1. e-Learning in the Disciplines
John Cook
Centre Manager
Reusable Learning Objects CETL
Helen Beetham
Research
Consultant
JISC e-learning
programme
E-Learning in the Disciplines
2. Aims
Articulate the essential features of learning and teaching
across different subject areas and educational approaches
– curriculum outcomes, challenges, learner characteristics…
Relate these to features of different e-learning technologies
and applications
– to identify aspects of e-learning that may be of benefit to different
communities
Encourage discussion around:
– differences between disciplines and approaches
– similarities, and what we can learn from each other
E-Learning in the Disciplines
3. Two key commitments
e-learning is not a separate kind of learning
– we need to re-articulate learning in a new technological context
People learn in a multitude of ways
– different subject areas and educational approaches rely on
different capacities-to-learn
– different communities have evolved different cultures of learning
and teaching
– we need to recognise these differences,
while learning from one another
E-Learning in the Disciplines
4. Reflective tools
See the reflective questionnaire in the conference area
(FINALReflective.doc)
– articulate educational priorities, outcomes and challenges
– consider relevant e-learning technologies and applications
– can be shared with your own and other communities
View examples of completed reflections
– see summaries of previous ‘cognate’ group discussions
– post your own completed reflection by emailing it to
liz.pearce@heacademy.ac.uk
– Thanks to the HE Academy for hosting these
materials and for supporting the symposium
E-Learning in the Disciplines
5. Format of the symposium
This short introduction from John and Helen
Summary of previous discussions in cognate discipline groups
Position paper from Gordon Joyes
– Sharing effective learning design processes versus labelling the pedagogy
Online discussion
– 27th and 28th March 2006
– all welcome, particularly representatives of CETLs and Subject Centres
Summaries and ways forward
– posted evening of 28th March
E-Learning in the Disciplines
6. Useful questions
In an ALT-C 2005
Symposium, Pearce, Gulc
et al. asked: Is subject
difference a factor in the
use and uptake of e-
learning?
Put another way: What
technologies and
approaches are used in the
different communities?
E-Learning in the Disciplines
7. Blinded by our paradigms?
First ATM was located inside a
bank and was available only
during banking hours.
Real innovation did not occur
until ATMs were placed outside
the bank
E-Learning in the Disciplines
8. Disciplinary patterns
Academic tribes and
territories (Becher and
Trowler, 2001)
– definitions of knowledge,
disciplinary organisation
Teaching and learning
regimes (Trowler and
Cooper, 2002)
– tacit knowledge, troublesome
knowledge
... need to develop
genuinely shared language
E-Learning in the Disciplines
9. Disciplinary patterns of
educational technology adoption
“Discipline differences appeared to be potential barrier to
the building of new communities of practice around
educational technology, and there was a need to know
more about how disciplinary factors are influencing the
early adopters who form the core of our new
communities.”
Carol Russell (2005, p. 64)
E-Learning in the Disciplines
10. Knowledge territories
soft
processes understanding
protocols interpretation
art theory
education
english literature
sociology
information law
management history
applied pure
biology
medicine
chemistry
design
physics
engineering
products maths discoveries
techniques explanations
based on Becher and Trowler (2001), hard
taken from Russell’s ALT-C slides
E-Learning in the Disciplines
11. Disciplinary patterns of
educational technology adoption
Note that the placing and
configuration of the disciplines on
the above model will vary
between institutions
Where do technologies and
approaches fit in? Russell found
the following.
E-Learning in the Disciplines
12. Common features of strategies for
hard applied disciplines
External changes in
profession/industry (industry and
student context)
Technology now essential in
gaining core discipline
knowledge
Educational technology helps
students learn
– more engaging or flexible
E-Learning in the Disciplines
13. Common features of strategies for
soft applied disciplines
Professional knowledge being
redefined
– technology can help develop new
skills
Technology for skills and
information transfer
– to free class time for developing
core knowledge
E-Learning in the Disciplines
14. Common features of strategies for
hard/soft pure disciplines
Technology can help students
engage with core concepts
– when staff time and resources
are limited
Knowledge is created through
research
– Technology can help develop
research skills
E-Learning in the Disciplines
15. Does this classification scheme help understand
disciplinary differences?
Are there better or different ways of expressing
this?
Do you agree that such differences are significant
for the effective use of e-learning technologies and
approaches?
E-Learning in the Disciplines
16. References
Becher, T. and Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories (2nd Ed.).
Buckingham UK: Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press.
Pearce, L., Gulc, E., Grove, M., Lucas, B., and Whistlecroft, L. (2005). Different
subjects/subject difference. Symposium 549. ALT-C 2005 Conference, September 6-8,
2006, Manchester, England, UK.
Russell, C. (2005). Disciplinary patterns in adoption of educational technologies. In J. Cook
and D. Whitelock (Eds.), Exploring the frontiers of e-learning: Borders, outposts, and
migration. Proceedings of the ALT-C 2005 Conference, September 6-8, 2006, Manchester,
England, UK (pp. 64-76).
Trowler, P. and Cooper, A. (2002). Teaching and Learning Regimes: Implicit theories and
recurrent practices in the enhancement of teaching and learning through educational
development programmes. Higher Education Research and Development, 21(3), 221-240.
E-Learning in the Disciplines
Editor's Notes
TIP for using these slides: If you view these slides in Note Pages form (in View menu) you will get a sense of the dialogue that we are trying to create. Please read through these slides, and some of the other resources, post your comments on them and join any ongoing debate in the online discussion. Gordon will be online as well to help spark discussion.
