2016 TELI Handbook
2016 TELI Handbook
2016 TELI Handbook
Enabled Learning
Implementation
Handbook
Adrian Kirkwood and Linda Price
Technology-Enabled
Learning Implementation
Handbook
For the avoidance of doubt, by applying this licence the Commonwealth of Learning does not waive any
privileges or immunities from claims that they may be entitled to assert, nor does the Commonwealth of
Learning submit itself to the jurisdiction, courts, legal processes or laws of any jurisdiction.
ISBN 978-1-894975-81-0
Version 1 of the TEL implementation Handbook has been developed under the Technology-Enabled
Learning Initiative of COL to facilitate the use and integration of TEL in educational institutions in the
Commonwealth by adopting appropriate policies and technologies, and strengthening capacity building
of teachers and learners to optimise available technologies for the sharing of knowledge resources and to
improve learning.
Published by:
COMMONWEALTH OF LEARNING
Foreword.............................................................................................................................. v
REFERENCES................................................................................................................... 53
I am sure this handbook, along with the questionnaires on technology use by faculty and
students and the institutional technology audit, will prove useful in implementing TEL in
your institution.
We look forward to your comments and feedback based on your experiences of implementing
TEL in your institution. These will go a long way in helping us to revise this handbook to serve
the specific needs of different contexts and collaborators.
The difficulty lies not in the new ideas but in escaping from the old ones.
John Maynard Keynes
Introduction
The intended audience of this handbook is teachers and administrators in post-secondary
institutions who are in a position to take steps to implement Technology-Enabled Learning
(TEL). The aim of the handbook is to provide an introduction to implementing TEL in post-
secondary education. We hope that it will spark — or reinforce — an interest in TEL and help
you to actively engage in TEL implementation in your organisation.
For the purposes of this handbook, Technology-Enabled Learning is taken to refer to the
application of some form of digital technology to teaching and/or learning in an educational
context. It is not necessary to get into discussions about whether the learning context can be
thought of as formal, non-formal or informal. At this stage, it is sufficient to consider that
there is an intention for learning to result from the human-technology interaction. However,
it is worth remembering that people have been employing various (non-book) technologies
for educational purposes over many decades. Accordingly, we think that it would be helpful to
briefly explore the role of digital technologies in education in recent times.
Following the development of the Internet in the 1980s and the inception of the World
Wide Web in 1995, there has been considerable growth in the adoption of technology within
educational institutions, for both distance and on-campus teaching and learning. In western
universities (and a great many primary and secondary schools), institutional “digital learning
environments” are now almost ubiquitous, and their use by teachers and students can no longer
be considered a novelty or the domain of enthusiasts alone. While this growth was initially
much more prevalent in western countries, the adoption of technologies has now spread, to a
greater or lesser extent, to almost all parts of the world.
In this handbook we use the term Technology-Enabled Learning (TEL) to describe the use of
technology to support students’ learning. Using this term makes it possible to avoid potential
ambiguities and differing interpretations of the process. The word enabled refers to facilitation:
learning is made possible by the use of technology. It does not imply the value judgment that
the word enhanced necessitates. Technology-Enabled Learning is just about making learning
possible, whether that means different ways of serving existing learners or, potentially, providing
opportunities for learners who were previously regarded as being “out of reach” — that is,
those learners who typically have little to no access to educational opportunities because of a
variety of circumstances.
So, what are the potential benefits that TEL can offer to institutions, teachers and learners? To
a certain extent it is impossible to provide a generalised answer to that question, because much
depends upon the nature and context of an institution and of the learners it aims to serve.
However, here are a few possibilities. You can decide on the relative importance of each one in
your own institution: please place a tick (√ ) in the column you think is most appropriate.
Senior managers and decision makers in many institutions are likely to be interested in efficiency
benefits that contribute to the reduction or containment of costs, increasing student numbers,
competitive advantage, or meeting student expectations. However, those more directly involved
in teaching and supporting students are likely to be interested in potential transformational
benefits relating to educational outcomes.
It is important that individual teachers articulate a clear rationale for using TEL in respect of
their students and the contextual circumstances. For example, teachers whose students are likely
to seek employment in business, design, science or technology might argue that using TEL
would help prepare their learners for their subsequent careers. Other teachers might be more
concerned with maximising the teaching and learning opportunities for their geographically
dispersed students. Confusion and misunderstandings can be avoided if teachers develop and
share their pedagogical aims when implementing TEL.
Just as it is important for individual teachers to have a clear rationale for using TEL, it is also
important for institutions to specify a coherent set of aims or goals that they hope to achieve
by using TEL. It is not sufficient to proclaim that TEL will “improve the student experience”
or “enhance student learning.” What do imprecise and ambiguous statements such as these
actually mean in practice? What do institutions wish to achieve through the use of TEL? For
example, an institution might be particularly interested in:
• increasing its international reach by offering courses that can be taken by learners
anywhere in the world (e.g. many large universities have introduced massive open
online courses — MOOCs — with this aim in mind);
• improving accessibility and flexibility for students in order to attract groups of learners
who are difficult to reach (e.g. those residing in remote and hilly areas);
• responding to the needs of potential employers and the perceived needs of current and
future learners;
• reducing the costs associated with processing student enquiries, enrolments and
registrations, and assessment and examinations procedures; or
• improving or maintaining the quality of its teaching and learning in challenging times
(e.g. rapid expansion of student numbers, financial restraints, etc.).
Whatever reasons an institution has for implementing TEL, it needs to make explicit statements
about the benefits it expects to be derived for learners and teachers. It is quite possible
that some aims might be incompatible with others when applied in practice. For example,
attempting to attract difficult to reach groups might involve an increase in the cost per student
for the institution. Requirements for students to use high-specification computers might conflict
with attempts to overcome the digital divide between different social groups.
In addition, the introduction of TEL might affect multiple institutional policies and areas of
activity. For instance, assessment policies might need to be reviewed and amended if one aim of
implementing TEL is to increase co-operative or collaborative student project work. Measures
might need to be introduced to counteract plagiarism (intended or unintended) in students’
work or assignments. This might involve not only developing students’ academic practices
and digital literacy skills, but also modifying and redesigning assessment tasks so that they
rely less on the reproduction of course materials and resources and focus instead on learners
demonstrating personal involvement with a topic or its application to novel circumstances
(see Carroll, 2007).
