Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (18)
Similar to Supporting Technology Enhanced Learning within UK Higher Education
Similar to Supporting Technology Enhanced Learning within UK Higher Education (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Supporting Technology Enhanced Learning within UK Higher Education
- 1. SUPPORTING TEL WITHIN UK HIGHER EDUCATION JULIE VOCE @JULIEVOCE CITY, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON CDE Meeting, 21 May 2020
- 2. ABOUT THIS SESSION • Overview of the research • Theme 1 – TEL support structures • Theme 2 – Help or hinder adoption of TEL • Theme 3 – Influence of culture on adoption of TEL • Framework for action
- 3. RESEARCH QUESTION • From the perspective of a Head of TEL, how does an institution’s TEL support model and its organisational culture help or hinder the successful adoption of TEL? • The types of TEL support model and the evolution of TEL support • How a particular TEL support model helps or hinders the successful adoption of TEL • The degree to which TEL adoption is influenced by organisational culture.
- 4. METHODOLOGY Survey (33 institutions) Interviews (5 institutions) Interpretation TweetChat (24 participants) UCISA TEL Case Studies (30 institutions) Themes identified
- 5. THEME 1 – TEL SUPPORT STRUCTURES • Evolution of TEL • TEL support has typically evolved organically • More strategic approach now emerging. • Larger teams moving to hierarchical structures • Local support emerged in response to capacity of central team or specific initiatives
- 6. THEME 1 – TEL SUPPORT STRUCTURES • Predominant support structure: • Primary TEL team working in partnership with other departments such as IT, Library and Educational Development. Staff based either centrally or in schools. • Local TEL support not co-ordinated by the centre, either individuals or teams. • ‘Core and custom’ model - Nichols and Anderson (2005)
- 7. THEME 1 – TEL SUPPORT STRUCTURES Primary TEL team IT Ed Dev Local team Individual LT (Business) Medical School Individual LT (Chemistry)
- 8. THEME 1 – TEL SUPPORT STRUCTURES Primary TEL team Ed Dev IT Local team Business School Estates
- 9. THEME 1 – TEL SUPPORT STRUCTURES • TEL Governance: • Connecting TEL with University governance is a key enabler for change • Three-level structure: Top-level: Main university committee (e.g. Academic Board, Senate) Mid-level: Information Services or Teaching and Learning Committee Lower-level: TEL/Education-focussed committee
- 10. TEL GOVERNANCE EXAMPLES University of Dundee Bath Spa University Senate Learning & Teaching Committee eLearning Sub Committee Academic Board Learning & Teaching Committee Digital Education Committee Vice Principal (Teaching and Learning) Advisory Group E-learning Steering Group Queen Mary University of London Humanities and Social Sciences Science and Engineering Medicine and Dentistry Professional Services Senate E-learning User Groups
- 11. TEL GOVERNANCE • Not representative of the sector based on 2016 UCISA TEL Survey (Walker et al., 2016): • Under half of responding institutions had an institutional committee governing TEL • 20 institutions reported no TEL committees or working groups
- 12. THEME 2 – HELP OR HINDER ADOPTION OF TEL • Interface between Primary TEL team and schools/departments: • Network of school-based TEL champions • School-facing TEL support staff within Primary TEL team • Development of community of practice with local TEL support staff
- 13. THEME 2 – HELP OR HINDER ADOPTION OF TEL • Location of TEL team: • Location can influence perception - affects credibility and educational agency • Academic-focussed department helps with credibility • IT – easier to influence technical developments • Less of an issue for established teams • Professionalisation strengthens credibility (e.g. CMALT, FHEA, qualifications)
- 14. THEME 3 – INFLUENCE OF CULTURE ON TEL ADOPTION • Perceived institutional culture: • Some initiatives benefit from top-down approach • Mix of top-down/bottom-up approaches needed • Perceived department culture: • Focus on power relationships (e.g. unwilling Head of Department) • Disciplinary differences (e.g. Maths department preferring blackboards)
- 15. A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION Reviews TEL model in relation to: • Interaction and influence with other teams • Location within the organisation (SWOT analysis) • Identifying and supporting local needs • Flexibility to respond to change • TEL governance https://julievoce.wordpress.com/2018/08/14/tel-framework-for-action/
- 16. QUESTIONS
