freely and
frequently available, but this study suggests that effective take-up of
StudyNet may be lower than desired. Our findings lend support to a similar
study undertaken at Southampton University, England, which found that
enthusiasts did develop interactive materials but that it tended to be a minority
activity (Hall and White, 2003). Information posting was our samples
predominant mode of activity.
We cannot be sure, from the responses reported here, that use of StudyNet
is a minority activity, but it would seem reasonable to postulate that there
were many more non-users amongst the non-responders than amongst the
responders, if only because of the user ‘standards’ stipulated by the
university. Interestingly, ‘laggards’ are now technically non-compliant.
Whatever their number / proportion there are some indications, from the
non-user interview data, as to why they have not (as yet) engaged with
StudyNet. Two could see no advantage at all from its use, whether it be for
communication, information sharing with students, or the desired enhancement of
learning and teaching. Teachers such as these will need some convincing of the
claimed benefits.
“I don’t think that
pedagogy’s been transformed … I think the basic feeling of staff is that while
no-one’s practice is beyond improvement, by and large pedagogy ain’t broke,
they don’t feel any great urgency in fixing it, where if there is anything
wrong with pedagogy it’s not obvious the solution lies necessarily in StudyNet.
…”
The non-users were not alone in expressing concerns, but they were the
staff who had admitted to choosing not to engage with StudyNet unless and until
some of these concerns had been addressed. Their number within the study
institution remains unknown but it is likely that such staff exist in all
higher education institutions. What we need to understand is why this overt
resistance to pedagogic change that is claimed to be for the better. One answer
might be ‘lack of convincing evidence’. Another might be straightforward
resistance to change.
Taylor (1999) argues that acts of
resistance and expressions of uncertainty are academic responses to threatened
change in identity. We all have our own academic (as well as personal)
identities (Cockburn, 1991). They give a sense of belonging, of place and role.
Our identities, academic and personal, constantly evolve and adapt to changing
circumstances and life experiences but when change is imposed we feel a sense
of loss. The solution, proposed by Boezerooy (2003), and Hall and White (2003)
is ownership. If teachers are to commit to e-learning they must be convinced of
its pedagogical benefits to students rather than its organisational, financial
and administrative benefits to the institution. For such teachers to become
committed the evidence must be collected and marshalled rather the benefits
asserted; they must have the opportunity to use, develop and adapt the
facilities and functions on offer to fit with their own educational theories
and beliefs. In parallel with strategies for the enhancement of student
learning, they must actively engage in order to make it their own.
The literature suggests that the emergence of different systems will
significantly influence the way learning and teaching are conducted. Laurillard
and McAndrew (2002) note that
“As professional
teachers, academics are facing a difficult challenge from learning
technologies, as they have to renew and develop their model of the learning
process well beyond the traditional transmission model.”
Smith (2003) emphasises the potential benefits of e-learning to enhanced
pedagogy by identifying the transferability of many traditional teaching skills
to the e-learning environment. For her the teacher remains the organiser,
designer and facilitator of the learning environment, with Information
Technologists in support. The main shift or step change involves the move form
oral (face-to-face) to written (e-learning) transmission. This in turn involves
some modification of delivery methods but none that detract from learning and
some that should actively enhance it. There is clearly potential for greater
interactivity and reflection, increased student independence, autonomy and
power, and more extensive resources for learning and teaching through
e-learning environments. But it is only potential. As Conole (2002) notes, like
Jones (1999), these are not inherent features of the technology itself. Their
realisation depends on the use teacher’s make of the technology. ‘Document
dumping’ by teachers will not have the desired effect, any more than simple
document download by students. That would merely mirror, in electronic form,
the poor practice of didactic transmission of knowledge by teachers and giving
passive students a handout to read. Real, effective learning and teaching, in
either environment, takes place through engagement, action and interaction
(Ausubel, 1968, Gibbs, 1989, Laurillard, 1993, Kyriacou, 1998). As Orsmond and
Styles (2002) argue
“… the simple
transposition of traditional lecture programmes onto virtual learning
environments is not generally effective, because it tends to provide a passive
and content driven experience for the learner, and that such approaches can be
extremely isolating. It is essential that distributed learning either includes
collaboration and participative online experiences, or that the use of
technology is combined in an effective and holistic way with the equivalent
parts of a traditional approach.”
Whether in the classroom or on-line, active learning is more interesting
to students. It stimulates thinking, rewards self-direction, promotes
understanding rather than knowledge, exposes misconceptions and provides
feedback to both learners and teachers. E-learning, and StudyNet, to
effectively enhance learning and teaching, needs to develop active
participatory learning on-line. Some methods taken directly from the classroom
may transfer well. Others, as Smith (2003) indicates, may need adapting. Still
others can and should be newly developed to take maximum advantage of the
technology. E-learning and StudyNet offer new, powerful tools for learning and
teachers will need to extend their methodological repertoire to take full
advantage of them, without losing that all important interactivity and
ownership.