Many teachers seem to ask “What can I use this technology or tool for?” rather than “How
can I enable my students to achieve the desired or necessary learning outcomes?” or “What
forms of participation or practice are enabled for learning?” (Kirkwood, 2014, p. 215)
The use of technology in itself is very unlikely to result in improved educational outcomes
and ways of working among teachers and students. Various contextual factors exert far greater
influence on the processes of teaching and learning — factors that will be explored later in
this handbook. However, educators (and senior educational managers) frequently appear
to be taken in by the extravagant claims made about various technologies and the promised
advantages and benefits they can bestow. As each new technology or tool is developed and
adopted in educational settings, a collective amnesia about lessons learned from research into
and evaluations of previous “innovations” also appears to develop. Enthusiasts tend to assume
that each new tool or technology is so novel that there is nothing to be learned from the
knowledge and experience derived from using older media and technologies (Kirkwood &
Price, 2005).
In reality, technologies and tools are far more transient and short-lived than the educational
issues that they claim to address. In all sectors of education, various technologies have been
used for teaching and learning purposes over many decades. Instead of assuming that “new”
equates with “different” or “better,” educators need to improve their understanding of the
implications of what is already known about TEL, not just in terms of technical issues, but —
more importantly — also in terms of the epistemological and pedagogical ramifications.
Although the word transform is frequently used in descriptions and discussions of TEL projects,
there is little evidence of “transformations” actually taking place in the large majority of cases.
More often than not, teachers express disappointment that real changes in teaching and learning
have not been achieved. Despite the immense growth in the use of TEL in both developed
and developing countries, concerns continue to be expressed by researchers and educational
practitioners about just how effectively technology is being used to improve the learning
experience of students (Kirkwood, 2009).
Too frequently, educators focus on the technology available to them and imagine that making
use of a particular application or tool in their teaching will change their students’ learning
outcomes and experience. However, what really matters is not the technology, but how the
teachers design transactions, tasks and activities to engage students and promote learning.
It seems self-evident to teachers that a book could be used in many different ways for a variety
of educational purposes (e.g. providing direct instruction, references, background information,
resource material for analysis, etc.), but when it comes to TEL, many educators take a narrower
and far less flexible approach. In reality, technologies and tools such as blogs, forums, podcasts
and wikis are not limited to just a single “ideal” role, but can function in a variety of ways
for many different educational purposes and can reflect differing epistemologies. The specific
way in which an individual teacher or academic team chooses to utilise a tool or technology
(the type of learning task, expected outcomes, etc.) will be based on the particular contextual
circumstances. The manner in which students use the technology in one particular context
will differ from how the same tool is used in other contexts. For example, one teacher might
encourage students to use a blog tool to create an individual (private) study diary in which
they reflect upon their weekly activities and how their understanding of their study topic is
developing. Another teacher might encourage all members of a student group to contribute to
a shared blog, with everybody being free to submit anything that they think might be helpful
for a particular group task or activity.
Only by changing the conceptions and beliefs of teachers regarding teaching and learning
(with or without technology) can any significant changes be effected in their teaching practices.
For the successful adoption of TEL, it is vital to support teachers in the task of reviewing,
reassessing and modifying their conceptions of teaching and learning. That is far more critical
Many factors can determine how teachers in higher education employ technology to change
their teaching practices and/or the learning practices of their students. Evidence from studies
into how technology can enhance or transform educational processes is only one influence on
teachers. Some others, often more pervasive, include the following:
The complex relationships between influencing factors are considered further in Section 2.
Your answers to the questions above will only provide a very rough approximation of the
extent to which TEL is currently established within your institution. You will need much more
information — qualitative as well as quantitative — to accurately determine how well teachers
and learners in your institution are prepared for TEL. Section 2 of this handbook describes
other means of collecting relevant information, including questionnaires that can be used to
conduct surveys among academic staff and students.
Much information that could be very helpful for planning is difficult to quantify. For example:
• How do teaching staff, academic support staff, academic managers and students
understand the term Technology-Enabled Learning? Even if they have encountered
some examples of TEL, what awareness do they have of the multiple forms that it
could take?
• How do individuals within those groups understand the terms teaching and learning?
• Are they conscious of the key role that assessment requirements play in determining
what and how students study (and how these requirements affect students’ use of
TEL)?
• To what extent are technical and support staff prepared for new ways of working to
provide effective support to both teachers and learners?
• How prepared are policy makers and administrators for reviewing and revising policies
and procedures so that TEL can be implemented effectively?
Overall, an institution must be prepared for a wide range of potential consequences to arise
from greater use of technology. Greater use of TEL is likely to have an impact on more than
just teaching and learning practices. However, the expectations — positive or negative — of
various groups within the institution will need to be managed to avoid serious misconceptions
about the outcomes of the process.
What next?
The next section explores the complex influences that act upon both the processes and the
outcomes of teaching and learning with technology. It also discusses some instruments and
procedures that will help you gather more detailed information about the extent to which
your institution is prepared for TEL.
That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all
the lessons that history has to teach.
Aldous Huxley
It has been considerably more difficult to achieve effective adoption of learning technologies in
education than policy makers anticipated at the outset. This has been the case at both the micro
(course) and macro (institution) levels. Often there has been a substantial lack of clarity about
both the means and the ends regarding technology implementation (Kirkwood & Price, 2014).
Furthermore, stakeholders have had diverse perspectives on the nature of the problem and what
needed to be done (and by whom) to realise better outcomes (Marshall, 2010; Price &
Oliver, 2007).
Key to the whole process is not the technology, but teachers. The context within which
academic teachers work significantly influences how they use technology to support their
teaching (Fanghanel, 2007). We have identified four main sets of factors that influence
university teachers’ beliefs about teaching — or at least, how they choose to practise their
beliefs. These include the following (see Price, Kirkwood & Richardson, 2014, for a more
detailed description):
Figure 2.1 shows components of each cluster of factors and the relationships between them.
Departmental
context
Teacher’s academic
context
Departmental
Departmental
disciplinary discourse
disciplinary policies
Figure 2.1. Factors influencing teaching and learning with technology in higher education: A framework
To understand the complexity of what actually happens in terms of teaching and learning,
we must consider not only the full range of influences, but also the relationships between
them. The four main contextual components we have identified in Figure 2.1 are not only all
interrelated but also subject to a number of influences that affect individual university teachers
and learners in different ways. In this diagrammatic representation, the stronger influences are
indicated with a bold arrow, which also indicates the predominant direction of the influences.
