STAFF PERSPECTIVES ON THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN
TEACHING AND LEARNING WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO
THE DEVELOPMENT OF VIRTUAL LEARNING
ENVIRONMENTS: A REPORT FOR LTSN-ICS
Robert Newton
The Robert Gordon University
Aberdeen Business School
Department of Information Management
Page 2 of 75
CONTENTS
Section page
1. Executive Summary 4
2. Introduction and Background 6
3. Methodology 11
3.1 Aim 11
3.2 Literature Review 11
3.3 Questionnaire Survey 13
3.4 Interviews and e-mail discussions 14
3.5 Data Analysis 15
4. Literature Review 16
4.1 Increased time commitment 19
4.1.1 Development time 19
4.1.2 Delivery time 21
4.2 Lack of incentives or rewards 23
4.3 Lack of strategic planning, vision and culture 27
4.4 Lack of support 30
4.4.1 Lack of training in use of the technology 31
4.4.2 Lack of support for pedagogical aspects of 32
development
4.5 Philosophical, epistemological and social objections 39
4.6 Evaluation 48
5. Survey Results 50
5.1 Questionnaire Survey – closed questions 50
5.2 Open questions, interviews and e-mail discussion 57
6. Conclusion and Recommendations 62
7 References 65
App 1 QUESTIONNAIRE 73
Page 3 of 75
Table page
1. Key factors which are likely to detract from 5
development and integration of new technology in
LTSN ICS-IS departments
2. Microsoft Scholars - Major factors which inhibit the 9
accelerated adoption of technology in higher
education
3. Key factors which are likely to detract from 18
development and integration of new technology in
higher education (from analysis of the literature)
4. Surveys of Academic Staff relating to C&IT use 26
5. Seven Principles for Constructivist Design 40
(From: Cunningham et al., 1993)
6. Skills required by students to use virtual learning 55
environments
7. Attitude to development of skills to support students 60
in virtual learning environments during interviews
8. Stages in Distance Faculty Development 63
(Clay, 1999)
Figure page
1. The Interactivity Spectrum (from Nathan Shadroff, 37
www.nathan.com.thoughts)
2. Types of materials being used/developed by academic 50
staff
3. Systems used for development 51
4. Extent of involvement in using technology 52
5. Future involvement in use of technology in MLE/VLE 54
developments
6.1 Value of technology in supporting campus based 56
teaching
6.2 Value of technology in supporting distance learning 56
Page 4 of 75
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The report is the outcome of a funded project conducted on behalf of the Learning and
Technology Support Network – Information and Computing Studies Group.
(LTSN-ICS). The report deals with the issues which are currently perceived as being
important ‘barriers’ to using technology in teaching and learning within the academic
staff community working in higher education in the UK. In particular the report
concentrates on the attitudinal and affective considerations which detract from staff
participation in development and delivery of teaching using Virtual Learning
Environments.
The report was compiled using data derived from a critical analysis of the literature
and the results of questionnaire surveys and interviews with academic staff.
Empirical data consisting of 134 responses to a questionnaire designed to elicit
information on use of technology and attitude towards its use was supplemented by
data gathered from 16 structured interviews and e-mail communications received
from 11 academic staff who are actively using web technologies to design and deliver
parts of the curriculum in Information and Computing Studies and Information and
Library Studies.
Empirical data is used to verify some of the contentions from the literature review and
to contextualise these (mainly US based publications) in terms of the experience of UK
academics.
The report identifies 4 major areas of concern which need to be addressed in order to
allow academic staff to engage more full in using technology in their teaching. These
are as follows (ranked in order of perceived importance by staff):
Page 5 of 75
Table 1
Key Factors which are likely to detract from development and integration
of new technology in LTSN ICS-IS Departments
1. Lack of strategic planning and vision
2 Increased time commitment (workload) for academic staff
3. Lack of support for pedagogical aspects of development
4. Lack of extrinsic incentives/rewards
The report concludes from the literature that there is a need to be much more critical
and evaluative in order to support claims for the benefits of innovation in technology
and to provide more effective means for identification and dissemination of best
practice in this area.
The overall picture which emerges when examining a range of initiatives currently
being undertaken across a range of academic institutions is that developments are
often led by the enthusiasm of individuals with little extrinsic reward structure to
encourage these innovations. The report recommends that the most significant area
which needs to be addressed is essentially concerned with the development of policy
for support for developments in virtual learning within individual institutions in higher
education. In particular there is a need to overtly recognise the importance of
developments in teaching and accord this a similar status to research.
In addition further empirical research should be conducted to evaluate a range of
pedagogical issues which relate to the concerns of academic staff about how to
effectively make use of web based technologies in teaching.
Page 6 of 75
2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
In higher education over the past few years there has been a substantial growth in
interest and activity in the development of ‘technology based solutions’ to provide
effective teaching and learning to an increasingly diverse group of learners. In
particular in the area of computer assisted learning (CAL) and now in the development
of Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs), a large literature has developed which
provides often conflicting claims about the efficacy of these applications and the
problems associated with their development. Stimulated by the capability provided
by enhanced computing technologies, in particular the use of web-based
technologies, and encouraged by the interest of government and the impetus
provided at an institutional level to participate in developing distance programmes,
there has been a marked increase in reported applications and developmental work in
this field.
In particular rapid growth within the higher education sector in the United Kingdom
has been prompted in the recent past by a number of recent and current national
initiatives, for example, the Teaching and Learning with Technology Programme
(TLTP), the LTDI (Learning with Technology Dissemination Initiative) CTI(Computers
in Teaching Initiative) now LTSN (Learning and Technology Support Network), a
variety of JISC/JCALT (Joint Information Systems Council/JISC Computers and
Learning Technology) initiatives on Managed Learning Environments (MLEs) and
Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs). Specifically these bodies or programmes have
focused on the need to increase awareness of the potential benefits of the technology
and to examine issues related to implementation. Applications of the technology
cover a wide range of subject areas and audiences but all developments share the
common assumption that technology can be used to help to deliver parts of the higher
education curriculum more efficiently and/or effectively. The main focus of this
report will be developments in distance learning. Whilst there is nothing new about
distance learning, this is an area in which the rapid advances in communications and
Page 7 of 75
publishing technologies can be seen to be the primary ‘fuel’ for the renewed interest
in delivering higher education using this mode of study. There are a number of
reasons advanced in the literature to underpin developments in this field. Notably the
issues of improving access to education and training, enhancing the quality of
teaching and learning and the needs of higher education institutions to maintain
competitive advantage in a changing marketplace for students are advanced as
reasons for engaging in technology led developments to support the development of
virtual learning environments. The basic evidence for some of these reasons is
questionable (although often not contested) but a full examination of the rationale of
these is outwith the scope of this report except insofar as they assist in explaining
affective or attitudinal considerations of academic staff involved in the development
and use of VLEs.
The rationale for examining human factors is based on a perceived deficiency in
earlier work which deals with the development and use of technology in higher
education. While in the past evaluation of the impact of new technology in education
has tended to be based solely on assessing the design of the teaching material itself or
on the manner in which students interact with the material, more recently there has
been a trend towards strategies for evaluation which give full consideration to the
context in which learning materials are introduced. Given past experience of the low
usage of externally produced learning materials and poor uptake of opportunities to
extend the use of technology in teaching delivery (Newton, 2001) it seems
particularly important to evaluate the use of new technology in a manner which takes
account of all factors likely to impact on their successful implementation and
sustained use as an integral part of the curriculum.
This is particularly important if, as some research appears to suggest, (Hartman,
Dziuban and Moskal, 2000) academic staff satisfaction and student outcomes are
strongly related in virtual learning environments and whilst often considered
separately need to be treated as co-linear rather than independent variables.
Page 8 of 75
The rationale for undertaking this research is that despite the growth in application
and potential of technology there is a lack of a clear consensus on the attitude and
ability of academic staff in higher education to participate in these developments. A
number of studies (Olcott and Wright, 1995; Pajo, 2001, Fabry and Higgs, 1997,
Sellani and Harrington, 2002) identify significant barriers to staff participation in
developments of web based teaching. However the analysis of the relative
importance and permanence of these barriers is problematic because staff attitudes
change over the course of time and, it has been hypothesized, at different stages of
their career development. It is important therefore to identify common themes which
are based on a broad consensus in the literature.
A useful starting point for examining some of these concerns is provided in a
communication issued following a Microsoft Scholars’ meeting in 1997. Based on the
experience of leading academics and instructional technologists, the communication
noted a large number of factors which potentially mitigate against uptake of
technology1. The following table (Table 2) summarises a variety of these factors
extracted from the Microsoft Scholars’ report.
1
Shared misery/shared solutions: major factors inhibiting the accelerated adoption of technology in higher
education. Microsoft in Higher Education. Commentary. April 1997. Available at:
http://www.microsoft.com/education/hed/news/april/comisery.htm
Page 9 of 75
Table 2
Major Factors Which Inhibit the Accelerated Adoption of Technology
in Higher Education (Microsoft Scholars)
1 Inadequate infrastructure for access, support and training for
sustaining technology
2 Lack of co-coordinated planning for technology at departmental,
institutional and system levels
3 Use of technology is not part of the prestige, recognition or promotion
systems currently in place
4 Academic staff have not been taught how to apply technology to
teaching
5 Technology is not a financial priority within schools or departments
6 Uncertainty of intellectual property rights in an electronic environment
7 Resistance to changing traditional teaching practices
8 Lack of understanding of application of technology
9 Lack of high level vision in administration about the role of technology
10 Unrealistic expectations of what the technology can do
11 Dismissive attitude because of early inadequate experience (real or
perceived)
12 Generational division between older and younger staff in responding to
use of technology
13 Resistance to external pressure to change
14 Ideological resistance to technology
15 Claims that technological solutions are pedagogically not appropriate
The Literature Review section of this report (Section 4) seeks to expand on the
significance of these factors, categorize them more precisely and provide an
assessment of their relative importance.
In order to ensure the effective introduction and use of learning technologies it is
important to be aware of exactly which of these factors are operational in a particular
Page 10 of 75
situation and to identify strategies for eliminating or at least minimizing the effect of
these factors.
To a certain extent the literature on the subject ‘disguises’ the importance of this issue
because in general projects which deal with innovative use of technology are still very
much conducted in an ‘artificial’ environment in which the enthusiasm for the initiative
from a single member of staff or team of staff has had a very important effect on the
students and on the successful outcome of the project. The views and opinions of
staff who are either disinterested in or frustrated by the technology are not frequently
discussed and yet it is important that such issues are clearly understood in order to
move beyond the isolated implementation of ‘successful’ projects to an organization
in which there is a significant culture shift related to the way in which staff perceive
and use technology to support students. Thus this project relies on a questionnaire
survey of staff and interviews with staff to provide a more holistic perspective of staff
attitudes.
The challenge in creating a virtual university is to create a teaching and learning
environment in which all staff accept and adopt the use of technology, have support
mechanisms available to them to use the technology appropriately, and can clearly
see the manner in which their role as educators is changed without its importance
being diminished.
Page 11 of 75
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Aim
The aim of the project undertaken here was to identify the critical factors which
impinge on the acceptance and use of technology based teaching.
The research was conducted specifically within the cognate group Information and
Computer Science and Information Studies and it is recognised that some of the
considerations and findings may not reflect developments in other subject areas
within higher education.
The report was compiled using data derived from a critical analysis of the literature
and the results of questionnaire surveys and interviews with academic staff.
Empirical data consisting of 134 responses to a questionnaire designed to elicit
information on use of technology and attitude towards its use was supplemented by
data gathered from 16 structured interviews and e-mail communications received
from 11 academic staff who are actively using web technologies to design and deliver
parts of the curriculum in Information and Computing Studies and Information and
Library Studies. The separate strands of the methodology are described in more detail
below.
3.2 Literature Review
The starting point for surveying any field of research is to conduct an evaluative study
of the literature. This is complicated in the case of virtual learning environments
because the terminology is still developing and searches had to be conducted using a
broad range of terms which often resulted in retrieval of information which was not
directly relevant to the research. In addition there is a great deal of relevant material
which is provided in publications which deal only tangentially with the issue of staff
attitudes and thus a great deal of material had to be manually scanned to ascertain its
usefulness.
Page 12 of 75
Literature was identified using standard database searches on a range of bibliographic
databases (facilitated through using DIALOG searching of the EDUCAT group of
databases) and through extensive web based searching. The International Centre for
Distance Learning (at the Open University) was also used. As might be expected, the
coverage of this Open University site is extensive and provides a database of over
12,000 items related to distance learning. The LTSN-ICS pages were searched as well
as the generic LTSN pages.