Helen: These aims are similar to the aims of a face-to-face symposium that John and I helped to facilitate in Birmingham last month, but I’m sure this discussion will have its own momentum. We often hear the argument that technology needs to be put at the service of established learning and teaching practice, which we know differs across different disciplines and subjects. But what exactly does this mean? How often do we actually try to articulate the differences? And are technologies really being applied to suit the demands of the discipline, or is it just that different cultures of use are emerging, and these acquire their own rationale? The approach we took in the face-to-face symposium, which participants might like to try for themselves, was to start by articulating essential features of learning and teaching in a particular subject area, or according to a particular educational approach such as ‘problem based learning’. Then we asked people to relate these features to e-learning technologies and applications that might be useful. We hope these discussions to help us identify both what is different and what is similar across different communities of practice.
Helen: I’m just offering these thoughts for debate – they are explained more fully in the Effective Practice materials that we developed to accompany the JISC workshops of the same name (available online at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/elp_workshopcontent.html) John: Helen says that e-learning is not a separate type of learning. Is there a debate to be had there?
Helen: These are the reflective tools developed for the original symposium and offered here for participants to comment on, evaluate, and adapt or use. There are also some examples of completed questionnaires to give a flavour of the different communities that have already engaged with this process. We’d really like to be able to add to these – something that participants could certainly help us with – but our main purpose is to offer tools that are useful to different communities for their own self-reflection and analysis. How useful are these tools and is this overall approach?
After reading this introduction, do browse the reflective tools and resources, and read Gordon Joyes’ position paper. The online discussion will be live during the first two days of the conference. Over to John now for more about discipline differences…
John: The above are useful questions. To be honest, before I started reading around this area I had gained some impressions from working with different subject areas that are represented in the CETL that I manage. Language seem to uses video a lot, science seem to like simulations, and so on. Helen: I agree. When I worked with the Computers in Teaching Initiative centres (fore-runners of the current HEA Subject Centres) we were proud of an approach that focused on the discipline first, and the technology second. I think at the time this was probably unique and did help the UK get ahead in terms of developing useful materials and subject-based approaches. But there are risks – such as failing to share ideas, and the conservatism (small c) of existing learning and teaching cultures. John: Hmm, how many of you remember the ‘not invented here syndrome’?
John: We can sometimes get blinded by our paradigms! You know, it is easy to become entrenched and stick to the old ways of doing things. In HE we have resisted for centuries any attempts to do away with lectures! This despite the fact that there is little evidence that lectures promote learning. Because of this, people are unable to see the potential in new applications of technology
John: When I did start reading around the area, I found some of the above literature quite helpful. Academic tribes are providing definitions of knowledge and core concepts and academic territories are what we call the disciplines (Medicine, English, etc). Teaching and learning regimes have associated tacit knowledge; the ‘language of the priest hood’ as it were. If you do not understand the coded messages that a particular regime use to ‘worship’ a facet of the area, then you may not be able to succeed in that field. For example, in Computer Science if you are not in the know about what the ‘good’ conferences and journals are, then you may be held back at the next Research Assessment Exercise. To get around this, we need to develop an open, shared language so that a newcomer to an area can get a handle on what is being talked about. This goal of a genuinely shared language is easier said than done! Helen: sometimes I think it is impossible! But our recent symposium made me feel more optimistic. Rather than a common language there may be ‘bridging’ concepts. For example the ideal of ‘deep’ rather than surface learning seems to have resonance across subjects, although how this is interpreted may differ. And when it comes to new, digital forms of knowledge and learning, there are common challenges such as equality of access, pressures on practitioner time, and the culture of rewarding research over teaching innovation. John: Yes, at the recent Symposium I got the impression that different disciplinary groupings were, well different and proud of it … However, there was an openness to new ways of thinking about technology that I personally found invigorating.
John: The above quote is by Carol Russell (2005), she is describing a study at University of New South Wales in Australia looking at disciplinary patterns of educational technology adoption. Russell goes on to suggest a conceptual model for understanding the above, based on a study with teachers in the University of New South Wales. Helen: I found this model useful: I’ll just let you explain it. John: Ta , deep breath …
John: The above slide is a a graphical representation of some of the concepts Russell goes on to talk about.
John: The next few slides summarise Russell’s findings.
John: Remember, hard-applied disciplines include Medicine and Design. In order to meet professional recognition, for example, many of these types of disciplines are using technology to help teach core discipline concepts. Can you think of examples if you are from a hard-applied discipline?
John: Soft-applied disciplines include Education and Law. In these two areas it was found that e-learning was used on areas like skills development in order to free up class time for face-to-face development of core knowledge.
John: Hard-pure disciplines includes Maths and Physics. Russell found that Hard-pure disciplines tended not to use collaborative tools like discussion forums found in a VLE. Interestingly, in the previous Symposium we mentioned, discussion for Natural Sciences and Maths (the summary is provided in this theme’s resource area) noted that whilst other groups highlighted e-portfolios and other reflective technology as key tools, this group did not use such tools. Soft-pure includes English and Art. In line with Russell’s findings, the previous Symposium’s discussion for Humanities and the Arts valued communicating effectively using different modes of expression and also used Wikis to encourage shared knowledge building and active research.
John: Above are some questions that could be used to help shape debate in the online discussion. What do you think? Helen: I would be very interested to hear from people who were at the face-to-face symposium, as well as people who are new to these ideas. John: I’ll let Helen have the last word ;-) Over to you guys …