There is frequently a reciprocating influence to these, but the strength of that effect is usually
weaker. These are represented here by lighter, broken lines. Again, the main direction of
flow is indicated.
So, there are many influences — sometimes conflicting — that act upon the processes of
teaching and learning. That is why these apparently simple terms should not be taken for
granted and why it should not be assumed that everybody has the same understanding of what
is involved. It is much more productive to have open and explicit discussions about what people
would like to see happen (the outcomes, or what students are expected to learn) and what could
be done to help realise the desired outcomes (the learning activities that students undertake).
What does this mean in practice? It is important to recognise that technologies and digital tools
can be used in a range of different ways for a variety of purposes. There is little point in simply
talking about “using a wiki,” “making a podcast” or “creating a self-assessment test.” For other
people to understand what is being proposed, the purpose of and design for learning need to be
made clear.
In strategic terms, an individual teacher whose conception is teaching-focussed (or who works
in a department or faculty that has a teaching-focussed ethos) is more likely to use technology
in ways that support existing — usually transmissive — teaching strategies. He or she will tend
to favour presentational forms — such as PowerPoint presentations, podcasts and webcasts —
which support teaching-centred practices.
Practitioners who have a learning-focussed conception of teaching (and are supported in this
by their departmental colleagues) are, in contrast, more likely to exploit technologies and tools
that facilitate and support the development of their students’ learning. Such teachers design
learning activities that use learning technologies as enablers, making it possible for students
to do things such as critically examining sources of information or data, undertaking group
tasks, or reflecting upon and demonstrating developments in their understanding and practices
through the use of tools such as wikis, blogs, discussion forums and portfolios.
As far as student learning is concerned, the most pervasive influence is assessment — how
students are assessed or how they anticipate that they will be assessed. Many educators have
referred to assessment as the de facto curriculum — what students actually focus on when
studying. There is a considerable body of supporting evidence for this (Boud, 1995; Brown,
1997; Brown & Knight, 1994; Ramsden, 1992; Rowntree, 1987). So, any open and explicit
discussion of teaching and learning — which would be the ideal type of discussion — also needs
to extend to the role of assessment. For example, do teachers and students think of assessment
primarily in quantitative terms (where the goal is the accumulation of more information to
get higher marks or grades)? Or do they consider it more in terms of achieving qualitative
improvements in students’ knowledge and understanding (thinking about the subject in deeper,
more complex ways)?
You may need to scrutinise the extent to which the assessment tasks and examinations actually
set for students match the stated aims and expected learning outcomes for your modules or
courses. Is there too much emphasis on the recall of factual information? If your students are
expected to demonstrate, for example, critical thinking, problem-solving skills or the application
of ideas to novel situations, how are these abilities assessed? What role can TEL play in
facilitating (or impeding) the development and demonstration of desired outcomes
such as these?
The questionnaires in Appendixes 1, 2 and 3 can be used to survey teaching staff, students
and the officer or senior manager responsible for your institution’s technical and educational
environment. The areas covered in these questionnaires are briefly outlined below.
The questionnaire aimed at students (see Appendix 1) contains sets of questions under the
following headings:
In addition to those sets of questions, the questionnaire for academic teachers (Appendix 2)
also has the following headings:
• Using ICTs for Teaching and Learning — these questions focus on staff’s use of
digital resources, open educational resources (OER) and other technologies, as well as
training, staff development and policy issues.
• Using ICTs for Research and Scholarship — these questions are about the use of
online library resources and institutional digital research resources, services and spaces.
• Institutional Preparedness for TEL — the extent to which the organisation and its
structures/processes and human resources are prepared for TEL.
You will need to determine exactly when and how these questionnaires should be used in
order to harvest the greatest amount of useful information. Each questionnaire contains a large
number of questions, so you will need to ensure meticulous data entry and processing of the
responses received. Similarly, the reporting of the findings should accurately and adequately
reflect the responses received, and attention should be drawn to any potential biases (positive
or negative) arising from the response rates and over- or under-representation of identifiable
sub-groups of respondents (e.g. gender, age, location, socio-economic status, etc.). Guidance
on interpreting the data collected for the institutional preparedness for TEL is provided in
Appendix 4.
You might find it helpful to relate the survey results from your own institution to findings from
similar institutions (where these are available) and other reliable sources (e.g. national data).
It is important to relate your survey findings to what is already known by other means. For
example, the survey of the existing environment within an institution (Appendix 3) explores
the existence of policies, strategies, etc., that might relate to the implementation of TEL. In
addition, however, there is a need to review all existing policies and strategies (including those
relating to access, diversity, assessment, plagiarism, etc.) in terms of their adequacy and potential
consequences. For example, what impact might the increased use of TEL have on institutional
aspirations relating to access and diversity among the student body? What changes to assessment
policies might be necessary in the light of increased use of TEL?
To what extent is the introduction or expansion of TEL likely to have an impact on each of
the relevant policies and strategies in your institution?
• Ones that might be affected by the introduction of TEL could relate to teaching
and learning, assessment, plagiarism, access and accessibility, use of technology and
infrastructure (by both staff and students), library and academic support, academic
professional development, academic promotions and rewards, or accommodation,
for example.
What are the main changes (if any) that need to be made to each relevant policy or strategy
document?
What procedures or mechanisms need to be used to ensure that the necessary changes are
made to each relevant policy or strategy document?
Does it seem likely that the introduction or expansion of TEL will mean additional policies
or strategies might need to be developed for your institution? (For example, do you
already have a Computing Code of Conduct for staff and students?)
The survey of the existing environment within an institution (Appendix 3) also elicits
information about the current provision of hardware and software and the digital infrastructure
that is available to be used for teaching and learning. However, before it can be used, this
information needs to be audited to verify the actual availability of resources and infrastructure in
order to answer questions such as:
• How much equipment is in full working order with an up-to-date operating system
and software?
• How evenly is the equipment distributed throughout the institution? Are there any
areas with very little equipment and infrastructure?
• How adequate is the internal network (or networks) and can the anticipated usage be
accommodated in a sustainable manner?
• What level of simultaneous access and use can be sustained by the institutional
intranet? (If there is currently no institution-wide intranet, what level of simultaneous
access is anticipated?)
• What software licence agreements are in place? Are they sufficient for the anticipated
levels of use throughout the institution?
• How adequate are the online security measures in relation to non-authorised users, the
potential for plagiarism, etc.?
• Are the existing learning spaces within the institution suitable for TEL? How well-
equipped are they?