It was important that the literature reviewed should be recent in order to ensure that
comment was being made on current practice. In fact the bulk of the literature used
was less than 3 years old. This inevitably meant a heavy reliance on web based
publications and e-journals and again this added a further layer of complexity because
of the need to carefully review the source of the publications and be assured of their
academic credibility.
Caution was also needed with respect to the national bias of the literature. Much of
the material retrieved inevitably reflected current concerns in the United States where
the context of design and delivery of virtual learning is considerably different from
that pertaining in the UK. However, it was confirmed from the empirical work that
many of the concerns were common.
In addition we need to look at the point that the literature is largely written by staff
who are established developers and users of VLEs and Haywood suggests that there is
evidence that non participants are more negative in their general approach to use of
web based technology in teaching.
3.3 Questionnaire
A questionnaire (Appendix 1) was designed and piloted and then distributed to 300
academics working within Computing Departments or Information Studies
Departments in the UK. 220 questionnaires were issued to Computing Department
Staff and 80 to Information Studies staff. Staff were identified through using
Page 13 of 75
institutional web sites and care was taken to ensure a balance between gender and
seniority. It was decided, however, that the questionnaire should be completely
anonymous - particularly because it is important in any survey which is examining
affective considerations that potential respondents be encouraged to feel that it is
purely their personal views which are being sought rather than their personal
attributes. It was also considered that demographic data would not be particularly
relevant and it was not envisaged that the data collected would be correlated with
demographic data. The only exception to this was that the questionnaires sent to the
Information Studies departments were coded to ensure that they could be identified
as it was felt that some of the responses (notably those on development needs and on
information skills) might exhibit significant differences.
The questionnaire was designed in 3 main sections. The first of these sought to elicit
general information on staff experience in the use of technology in teaching. The
second section invited comments on staff perceptions about the usefulness of the
technology and finally the third section allowed staff to provide additional comment
and reflection.
134 questionnaires were returned and the analysis of these is presented in Section 5
of the Report. Only 12 of these were from Information Studies Departments which
does not reflect the rate of return which might be expected given the proportions
which were distributed. Ultimately, however, because of the preponderance of staff
in the LTSN-ICS being from Computing Departments this distribution probably more
accurately reflects the relative numbers of staff in the two subject areas. An
examination of the Information Studies responses did not in fact reveal any significant
variation from those responses given by Computing Department staff.
3.4 Interviews and E-mail discussions
Interviews were conducted with 16 staff – again geographically spread. The
interviews were open ended although later analysis of the topics covered showed that
the interviewees were generally keen to explore issues which were common to those
Page 14 of 75
key factors which had already been identified in the literature. There was
considerable scope for interviewees to lead on topics about which they were most
concerned and to share experience of their involvement in developments in teaching
and learning generally within their particular institution. To maintain spontaneity and
to ensure that the discussion was not led by the researcher, the interviews were not
taped. The focus of the interviews was to allow the interviewee to raise issues rather
than to prompt for responses on predefined issues. Careful notes were taken of the
comments and these were written up immediately after each interview. Interviews
were planned to last for approximately forty minutes but scope was given for this to
be extended and this was frequently the case.
In addition e-mails were received form 11 academics who expressed a particular
interest in the topic, 5 of whom, though initially approached for an interview, could not
be personally interviewed because of time constraints on both their part and that of
the researcher. The 6 others were from staff who had become aware of the project
through the LTSN-ICS web site and who were eager to provide their inputs. 4 of the
initial e-mail contacts generated quite lengthy discussion of the individual’s
perception of the subject area in general and a consideration of these was made when
analyzing the interview data.
3.5 Data Analysis
The closed questions which were posed in the questionnaire were analysed using
SPSS and the results presented graphically to aid interpretation. There was no
attempt made to run any statistical correlations on the data collected as these were
the result of questions posed to elicit hard facts about the environment in which
individuals were developing and using new technologies. The Likert type scales used
to allow staff to feed back their opinions and feelings on particular subjects are not
susceptible to manipulation using standard statistical techniques unless the volume of
data is considerably higher than that provided in this survey.
The data collected from open questions presented in the questionnaire, from
interviews and from e-mail responses were analysed to identify recurrent themes
Page 15 of 75
which were of concern to academics and also to identify instances where theory and
practice converged and diverged (particularly in relation to the pedagogical aspects of
support of educational aims and objectives in virtual learning environments).
Because of the small size of the sample powerful tools for analysis of the responses
(such as use of NUD-IST software) were not felt to be appropriate. The methodology
used to analyse the responses was based on McKernan’s work on content analysis.
McKernan’s procedures are based on an examination of the ‘communication’ to derive
potential classification categories, writing definitions of these key categories,
analysing the data and coding it and finally providing a quantitative summary of the
categories to highlight the relative importance of different themes. (McKernan, 1996).
In the event this proved to be a particularly easy exercise as the categories identified
were all well defined and had previously been identified in the literature.
Page 16 of 75
4. LITERATURE REVIEW
This section of the report will examine the claims which have been made in the past as
to why there have been ‘barriers’ placed in the way of developing VLEs. A number of
different issues have been either hypothesized or identified through a variety of
surveys of academic and management staff involved in higher education. However,
caution must be exercised when dealing with the literature. The main problems lie in:
Recognising that much of the literature is derived from studies conducted in the
United States where the experience of running technology based distance
learning programmes is more widespread in the higher education community.
Within the UK the Open University has until relatively recently been almost the
sole player in designing and development distance learning though this is a
situation which is changing rapidly. Whilst there is a degree of concurrence in
the literature it is important to recognise that there may be factors which are
unique to the UK higher education sector or which receive more prominent
treatment in the literature.
Ensuring that the reported results of surveys and case studies is current. This is
a field in which developments are extremely rapid and much of the work of
developing and integrating technology in higher education does not accurately
reflect the current situation.
Ensuring that the reported results accurately reflect the views of the academic
community as a whole rather than particular sectors, delivery systems used, or
groups at a particular stage in development and use of VLEs
The themes which are presented in Table 3 (below) are those which recur in the
literature. These have been ranked principally on the basis of some existing
empirically based work – notably the research conducted by Berge and Muilenburg
(Berge and Muilenburg, 2001). The rankings which the authors adopted were based
on a very extensive survey of the US higher education community. Whilst they take
into account both managerial and academic perceptions, they have been usefully
Page 17 of 75
presented to allow easy identification of key factors where perceptions between these
groups are common and it is in these areas that the following commentary
concentrates. The ranking survey involved 2,504 staff of whom 1,150 were
academics. Respondents identified rank positions for 69 potential barriers.
A comparison of this work with research conducted to date in the UK shows a marked
degree of commonality in themes although there has been some change in emphasis
reflected in the ranking of relative importance of these themes. There have been a
number of such surveys. (Haywood et al., 2000; Foster et al. 1999; Bennett, 2001).
Haywood’s comprehensive survey of learning technology in Scottish Higher education
clearly identified the following main themes:
lack of time, once high priority tasks have been accounted for, which is the
principal limitation for many staff, particularly those in the former SOED HEIs,
perceptions of the relatively low status and hence rewards, accorded to teaching
compared with research, especially given the pressures of the Research
Assessment Exercise with its significant implications for funding
lack of reliable and adequate infrastructure, including technical support, to deliver
courseware at reasonable cost in terms of academic effort
lack of appropriate courseware in some subjects
lack of basic C&IT skills, especially in HEIs where the IT infrastructure is quite new’
(Haywood, 2000)
This is also confirmed by smaller scale research which adopts a grounded approach
such as that undertaken by Plewes and Issroff (2002), who used structured interviews
to identify key factors which mitigated against adoption of technology. This approach
is extended in the research using discourse analysis conducted by Smith and Oliver
(Smith and Oliver, 2002)
Finally in interim reports within the UK in the LTSN-ICS Survey on Current Use of VLEs
(Interim results) the main factors identified as barriers are identical.2
2
The LTSN-ICS survey was last checked on 28th November 2002 at which time 44 responses had been recorded.
Page 18 of 75
There is thus justification for the approach taken here which bases the investigation
on following list of key factors.
Table 3
Key Factors which are likely to detract from development and integration
of new technology in higher education (from analysis of literature)
1 Increased time commitment (workload) for academic staff
2. Lack of extrinsic incentives/rewards
3. Lack of strategic planning and vision
4. Lack of support:
4.1 Lack of training in technological developments
4.2 Lack of support for pedagogical aspects of developments
5. Philosophical, epistemological and social objection
Inevitably we find that some of these factors are inextricably interwoven. The first 3
factors dominate the discussion and are particularly prominent in the literature. The
issues concerning support and training (factors 4.1-4.2) are often not separated out in
the literature and the definition of resources required for support is also not clearly
defined. This often incorporates pedagogical support in how to apply the technology
effectively and training in use of the technology. Finally the various objections which
are raised on philosophical, epistemological or social grounds are ones which rarely
give rise to a clear consensus of opinion and are often based on little or no empirical
data.
An important caveat which should be made concerning the table given above and the
discussion of the different factors below is that neither is finely attuned to variations
which may be exhibited within distinctive groups of staff. The literature generally
deals with academic staff attitudes as a whole and does not focus on particular ‘types’
of staff based on their experience and use of the technology. The assumption is made
that various demotivating factors are evident in all sectors of the academic
community and no clear correlation of attitudes e.g. between different stages of
adoption of the technology is made. Whilst there is little justification for analysis of
Page 19 of 75
the importance of the above factors based on the rather arbitrary categories reflecting
degree of technological skill/enthusiasm, for example using the classification adopted
by Fox and Hermann (Fox and Herman, 2003)3 , it is useful to note that stages in
adoption of the technology may in some cases have an important bearing on at least
some of the factors provided in the table above. This is reflected in some of the
literature which is based around an examination of attitudes with respect to Roger’s
innovation diffusion characterizations. (Rogers, 1995).
4.1 Increased time commitment
The overwhelming picture which emerges in any study which examines development
of new technology is the time intensive nature of both development and delivery of
web based learning.
4.1.1 Development time
The general literature dealing with developments of new technologies in learning – in
particular web based distance learning technologies lays great stress on the fact that
what needs to be offered is not a simple replication of class based instruction but a
completely new approach to delivery of the curriculum. This being the case it would
be logical to surmise that the development time associated with design of materials
and activities for delivery to distance learning students will be very time intensive. It
should be noted that there is no real benchmark on which we can comparatively
define the effort required with respect to preparation of on campus teaching materials
(as reliable figures for the latter do not exist) nor would it be particularly fruitful to
attempt this. What we can do is:
rely on the judgment of those academics who have been involved in this area
and there is universal agreement that the effort required to prepare and
3
Fox and Hermann discuss 5 categories of academic staff - Neutralitarians, Oppositionals, Sceptics, Boosers and
Transformationalists the general attitude being fairly evident from the names adopted.
Page 20 of 75
maintain materials to support web based distance learners is significantly
greater
and
take cognizance of the research and practical experience which has been
reported on developing other ‘technology rich’ developments in teaching and
learning, in particular the recent experience of academics who have been
involved in initiatives to develop multimedia learning materials
It should be emphasised that what is being required in development is not simply the
production of text books type materials to present to students. It is the reproduction
of a ‘lecture and seminar experience’ which involves careful consideration of how
students can be engaged in learning about a particular subject. Because that
presentation cannot take account of the many visual (and sometimes vocal) cues
which are a part of face to face teaching and which can shape the delivery of
instruction, the effective development of distance learning materials requires the
incorporation of considerably more support activities and prompts to ensure reflection
and self-assessment. The issue is compounded by the lack of clear strategies for
using the technology to effect the required pedagogical objectives in distance learning
courses and the theme of development time is thus very closely bound up with
another important concern raised by staff i.e. the need for training/guidance on
implementing technology supported mechanisms which can engage the student in the
learning process.
4.1.2 Delivery time
Likewise, in the literature academic staff voice considerable concern about the time
spent in supporting the delivery of distance learning programmes. There is some
debate as to the accuracy of the contention that asynchronous learning requires more
time. In a single issue of the American Journal of Distance Education the reader is
presented with two very contradictory views of the implications of running distance
learning programmes on staff workload (DiBiase, 2000; Visser, 2000) as well as with
a very informed editorial commentary (Moore, 2000). Visser reports that web-based
teaching of distance learning students requires almost twice as much time as teaching
Page 21 of 75
on-campus students whereas DiBiase contends that on average the teaching time is
less (2.7 hours for each student as opposed to 3.2 for on-campus students). The
results are of course very much prone to variations in a number of factors relating to
the profile of the students themselves and the institutional support provided.
