Blin and Munro (2008) ‘Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices?…’

Blin and Munro (2008), critiquing the impact of technology on learning and teaching in Higher Education, start from the position that ‘current implementations are accused of being focused on improving administration and replicating behaviourist, content-driven models’ (p. 475). They cite Selwyn’s (2007) synoptic phrase, ‘digital disconnect’ to articulate the gap between the rhetoric of technology-enhanced learning, and actual practices in the H.E. sector.

A problem with new innovations is that it can take time to master the technical procedures that accompany the technology itself; some technologies are ‘time-consuming and ponderous to use’ (p. 478). However, an advantage of disruptive technologies is that they acquire critical mass because they are easier to use than the technology they displace. Blin and Munro don’t adopt Christensen’s ‘disruptive technology/sustaining technology’ dualism, but it is relevant to their analysis.

Blin and Munro report that in their own institution (Dublin City University) in 2004, traditional lectures and tutorials were still the dominant teaching paradigm (p. 482). However, a Moodle VLE was then introduced, its introduction being supported by both face-to-face workshops and online courses.

The introduction of Moodle comprised an opportunity to rethink learning and teaching, but there were rules imposed on users, such as a limit on the size of files that could be uploaded (p. 483). While the decision was rooted in a need to make efficient use of storage and bandwidth, it also imposed limitations on the VLE’s potential.

Dublin City University’s introduction of Moodle was successful in the sense that, by the end of the 2005-06 academic year, 70% of academic staff were using the VLE (p. 484). In this sense the university’s experience is a successful example of a community of practice, as the technology moved from the periphery to the centre, thanks to effective supporting structures.

However, an examination of the objects uploaded to the system suggests traditional learning materials dominated: ‘The bulk of the resources (82%)… are text-based content such as word processing and pdf files (48%) and Power-Point files (34%)’ (p. 484). Therefore, the disruptive potential of the learning technology (Moodle) was not realised.

That said, there is an alternative possibility, namely that VLEs are, by their nature, sustaining technologies, offering slight improvements (in terms of convenience of access; 24/7 as opposed to when a lecture/tutorial is scheduled) but not prompting a fundamental rethink of learning and teaching.

Blin and Munro’s interviews with staff reaffirm the view that the VLE has been, in practice, a sustaining technology. A typical comment was, ‘I use Moodle mostly as a simple way of getting lecture notes, exercise sheets and other information to students’. Furthermore, most of the content featured on the VLE was created outside the VLE using technologies with which lecturers were familiar, such as Word and PowerPoint (pp. 486-87).

The authors conclude, ‘although use of the VLE is widespread within the university, little disruption of teaching practices… has occurred’ (p. 488). They use activity theory as the primary lens for their analysis, but the disruptive technology/sustaining technology dualism is relevant too, because an attempt to effect disruption did not, ultimately, succeed. Their experiences suggest it is challenging, perhaps not even possible, to manufacture a disruptive technology, remembering that the disruption emerges through usage and is not an intrinsic feature of the technology itself. What can be attempted, however, is a creation of the conditions in which disruption can happen. This involves allowing innovators and early adopters to innovate and adopt. It further involves a receptive and accommodating approach to the use of technologies for learning, even when (maybe even especially when) those technologies are not designed to be technologies for learning.

References
Blin, F. and Munro, M. (2008) ‘Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory,’ Computers and Education, vol. 50, p. 475-490.

Selwyn, N. (2007) ‘The use of computer technology in university teaching and learning: a critical perspective,’ Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 21, pp. 430-439.

Critiquing theories of learning…

‘Critiquing theories of learning and communities of practice,’ by Alison Fuller, is the first chapter in Communities of Practice: critical perspectives (Hughes et al. [ed.] 2007). Fuller argues that the standard communities of practice model sees learning as a process of identity formation, rather than as the acquisition of products (p. 19). Participation becomes the point of the thing, which is similar to the argument made by Sfard (1998).

If participation is the point, then social relations in communities of practice become critical. The purpose of the community of practice is the centre of gravity shaping the social relations.

However, Fuller cites the criticism of Eraut (2002) who argues that advanced industrial economies do not lend themselves to the stable kinds of communities posited in the community of practice model. In addition, Fuller and Unwin (2004) argue that, even within the community of practice model, the roles of novice and expert are not stable; novices can be more adept than experts at some tasks, for example those relying on information technology (it’s hard not hear echoes of Prensky [2001] in this argument).