In parallel with the audit, you will need to discuss the extent to which the institution will take
responsibility for the provision and maintenance of suitable equipment and software for use by
students (in computer labs, libraries, etc.). Will students be expected to provide and use their
own equipment and software?
When you have a better picture of the actual provision of resources and infrastructure within
your organisation (from the survey and any additional audit) you will be in a better position
to determine your additional needs — physical spaces as well as technology and technical
infrastructure. You will need to consider long-term as well as immediate needs. For example,
think not only about any adaptations to existing learning spaces that might be necessary (e.g.
modifying lecture rooms, offices, residential accommodation), but also about the adequacy and
appropriateness of those spaces for different forms of teaching and learning that might arise
with greater use of TEL. If some presentational teaching will involve a form of TEL that gives
students some freedom in terms of where and when they learn, there might be less demand for
lecture rooms and a greater requirement for spaces in which smaller groups can meet to discuss
issues; work collaboratively on activities, problems or projects; or practise newly acquired skills,
for example.
The principal goal of education is to create men and women who are capable of doing new
things, not simply repeating what other generations have done.
Jean Piaget
Different institutions are likely to have many contextual differences and hence be at different
stages of developing institutional stakeholders (including teaching staff, academic support
staff, academic managers and students). Some institutions might be in the initial stages of this,
engaging stakeholders at an individual level; others might be doing things at a departmental
or institutional level. Some TEL implementations may encompass more comprehensive,
institution-wide TEL systems approaches. Whatever the context, however, it is vital to make all
stakeholders aware of — and hopefully engaged with — the forthcoming changes. This needs
to be done without anyone feeling that significant changes are being imposed upon them.
Accordingly, it is crucial to provide staff and students with opportunities to contribute to
the process.
What are (or could be) the strengths of using TEL in the department or faculty?
For example, making use of audiovisual and other non-text resources for topics or
disciplines in which these can make an important contribution to teaching and learning.
What are (or could be) the weaknesses of using TEL in the department or faculty?
For example, potentially reduced opportunities for students living on campus to work
together on problems or projects.
Exercise
Another useful exercise would involve getting teaching staff and academic managers to
develop a Vision of the Future: working together to create a shared view of what the
department or faculty might be like in five to ten years’ time with regard to teaching and
learning. This would need to take account of:
One way of raising awareness among teaching staff and actively engaging them with the
potential of TEL is to arrange for a number of academics from within your institution (and/
The implementation or expansion of TEL might necessitate the introduction of different ways
of developing courses and modules, with increased teamwork to maximise the effectiveness of
the processes. Each team might include several teachers as subject experts who develop materials
and resources in collaboration with specialists in media, Web and pedagogical design.
Exercises like the ones outlined earlier in this section are likely to reveal that departments or
faculties in your institution have different ideas about the role that they imagine TEL will play.
And not only will some be more enthusiastic than others about TEL, but also the precise ways
in which they use various tools and features will probably vary. For example, some departments
might welcome new presentational facilities; others might favour increased opportunities for
student communicative activities and formative assessment. While it is appropriate to have such
hopes and expectations for sound educational reasons (relating to the characteristics of the
subject and the students), there is a need to ensure that they do not conflict with institutional
aims and goals.
Senior academic managers must determine what level of uniformity or variation can be
sustained. Operational and economic factors will, most likely, favour minimal variations between
different academic areas (with one common set of features for all). However, differences
between subject areas (e.g. theoretical or applied, laboratory-based or people-based, etc.) will
need to be recognised and accommodated.
Reporting structure
Council/Board of
Governors
Senate
University
Information University Teaching/
Technology Education Committee
Committee
Figure 3.1 Example of a governance structure that enables TEL information flows, decision making
and actions
The best way to scrutinise TEL policies for their adequacy and fitness for purpose is through
having staff implement them in practice. Such an approach provides a helpful means of testing
the viability of any particular initiative. This can be orchestrated through a TEL “super-users
group,” comprising those who are most closely and regularly engaged with TEL activities.
Alternatively, it could be extended to a wider audience, depending upon the initiatives in your
institution.
Students can also be drafted onto a user panel or super-users group that can be employed as a
sounding board for new initiatives or interventions. Like staff, students need to experience the
impact of particular TEL initiatives or be provided with information regarding the likely impact.
Exercise
What are the relevant existing groups and reporting lines in your institution?
What are the existing mechanisms for reporting up to senior management as well as down to
user groups?
How well does this work in terms of information flows that contribute to the development
of TEL capacity in your institution?
What changes, if any, do you think would be necessary to these existing structures to
improve or strengthen their effectiveness?
We also need to consider what basis we use for making judgments about what qualifies as
“good” for teaching and learning (Kirkwood & Price, 2013b, 2015). For example, why is
technology-supported learning successful in actively engaging students in some cases but not in
others? What is informing the design of successful learning experiences with technologies that is
missing from those that are less successful (Kirkwood & Price, 2012; Price & Kirkwood, 2014)?
University teachers’ views of technology fundamentally influence how they use it and what they
consider to be a successful use of it (Kirkwood & Price, 2005). As higher education institutions
strive to embrace technology, it is important to recognise how teachers’ beliefs about teaching
influence how they actually practise their profession. Hence, we refrain from simply referring
to this as “staff development,” as what is required is the holistic development of a culture that
encompasses many components. All those components need to be aligned to fundamentally
address how institutional cultures consider and value good quality teaching and learning
with technology.
Historically, prominence has been given to technology — and in some cases this has led to
pedagogical neglect (Becker & Jokivirta, 2007; Beetham & Sharpe, 2007; Conole et al., 2008;
Katz, 2010; Kirkwood & Price, 2005). The shift to developing scholarly approaches requires
initiatives that seek to educate and develop teachers in a way that enables them to reflect on
their innermost beliefs about teaching, as those beliefs influence much of what they do in
practice. It is also important to develop a space where they can learn the craft of being scholarly.
That is:
• how they can use those insights, together with the research and developments of
others, in an appropriate and purposeful way in order to improve their own teaching.
Part of this armoury requires teachers to also understand how to make value judgments about
relative successes or failures and what evidence is appropriate to use in either situation to help
them make those judgments.
If there are existing applications of TEL in your institution, to what extent have scholarly
principles been applied to their design and implementation?
To what extent have scholarly principles been applied in evaluating those TEL applications?
Exercise
How does your institution recognise scholarship activities relating to TEL in its rewards and
promotions criteria?