Ultimately the debate cannot be resolved without much more rigorous definition of
how comparisons are effected. Nonetheless, as Moore comments:
‘There should be no underestimating the importance of the issues
being exposed here. They are not only important pedagogical
issues, but they are also policy issues, rising rather urgently to
the top of the distance learning agenda as a steadily increasing
proportion of faculty in higher education and in training are being
called on to try their hand at teaching people they usually cannot
see, have never met, and are unlikely to meet’ (Moore, 2000)
The situation is complicated by the fact that the time staff devote to ‘virtual campus’
activities is not transparent (Beckett and Brine, 2002) and because, many of these
activities are not time-critical, they are often accommodated by staff outwith the
normal working day.
Turgeon, DiBiase and Miller (2002) contend that ‘despite anecdotal evidence and
tabulations of perceived effort, no-one really knows yet whether distance teaching is
more work or less’
However, the anecdotal evidence and reports from academics involved in teaching
distance learning courses is extremely strong. A vivid account of the pattern of
working for those involved in online teaching is provided by Young’s article entitled
‘The 24-Hour Professor’ which provides a mini ‘case study’ of the schedules and
patterns of working of an American professor (Young, 2002). In a similar vein
Attewell voices concern that
‘If more of our college programmes are offered at a distance, or
outside traditional college hours and terms, will levels of unsocial
hours work and therefore levels of stress for teaching and
technical staff become unacceptably high?’ (Attewell, 1999)
Page 22 of 75
Messing, concentrates on one single aspect of workload associated with delivering
distance learning – e-mail correspondence – in order to illustrate a steep rise in time
spent in dealing with distance learning students. Concluding his survey he gives his
own very personal view on the matter and there is no doubt from his final statement
that he is speaking very much from the heart.
Can we afford to implement online strategies by concentrating on
the supposed pedagogical and administrative improvements they
might bring without considering the workload for both academics
and students? It is highly unlikely that such an approach would
be successful. Even if such issues were allowed for,
unanticipated workload shifts may still happen as this study of
e-mail has demonstrated. Just how much extra time an
individual is prepared to sacrifice in order to receive the benefits
of the use of such tools is debatable. From a personal
perspective, the limit has been reached.’
His experience is not unique and ample evidence that staff are increasingly concerned
about workloads is evident in a large number of publications which base their
conclusion on extensive surveys of academic staff. For example,
Pajo’s survey of 250 staff at Massey University, New Zealand reports that:
‘three of the four most prohibitive barriers identified by staff were
related to issues of time. The most significant barrier identified
by more than 70% of the respondents was time to learn how to
use the technology’
A range of other surveys which support this conclusion is provided in Table 4.
An interesting perspective on increased volume of work from the point of view of staff
who are not actively engaged in teaching using virtual learning environments is
provided by Clay who sees a lack of appreciation of the volume of work as a common
failing of staff who are new to distance learning. Observing that a common problem
encountered by staff failing to interact with students and follow up regularly she notes
that:
‘Students feel more connected with instructors who participate
regularly, even daily, in bulletin board discussions. Students also
expect that their e-mail and phone calls be answered within a day
or so’ (Clay, 1999)
Page 23 of 75
It is apparent therefore that increased workload is not a self-imposed problem for
staff who wish to engage fully in distance learning but a problem of how the activity
has to engaged in and those who plan to get involved in this activity must take
cognisance of the significant workload involved.
4.2 Lack of incentives or rewards
Linked to the question of workload inevitably there is the question of incentives and
rewards.
In terms of personal reward structure there is a wealth of evidence that this is an issue
which causes concern amongst academic staff but there is virtually no engagement in
higher education with the question of how staff are rewarded for participating in online
teaching. In a survey of staff involved in web based teaching Kotze and Dreyer (2001)
found that more than half of the lecturers involved indicated that there were no
incentives involved in telematic learning courses though noted some intrinsic personal
rewards. Kotze and Dreyers suggested strongly that a modification of the reward
system to formally include incentives for special efforts required for distance learning
teaching was required.
Nonetheless an increasing number of academic staff have become involved in virtual
learning despite the lack of an extrinsic reward structure. The explanation for this
which is again apparent in surveys of academic staff is that there are intrinsic rewards
which are important to them and in some cases staff express the feeling that these are
much more important.
The question of intrinsic rewards is rather complex. It is evident in the research of a
number of writers that these are important motivators. (Csikszentmihalyi,1997;
Woolcott and Betts, 1999). Indeed Wilson reports in one study that the academic
staff rated intrinsic factors consistently above extrinsic rewards and reported that
staff were intrinsically motivated to participate in distance education irrespective of
financial incentives (Wilson, 2002). However it could be hypothesized that this is
Page 24 of 75
perhaps more pertinent to the situation in the United States in which such research
has been conducted and where there is a higher level of satisfaction because of the
relatively higher reward structure already in place.
The principal intrinsic reward experienced by staff is the ability to extend teaching to
students off campus results in cultural and geographic blend which cannot be
achieved on campus. (Dooley, 2000) reports that:
‘analysis revealed that respondents recognized the opportunity
to utilize DE technologies to improve instruction and reach new
audiences ...’
Other intrinsic rewards include the motivation of staff to use technology because of a
personal interest in the technology itself or a commitment to the technology as an
important area for pedagogical study and development.
Nonetheless Dooley still concludes that there is a clear perception of the need for:
‘faculty rewards, including release time/work load
reconfigurations, credit toward tenure/promotion efforts and
availability of resources (personal and fiscal) would be necessary
to adopt the use of instructional technology in teaching. (Dooley,
2000)
Lee quotes Thach and Murphy who in 1994 stated that:
‘the sad fact remains that institutional reward systems are often
established in such a way that even the most devoted distance
learning instructors can become frustrated by the lack of
recognition and understanding for what they do’
Unfortunately there appears to have been no real move made to resolve this situation
in the 9 years since this study was produced.
Additional supporting evidence
A number of other articles support the findings in relation to workload and incentives
are provided in the table below. Because all of these publications support the views
and basically re-iterate the same conclusions it was felt that these were more
efficiently dealt with in a bibliographic table rather than being integrated into the
Page 25 of 75
discussion above. All of these articles are based on surveys of academic staff and all
share the same conclusion that these issues are very high on the agenda of academic
staff who have experience of using new technology in teaching and are seen as critical
barriers to increased staff participation in web-based teaching.
Page 26 of 75
Table 4
Surveys of Academic Staff relating to C&IT use
Date of Survey Author Number of staff involved
1998 Anderson 557
1998 Betts 532
1998 Daugherty et. al. 76
1999 Rockwell et al. 127
2000 Almeda 11 instructors
2000 Haywood 982
2000 Jones et al 10
2000 McKenzie 31
2000 McKenzie et al. 31
2000 Rockwell et al. 127
2001 Abacus Associates 402 NEA members
2001 Berge and Muilenburg 1276
2001 Dooley and Murphy 263
2001 Kotze and Dreyer 12
2001 Lee 237
2001 Pajo and Wallace 250
2001 Steel and Hudson 11
2001 Wilson, C. et al. 687
2002 American Federation of Teachers 200
2002 Betts 274
2002 Jones 252
2002 Plewes 2
2002 Schifter 263
2002 Strandvall 28
Page 27 of 75
4.3 Lack of strategic planning and vision
Issues relating to strategic planning for distance learning are linked closely to the
establishment of reward strategies and workload identified above but they go further
than this. The introduction of new technology into teaching and learning goes to the
heart of challenging some of the assumptions on which ‘traditional’ higher education
has operated. This tradition has been one in which unmediated classroom instruction
has largely been the norm and the career structure of academics has been based
firmly around research outputs. Despite the introduction of quality assurance and
quality enhancement mechanisms the view that this is still the predominant culture in
UK higher education institutions is prevalent.
Referring to the reason for non-involvement in technology based delivery of distance
learning in the US (but equally applicable to UK) Lee notes that:
‘One important factor behind this research is the University
culture in the US under which excellence in scholarly activity,
such as journal publications, is rewarded, and excellence in
teaching is assumed but often overlooked in promotion, tenure
and salary decisions’
Cho sees organizational culture as the main barrier to those developing virtual
learning teaching (Cho, 2002). Moore goes even further and as far back as 1994 he
asserted that:
‘the barriers impeding the development of distance education
are not technological, nor even pedagogical. We have plenty of
technology and we have a fair knowledge of how to use it. The
major problems are associated with the organizational change,
change of faculty roles and change in the administrative
structures. Here we desperately need all the ideas and all the
leadership that can be assembled’ Moore (1994)
Berge, with some justification, disputes the optimism Moore has over the
‘technological and pedagogical’ readiness of institutions to engage in virtual learning
and argues that the main issue is to create a ‘way we do business’ culture in
Page 28 of 75
institutions in which technology based teaching is integrated completely in the
curriculum. Whilst appearing to diverge in emphasis both authors are effectively
saying the same the thing i.e. that teaching using technology needs to perceived as a
core part of a university’s activities. However, most surveys of academic staff do not
report positively in this respect. Indeed the opposite perception is often given and
staff report that they feel that their efforts are peripheral or overlooked altogether.
Even in institutions where distance learning using virtual learning environments is
well developed there is evidence that integration is not taking place. Thus Betts, for
example, in a survey of academic staff at the George Washingto University (532
faculty members), noted that ninety five percent of the faculty, including both
distance education participants and non-participants and four deans, said they were
not sure if the university had a policy on distance education. Moreover, despite the
uncertainty regarding its existence 292 faculty members recommended such a policy.
Wilson (2002) reporting on a survey of 1500 faculty members at Kentucky State
University notes that the majority of staff felt that they were unsupported by the
university infrastructure. 47% reported that they did not know how technology use
was valued in promotion structure and 28% stated that it clearly was not valued.
Some evidence that a supportive environment is a critical success factor in motivating
staff to develop virtual learning teaching is provided by Betts who notes a much more
positive attitude to involvement in distance learning initiatives in faculties in which the
deans of faculty have a supportive attitude. (Betts, 1998)
However, it should also be noted that even amongst academics who are very
supportive in advocating the more widespread adoption of web based teaching there
is a sensitivity to a cultural imperative which sees teaching as less important than
research. Thus Woolcott and Betts (1999) comment sympathetically on views
expressed in their interviews with academics that a barrier to distance learning
development was that distance teaching could have a negative consequence for these
junior faculty who, because of their involvement, often lost ground in building their
research and publications record.
Page 29 of 75
There is some evidence in the literature that there is growing recognition that
teaching and learning issues need to receive greater prominence. A review of web
sites of higher education institutions in the UK demonstrates that teaching and
learning strategies are being promoted within universities and the QAA process of
institutional audit and review has increased awareness of the need for quality
enhancement in this area. The move to appoint teaching fellows in some institutions
has been heralded as evidence that a greater balance between teaching and research
is being established. Overall however, there is still a great deal of evidence that there
is an imbalance in esteem which favours research activity over teaching excellence.
Drawing a comparison with Green’s Campus Computing Study in the United States
Haywood notes that
‘in the UK ... only a small number of HEIS had identified enhanced
use of C&IT as a major part of their strategy despite the fact that
a wide variety of developments are taking place within all of
them’ (Haywood et al., 2000)
This supports the contention that whilst Jabobsen argues that universities must
include an emphasis on teaching excellence in their technology integration plans
(Jabobsen, 1998) there is no evidence that this is happening.
At a policy making level there is likewise on the surface some ground for optimism
that a change in culture is being promoted. The foundation of the ILT (Institute for
Learning and Teaching) was in part a move to counterbalance the dominance of
research culture on university activities. (DfEE, 1997). However, there is no evidence
in the literature that this has had any real impact on redressing the balance. Haywood
notes, rather pessimistically, the view of academic stuff with respect to integrating
technology into teaching as follows:
‘Whilst there was a positive view of the value of learning
technology there are still significant barriers to its uptake by
staff, the most important being lack of time, infrastructure,
Page 30 of 75
software and training, plus a failure (perceived or actual) of
institutions to value teaching’ (Haywood et al., 2000)
4.4 Lack of support
The issue of resources is endemic to virtually any survey of any activity in higher
education. In the area of technology based learning interventions and the high costs
involved in investing in the technology it may be expected that this issue is seen to be
more critical. Beckett and Brine (2002), commenting on the development of virtual
learning, note that:
‘To make the best pedagogic use of the environment, resources
must be made available to support those involved. Higher
education in the US is currently more progressive in the
implementation of VLEs but large amounts of funding have been
made available to enable the virtual delivery of teaching and
learning.’