- 17. REFERENCES • Bath Spa University. Digital Education Committee - https://www.bathspa.ac.uk/about- us/governance/quality-and-standards/committees/digital-education-committee/ • Nichols, M., & Anderson, B. (2005). Strategic e-learning implementation. Educational Technology & Society, 8(4), 1-8. • Queen Mary University of London. Groups and Committees - https://elearning.qmul.ac.uk/about- us/groups-and-committees/ • University of Dundee. eLearning - https://www.dundee.ac.uk/governance/governance/senate/senate- committees/elearning/ • Walker, R., Voce, J., Swift, E., Ahmed, J., Jenkins, M., & Vincent, P. (2016). 2016 survey of Technology Enhanced Learning For Higher Education in the UK. Retrieved from https://www.ucisa.ac.uk/- /media/files/publications/surveys/tel%20survey%202016_nov16.ashx?la=en
Editor's Notes
- As some of you know, I was a PhD Student at Lancaster University on their distance Technology Enhanced Learning and e-Research doctoral programme. My research focussed on supporting technology enhanced learning or TEL within UK higher education.
- In this session, I will provide you with an overview to my research and then focus on three key themes of the research before introducing my framework for action.
- The aim of the research was to investigate the TEL support models within UK higher education institutions and focussed on three key areas: - The types of TEL support model and the evolution of TEL support How a particular model helps or hinders the successful adoption of TEL Whether TEL adoption is influenced by organisational culture.
- The research took a three-stage explanatory design approach whereby the results of each stage informed a later stage. Stage 1 took the form of an online survey sent to the Heads of E-learning Forum and followed up with interviews were then carried out with 5 Heads of E-learning to probe further into the themes that had emerged during the Survey stage. Following the data analysis, several key themes emerged and these were presented at the ALT Winter Conference as part of a Tweetchat with participants in TEL roles to probe further into some of the themes that had emerged. The data was then analysed and used to enhance the interpretation of the findings. Alongside I also undertook a directed content analysis of the UCISA TEL Case studies using the themes to identify similarities and differences.
- Support for TEL within UK HEIs has typically evolved organically, primarily by increasing the number of staff supporting TEL and the range of technologies supported. Many teams started off with just a focus on the VLE. However, the research found that institutions are starting to take a more rational and strategic approach to the support of TEL – part of wider organisational review or a strategic focus on TEL. As team sizes have increased, the larger teams reported being having more specialist sub-teams, however this potentially means less variety for staff and some doing more mundane tasks – like just responding to Support Tickets. Local support appears to have either come about because the Primary TEL team were at capacity in terms of the support they could provide or as a result of an increased demand for more specific support for certain areas or initiatives, such as supporting distance learning programmes or instructional design, which either requires specialist skills or knowledge, or would be too time consuming for the Primary TEL team to provide. City example.
- The research identified a predominant support model for TEL - Primary TEL team – lead unit providing support for TEL, typically where head of Tel is located. - Local support This has parallels with Nichols and Anderson’s (2005) suggested “core and custom” model as a way of implementing TEL strategically, such that the core relates to activities and approaches common across all courses, whilst the custom are more flexible and specific to particular courses or programmes. Issues arise when there is overlap between the Central and Local teams and this was addressed in the second area which looked at how the support model helped or hindered TEL adoption.
- Visualising this predominant model…
- City example
- Finally , The research identified that linking TEL into the main University Committee structure was a key enabler for TEL developments, especially those which require policy changes., as it lead to greater visibility of TEL amongst Senior Management. All the case study institutions reported having an institutional-level committee governing TEL, with TEL represented by the Head of TEL, or equivalent. In addition, where such a committee exists, TEL is typically linked into the University’s structures as part of a three-level structure connecting TEL with the top-most committee such as Academic Board or Senate. In addition to the formal committee structure, participants reported having user forums, project boards and Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) governance groups that would sit alongside or underneath this primary governance structure to facilitate more operational discussions
- This sort of structure also exists elsewhere too.