What kind of advocacy is provided for TEL projects: e.g. what arrangements are made for
study leave or reduced teaching duties to provide time to undertake these activities?
What kind of professional recognition or pedagogical qualifications are in place for academic
staff and how well do they align with TEL activities?
What are the mechanisms and support structures for sharing scholarship activities within the
institution?
How well do all of the above activities align and support one another in your institution?
A scholarly approach to TEL enables staff to discuss innovations and interventions that have
had an impact on teaching and learning, as opposed to focusing on the relative merits of the
technology per se. Transforming teaching and learning with technology is complex. It requires
sophisticated thinking about:
Hence, it is important to gather and showcase robust evidence in order to facilitate knowledge
exchange among teaching staff and the institution as a whole. Such evidence provides a firm
basis upon which to design uses of technology that will improve the student learning experience
as effectively as possible. Here are some things to consider in relation to evidencing TEL for
academics and policy makers:
Just as you can learn from the reported experiences of others, so too can the academic
community benefit from examining any evidence generated from interventions with which
you are involved. Whatever means are used to share evidence with others (report, case study,
etc.), the benefits will be easier to comprehend for those not involved with the intervention
if sufficient contextual details are provided. We suggest that the following questions be
answered for that purpose:
• What was the teaching and learning concern or issue being addressed by the
intervention?
• Why did you need to engage with it? How was the pre-existing situation to be
improved?
• What evidence was used to drive or support the design of the intervention?
• What was the nature of the evaluation undertaken and/or the evidence gathered?
• What was the impact of the intervention (on students’ learning/on teaching
practice/on others’ activities)?
• How successful was the intervention at addressing the issue identified at the outset?
Departmental and institutional factors can be just as important as the knowledge and skills
of individual academics, so professional development activities should also focus on relevant
middle and senior managers — those who need to make informed decisions if institutional
policies and strategies are to be implemented effectively.
Policy makers need to be clear about the aims of and purposes for using technologies in
support of learning and teaching. Achieving effective interventions has implications for many
different aspects of an institution’s culture.
In Section 4 we suggest a number of policy areas to review (and revise, if necessary) in order to
develop a positive and progressive culture for embedding effective TEL initiatives.
Having developed supportive TEL policies that enable the gathering of robust and scholarly
TEL evidence, how is that process going to be managed? A TEL repository, through which
TEL knowledge and experiences can be shared, reflects the value that an institution places
on such activities and the extent to which it is prepared to invest in them. So, how does your
institution manage its TEL repository?
Exercise
What mechanisms are in place in your institution for recording and evidencing TEL activities
and interventions in a scholarly manner?
How do you share your TEL scholarship activities within your institution?
What mechanisms or procedures are in place to promote the creation and sharing of OER
within your institution?
This mixed method approach to gathering data enables an understanding of the range of
and variation in student opinions and experience and representativeness of data collected.
In particular, the learning analytics data can help to identify students at risk through low
engagement with TEL.
Setting up regular focus groups gives students a voice to express their experiences of using
technology — particularly with new technological interventions or initiatives. This can provide
an early warning about interventions that are not going well and that may need swift and
remedial action.
After the TEL intervention has been embedded, surveys provide management with information
about how students reacted to and evaluated particular TEL experiences.
At a more individual student-oriented level, learning analytics data provide live dynamic data
about students’ current progress. This can enable course or module leaders and teachers to
understand how much students are using particular TEL initiatives. This is particularly true
of learning analytics that can be gleaned from VLEs. Most contemporary VLEs have built-in
mechanisms that automatically provide data about student engagement with their module.
This can enable early identification of “at-risk” students. Lack of activity in a VLE typically
reflects lack of engagement, which in turn tends to lead to dropout or failure (Papamitsiou &
Economides, 2014). Hence, identifying at-risk students early can allow remedial strategies to be
put in place to help prevent students from dropping out.
Reporting findings such as these, along with suggested actions, in reports and committee
papers that go through the governance structure is imperative if TEL is to be acted upon in
an evidence-based manner. Otherwise, management decisions will be based on opinion and
experience — which may not reflect the reality of a situation. Having a clear structure and line
Exercise
What processes are in place in your institution for gathering information from students
about their experiences with TEL?
What is the nature of the information that is gathered about students’ experiences of TEL?
How is this relayed into management decision making and policy development?
What next?
In Section 4 we consider the development of institutional policies and strategies for TEL.
Before these can be developed and introduced in a meaningful way, however, it is necessary
to examine differences in teachers’ and learners’ assumptions about and expectations of
educational processes — with or without TEL. Many fundamental terms that are often taken
for granted can actually be interpreted in a variety of ways, so they need to be discussed
explicitly in order to minimise misunderstandings and to facilitate agreed-upon courses of
action being shared within an institution. The next section also considers benefits that can
potentially be derived from the use (and creation) of OER within an institution.
Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted.
Aldous Huxley
Introduction
Before considering the drafting (or redrafting) of policies and strategies for TEL that are
appropriate for your institution, we recommend that you spend some time examining
some of the factors that are rarely discussed because they are taken for granted. Many
fundamental elements of the educational process are contentious; they are open to variations in
interpretation, which — if ignored — can result in misunderstanding, frustration and unrealised
goals.
Teachers with those varying conceptions of teaching will similarly view learning in different
ways (Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001; Trigwell, Prosser & Waterhouse, 1999).
• telling them what they need to know and understand for assessment purposes.
• memorising information in order to pass the course (and possibly use in their
working life), and
• changing the ways in which they think about and understand aspects of their subject
and real-world issues and problems.
Of course, these are only a few of the many ways in which teaching and learning are understood
by those directly involved in those processes. Many of them are incompatible with one another.
In particular, learning might be considered as being:
Either Or
About quantitative change About qualitative change
About acquisition About participation
A solitary activity A social activity
Much educational benefit can be gained from NOT taking these terms for granted: in any
educational context, it will be possible to improve clarity and to develop a shared understanding
by explicitly examining the conceptions of all those involved in these processes. This is essential
when it comes to using TEL, because:
• students might make use of the TEL materials, resources and activities without a
teacher present to explain precisely what learners are expected to do and why, so
the educational rationale needs to be conveyed as part of the teaching/learning
activity itself.