However, whilst the literature supports the view that investment in specific ‘high end’
technologies needs to be given more of a priority generally the overall impression is
that the hardware and software platforms for delivering virtual learning are
adequately supported. The issue of resourcing centres mainly around training in the
use of the technology and in appropriate application of the technology.
Page 31 of 75
4.4.1 Lack of training in use of the technology
The issue of basic academic staff training in computer skills is one which has been well
rehearsed in the literature. Dusick provides a comprehensive guide to these issues
(Dusick, 1998) but, unfortunately, like many other commentators tends to lay undue
stress on this single aspect as a root cause of failure by academics to integrate
technology into teaching. It is important that as well as considering the technological
factors we must also be aware of the human dimension involved in implementing a
potentially radical change in the manner and environment in which teaching and
learning will be conducted and obviously investment in technology cannot be fully
effective unless staff receive the necessary training and support. Specific problems
with technological skills noted by Olcott and Wright (1995), Rockwell et al (1999). In
Pajo and Wallace’s study, based at Massey University in New Zealand, a survey to
which 250 staff responded, showed that the time required to learn how to use the
technology was the most significant factor in inhibiting use and was reflected in the
survey returns of 70% of the respondents. (Pajo and Wallace, 2001).
Within the UK, academic establishments are well aware of the challenges posed by
this and centrally funded initiatives such as TALiSMAN (in Scotland) and NetSkills
(England and Wales) have in the past spent considerable effort tackling staff training
in use of the technology. Surveys of the impact of these training initiatives are
generally very positive.
Academic institutions are also increasingly aware that the context in which training is
undertaken is very important. This is evident in Gilmore’s dissertation backed by a
very comprehensive literature review (Gilmore, 1998) and in Redline and Hoehn’s
comprehensive research which looked at attitude changes after training of academic
staff specifically in the context of developing material for creating their own own
courses. (Redline and Hoehn, 2001). As a result of contextualized training, personal
concerns about use of the technology to deliver virtual teaching decreased
significantly.
Page 32 of 75
The main factor which appears to be problematic is whilst there are training
opportunities (and indeed staff are willing to self-train in use of the technology) there
is insufficient recognition of the time required to do this and in a constantly changing
technological environment, staff need to expend considerable effort in order to ensure
that they keep abreast of developments. Thus to an extent the issues of training and
development for virtual learning environments are inextricably bound up in the need
for institutions to overtly recognise the importance of this activity and to support staff
who wish to engage in it.
4.4.2 Lack of support for pedagogical aspects of developments
Crumpacker (2001) notes that the changes in delivery mode inevitably entail changes
in pedagogical approach. This is not necessarily true and we have to be very careful
to ensure that the pedagogy adopted is not driven by the technology. Rather the
technology should support robust pedagogical philosophies. The need to move from
behaviourist to cognitivist/constructivist approaches in teaching and learning has
been well documented in the literature over the past ten years. However, despite
claims that these approaches are adopted in computer assisted learning, the uses of
technology often reflect a purely behaviourist approach to learning and an approach
which supports passive acceptance of ‘facts’ by students. (Newton, 2001). Previous
research in computer based learning and development of networked and stand alone
multimedia technologies has demonstrated that they are capable of supporting sound
pedagogical approaches.
There is an obvious conceptual similarity in some early cognitivist theories and Bush’s
view of hypertext as an associative web of information which emulated the workings
of the human mind. This has often been used to justify the validity of using
hypertextual or hypermedia systems to support a cognitive approach to learning.
This is particularly true of cognitivist theories which emphasized the view that learning
is a process of acquisition and re-organisation of cognitive structures or information
processing theories (Good and Brophy, 1990). As Perkins notes
Page 33 of 75
Information processing models have spawned the computer
model of the mind as an information processor (Perkins, 1991)
In both cases the direct parallels between information processing models and neural
models of human brain activity has now been largely dismissed. However, the
influence of cognitive principles in focussing attention away from instructional models
which emphasised transfer of facts to one which focussed on understanding and
assisting the procedures used by learners to assimilate new knowledge has been
important.
A number of teaching approaches have been derived from cognitivist approaches.
Notably, problem based learning (Boud and Felletti, 1991; Koschmann et al., 1994;
Nulden and Scheepers, 1999), collaborative learning (Slavin, 1990), experiential
learning (Gentry, 1990), case based instruction (Demetriadis and Pombortis, 1999;
Jarz, Kainz and Walpoth, 1997), ‘learner centred education’ (Norman and Spohrer,
1996), and discovery-based learning (Jacobs, 1992), are all approaches which follow
the logical consequences of adopting an approach to teaching and learning which
emphasizes the role of the learner. Two cognitivist theories which are of particular
interest in terms of instructional design are cognitive flexibility theory and
minimalism.
Cognitive flexibility theory focuses on the nature of learning in complex and
ill-structured domains. Spiro & Jehng (1990) and minimalism (Carroll, 1990) as the
name implies, is concerned with minimising the amount of explicit instructional
material in order to promote ‘natural’ patterns of learning through hypothesis and
experimentation.
Constructivism as a theory goes considerably further than other cognitivist theories
and indeed challenges the approach of traditional instructional design at a
fundamental level. Duffy and Jonassen have argued that instructional design theories
have been largely based around an objectivist tradition in which knowledge is
presumed to exist independent of instruction (Duffy and Jonassen, 1992). In the
constructivist approach learning is viewed as a dynamic process in which the learner
Page 34 of 75
constructs their knowledge of the world.4 Cunningham et al. have attempted to
provide guidance on design of constructivist learning environments and provide a
framework of seven main principles which should inform the design of these
environments. These are defined in Table 5 below.
Table 5 Seven Principles for Constructivist Design
(From: Cunningham et al., 1993)
1 Provide experience of the knowledge construction process
2 Provide experience in and appreciation of multiple perspectives
3 Embed learning in realistic and relevant contexts
4 Encourage ownership and voice in the learning process
5 Embed learning in social experience
6 Encourage multiple modes of representation
7 Encourage self-awareness of the knowledge construction process
Cognitive approaches to learning (and specifically constructivist models) are currently
the dominant paradigm in educational psychology. They have given rise to a great
deal of interest in adopting a cognitive view which lays considerable store on the
learner’s need to build internal representation of knowledge through their
involvement in learning. Instructional designers face a huge challenge in taking
advanced pedagogical approaches and ensuring that they are fully integrated into
new technology based learning environments and not surprisingly academic staff
developing material for web based delivery frequently voice concern about how this
integration can be achieved.
Rockwell’s study of 270 academics in 2 colleges in a mid western university in the
United States notes a major issue relating to the need to get support in developing
4
It should be noted that a common misconception of constructivism is the inference that we each therefore
construct a unique reality and that reality is thus in the mind of the learner. However, Jonassen refutes this criticism
on the basis that there is a physical world subject to physical laws which we all share a knowledge of in a roughly
similar way but nevertheless we interpret this physical world and its objects individually and do so as a function of our
experiences and beliefs. (Jonassen, 1991)
Page 35 of 75
interaction in asynchronous learning networks specifically associated with developing
instructional material and the appropriate application of technology. (Rockwell,
2000). This general view is echoed by Clay (Clay, 1999) who concurs to a large extent
with the specific areas of development articulated in a study by Miller and Carr which
found training needs associated directly with the following areas as being important:
teaching techniques
enhancing interaction
learner centred teaching techniques
designing instructional material
and
gaining access to effective models for distance learning teaching (Miller and Carr,
1997)
Jones et al. stress the fact that the development needs of staff are significantly more
than staff training in use of technology. (Jones, Asensio and Goodyear, 2000). The
following comment from the report of their study should raise considerable concerns
for anyone working in the field of instructional design and support:
‘Practitioners generally expressed a concern that they did not
fully understand the relationship between their educational
design and their outcomes. It may be that there is not yet
sufficient common agreement or a common sense view of
educational practice in a networked learning environment’
(Jones et al. 2000)
Further evidence of the need for this is provided by Lee in her study of faculty
motivation, commitment and satisfaction. Following Northup’s suggestion that a lack
of instructional support may keep academics from teaching using distance learning
modes she designed a study to examine whether there was a relationship. Her
conclusion that academic staff motivation and commitment were higher in institutions
which provided a higher level of support confirms organisational theorists view that
there is a reciprocal relationship between care and support of organisations and
employee effectiveness.
Page 36 of 75
Kotze and Dreyer also note the lack of support in this area and suggest peer coaching
as a means of achieving this. (Kotze and Dreyer, 2001)
The primary extra cost of using ALN (asynchronous learning networks) as an
educational delivery system is overcoming inefficiency in communication, and
understanding how to make communication more effective and efficient is the key to
studying interactive system design (Hislop and Atwood, 2000). In order to achieve
this, it is important that earlier work using technology based teaching methods is fully
considered. Shadroff highlights six major factors which contribute to an interactive
online environment. (Shadroff, 1999).
Figure 1
The Interactivity Spectrum (from Nathan Shadroff, www.nathan.com.thoughts)
Shadroff does not expand on the manner in which the different types of interactivity
can be incorporated into learning environments but it is possible to see that the types
of category which he has established are directly relevant to the educational process
and have strong similarities with many of the concepts seen to be important by
Reeves, Laurillard and others when discussing instructional design. (Reeves,1993a;
1993b;1997; Laurillard, 1993) The aspects of interactivity identified below are all
Page 37 of 75
important and must be supported in any learning environment. Feedback to learners
is obviously a crucial activity in teaching and learning. The behaviourist approach to
learning emphasises the need for immediate feedback to learners mainly in the
context of encouraging the learner to change his/her behaviour in order to guide
him/her to the ‘correct’ response. In cognitivist and constructivist environments it is
seen to be equally important. As Laurillard comments:
‘Action without feedback is completely unproductive for the
learner. As we learn about the world through acting upon it there
is continual feedback of some kind …’. (Laurillard, 1993).
Laurillard further elaborates on the distinction between intrinsic feedback which is a
natural consequence of an action and extrinsic feedback which is an external
comment on the situation (usually in terms of categorisation of the action as being
right or wrong). Both types of feedback, delivered in an appropriate format, should be
employed in the design of learning environments (Alessi and Trollip, 1991).
Productivity can be improved by providing the learner with a range of tools to help
him/her make best use of the teaching material presented in the multimedia package.
Good examples of this include the provision of help files, note taking facilities, on-line
dictionaries and glossaries. Creativity and co-creativity can be fostered through the
use of simulation and role play in the learning environment. It is often assumed that
collaboration is really only possible in networked multimedia environments but in fact
when investigating the use of an experimental stand-alone CAL package it was found
that in the laboratory students would often prefer to work in groups and discuss the
material which was being presented (Newton, 2001). Communication is crucial to the
design of learning environments and an essential feature of any learning system must
be the provision of a two way channel of communication between the learner and
instructor/tutor. Adaptivity refers to the manner in which the learning environment
can change in response to the needs of the learner. In a real life teaching situation
there are obviously many occasions on which the lecturer or instructor will adapt what
is being taught in order to accommodate verbal or non-verbal cues from learners.
Thus additional material at a different level may be presented or material which
appears to have already been comprehended will be discarded. Likewise the pace and
level of learning will be adjusted to reflect the needs of the users. Though this
characterises all learning situations it is particularly evident in small group work and
Page 38 of 75
tutorials. Adaptivity may be incorporated into CAL packages at a very simple level.
The learner may be able to choose alternative branches or pathways through the
program or as a consequence of failure to complete assessments satisfactorily the
learner may be forced to repeat a part of the course or undertake remedial work.
Ideally, however, adaptive CAL should go much further in providing the learner with a
customised learning environment which is receptive to their individual level of
understanding of the material and their personal or preferred style for interacting with
the learning material. Finally there is the question of user control. This single feature
is often cited as the central element which distinguishes virtual learning
environments from earlier text based distance learning programmes. It includes the
‘simple’ issue of user control in terms of how we design systems which allow the user
to physically take charge of the depth and sequencing of instruction but also refers
more generally to the issue of learner control in terms of how a user is guided through
learning materials and the degree to which instruction is controlled by the tutor or by
the student. As with many areas of pedagogy this is an issue which requires
relativistic rather than absolute solutions.