Novices may be more expert in certain fields than those labelled ‘experts’ within any community of practice, but the key determinant is power relations. If the experts engage in dialogue with the adept novices, then the community as a whole can benefit, but the role of expert may have to be reconfigured. Alternatively, the experts can assert their power by excluding the expertise of the novices; novices can use technologies to support learning, but experts can deem those technologies inadmissible within the H.E.I.. The community is likely to suffer in the long run, but those in power retain their position, for a while at least.

Furthermore, it is taken as axiomatic that advanced industrial economies are radically different to their predecessors in industrial societies, yet wealth and power are still more concentrated than diffuse. A statistical breakdown of university vice-chancellors in terms of gender, education, age would expose a largely homogeneous community.

Novices in H.E.I.s in the UK have a great deal to bring to the game, but in a chillingly competitive environment a degree from an ‘old’ university will probably be perceived to have greater weight by employers, and so the older universities may feel they have most to gain from not changing. How much participation do they want?

References

Eraut, M. (2002) ‘Conceptual Analysis and Research Questions: Do the Concepts of “Learning Community” and “Community of Practice” provide added value?’ paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 1-5 April.

Fuller, A. and Unwin, L. (2004) ‘Young people as teachers and learners in the workplace: challenging the novice-expert dichotomy’, International Journal of Training and Decvelopment, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 31-41.

Fuller, A. (2007) ‘Critiquing theories of learning and communities of practice’ in Hughes J., Jewson N. and Unwin L. (eds.) Communities of Practice: critical perspectives, Abingdon, Routledge.

Prensky, M. (2001) ‘Digital natives, digital immigrants’ On the horizon, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1-6.

Sfard, A. (1998) ‘On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one’, Educational researcher, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 4-13.

Lowest Common Best Practice

In a provocative article in the Times Higher Education Supplement, Thomas Docherty argues that the Higher Education Academy is a self-perpetuating bureaucracy that, directly contrary to its ambitions, drives quality down to the lowest common denominator. In its place, he extols the virtues of the apprentice model of instruction, in which one generation imparts its expertise to the next.

A couple of paradoxes occur to me. First, while Prof Docherty seems uncomfortable with modern developments in higher education learning and teaching, his proposed solution falls neatly within John Seely Brown’s cognitive apprenticeship model, or even Etienne Wenger’s Community of Practice, with the novice moving centripetally towards a community’s centre. Moreover, while we all had excellent lecturers when we were undergraduates, we all had some pretty dreadful ones too, which suggests that the previous system for instruction was not all good.

The HEA is well conceived in the sense that it allows for a ‘quality stamp’ for those of us who came to H.E. teaching via the degree/Master’s/PhD route, without any formal training in how to teach. However, Prof Docherty raises a legitimate concern. I was recently drafting competencies for an academic role, and was told by someone more experienced in the field (note the expert/apprentice model) that when you devise competencies, people perform to the competencies but then stop. So, the HEA does have a problem in the sense that by defining competent performance in H.E. teaching it may also unintentionally limit it, and hence the pursuit of best practice may indeed be dragged down to the lowest common denominator.

How do we measure good performance in H.E. teaching without limiting it? Answers on a tapestry, please.

The Early Adoption Agency

In 2007 I used a Blog as an online bulletin board for postgraduate students at King’s College London. The blog is averaging 7000 hits a year. Subsequently, I set up a Twitter profile for King’s postgrads. The point here is that these innovations were not prompted by the institution. There is a VLE (Blackboard WebCT) at King’s, but thereafter technological innovations come down to individuals.

Similarly, at the Open University I took a series of haiku written by my students and played around with them using Xtranormal. Again, this was not prompted by the institution, but by my own interest in technology-enhanced learning.

At this point I should moan about the lack of institutional support for technology-enhanced learning, but I won’t. This is because top-down efforts to impose educational technologies seem doomed to me. Real change, in higher education as elsewhere, happens from the bottom up.

Therefore, the best thing institutions can do is give support to early adopters. Encourage them to share their experiences with the rest of the institution. Equally, give them time to play and experiment with new technologies, the equivalent of Google Time. Given that many of the tools and services available are free, the institution is not being asked to put its hand in its own pocket.

Institutions that try to impose a technology from the top down will find it’s like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling. Instead, they should give space to their technological innovators, and happily declare themselves The Early Adoption Agency.