When they consider how digital technologies could be used to support teaching and learning
in higher education, some teachers think primarily about content or materials. They see TEL
in terms of the capacity to store and deliver teaching materials (text, pictures or diagrams,
sounds, moving images) digitally, or its potential role in finding and retrieving resources (e.g.
from specialist repositories or through open searching of the Web). Other teachers think of
TEL primarily in terms of the communication that it can facilitate (teacher-student or student-
student) and the dialogue that can be enabled — either synchronously or asynchronously.
These two positions can be related to general conceptions of teaching in which the teaching
process is seen as being principally concerned with either “the transmission of knowledge”
(teacher-centred) or “the facilitation of learning” (learner-centred) (Kember & Kwan, 2000).
Exercise
One way of getting teachers — in departmental or faculty groups — to express their views
about the nature of teaching and learning is to invite them to list what they consider to
be the advantages and disadvantages of TEL for both their teaching practices and their
students’ learning. Their responses will indicate the focus of their attention, and differences
within the group could stimulate discussions about their different concerns.
The issue here is that many students may fail to understand the underlying purpose of some
educational activities designed by their teachers, particularly in relation to technology use.
While many young people make frequent use of the Web, when it comes to educational tasks
it is very often regarded simply as a source of information. Even in technology-rich societies,
new students often have very restricted expectations about how technology might contribute
to their learning at university. Teachers in higher education cannot assume that their students
already possess the necessary intellectual skills for effective use of technology in their studies.
It is a mistake to confuse young people being good with technology with appropriate uses of
technology for intellectual development (Jones, Ramanau, Cross & Healing, 2010).
Often, teachers and academic managers think that if any particular digital tool or technology is
introduced to support teaching and learning, the desired outcomes will automatically follow.
So, for example, an online forum, a wiki or a shared blog might be made available as a course
component to support discussion and collaboration among students. However, the actual
ways in which those tools might be used, by both teachers and students, will owe more to the
users’ views about what constitutes teaching and learning (and their expectations of these based
upon previous experience) than to the technology or tool itself. Students are unlikely to start
collaborating with their peers — no matter what tool is introduced — if the course assessment
scheme discourages (or punishes) students who co-operate or collaborate on assignments. Only
where it is made clear that constructive group work will be rewarded by the assessment scheme
is such an innovation likely to have some success.
For example, an attempt in one institution to employ wikis to promote collaborative student
learning groups had limited success because the use of that tool was not sufficient to counteract
some students’ preference for working alone rather than as part of a team (Elgort, Smith &
Toland, 2008). Similarly, Downing, Lam, Kwong, Downing and Chan reported that their
students’ technology-enabled interaction and collaborative activity “was tempered by the need
to get a good individual grade in their final assignment” (2007, p. 211).
In fact, many writers have emphasised the fundamental link between assessment and student
learning behaviours and demonstrated that the study behaviour of most students is informed —
or driven — by assessment requirements (Kirkwood & Price, 2008). The actual, or expected,
assessment format of a course will determine not only what parts of the teaching students will
attend to (topics, activities and components), but also the manner in which they will attend
to it (memorisation of facts or developing a deeper understanding). Gibbs advised us that
“assessment is the most powerful lever teachers have to influence the way students respond to
courses and behave as learners” (1999, p. 41).
Increased opportunities for communication can not only help overcome feelings of isolation,
but also add important new dimensions to the educational experience of distance learners
studying largely by themselves. However, achieving such benefits requires more than a simple
technical fix. When courses have been designed for presentation to several cohorts of distance
learners over time and use a transmissive approach (i.e. written and/or recorded materials that
aim to impart to learners all that they require to pass the course), it is particularly difficult to
introduce significant changes to the model of teaching and learning. When digital tools and
resources are added to a pre-existing course, their use by learners is likely to be very limited,
and even then only in keeping with the teaching and learning practices originally conceived for
the course.
In contrast, when technology is pedagogically integrated within course design, it can enable and
support more active forms of learning. For example, if students are required to work in small
groups on a collaborative task, using the Internet to find information resources and online tools
to communicate with their peers and create a joint project that is assessed appropriately, then
the use of TEL has a clear pedagogic role. Initiatives of this kind, however, are less common
than the more superficial uses of ICT that tend to be bolted on to existing course designs.
Providing students with access to online library resources is an innovation that might be
undertaken for a variety of reasons. If students are home-based or located in many dispersed
locations, they might otherwise have no access to good library resources. In this case, TEL
offers learners an additional educational source for their studies. If the students are primarily
campus-based, providing access to online library resources might simply increase the ease with
which they can use those resources. Such a move might increase costs without changing the
fundamental nature of the educational opportunities offered, though; it might simply result in
fewer visits to the library building.
In contrast, “doing better things” involves using TEL to provide learning opportunities
that were not available previously. Usually, this would involve more than replicating existing
teaching practices, focusing instead on developing qualitative changes in students’ learning. In
the context of higher education, these might include, for example, designing learning activities
involving technology aimed at enabling students to:
• Develop and deepen knowledge and understanding, not simply in terms of knowing
more (facts, principles, procedures, etc.), but also of knowing differently (more
elaborate conceptions, theoretical understanding, etc.).
• “Learn how to learn” to develop greater self-direction and the capacity — and
aspiration — to continue learning throughout life.
• Develop a range of “generic” or “life” skills. For example, critical thinking and
discernment, and the ability to cope with uncertainty, communicate appropriately with
different audiences, work effectively with other people and reflect on practices, etc.
Ideally, any course or module would contain a mix of different types of teaching activity
(and associated learning activities), rather than just one or two from the list above. The exact
combination and proportion of each will, of course, depend upon a wide range of factors, and
teachers can develop the design that best meets their particular pedagogical needs and context.
Exercise
You could invite teachers in your institution to review the modules or courses for which they
are currently responsible in terms of the teaching and learning activities involved (see
the box above).
What proportion of study time do they expect students to spend on each of the categories?
Are the proportions in line with what the teacher expected? If not, why?
Are the proportions about right to enable students to achieve the desired learning outcomes
(e.g. practising and demonstrating the necessary knowledge and skills)? If not, what
changes would need to be made to achieve a better balance of types of teaching and
learning activities?
If several teachers are responsible for teaching a particular course or module, how do they
ensure that an appropriate balance is achieved in the types of teaching and learning
activities across the whole course or module?
Those who associated teaching with the transmission of knowledge, where students
had to acquire a well-defined body of knowledge, were most anxious to develop more
sophisticated skills to facilitate the transmission. Those who associated teaching with
facilitating learning were anxious to understand and conceptualize the learning process, to
help their students. (Nicholls, 2005, p. 621)
This is often evident when institutions adopt professional development programmes that focus
primarily on teaching “how to” approaches with digital technologies and tools. A more effective
approach involves engaging teachers in activities that support them in reflecting upon and
reconsidering their deeply held beliefs about teaching, while offering realistic alternatives for
them to consider. We return to this in Section 5.