Newton has noted that there is often a considerable gap between some of the claims
made for specific applications of C&IT in relation to the manner in which they fulfill
particular learning outcomes or exhibit sound pedagogic approaches (Newton, 2001).
Nonetheless, there is a wealth of literature which relates to how C&IT can be used to
support sound pedagogical theories and it is important that this should be applied
rather than having to be ‘rediscovered’ as academics grapple with specific problems
relating to online distance learning environments.
4.5. Philosophical, epistemological and social objection
As noted above, that there are considerable concerns over engaging with
developments is evident in a number of studies and surveys but it is important to note
that this is not symptomatic of an unwillingness of staff on principle to get involved in
teaching using this mode. Rather the concerns are about organizational issues,
workload and recognition and support as noted above. Nonetheless it should be noted
Page 39 of 75
that there is a body of opinion which reflects some serious objection to virtual learning
developments based on arguments which revolve around
philosophical/epistemological matters.
It is important that these are also given consideration because, important as other
areas are, as Smith and Oliver note:
it is necessary to frame professional development as a critical
debate in which the interests of policy makers can be subjected to
scrutiny, as can the interests of academics and of the
professional developers themselves. (Smith and Oliver, 2002)
So finally in addition to the ‘barriers’ noted above it is worth examining the literature
which cites a range of these broader issues. It may seem odd that these should be left
till last before being considered as they are obviously critical issues which go to the
heart of how teaching and learning is viewed. However, these issues are not reflected
as strongly in the literature in terms of published research on barriers to academic
staff engagement with VLEs. It is important also to note that sometimes these
concerns are not always based on rigorous empirical studies and some are biased
towards anecdotal evidence and frequently based around rhetoric which generally
questions the whole rationale for distance learning.
Some background on the rationale for the development of virtual learning
environments is required to fully understand some of these concerns. An obvious
feature of higher education in the past few years has been its rapid growth. Table 5
clearly demonstrates that growth.
Table 5
UNESCO Figures on students engaged in higher education
worldwide with projections (from Baxter and Dewhurst, 1992)
YEAR DEMAND FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
1970 28 million
1990 65 million
2000 79 million
2015 91 million
Page 40 of 75
This worldwide trend has been evident in the United Kingdom, and throughout the
educational system in the 1990s there has been evidence of increasing student
numbers and a wider variety of courses being offered to those students.(MacFarlane,
1992) Gibbs drew attention to the fact that the main focus of expansion is reflected
in an increase in very large classes rather than in proliferation of smaller units and this
is actively being encouraged in some institutions (Gibbs, 1992). The MacFarlane
Report estimated that within the decade 1990-99 there would be an expansion by
50% of students registered on full and part time courses within the United Kingdom.
(MacFarlane, 1992). At the start of the 1990s it was thus viewed as imperative that
cost-effective solutions should be sought to deliver the curriculum to a wider
audience. It was not only, or even primarily, the numbers of students which posed
the thorniest problem for teaching staff in higher education. Rather it was the
increasing diversity of the student body - diversity in terms of background experience,
qualifications, age and expectations. By the early 1990s it was being overtly
recognised that the demographic pattern of first year student cohorts entering
university would no longer reflect a preponderance of school leavers. But it was also
being recognised that the manner in which delivery of teaching was conducted had
not changed to take account of this fact. Whilst the discussion below looks at the
response to this problem mainly from the perspective of the United Kingdom, it is
worth noting that this is not a phenomenon which is restricted to any particular
country, as the following quote from the Australian report ‘Steering from a distance:
International Trends in the Finance and Governance of Higher Education’ illustrates:
‘Higher education in the 1990s has been characterised by
increasing student numbers, diminishing resources, increasing
accountability, increased rationalisation of course offerings and
an increasingly diverse mix of students (DEET, 1993, Online).
The 1990s also saw an identifiable trend beginning towards non-campus based
education. Academic establishments had for a long time recognised the importance of
maintaining and strengthening links with the prospective employers of their students
and many vocational universities were overtly concerned about the ongoing
training/education which extends into the workplace - this taking the form of
involvement in provision of part-time courses, distance learning courses or
Page 41 of 75
consultancy or short courses. However, advances in technology were forcing a pace
of change that was so rapid that it was becoming apparent across the higher
education sector that work and learning could no longer be seen as separable.
Universities were having to accept the fact that in the information society learning
had to be viewed as a lifelong activity rather than as a four or five year period of
concentrated activity to gain accreditation in a particular subject. Innovative projects
such as the EHE (Enterprise in Higher Education) initiative sought to strengthen
students’ transferable skills such as information handling skills, interpersonal
communication, and enterprise skills, and provoked a serious response by higher
education to the challenge of preparing potential graduates for a working
environment in which flexibility and the ability to learn can at times be as important as
detailed mastery of a particular subject area. Because of society's changing
perception of the need and value of education there is a need for the university to
extend its remit to education outwith the "halls of learning" and onto the street and
into the workplace. As Bates pointed out:
‘if we wish to avoid a future scenario of a fragmented, on
demand, at cost system of education then academic
establishments are going to have to take a more active role in
co-ordinating access to learning generally by providing quality
mechanisms to plan, administer and accredit a more flexible
range of pathways for open learning.’ (Bates, 1993)
An important part of this process was seen to be the production and distribution of
quality teaching materials on which this learning can be based and the development of
robust platforms to take advantage of the potential for web based delivery.
Concurrent with this expansion of the higher education sector those involved in higher
education have been all too keenly aware of cost restraints - particularly on staffing
budgets - and the increasing prominence being given to mechanisms for ensuring that
quality of teaching is maintained or improved. It is against this background that C&IT
in academic institutions was being promoted as a means to deliver the curriculum
effectively and efficiently. In the early 1990s Greville Rumble suggested a future in
which academic establishments co-operate formally to provide a network of learning
materials. This indeed is the substance of the TLTP where consortia consisting of a
number of linked academic sites produce generic teaching material. The success of
Page 42 of 75
the TLTP projects has not been demonstrated - particularly in respect of increasing
productivity and performance in education which was the ultimate goal of the political
initiative under which the scheme was established. Initial reports from various
projects appeared very promising; however, the overall impact of the programme
has not been as great as was initially predicted. Networked multimedia technology
seemed to offer a solution to some of the problems which presently face universities
in delivering their current courses to a wider and more varied student audience and
promised to be a significant tool to assist in preparing academic establishments to
adapt to a new social context in which they will deliver education to a mass market.
There has been a history of such claims and it is fair to say that many modern
commentators appear to have learned little from the historical failure of technology to
‘revolutionise’ education. In the field of educational technology for more than three
decades now there have been predictions that CAL will become the dominant way of
delivering instruction both in schools and in universities. (Levien et al., 1972; Marshall
& Hurley, 1996). However, as with the introduction of film and television into the
classrooms between 1960 and 1970, initial promises with CAL and ‘teaching
revolutions’ that would take place have yet to materialize (see in particular Postman,
1992; Postman, 1997). Part of the reason for this stems from unrealistic expectations
placed on the medium (Schlechter,1991) but in part one can also attribute this to over
optimism amongst educational administrators and funding agencies who perhaps fail
to fully understand the complexity of the teaching and learning process.
In the light of the above discussion, when one examines the literature the most
common reasons advanced by authors for development (Oliver, 1999; Bates, 1997;
Inglis, 1999) can be summarized as:
enhancing the quality of teaching and learning;
improving access to education and training;
and
maintaining competitive advantage
Page 43 of 75
Thus, Mayes points to a significant dichotomy of purpose in development and
application of C&IT in the United Kingdom as follows:
The overall context in which the debate about education and
training are both currently being conducted is one in which strong
forces are pulling in opposite directions. One of these is the
over-riding need to make advanced education and training more
cost effective, and thus to deliver it to a far higher proportion of
the population than at present. The other is the need to raise its
quality and relevance to work. (Mayes, 1997, Online)
It is not surprising, therefore, that there is a certain amount of healthy scepticism
regarding claims that technology will revolutionise teaching and learning and enhance
teaching and learning and there is certainly considerable debate which arises out of a
concern that institutions see C&IT as a means to deliver economies in the teaching
and learning process.
The case for competitive advantage as a reason for becoming involved in virtual
learning is not universally acknowledged and the economies of scale which are needed
to support an economic rationale are certainly not (with the exception of the Open
University) clearly evident in the UK Higher Education sector. However, it is
acknowledged that educational institutions do need to gain experience and take
advantage of distance learning systems in order to ensure that they are not exposed
to a potential change in the market for students. Graves (2001) notes universities are
having to reconsider the marketplace and his views are supported by findings by
Oblinger and Kidwell who note the decline in 18-22 year old residential students
(Oblinger and Kidd, 2000) and by the fact that UCISA reports that distance learning
offered via virtual delivery can be seen as attractive to ‘traditional route students’
In a climate in which there are greater fiscal constraints on academic institutions it
would clearly be unwise to ignore an option which could potentially provide a greater
share in the market for students or which may even be essential to maintain an
existing market. However, institutions are still somewhat ambivalent about the
potential and this perhaps helps to explain to some extent the lack of clear
institutional policies and procedures in this area.
Page 44 of 75
Several authors, concentrating on the ‘economic agenda’ have raised issues. These
are at times very emotive. Thus, for example Noble asserts that:
‘Whatever the rhetoric of the institution the unspoken agenda is
to eliminate direct labor’ Noble quoted by Young (1997)
and a variety of other commentators have been anxious about the potential for staff
redundancies. Turgeon dramatically sums up the question by asking ‘Will faculty
become roadkill on the information superhighway?’ (Turgeon, 1999)
Linked to this often are concerns about the ‘commercialization of education’. These
are stated very strongly by Noble in a very controversial article ‘Digital diploma mills’
(Noble, 1998). These issues are also linked to problems which are foreseen relating to
intellectual property and ownership of material which is provided in virtual learning
environments.
Likewise because of such trends Heterick and Twigg envisage the ‘Hollywoodization of
academia’ (Heterick and Twigg, 2000) and foresee a scenario in which popular
courses are delivered by ‘celebrity academics’ and a devaluation and reduction of the
status of academics inevitably follows.
It should be said that there is not a great deal of support in the literature for such
extreme views but there is a concern about virtual learning environments which is not
bred out of fears of the changes they may force on higher education staff but because
of the obvious failure of the ‘traditional’ system and the imperative of finding cost
effective alternatives. Thus there is some support for the view expressed by Heterick
and Twigg that
‘It is clear that the model of the ‘master’ teacher in a physical
classroom with 15 or 20 students continues to experience cost
increases that double or triple the rise in inflation’.
Page 45 of 75
The move to distance learning at an institutional level is thus often perceived as a
means of increasing revenue in an environment in which competition for student
numbers is becoming increasingly fierce. It is significant that the American
Federation of Teachers notes that ‘educational quality, not financial gain, should guide
where, when and how distance education is employed’. Yet the rationale for
development and delivery of distance programmes in the UK is rarely set out in terms
of educational benefits. Thus it is worth finally noting the attitudinal barriers which
pertain because of scepticism about the ability of C&IT to deliver high quality
education.
The first of these is very much concerned with a lack of confidence in dealing with
students at a distance. Both Arnone and Almeda report the lack of face to face
interaction as a major obstacle. (Arnone, 2002; Almeda 2000) It should be noted
however, that in surveys of academic staff who are actively involved in delivering
distance programmes this is not seen to be an important hurdle and it may well be
that this issue is directly linked with the need to provide much more training and
awareness of the possibilities for interaction and interactivity at a distance.
Secondly Davies warns that
‘university managers could use a switch to virtual education to
facilitate greater control over the teaching process through
electronic surveillance and even censorship. Lecturers will lose
autonomy in the classroom and hence suffer a reduction in
professional status (Davies, 1999)
This concern is not widespread but its expression shows a lack of appreciation of the
fact that inevitably the teacher-learner dynamic is bound to change in a virtual
learning environment and that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with making the
teaching and learning process more transparent.
As Jaffee notes
Page 46 of 75
The classroom institution has historically centralized power and
influence in the hands of the instructor. … ALNs, in contrast, shift
a considerable amount of power, authority and control from the
faculty to the students’.
It is hard to see why this needs to be viewed as a negative barrier to participation in
virtual learning and again those who have been active in the process see this as
providing an opportunity rather than a disincentive.
Thirdly staff are concerned about the issue of independent learning skills and access
to library resources which are a feature of campus based instruction. Steps are being
taken to address this issue – such as the projects dealing with digitization of readings
and other resources, developments in subject gateways and portals to give access to
authoritative sources on the Internet and initiatives within the library community to
promote better sharing of resources and more open access to distance learners.
