This paper summarises recent findings from UCISA case study and survey research on the pace of change in the institutional adoption of technology enhanced learning tools across the UK higher education sector, and will address the rise of student-controlled and creative technologies to promote information, knowledge-sharing and networking in learning and teaching activities. Current generations of students are now arriving on campus with the expectation that their technologies will seamlessly interconnect with university services and support their learning experience. The paper discusses the impact these technological developments are having on the delivery of campus-based courses – specifically the scope that learning technologies now present for innovation in the delivery of the taught curriculum. Through a presentation of case examples from the University of York we consider how the affordances of mobile and online learning technologies are being applied to support active learning opportunities for students.

1. Facilitating active
learning opportunities
for students through
the use of TEL tools:
The case for pedagogic
innovation and change
Dr Richard Walker
Head of E-Learning
University of York, UK
British Council
International Seminar on
Teaching-Learning and
New Technologies in HE
India Habitat Centre, New Delhi, India
25-26 Feb 2016

2. The changing face of higher education
Higher education has been
reshaped over recent years:
– the marketisation of higher education
(national & global competition)
– demand-driven expansion of UG education
– the emergence of students-as-consumers, exerting
wishes for new kinds of educational provision;
– the potential of new digital technologies; and
– the apparent potential (that new educational
environments are opening up) for widening higher
education at reduced unit costs
(Barnett, 2004:8)

3. Student expectations
Expectation that technology will:
 Enable more flexible learning
(National Union of Students, 2010)
 Offer better administration, resource
provision and support for independent
learning and
 Be applied where relevant, but will not
undermine contact time on campus
(Bone, 2013)
Expectation of students as partners,
not consumers. Active involvement in:
 Scoping and planning TEL developments
 Co-creation - curriculum design
(Wenstone, 2013)

4. How should HE institutions respond?
 Market differentiation in programme design:
– Distinctive portfolio of programmes (design, outcomes &
transferable skills)
– Flexible entry points and pathways to degree courses,
attracting a diverse student body
– Flexible delivery methods: increased online provision
 Learner engagement (retention & progression):
– institutional responsiveness to student expectations and
needs (through well-defined academic support and service
delivery; greater use of learner analytics)
– Ensuring the quality of the student experience through
innovative teaching, support & service provision
 Learner flexibility:
– Flexible and interactive learning experiences through the
informed use of digital technologies (evidence-based)

5. Modes of student engagement using TEL tools
 Self-study resources &
extension reading
 Discussion space & peer
support
 Formative assessment
activities
Enabling
learning
Enhancing
learning
Transformative
learning
Extending range of
learning
opportunities
active learning and engagement
Increasing
flexibility &
access to learning
 Personalised learning
pathways
 Collaboration &
communities of inquiry
 Student-led teaching
& discovery-based
learning

6. Blended Learning Models
Model Definition Illustrative Features
A – VLE
Supplemented
Optional
resources
focusing on self-
directed learner
support
Self-study resources & extension
reading
Space for formative assessment;
reflection & space for problem
solving & discussion
Model Definition Illustrative Features
A – VLE
Supplemented
Optional resources
focusing on self-
directed learner
support
Self-study resources & extension reading
Space for formative assessment;
reflection & space for problem solving &
discussion
B – VLE
Dependent
(i) Content
(ii) Communication
(iii) Collaboration
(iv) Assessment
Student-centred
activities requiring
active engagement
Online activities for (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv).
Online activities linked to face-to-face
sessions, also targeted by learning
outcomes & assessment
Model Definition Illustrative Features
A – VLE
Supplemented
Optional resources
focusing on self-
directed learner
support
Self-study resources & extension reading
Space for formative assessment;
reflection & space for problem solving &
discussion
B – VLE
Dependent
(i) Content
(ii) Communication
(iii) Collaboration
(iv) Assessment
Student-centred
activities requiring
active engagement
Online activities for (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv).
Online activities linked to face-to-face
sessions, also targeted by learning
outcomes & assessment
C – VLE
Integrated
Online environment
as key locus for
learning, supporting
knowledge
acquisition, skills
development &
assessment
Student-staff interaction within VLE, plus
face-to-face
Activities as per B (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv)
Learner interaction to resources,
assessment & collaboration tasks online

8. How is flipped learning being used at York?
 Preparing students for lab work:
‘Practical work in Chemistry’
 Range of
instructional videos
and compulsory
‘pre-lab’ quiz must
be completed (and
passed) on the VLE
 Establishing baseline
knowledge and
standards for
students to engage
in lab work

9. How is flipped learning being used at York?
 Problem-based learning: Law
 Case-based learning: Health Sciences
– PGDip Nursing: problems presented via
online lecture beforehand with prompt
questions / cases and preparatory
questions to consider before seminar

10. Sector challenges in the adoption and embedding of TEL
 Consumerism and the mainstreaming
of student services through
learning technologies
– broadening the range of technologies but with
enterprise-wide goals in mind
– speed of change / diversity of systems, services
(BYOS) and devices (BYOD) to master and support
 Can this be compatible with pedagogic
flexibility and the academic freedom to
experiment and ‘freedom to fail’?