Numerous specialist digital repositories, databases and collections are maintained by bodies such
as learned societies, professional bodies, museums and galleries, universities, research institutes,
and governmental and non-governmental agencies. These resources are usually from credible
and reputable sources. However, access to them is often restricted and protected, although
educational institutions can usually make arrangements for their staff and students to have the
right to use them for educational purposes. Within educational institutions, the library staff will
normally have responsibility for arranging access to external digital resources, as well as to e-book
A very wide range of resources and materials, created by educators around the world, already
exists and might be suitable for use by the teachers and students in your institution. When
redesigning your courses or modules to make optimum use of TEL, it is worth considering the
potential for making use of OER. You might also consider creating some OER that could be
shared within your own institution and/or by other educators in your country or throughout
the world.
If you are not sure what OER encompasses, these definitions (with examples) should
provide clarification:
Digitised materials offered freely and openly for educators, students and self-learners to use
and re-use for teaching, learning and research. (OECD, 2007, p. 10)
Open Educational Resources (OER) are teaching and learning materials that are freely
available online for everyone to use, whether you are an instructor, student or self-learner.
Examples of OER include: full courses, course modules, syllabi, lectures, homework
assignments, quizzes, lab and classroom activities, pedagogical materials, games,
simulations, and many more resources contained in digital media collections from around
the world. (OER Commons, n.d.)
If you need further information about the potential benefits and disadvantages of using OER,
you could look at the following sources:
UNESCO and the Commonwealth of Learning (2011), A Basic Guide to Open Educational
Resources (OER).1
COL has developed a short course called Understanding Open Educational Resources
(requiring about two hours of study time) that can be accessed at COL’s Technology-
Enabled Learning Lounge.3 The course is open and does not require any user ID or
password. Users can print a certificate of completion for the course.
With many thousands of OER available from institutions across the world, it might seem
difficult to know where to look for suitable resources. Fortunately, a number of specialist search
engines have been developed to assist in this process. Here are some of them: 1 2 3
1
http://hdl.handle.net/11599/36
2
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/open-educational-resources_9789264247543-en;jsessionid=61bdilpi0l6oc.
x-oecd-live-02
3
http://tell.colvee.org
OER Commons5 – “Find Free-to-Use Teaching and Learning Content from around the
World. Organize K-12 Lessons, College Courses, and more.”
Temoa7 – “A knowledge hub that eases a public and multilingual catalog of Open
Educational Resources (OER) which aims to support the education community to find those
resources and materials that meet their needs for teaching and learning through a specialized
and collaborative search system and social tools.”
Of course, in the spirit of the “open” movement, OER are not just things that you find, adapt
and use for your own teaching. They are also things that you create and make available for other
people to find, adapt and use. Institutions need to develop appropriate policies and strategies
not only to encourage their teachers to make use of OER, but also to develop their own OER
that can be shared with educators and learners around the world. 4 5 6 7 8
Exercise
Would your institution like to see more teachers making use of OER? Why is it considered
useful to do so?
What guidance and support does your institution currently provide to teachers relating to
(a) finding, adapting and using OER, and (b) developing OER?
Are there plans to extend (or provide) such guidance and support in your institution?
A draft institutional OER Policy Template9 that can be used by institutions is available on the
4
http://www.jorum.ac.uk
5
https://www.oercommons.org
6
http://doer.col.org
7
http://www.temoa.info
8
http://www.open.edu/openlearn
9
http://cemca.org.in/ckfinder/userfiles/files/DRAFT%20OER%20POLICY%20template_revised.odt
Students in schools, colleges and universities already use digital technologies to support and
enhance their studies, even if this is not officially encouraged by the institution or required by
the curriculum. More often than not, an Internet search engine such as Google is the preferred
starting point for many learners when they are looking for information, and online resources
such as Wikipedia are referred to frequently. However, few students possess the evaluative
skills necessary to select the most trustworthy and appropriate sources for their particular
educational purpose. In fact, new students often have very restricted expectations about how
technology might contribute to their learning at university: “We cannot assume that being
a member of the ‘Net Generation’ is synonymous with knowing how to employ technology
based tools strategically to optimise learning experiences in university settings” (Kennedy, Judd,
Churchward, Gray & Krause, 2008, pp. 117–18).
Institutions must therefore ensure that teachers (and others providing student support) take
responsibility for making certain that learners acquire the digital literacy skills necessary for
learning effectively. All academic programmes within an institution should help students to
develop approaches to using TEL that are appropriate and necessary for the level of study. The
process should involve explicit reference to the educational purposes of less familiar learning
activities and an exploration of how technologies and tools could contribute effectively to
achieving the desired outcomes.
Would your institution like to see learners making use of TEL to a greater extent? Why do
senior managers and teachers in your institution consider it advantageous for them to
do so?
What guidance and support does your institution currently provide to learners relating to (a)
the technical skills required for effective use of TEL, and (b) the intellectual skills and
digital literacy necessary for effective use of TEL?
Are there plans to extend (or provide) such guidance and support?
Where underlying assumptions about educational processes have been questioned and re-
examined, a need for improvement in teaching and learning practices has often been identified.
Digital technologies are viewed not simply as providing a delivery mechanism, but as supporting
changes in how university teaching and learning are undertaken to better prepare learners for
the modern world (Kirkwood & Price, 2012).
For this reason, it is not enough for TEL policies and strategies to focus primarily on technical
issues; all aspects of teaching and learning — and the many complex factors that influence them
— need to be taken into account.
University policy makers, managers and teachers need to take a very broad view when
considering the consequences of adopting TEL at departmental, faculty and institutional levels.
This involves identifying and specifying the aims and purposes of using TEL to support teaching
and learning, bearing in mind that terms such as these are open to a variety of interpretations
by those involved. Further, changes in any one organisational area are likely to cause changes in
• Policies for infrastructure and technical support — ensuring that staff responsible
for teaching, administering and supporting student learning are experienced, proficient
and up to date in the use of technologies.
• Policies and strategies relating to student assessment — tasks that are assigned
to assess students (a) should require students to demonstrate personal understanding
rather than primarily repeating or reproducing facts or information, and (b) should
not be exclusively competitive/individualistic, but should align with the nature of the
activities undertaken (increasingly social, interactive and collaborative).