These are not generally acknowledged and it is not clear from the literature whether
such actions are seen to be irrelevant in the context of supporting virtual learners or
whether the academic community are simply not sufficiently aware of what is being
done in this respect.
Finally an area of concern which does not come through obviously in the literature
which deals with surveys of academic staff is the whole process of integrating
students into the virtual learning environment. That this is an issue is evident in the
fact that it is beginning to be dealt with in some codes of practice now being advocated
for teaching web based distance learners (notable the American Federation of
Teachers’ Guidelines) which are concerned with ensuring an adequate level of support
for students and refer to issues such as:
Advance information relating to course requirements
Close personal interaction
Equivalent library materials and research opportunities
Assessment to be equally rigorous as campus based assessment
Academic counselling and advice
Plagiarism and authentication and online academic misconduct
Page 47 of 75
These are all issues which are important and need to be fully explored in order to
ensure that quality procedures are applied and that virtual learners are given parity of
treatment with on campus students.
4.6 Evaluation
Having gone over the concerns which are evident from published materials it is worth
concluding this review of literature by noting the absence of particular concerns in the
literature. With the possible exception of Fredericksen's comprehensive study which
evaluates the impact of an asynchronous learning environment in the South
University of New York learning network, there is a lack of evaluation studies which
specifically set out to detail the impact of delivering the curriculum using new
technology. Evaluation, however, is a critical activity and many more studies are
required which directly address the issue of how this mode of teaching impacts on
staff and students.
Page 48 of 75
5. SURVEY RESPONSES
5.1 Questionnaire Survey
Of the 300 questionnaires issued 134 were returned (response rate of 45%). In this
section the quantitative responses are presented.
to questions relating to type of material being developed, systems used, extent of
involvement in either managed learning environments or virtual learning
environments, and perceptions of whether this would increase or decrease.
5.1.1. A range of material was being developed and used by academic staff, the bulk
of this being web based material within the institutional Intranet or on the web itself.
Fig. 2 Types of m aterials being used/developed by academ ic staff
Own material hosted on the Web CD ROM based materials
Links to external Web Sites
Own material hosted on Intranet
Links to Gateways/Portals
36CD ROM based materials
88Links to external Web Sites
52Links to Gateways/Portals
120Own material hosted on Intranet
58Own material hosted on the Web
Page 49 of 75
5.1.2. 55% of those surveyed reported that they were using learning technologies to
support off campus students. The figure below shows the systems which were being
used. This appears to be consistent with other studies which show the dominance of
Blackboard and WebCT as platforms for providing materials for virtual learners.
Fig. 3 Systems Used for Development
Other (3 First Class;
4 ow n system)
Blackboard
Web CT
18Blackboard
34Web CT
7Other (3 First Class; 4 own system)
5.1.3. Staff were questioned about the extent of their development and use of IT
based learning materials on a 5 point Likert scale. As can be seen in the figure below
(Extent of involvement in using technology) most staff rated their involvement
Page 50 of 75
towards the upper end of the scale.
Fig. 4 Extent of involvement in using technology
40
35
30
25
Num ber of
20
respondents
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5
Low (1) to High (5)
A number of writers have used Roger’s innovation diffusion characteristics to describe
the development process by which new innovations are accepted. This characterises
the stages of diffusion chronologically in which adoption rates are normally
distributed. The extent of the involvement of academics in the use of technology and
the breadth of experience in the use of Intranets and a variety of virtual learning
environments to deliver teaching would appear to suggest that we are at\a fairly
mature stage in the adoption of innovative uses of technology in teaching. The
majority of staff surveyed (81%) felt that they were involved in delivering teaching
using technology extensively.
The nature of subject area being studied would lead us to expect that this may be
higher than average across the academic sector.
5.1.4 Staff were asked to comment on the manner in which they foresaw their
involvement in using technology in the development and delivery of distance learning
programmes. In addition they were then prompted to comment on whether this was
a trend which they personally welcomed.
Page 51 of 75
82 staff (62%) stated that their involvement would increase and of these the majority
(78%) had also rated their involvement as being high
2 staff (fewer than 2%) stated that their involvement would decrease. These staff
had previously rated their involvement as high and comments made elsewhere on the
questionnaire revealed that the staff had a high level of dis-satisfaction because the
workload in which they were involved was not appreciated by the management of
their institutions.
38 staff (29%) stated that their involvement would not change. Significantly however
78% of this category had previously intimated in the questionnaire that their
involvement with learning technologies was low or below average. This potentially
has serious implications for future development. The figures would seem to suggest
that staff who are not currently heavily involved in the use of new technologies in
managed or virtual learning environments do not perceive that this is an area into
which they will develop.
9 staff (7%) did not feel that they were in a position to know the extent of future
involvement with the technology.
Overall the results of the questionnaire survey would appear to back up the
contentions in the literature that staff are generally willing to get involved in teaching
and learning developments using new technology. However, there are some
important considerations which need to be addressed with respect to ensuring that
these technology assisted teaching and learning initiatives are recognised as
important throughout institutions and that all staff consider that they should be
involved in developments.
Page 52 of 75
Fig 5. Future involvement in use of technology in MLE/VLE developments
7%
29% Expanding
Contracting
Remaining constant
Don't Know
62%
2%
5.1.5 Information skills. Staff were asked to comment on the importance which they
attached to certain skills to allow students to use a virtual learning environment
effectively. The results are recorded below in Table 5.
In addition staff were asked to provide open comment on skills required by students
to be successful in using virtual learning environments. Several staff noted that
motivation was a key factor (8 responses) and ability to work independently (6
responses). In addition staff commented that students must have good skills in self
organisation and be critical and analytical (5 responses each). 7 staff commented
that it was sufficient for students to be able to demonstrate basic computer handling
skills in order to use a virtual learning environment and that ‘everything else’ was
provided by the system.
Page 53 of 75
Table 6
Skills required by students to use virtual learning environments
(n = 131)
Not at all Extremely
important important
Information 0% 6% 3% 28% 63%
Literacy
Information 3% 5% 17% 40% 38%
Technology
Writing and 6% 8% 22% 32% 32%
Presentation
Communication 4% 9% 23% 32% 32%
Overall the picture which emerges is not particularly clear. Comments from staff who
consistently rated these skills highly seemed to correspond with concerns that
students needed much better induction into how to study using VLEs and general
concerns that they did not have access to traditional library resources to support their
learning. Some comments from staff also clearly indicated that they assumed that
students had all of these skills because they were undertaking study at postgraduate
level. Overall the picture that emerges is that students need to have good skills in all
areas in order to make use of the environment in which materials were presented and
participate fully in the use of discussion. In particular they must have good
information literacy skills in order to identify relevant literature and assess it
accurately to support their learning. Information literacy was clearly identified as the
major factor which was important for students when using virtual learning
environments.
5.1.6 Questions were posed about the potential usefulness of technology in
delivering campus and distance based learning generally and specifically within the
academic’s own discipline. Staff were asked to comment on both of these because
there was some evidence from the literature that staff had different perceptions about
Page 54 of 75
the usefulness of technology in their own cognate discipline and in other teaching
areas.
6
5
4
Valuje (0-5)
Ow n subject on campus
3
Other subject areas on campus
2
1
0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
Respondents
Fig 6.1 Value of technology in supporting campus based teaching
Fig 6.2 Value of technology in supporting distance learning
Page 55 of 75
Overall, therefore, staff appear to rate the potential of VLEs to deliver distance
learning and the use of ICT generally to enhance campus based delivery in a very
positive light. There is no significant difference between how they perceive this within
their own discipline and their views of the usefulness of the technology generally.
From the responses given above, indeed, it would appear that staff in ICS and IS
departments view their own subject as more amenable to use of ICT for support of
delivery of teaching and learning.
5.2 QUESTIONNAIRE OPEN QUESTIONS/
INTERVIEW AND E-MAIL RESPONSES
The following section is based on responses to open questions in the questionnaire, on
e-mails received from staff working in this area and on comments made in interviews
with 16 academic staff. The comments made are broadly in line with the general
attitudes and concerns which have been identified in the literature.
The question of having time to develop comes through very strongly as an issue. It
is fed back as an open comment in response in 37 of the questionnaires in response to
a question concerning what staff found most frustrating about their involvement in
using technology in teaching. (Representing 39% of those questionnaires where a
response to this question was given). This is very significant as a comment in an open
question. In addition all 16 staff interviewed noted this as a concern. Even those staff
who, in the questionnaire survey, gave the most enthusiastic ratings for usefulness
and potential of the technology demonstrated frustration at the lack of time available
and lack of recognition of what they were doing. In addition staff reporting through
the questionnaire showed concern that the time needed for ongoing development and
updating of learning resources did not get any attention and 4 academics felt that
once the basic development work was completed there was no consideration given as
to how the initiative could be sustained.
Page 56 of 75
Similarly the issue of ‘value of teaching’ comes through very strongly and appears in
30 questionnaire responses (32% of those in which a response was given). It is seen
very much to be an issue related to institutional culture/policy. As one interviewee
commented ‘We need an academic/business model and it must lead to a change in the
way we work’. There is a marked view that whilst institutions appear to state that
they recognise the importance of virtual and managed learning environments they
refuse to give recognition to staff who participate fully in them. Staff comment that
there is a ‘lack of respect’ and state that this is because development of materials is
‘not research’ and thus does not get the status accorded to publications of papers and
research reports. Phrases such as a need for focus and direction and co-ordination of
effort clearly indicate a need for more robust policies by institutions. A need was
expressed for a system which accurately measures and gives credit to time devoted to
student support via virtual learning environments. On a positive note the evidence of
institutional policy and support came through in the comments from one member of
staff who noted that, ‘my own university is committed to use of technology. We have
a pro-vice chancellor with such a remit. This is essential.’
Significantly also there is a view that staff who do not participate are not encouraged
to do so. A feeling of frustration is evident in the comments of some staff – they often
referred to themselves as acting as ‘pioneers’ and several expressed resentment that
there was no compunction on staff to develop in what they see as a critical activity.
There were a significant number though relatively fewer comments made on extrinsic
rewards for staff and this is a point at which the survey results diverge significantly
from the findings in the literature review. Only 8 staff commented explicitly on this in
the questionnaire (8% of those who gave comments). However, in the interviews 10
of the 16 staff commented directly on this and were very strongly of the opinion that
rewards in the form of reduction in face to face contact time and flexible support to
fund equipment which staff required for development work should be put in place.
In terms of training support for use of technology the overwhelming response showed
a need for web design and web authoring skills. Other comments concerned support
Page 57 of 75
for development of very specific skills such as video editing and construction of
simulations. This is not a surprising result given the fact that the survey was targeted
at a group of staff whom one would expect to have a high degree of computing skills.
The issue of basic skills which students require to make best use of technology based
instruction was pursued in the interviews. The questionnaire response indicated that
these skills were highly valued and the interviews pursued in more detail the question
of how these should be developed and supported. This produced some interesting
comment on skills development which ranged from ‘Our students have the skills (I
hope!)’ and (with respect to information literacy) ‘students are given all the material
they need to study effectively and learn about my subject’ to comments which
indicated that support for development of these skills to a high level had to be fully
integrated in the learning environment. The comments made in relation to skills have
been categorised under four main headings and these are present in Table 6. Apart
from 1 case staff interviewed certainly viewed these skills as important. The critical
question was whether or not they believed the skills were already there or had to be
developed within the virtual learning environment.
Page 58 of 75
Table 7
Attitude to development of skills to support students in virtual
learning environments during interviews
Response Number of staff giving the
response (n=16)
assumed to be there 7
provided by someone else 4
(generally the library)
assumed to be insignificant 1
assumed these have to be 4
developed in the environment
This area of research (relating to development of generic and transferable skills)
deserves more detailed treatment but this was outwith the scope of this project. With
respect to barriers to use of VLEs by staff the issues can be seen in the context of a
general debate on pedagogy and virtual and managed learning environments.
The need for support relating to the pedagogical principles and practice when using
ICT in teaching and learning comes through very strongly. Staff were concerned
about the paradox in terms of flexible ‘sequencing’ of students through a programme
of learning and the need to keep the cohort working at a consistent pace (8% of
responses and noted in 7 interviews and twice in e-mail correspondence). Staff
expressed the wish to get help to translate their ideas for virtual learning into a
working system and felt that they needed examples of good practice to support this.