11. Institutional provision of tel tools
Tool 2014 2012 2010
VLE 95% 100%
Other tools:
Plagiarism detection 95% 92% 92%
E-submission 85% 87% 89%
E-portfolio 78% 76% 72%
Blog 73% 72% 74%
E-assessment 71% 79% 80%
PRS/clickers 70% - -
Wiki 66% 74% 75%
Source: UCISA 2014 TEL survey

12. SOFTWARE TOOLS USED BY STUDENTS
Tool 2014 2012 2010
Social networking 64% 73% 81%
Document sharing 62% 52% -
Blog 59% 60% 59%
Social bookmarking 31% 40% 48%
Media streaming 26% - -
Source: UCISA 2014 TEL survey

13. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2003 2005 2008 2010 2012 2014
A
Bi
Bii
Biii
C
Progress towards pedagogical innovation
Still an emphasis, though slowly reducing, on
transmissive teaching methods
Category A – web supplemented
Category Bi – web dependent, content
Category Bii – web dependent, communication
Category Biii – web dependent, content and communication
Category E – fully online (categories adapted from Bell et al., 2002)

14. Consequences for teaching and staff development
 Upskilling of lecturers’ digital capabilities
(NUS, 2010): a new digital divide?
 Supporting transition to active learning
pedagogical design
– Pedagogic craft to embed TEL tools effectively in
course design and delivery (e.g. video as stimuli
for pre- and in-class learning)
– new pedagogic models? Transfer of MOOC
inspired pedagogies to on-campus teaching
(Yuan, Powell & Oliver, 2014)
 Greater use of learner analytics

15. Consequences for learning: some issues to consider
 Dearth of evidence on impact of interventions such
as flipped learning: most literature from case-
studies & small-scale pilots, usually in US
– Do students engage in deeper learning?
(Mellefont & Fei, 2014)
– Is it suitable for all levels / styles of learning?
 How should we respond to students who
won’t or can’t engage? (Loch & Borland, 2014)
– Cultural adjustments (‘where are the answers?’)
& cognitive leap from pre-class to in-class
activities (applying theory)
– Ethical challenges in leaving students behind
– Integrity of learning at risk – staged / linear model
(linking ideas) vs. ‘pick and mix’

16. Questions?
Head of E-Learning
Development, University of
York, UK
richard.walker@york.ac.uk
Richard Walker

17. References
Barnett, R. (2014). Conditions of flexibility: securing a more
responsive higher education system, The Higher Education
Academy: York.
Bell, M., Bush, D., Nicholson, P, O’Brien, D., & Tran, T.
(2002). Universities online: A survey of online education and
services in Australia. Canberra: Department of Education,
Science and Training.
Bone, E. (2013). Improving learning experiences: Student
attitudes towards the use of technology. NUS research
study sponsored by Desire2Learn. Insights Roadshow, 16
December 2013.
Manchester Metropolitan University, United Kingdom.

18. References
Jisc (2014). Digital student project:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/research/projects/digital-student
Loch, B. and Borland, R. (2014). The transition from
traditional face-to-face teaching to blended learning –
implications and challenges from a mathematics discipline
perspective. In B. Hegarty, J. McDonald, & S.-K. Loke (Eds.),
Rhetoric and Reality: Critical perspectives on educational
technology. Proceedings ascilite Dunedin 2014 (pp. 708-
712).
Mellefont, L & Fei, J, “Using Echo360 Personal Capture
software to create a ‘flipped’ classroom for Microbiology
laboratory classes”, Rhetoric and Reality: Proceedings
ascilite Dunedin 2014 (pp. 534-538).

19. References
National Union of Students [NUS] (2010). Student
perspectives on technology – demand, perceptions and
training needs. Report to HEFCE by NUS.
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rereports/year/2010/studpersptech/
Price, D. (2013). Open: how we'll work, live and learn in the
future. Crux Publishing
Walker, R., Voce, J., Nicholls, J., Swift, E., Ahmed, J.,
Horrigan, S., & Vincent, P. (2014). 2014 Survey of
Technology Enhanced learning for higher education in the
UK. Universities and Colleges Information Systems
Association (UCISA) Report. Oxford, UK.
http://www.ucisa.ac.uk/tel

20. References
Wenstone, R. (2013). ‘It’s all about the learner’, Keynote
speech at ALT-C 2013, Nottingham, UK. 10-12 September
2013. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjINstTYw9U
Yuan, l., Powell, S., & Olivier, B. (2014). Beyond MOOCs:
Sustainable Online Learning in Institutions. CETIS white
paper. http://publications.cetis.ac.uk/2014/898