- However this formal governance structure does not seem to be commonplace across the sector; the 2016 UCISA TEL Survey (Walker et al., 2016) reported that just under half of institutions had an institutional-level committee governing TEL, with the majority being Learning and Teaching Committees. In addition, 20 institutions reported not having any institutional-level committees or working groups focussed on TEL. When presented at HeLF, some institutions reported that TEL was embedded within the middle-level, so T&L committees and the head of TEL was represented there. Whilst this has value in ensuring TEL is not seen as separate to other aspects of teaching and learning, it does mean that discussions become diuted.
- the research identified two mechanisms for success: a network of school-based TEL champions/contacts and school-facing TEL support staff co-ordinated by the primary TEL team. The role of TEL champions would be to act as a conduit for gathering needs and ensuring those needs align with the strategic ambitions of the institution as well as to promote TEL within their school or department. The importance of having school-facing staff is to enable the primary TEL team to develop closer relationships with academic and administrative staff in the school, including key innovators, in order to provide more tailored and easier to access support, whilst also ensuring consistency of provision across the institution. Where local TEL support staff exist separate to the primary TEL team, it is important to ensure there is a network or community of practice of TEL support staff to avoid isolation of lone TEL staff and ensure good relationships between the TEL teams to reduce the potential for overlap and conflict. Imperial coffee morning.
- Another aspect that can help or hinder the successful adoption of TEL, is location of TEL support – primarily location in institutional structures (but in some cases physical location as well) The literature (Shurville et al., 2008; Steeples & Zenios, 2005; Zellweger Moser, 2007) suggests that the location of TEL support can influence the perception of TEL within the institution, specifically whether there is a perceived bias towards pedagogy or technology, which can lead to issues of credibility for TEL teams. Desire not to be seen as an IT team. Land (2006) who notes that “many learning technologists find themselves located in organisational spaces that are not seen to have educational agency, or to be ‘academic’” Location within a department with a teaching and learning focus was felt to be a strength as it provides a greater emphasis on pedagogy and helps to distinguish TEL support from IT support
- The research considered perceived culture at the institutional level and at a departmental level from the perspective of a head of TEL. It was suggested that successful adoption of TEL for institution-wide initiatives was more successful with the support of a top-down approach; however, there were concerns that innovation would be stifled if this was the only approach taken. Respondents indicated that a mix of top-down and bottom-up approaches were needed for both large-scale implementation and smaller scale innovations. At the department level, power relationships were prevalent in the responses, in particular the role of influential people; for example, it was suggested that a head of department supportive of or interested in TEL would heavily influence successful adoption of TEL within that department. This finding also extended to the institutional level, where a pro-vice chancellor for education could also influence TEL adoption either positively or negatively. Disciplinary differences, in terms of how the subjects are taught, were suggested to influence the extent to which a particular discipline would adopt technology in their teaching. For example, a mathematics department preferring to use blackboards, which can make adoption of lecture capture more difficult.
- The research led to the development of a framework for action to provide a practical output for Heads of TEL to use when looking to review their TEL support structures. For each area identified in the research, a series of questions has been developed to act as a starting point for heads of TEL to consider the effectiveness of their current TEL support model and governance. Interaction and influence with other teams – based on power/interest grids often used with stakeholders. Aims to look at existing relationships with other TEL support Teams. The reliance on good relationships was noted as a key factor in the success of a particular model. Location within the organisation (SWOT analysis) – as this is a significant factor in credibility and educational agency – consider current location and then alternative locations. Identifying and supporting local needs – reviewing the mechanisms in place to understand and identify local needs e.g. working with champions. Flexibility to respond to change – as TEL teams are often working at capacity, this aims to identify how teams can respond to new initiatives and ensure there are mechanisms in place to increase or re-skill staff. TEL governance – thinking about who sets strategic direction and what governance structures and processes are in place.