The issue of liason and assistance from learning support departments was not dealt
with in the questionnaire but in the interviews this was explored in more detail.
Significantly interviewees wanted to stress that they were not critical of support
departments but felt that more resources needed to be spent in this area and more
specific contextualised support offered to developers. On 6 occasions during
interviews staff were asked how they fed back their requirements and took part in
disseminating good practice but responses were consistently vague indicating that
staff did not feel that they had a good mechanism to allow them to do this.
Page 59 of 75
It was heartening to see that in commenting on the positive aspects of using virtual
learning environments academic staff saw the support and appreciation of students as
being one of the primary motivators. 17% of the responses specifically mentioned
student feedback as being positive and encouraging. There is a general consensus
that the main issue which staff see as positive concerns improved student learning
and support of students.
There was little engagement in the wider issue of epistemological, social or economic
validity of developments in virtual learning environments.
Overall the picture which emerges is of a group of academics who are
committed to use of ICT but are finding themselves increasingly frustrated
at the lack of commitment at an institutional level.
Page 60 of 75
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
‘Faculty are not recalcitrant Luddites. Many have simply been
disillusioned by previous technologies touted as innovations that
would alter the course of education. Faculty are exhibiting
healthy scepticism when they resist the call to jump on the latest
educational bandwagon before assessing how this new
technology will help students learn’ (Bower, 2001)
Several studies which have been reviewed in this report and the findings of the
empirical study note that the reluctance of academic staff to get involved in distance
learning using virtual learning environments does not necessarily mean that they
don’t feel these initiatives are important.
Indeed there is a great deal of evidence that, despite the uncertainty expressed by
many academics about the lack of clarity regarding a rationale for being involved in
distance learning there is a willingness to participate in the activity and this
willingness appears to be almost entirely due to intrinsic values which academic staff
place on teaching and learning. This is confirmed by the survey undertaken and
reported here. Despite the existence of a number of significant problems associated
with institutional support for staff engaged on working with VLEs organizational
barriers do not appear to have been significant in determining uptake decisions.
However, it is important to note that they will certainly be important in the
progression of any innovation. It would seem common sense that if academic
institutions wish to develop web based distance learning initiatives they must be
receptive to putting in place effective strategies to support this.
Clay provides a very perceptive analysis of the developmental needs for distance
learning instructors and illustrates what she terms the four stages of distance faculty
development in a matrix which is reproduced below (Table 8 based on Clay 1999).
Page 61 of 75
Table 8
Stages in Distance Faculty Development (Clay, 1999)
Faculty Stage Faculty Concerns Faculty Needs
Awareness How distance courses General information
are offered Opportunity to
Why distance courses separate fact from
are offered fiction
How distance program Opportunity to ask
relates to university questions
mission
Consideration quality of distance consultation with
instruction experienced distance
drawbacks of distance faculty
teaching published research and
availability of articles
assistance opportunity to practice
hands-on
Implementation time coaching from other
course design faculty
student interaction one on one intensive
quality standards training and course
development support
incentives
job embedded
opportunities
Innovation improvement opportunities to assist
contribution and mentor others
recognition recognition
ongoing training and
follow up
Evidence from the empirical work described in this report suggests that in the
academic community surveyed we are currently at the stage where staff are generally
concerned with issues characterized in Clay’s ‘implementation stage’. Significantly
the ‘faculty needs’ as perceived by the academic community surveyed are consonant
with those identified in the table above. Notably the concerns with incentives and
job-embedded opportunities match the requirements being voiced by staff. Academic
staff are not sure about how their activities or aspirations fit into the university
culture of teaching, research and service and are not sure that they have
departmental support
Page 62 of 75
This is arguably the most important of a number of barriers to extending the use of
VLE technology in higher education and it is important that this is given attention.
Clearly there are also other issues relating to workload and to staff development –
particularly with respect to how pedagogically sound principles can be embedded in
teaching practice.
Tackling such issues in advance can mitigate future problems.
The following key recommendations are therefore highlighted as being the ones which
will have the most significant impact on ensuring effective development. There must
be:
strong institutional focus on the value of teaching and a commitment to seeing
virtual learning teaching as part of the core business of the institution
support for contextualised training which covers pedagogical issues as well as
purely technical issues on the use of virtual learning environments must be
engaged in
recognition of the time intensive nature of supporting VLE programmes and
clear guidance on staff incentives and rewards must be provided
clear integration of VLE based programmes into the quality enhancement
mechanisms that pertain to on-campus based courses.
Page 63 of 75
REFERENCES
Alessi, S.M. & Trollip, S.R. (1991) Computer based instruction: Methods and Development, 2 nd
ed. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliff, NJ.
Almeda, MB and Rose, K. (2000) Instructor satisfaction in University of California Extensions
On-line Curriculum. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. Vol 4 No. 3 (September)
American Federation of Teachers (2001) Distance Education Guidelines for Good Practice.
Available at: http://www.aft.org/higher_ed/technology
American Federation of Teachers (2001) Is online education off course? New AFT report
proposes standards for online colleges. Available at:
http://www.aft.org/press/2001/011701.html
Anderson, T et al. Faculty adoption of teaching and learning technologies: contrasting earlier
adopters and mainstream faculty. Canadian Journal of Higher Education. Vol 28 No. 2/3 pp.
71-98
Arnone, M. (2002) Many students' favorite Professors shun distance education. The Chronicle
of Higher Education. Vol 38 Issue 35 May 10th 2002. Available at :
http://chronicle.com/free/v58/i35a03901.htm
Attewell, J. (1999) Virtual Education Statement. Keynote address to the seminar on virtual
education. Middlesex University 13th October 1999. (Part of a CCSR seminar programme
funded by ESRC).
Bates, A.W. (1997) The impact of technological change on open and distance learning.
Distance Education, 18(1), 93-109
Beckett, I and Brine, A. (2002) Teaching the profession using VLEs. Update. p.24
Berge, Z.L. (1998) Barriers to online teaching in post-secondary institutions. Online Journal
of Distance Education Administration. 1(2) Summer. Available at:
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/Berge12.html
Berge, Z.L. and Muilenburg, L.Y. Barriers to distance education as perceived by managers and
administrators: results of a survey. Available at:
http://userpages.umbc.educ/~berge/man_admin.html. [Last checked: 20/11/02]
Berge, Z.L. and Muilenburg, L. Obstacles faced at various stages of capability regarding
distance education in institutions of higher education: survey results. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks. Vol. 4 Issue 3 September 2000
Bennett, R. (2001) Lecturer’s attitudes towards new teaching methods. The international
journal of management education. (LTSN Business Management and Accountancy Centre) Vol
2 No. 1 pp.42-58
Betts,K.S. (1998) Why do faculty participate in distance education.
Page 64 of 75
Betts, K. (1998) Factors influencing faculty participation in distance education in
postsecondary education in the United States: an institutional study. Online Journal of
Distance Learning Administration. 1 (3) Available at:
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/betts13.html
Boud, D and Feletti, G. (1991) The challenge of problem based learning. London: Kogan Page
Bower, B.L. (2001) Distance education: facing the faculty challenge. Online Journal of
Distance Learning Administration. Vol. 4 No. 2
Carroll (1990) The Nurnberg Funnel: designing minimalist instuction for practical computer
skills. Cambridge (Mass.) MIT Press.
Cho, S.K. and Berge, Z. (2002) Overcoming barriers to distance training and education.
United States Distance Learning Association Journal. Vol. 16 No. 1
Clay, M. (1999) Development of training and support programs for distance education
instructors. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. Vol. 2 (3) Fall 1999
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997) Intrinsic motivation and effective teaching: a flow analysis. In:
Bess, J. (ed.) Teaching well and liking it. John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.
Crumpacker, N. Faculty pedagogical approach, skill and motivation in today’s distance
education milieu. Online journal of distance learning administration. Vol 4. No. 4. Available
at: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter44/crumpacker44.html
Cunningham, D.J., Duffy, T.M. and Knuth, R.A. (1993) The textbook of the future. In: C.
McKnight, A Dillon and J Richardson (eds) Hypertext: a psychological perspective.
Chichester: Ellis Horwood.
Daugherty, M. and Funke, B. (1998) University faculty and student perceptions of web based
instruction. Journal of Distance Education. Vol. 13, No. 1 (Spring) p.21-39
Davies, J. (1999) Social considerations concerning virtual education. Address to the seminar
on virtual education. Middlesex University 13th October 1999. (Part of a CCSR seminar
programme funded by ESRC).
Demetriadias, S. and Pombortis, A. (1999) Novice student learning in case based hypermedia
environment: a quantitative study. Journal of Educational Mulimedia and Hypermedia 8 (1)
pp.241-269
DfEE (1997) Higher Education in the Learning Society - the Dearing Report. Report of the
National Committee of Enquiry into Higher Education. London: Department for Education and
Employment. Available at: htpp://www.campuscomputing.netl
DiBiase, D. (2000) Is distance teaching more or less work. The American Journal of Distance
Education. Vol. 14, No. 3. [Available at: http://www.ajde.com/Contents/Vol14_3.htm]
Dillon, C. and Walsh, S. (1992) Faculty: the neglected resource in distance education. The
American Journal of Distance Education. Vol. 32 pp. 335-346
Page 65 of 75
Dooley, K. and Murphrey, T.P. (2000) How the perspectives of administrators, faculty and
support units impact the rate of distance education adoption. Online journal of distance
learning administration. Vol. 3 No. 4 Available at:
http://www.westga.educ/~distance/ojdla/winter34/dooley34.html
Dooley, K. and Murphy, T.H. (2001)College of Agriculture faculty perceptions of electronic
technologies in teaching. Journal of Agricultural Education. Vol 42 Issue 2. pp. 1-10
Duffy, T.M. and Jonassen, D.H. (1992) Constructivism and the technology of instruction: a
conversation. Erlbaum: Hillsdale (NJ)
Dusick, D.M. (1998) What social cognitive factors influence faculty members’ use of
computers for teaching? A literature review. Journal of Research on Computing in Education.
Vol. 23 No.. 2 pp. 123-137
Eisenberg, D. (1998) College faculty and distance education. VUJ Internet Conference. May
1998. Available at:
http://www.mca.co.uk/services/confern/may98/vuj/background_paper.htm
Fabry, D.R. and Hicks, J.R. (1997) Barriers to the effective use of technology in education:
Current status. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17, 385-395
Fox, R and Hermann, A. (2000) Changing media, changing times, coping with adopting new
educational technologies. In T Evans and D Nation Changing University Teaching: Reflections
on creating educational technologies. London: Kogan Page pp. 73-88
Fredericksen, E. et al. (2002) Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with Asynchronous
Teaching and Learning in the SUNY Learning Network. Available at
http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/Vol4_issue3/fs/Fredericksen/fs-fredericksen.htm
Gentry, J.W. (1990) What is experiential learning? In Gentry, J.W. (ed) Guide to business
simulation and experiential learning. Association fo rBusiness Simulation and Experiential
Learning.
Gibbs, G, Habewshaw, T and Yorke, M. (2000) Institutional leaning and teaching strategies in
English Higher Education. Higher Education 40 pp.351-372
Gilmore, E. (1998) The impact of training on the information technology attitudes of university
faculty. Available at: http://www.tcet.unt.edu/research/dissert/gilmore/chap2.htm
Good, T.L. and Brophy, J.E. (1990). Educational psychology: A realistic approach.4th ed.White
Plains: NY: Longman
Hare, C and McCartan, A. (1996) Maximising resources in search of quality: identifying factors
to enable the integrative use of IT in teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and
Training International. Vol 3394) pp.178-184
Hartman, J, Dziuban, C. and Moskal, P. Faculty satisfaction in ALNs: a dependent or
independent variable. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. Vol. 4 Issue 3 September
Page 66 of 75
Haywood, J et al. (2000) Learning technology in Scottish Higher Education – a survey of the
views of senior managers, academic staff and experts Alt-J 8(2) pp.5-17.
Heterick, B and Twigg, C. (2000) The gatorade fallacy. The learning marketspace, March 1st
Available at: http://www.center.rpi.edu/Lforum/LM/Mar00.html
Hislop, G. (2000) ALN teaching as routine faculty workload. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Technology. Vol 4 Issue 3September
Inglis, A. (1999) Is online delivery less costly than print and is it meaningful to ask? Distance
Education, 20(2) 220-239
Jacobs, G. (1992) Hypermedia and discover-based learning: a historical perspective. British
Journal of Educational Technology. Vol. 23 No. 2 pp. 113-121
Jacobsen, D.M. (1998) Adoption patterns of faculty who integrate computer technology and
teaching and learning in higher education. Proceedings of the ED-MEDIA and ED-TELCOM 98
World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia and World Conference on
Educational Telecommunications, Freiburg, Germany June 20th – 25th
Jaffee, D. (1998) Institutionalised resistance to asynchronous learning networks. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks. Vol 2 Issue 2.