“For a student,
interactivity is a prime dimension of a successful learning environment. They
want support from and dialogue with tutors and peers. The internet provides
unparalleled potential for interactivity.” (Beaumont, 2003)
Helping staff to adapt their teaching to this new environment is the key.
Most of our teachers are willing to adapt provided they have the time, help and
the support needed to do it well, and for educational reasons.
“Where people want
to realise the full potential of StudyNet it is time consuming especially where
they are designing new materials … whether it’s hard copies or electronic
materials … people do need support in designing interactive materials.”
“I’ve got to spend
ages trying to track someone down or you’ve got to give up the day to go on a
course … hard to justify as an investment of time … There is no substitute for
having someone who really understands to sit down and look over your shoulder.”
E-learning is a tool that can be
used for the enhancement of learning and teaching. Its effectiveness will
depend on how well the tool is used, not by the quantum of its use. Other
tools, such as face-to-face contact have their own strengths too. The teachers
in this study were clear in their preference for ‘human support’ in developing
their StudyNet skills, and the need to balance e-learning with continued
face-to-face contact with students. StudyNet was an enhancement not a
replacement tool for learning. We suspect that students in the follow-up study
may agree. In an ideal world, and at its best, teaching and learning in the
twenty-first century will blend seamlessly active learning strengths in
technology with those best delivered face-to-face. Some of our advanced
StudyNet users have already changed their mode of interaction in face-to-face
contact with students given the additional support and facilities they have
made available to students via StudyNet. These advanced StudyNet teachers have
already addressed the issue of what is best delivered on-line and what is best
delivered face-to-face in order to enhance student learning. Others will follow
if the context, climate and support is right.
The study reported here
illustrates the varied uses to which e-learning through StudyNet has been put
and the rate of progress staff have made in adapting their teaching (or not) in
ways that enhance learning. There is no doubt a long way to go before active
learning in e-environments is standard majority practice across higher
education but clearly advances are being made. However, it seems to us that
teachers and their students, not the technology, should of necessity be at the
centre of the process. They are the experts on learning and the technology is
no more than a tool, albeit a powerful and exciting one with masses of
potential. It is how teachers use it that will bring ultimate improvement and
success.
Allen, L. (2003) On-line Learning – Here to Stay, The Lecturer, July, p9.
Ausubel, D. (1968) Educational psychology: A Cognitive View, Holt,
Rinehard and Winston, New York.
Beaumont, J. (2003) The ball’s rolling but it needs a
little push, Times Higher Education
Supplement, (16th May), pviii.
Boezerooy, P. (2002) Keeping
up with our neighbours: ICT Developments in Australia Higher Education, York,
England, Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN) Generic Centre (with ALT
and SURF).
Britain, S. and Liber, O. (1999) A Framework for Pedagogical Evaluation of Virtual Learning Environments,
Report 41, JISC Technical Applications Programme.
Cockburn, C. In the
Way of Women: Men’s resistance to Sex Equality in Organisations, McMillan
Press, Basingstoke, England.
Conole, G. (2002) The Evolving Landscape of Learning
Technology, Association for Learning
Technology Journal (ALT-J),10, 3, 4-18.
Gibbs, G. (1989)
Learning by Doing: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods, RP391, FEU,
London.
Hall, W. and White, S. (2003) Strategic Implementation of
Computer-Based Learning at Southampton, Institute
for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, Members Resources, Web site http://www.ilt.ac.uk/
Johnston, S. and McCormack, C. (1996) Integrating
Information technology into University teaching: identifying the needs and
providing the support, International
Journal of Educational Management, 10, 5, 36-42.
Jones, C. (2002) Is there a policy for networked learning? Networked
Learning 2002, Proceedings of the Third International Conference, Sheffield
University.
Kyriacou, C. (1998) Essential
Teaching Skills, (2nd Edition), Stanley Thornes, Cheltenham,
England.
Laurillard, D. (1993) Rethinking
University Teaching – a framework for the effective use of educational
technology, Routledge, London.
Laurillard, D. and McAndrew, P. (2002) Virtual Teaching
Tools: Bringing academics closer to the design of e-learning, Networked
Learning 2002, Proceedings of the Third International Conference, Sheffield
University.
Littlejohn, A and Higgison, C. (2003), A Guide for Teachers: e-learning series No.3, Learning and Teaching
Support Network (LTSN) Generic Centre, York, England.
Moore, G. A. (1991) Crossing
the Chasm, Harper Business, New York.
National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education in the
Learning Society (1997) Higher Education
in the Learning Society (Dearing Report), HMSO/ NCIHE, London.
Orsmond, P. and Stiles, M. (2002) University Teaching: A
Challenge to Staff Development, Innovations
in Education and Teaching International, 3, 4, 253-255.
Smith, B. (2003), Teaching On-Line: New or Transferable
Skills, Institute for Learning and
Teaching in Higher Education, Members Resources, Web site http://www.ilt.ac.uk/
Taylor, P. (1999)
Making Sense of Academic Life: Academics, Universities and Change, Buckingham,
England, Open University Press.