Jensen, B. (2000) The dark side of the 21st century: concerns about technologies in education.
Available at: http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/000aaa/theworry.htm
Jerz, E.M., Kainz, G.A. and Walpth, G. (1997) Multimedia based case studies in education:
design, development and evaluation. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia Vol.
6 (1) pp.23-46
Jonassen, D.H. (1991) Objectivism and constructivism: do we need a new philosphical
paradigm. Educational Technology Research and Development
Jones, C, Asensio, M and Goodyear, P. (2000) Networked learning perspectives in higher
education: practitioners perspectives. Alt-J Vol 8 (20 pp. 18-28
Kotze, Y and Dreyer, C (2001) Concerns of lecturers delivering distance education via
emerging technologies. South African Journal of Higher Education. Vol 16(2)
Koschmann, T.D. et al. (1994) Using technoogy to assist in realizing effective learning and
instruction: a principled approach to the use fo computers in collaborative teaching. Journal of
Learning Sciences 3 (3) pp.227-264
Kotze, Y and Dreyer, C. (2001) Concerns of lecturers delivering distance education via
emerging technologies. In. MJ Roberts and A. Golfers. Education Odyssey 2001.
OTEN-DE/Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia.
Laurillard, D. (1993) Rethinking University Teaching: a framework for the effective use of
educational technology. London: Routledge.
Page 67 of 75
Lee, J (2001) Instructional support for distance education and faculty motivation,
commitment and satisfaction. British Journal of Educational Technology. Vol 32 No. 2 pp.
153-60
Lynch, W. and Corry, M. (1998) Faculty recruitment, training and compensation for distance
education. Available at: http://www.coe.uh.edu/insite/elect_pub/html1998/de_lync.htm
McKernan, J. (1996) Curriculum Action Research: A handbook of methods and resources for
the reflective practitioner. 2nd ed. London: Kogan Page.
Martin, J, Darby, J and Kjollestrom, B (eds) (1994) Higher Education 1998 transformed by
learning technology. Lund: Sweden; Council for Renewal of Undergraduate Education, Lund
University and Oxford CTISS publications.
Microsoft Scholars (1997) Shared misery/shared solutions: major factors inhibiting the
accelerated adoption of technology in higher education. Microsoft in Higher Education.
Commentary. April 1997. Available at:
http://www.microsoft.com/education/hed/news/april/comisery.htm
Messing, J. Can academics afford to use e-mail. E-Journal of Instructional Science and
Technology. August 2002. Vol 5 No. 2.
Available at: www.usq.edu.au/electpub/e-jist/docs/Vol5%20No2/Messing%20-%20Final.pdf
Miller, G. and Carr, A. (1997) Information and Training needs of agricultural faculty related to
distance education. Journal of Applied Communications. Vol. 81 (1) pp.1-9
Moore, MG (1994) Administrative barriers to adoption of distance education. The American
Journal of Distance Education Vol. 8 No. 3.
Moore, MG (2002) Editorial. The American Journal of Distance Education. Vol. 14, No. 3.
Editorial [Available at: http://www.ajde.com/Contents/Vol14_3.htm]
Mudge, S.M. (1999) Delivering multimedia teaching modules via the Internet. Innovations in
education and training international 36(1) pp.11-16
Newton, R. (2001) Evaluation of the development and use of multimedia computer assisted
learning in Higher Education. The Robert Gordon University: March 2001.
Noble, D.F. (1998) Digital diploma mills: the automation of higher education. Available at:
www.communication.ucsd.edu/dl/ddm2.html
Norman, D.A. and Spokrer, J.C. (1996) Learner cented education. Communications of the
ACM. 39(4) 24-27.
Northrup, P.T. (1997) Faculty perceptions of distance education: factors influencing
utilization. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications. Vol. 3 (4) pp.75-97
Nulden, U. and Scheepers, H. (1999) Interactive multimedia and problem based learning:
experiencing project failure. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. Vol. 8 No. 2
pp.189-215
Page 68 of 75
Olcott, D and Wright, S.J. (1995) An instructional support framework for increasing faculty
participation in postsecondary distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9
(3) pp.5-17
Oliver, R (1999) Exploring strategies for online teaching and learning. Distance Education,
20(2) 240-254
Pajo, K. and Wallace, C (2001) Barriers to the uptake of web based technology by University
Teachers. Journal of Distance Education Vol. 16 No. 1 pp.70-84
Perkins, D.N. (1991) Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage?
Educational Technology, 31(5), 18-23
Plewes, L. and Issroff, K. (2002) Academic staff attitudes towards the use and production of
networked learning resources. In Banks et a;. Third Networked Learning Conference.
University of Sheffield.
Redline, C. and Hoehn, L.G. (2001) Reluctant professors discover the power of web based
tools.
Available at:
www.gouchercenter.edu/credline/papaers/Goutcher.%20Training%20StudyL.pdf
Reeves, T. (1993a) Research support for interactive multimedia: existing foundations and
new directions. In. C. Latchem et al. Interactive Multimedia. Kogan Page, London.
Reeves, T.C. (1993b) Pseudoscience in computer based instruction: the case of learner
control research. Journal of Computer Based Instruction. Vol. 20 No. 2 pp.39-46
Reeves, T.C. (1997) Questioning the questions of instructional technology research [online]
Peter Dean Lecture presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology. Anaheim. Available at
http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/ITFORUM/paper5/paper5.html
Rockwell, S.K. et al. (1999) Incentives and obstacles to influencing higher education faculty
and administrators to teach via distance. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration.
2(3) Available at: http://www.westga.edu~distance/rockwell24.html
Rockwell, S.K. et al. (2000) Faculty education, assistance and support needed to deliver
education via distance. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 3(2) Summer.
Available at: http://www.westga.edu~distance/rockwell32.-html
Rogers, E. (1995) Diffusion and innovations. 4 th ed. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Schreiber, D.A. (1998) Organizational technology and its impact on distance training. In DA
Schreiber and ZL Berge (eds) Distance training: how innovative organizations are using
technology to maximize learning and meet business objectives. San Francisco (Ca.): Jossey
Bass Inc. pp. 3-18
Schifter, C.C. (2000) Faculty motivators and inhibitors for participating in distance education.
Educational Technology. Vol. 20(2) pp. 43-46
Sellani, R.J. and Harrington, W. (2002) Addressing administrator/faculty conflict in an
academic online environment. Internet and Higher Education 5 pp.131-145
Page 69 of 75
Slavin, R.E. Co-operative learning; theory, research and practice. Englewood Cliffs (NJ):
Prentice-Hall.
Smith, H. and Oliver, M. University teachers’ attitudes to the impact of innovations in
Information and Communication Technology on their practice. In: Rust, C. Improving student
learning: improving student learning using technology. Proceedings of the 9 th Improving
Student Learning Symposium. Edinburgh and Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff and
Learning Development. Chapter 20 pp.237-246
Spiro, R.J. & Jehng, J. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for
the non-linear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In: D. Nix & R. Spiro
(eds.), Cognition, Education, and Multimedia. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Steel, J and Hudson, A. (2001) Educational technology in learning and teaching: the
perceptions and experience of teaching staff. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International Vol 38 No. 2 pp. 103-111
Tait, W. (1997) Constuctivist Internet based learning. Active Leaning Vol 7 pp. 3-8
Thach, L and Murphy, K. (1994) Collaboration in distance education: from local to
international perspectives. American Journal of Distance Education. Vol. 8. (3) pp. 7-11
Thomson, DJ and Holt, DM (1996) Tertiary pedagogy encounters the technological
imperative. Distance Education. 17(2) pp.335-354
Turgeon, A. , Di Biase, D. and Miller, G. (2000) Introducing the Penn State World Campus
through certificate programmes in turf grass management and geographic information
systems.
Available at: http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/Vol4_issue3/fs/turgeon/fs-turgeon.htm
Visser, J.A. (2002) Faculty work in developing and teaching web-based distance learning
courses. A case study of time and effort. The American Journal of Distance Education. Vol.
14, No. 3. Editorial [Available at: http://www.ajde.com/Contents/Vol14_3.htm]
Wilson, C. (2002) Faculty attitudes about distance learning. Educause Quarterly Vol. 24 No.
2 pp. 70-71
Woolcott, L.L. and Betts, K. (1999) What’s in it for me? Incentives for faculty participation in
distance education. Journal of Distance Education. Vol. 14 No. 2 Fall. P.34-49
Young, J.R. (1997) Canadian University promises it won’t require professors to use
technology. The Chronicle of Higher Education. October 3 rd 1996. Available at:
http://www.peace.saumag.educ/faculty/kardas/swt97/York.html
Young, J.R.(2002) The 24 Hour Professor: online teaching redefines faculty members’
schedules, duties, and relationships with students. The Chronicle of Higher Education. May
31st 2002. [Available at: http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i38/38a03101.htm
Page 70 of 75
APPENDIX 1
QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED TO STAFF IN ICS AND LIS DEPARTMENTS IN
THE UK
STAFF PERSPECTIVES ON THE USE OF
TECHNOLOGY IN TEACHING AND
LEARNING
SECTION A – USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN TEACHING
1. Which of the following resources do you employ in the delivery
of your campus based teaching or advise students to use to supplement teaching
materials you provide: (please tick all that are relevant):
CD/disk based courseware designed specifically for the subject you
are teaching
Externally maintained Web sites providing relevant subject
materials
Subject gateways/portals
Materials hosted on your institution’s Intranet
Materials you have prepared and which are hosted on the
Web
2. Please rate how extensive you feel your involvement has been in the
development/use of technology based teaching on campus:
Low High
1 2 3 4 5
Development
Use
3. Do you prepare and deliver material for distance learning which is intended to
support students working off campus?
Yes No
4. Which system do you use to host your distance learning
Blackboard
Web CT
Other (please specify)
Page 72 of 75
5. Do you see your involvement in developing and delivering distance learning
programmes expanding or contracting or remaining reasonably constant in the near
future (tick as appropriate)
Expanding
Contract
Remaining constant
6. Is the trend you predict in response to Q4 personally welcome?
Yes
No
7. What typesof skills to you feel students need to possess in order to make effective
use of technology in technology based teaching environments?
8. In relation to using a virtual learning environment, please comment on how
important you feel the following skills are for students:
Information Literacy (i.e. the ability to find, evaluate and use information)
Information Technology skills
Writing and presentation skills
Communication skills
Not at all Extremely
important important
1 2 3 4 5
Information
Literacy
Information
Technology
Writing and
Presentation
Communication
Page 73 of 75
SECTION B - USEFULNESS OF TECHNOLOGY IN TEACHING
1. New technology is often seen as opening dramatic possibilities for the expansion of
open and distance learning and improving campus based delivery. How useful do
you feel new technology is/could be in your own teaching?
Not at all Extremely
useful 2 3 4 useful
1 5
Campus
based
teaching
Distance
Learning
Expand on your response to Question 1 in the space below if you wish:
2. What have you found most frustrating about your experience of developing
and/or delivering distance learning?
3. What have you found most rewarding about your experience of developing and/or
delivering distance learning?
4. Can you identify any skills areas which you feel you need to develop in order to
become more effective in using technology in teaching?
Page 74 of 75
5. What kind of institutional leadership and support do you feel you require for
effective development of technology in teaching?
6. Overall please rate how effective you feel technology is as a means to support the
delivery of higher education to campus based students and as a vehicle for delivery of
distance learning.
Not at all Extremely
useful 2 3 4 useful
1 5
Campus
based
teaching
Distance
Learning
Page 75 of 75
SECTION C – ADDITIONAL COMMENT AND REFLECTION
Please use the space below to add any comments you wish to make about any issue concerning
use of technology in teaching and learning. In particular it would be useful to the researchers if
you could comment on your experience and use of Managed Learning Environments.
Thank you for completing the questionnaire
Please return your questionnaire using the reply paid envelope.
If you have any queries or comments you would like to make please contact:
Dr Robert Newton
School of Information and Media
The Robert Gordon University
Aberdeen
AB10 7QE
Tel: 01224 263900
e-mail: r.newton@rgu.ac.uk