• Policies and strategies for developing students’ digital literacy — ensuring that
students acquire and practise the intellectual skills as well as the operational abilities
necessary for using technologies and the associated tools in pursuit of educational
goals and purposes.
Drafting an integrated TEL policy and associated strategies requires all these aspects to be
examined and discussed. Ultimately, all stakeholders in the institution should debate them. It is
likely that some existing institutional policies will need to be amended to enable some potential
benefits of TEL — for students, teachers and the institution as a whole — to be realised. (This
is why it is essential that institutional goals and aims be discussed and agreed on early in the
implementation process.)
A TEL policy template is presented in outline form in Appendix 5. It lists a number of key
sections and sub-sections that should be included: only headings and examples are provided
The most appropriate means of discussing and refining the draft TEL (and related) policies
and strategies will vary between institutions. Consequently, the manner in which agreement is
reached and approval is achieved within an institution will also vary.
Exercise
Within your institution, what is the most appropriate means of discussing and refining draft
TEL (and related) policies and strategies? Should an institution-wide representative
group be established for the purpose of doing this, or would existing groups or
committees be better placed to undertake the task?
What would be the most appropriate mechanism for ensuring that all stakeholders have an
opportunity to consider and respond to the draft proposals?
What institutional body would have ultimate responsibility for approving the proposals?
What other boards or committees would need to be involved in the approval
procedure?
What mechanisms (if any) would need to be established to (a) review the implementation
process and (b) update and reconsider the various policies and strategies relating to
TEL within a reasonable time (one or two years?) after the implementation has been
embedded?
What next?
In the final section — Section 5 — we consider mechanisms and procedures that can
help with the implementation of institutional policies and strategies. We look at some
issues relating to the technology infrastructure and the technical training necessary for all
categories of staff involved. More importantly, we reflect upon the necessity for educational
and pedagogical capacity building and professional development to enable academic
teachers and their students to make effective use of TEL. Finally, we look at monitoring and
evaluation procedures that can help you determine how successfully TEL is being used in
your institution, and also identify where materials, processes or practices would benefit from
being modified.
Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot
change anything.
George Bernard Shaw
• servers for student services (communications, project work, sharing facilities, etc.), and
In addition to the physical infrastructure, the institution will need to provide technical assistance
and support mechanisms — both initial and ongoing — to academic and administrative staff
and for dealing with breakdowns and difficulties. Students will also need technical support
and assistance. The more an institution embraces TEL, the more likely it is that students will
expect to have access to the academic systems at any time of the day. The implications of this
will vary from institution to institution, and much will depend upon the nature of the students.
For example, students in remote locations might be in different time zones, while those in
employment will most probably study when they are not at work.
If you have conducted the Questionnaire on Faculty Use of Technology for Teaching and
Learning (see Appendix 2), you will know how much experience the academic staff already
have. However, even if teachers have considerable familiarity with using technology for certain
tasks, they might have no previous knowledge of the system your institution has chosen to
Exercise
In your institution, what advantages and disadvantages do you think will be associated with
institution-wide technical training (e.g. convenience, costs, timeliness, coverage, etc.)?
(The responses to the questionnaire for academic staff might provide some insights for
this exercise.)
What advantages and disadvantages are likely to be associated with technical training
undertaken at a departmental or faculty level?
What advantages and disadvantages are likely to be associated with technical training
arranged for specific modules or courses?
• Academic teachers will need to know how best to use TEL for their pedagogical
purposes.
• Middle managers will need to understand the implications for the curriculum and
resources at a departmental or faculty level.
• Senior managers will need to appreciate the implications of TEL policies and strategies
for students, staff and resources.
• Academic support staff will need to consider how best to help and advise teachers and
learners in order to maximise the potential benefits of TEL.
The nature of the professional development activities will be different for different stakeholder
groups, but they should all be planned in a manner that draws together common threads and
shared concerns in order to advance the institution’s goals for implementing TEL. Table 5.1
presents a framework for developing an integrated strategy for the continuing professional
development (CPD) of different academic groups.
Table 5.1. A framework for continuing professional development (CPD) for teaching and learning with
technology
If the existing academic beliefs and practices of teachers remain unchallenged, teachers are much
more likely to use technology in ways that replicate and support their current teaching methods.
Too often, teachers view technology as simply a means of delivering information. Convincing
teachers to consider moving beyond merely replicating traditional classroom practices
requires much more than “how to” guidance. It requires development activities that provide
encouragement and opportunities to engage in pedagogical problem solving and discovery
about teaching with technology — activities that are informed by a deeper understanding of the
learning and teaching processes (Kreber & Kanuka, 2006).
Further, academic professional development activities need to look beyond the individual
teacher. They also need to address the predominant culture within an organisation (Knight &
Trowler, 2000). Bringing about changes in teaching practices through the use of technology
(often cited as an institutional aim or goal) is not solely the responsibility of individual academic
teachers. Organisational structures and the context and environment within which academics
have to practise exert considerable influence on how teachers undertake their teaching (Price
& Kirkwood, 2008). For example, a lack of congruence has been found between teachers’
beliefs — what they think teaching should be about — and their actual teaching practices
(Norton et al., 2005). Such differences seem to result from contextual factors that require an
individual teacher’s practices to conform to the dominant teaching culture within a department
or institution. Transforming how teachers teach in order to improve the quality of the student
learning experience is the responsibility of the whole institution (Knight, Tait & Yorke, 2006).
This is particularly the case when it comes to teaching with technology.
In Section 4 we mentioned that students’ expectations and conceptions of teaching and learning
in higher education might not be aligned with their teachers’ beliefs about those processes.
Furthermore, studies undertaken in a number of technology-rich western countries (see, for
example, Bennett, Maton & Kervin, 2008; Helsper & Eynon, 2009; Jelfs & Richardson, 2013;
Jones, Ramanau, Cross & Healing, 2010; Kennedy et al., 2008) fail to support claims that
“digital natives” or the “Net generation” are already well prepared for learning with technology.
The findings indicate that those claims fail to take account of the considerable differences
between technical skills and competency (which many young people are found to have) and the
intellectual skills necessary for effective use of technology for educational purposes (which most
do not have).
For example, young people entering higher education regularly use a search engine like Google
or a source like Wikipedia to find information about or resources for a topic of interest, but they
often lack the evaluative skills to select the most trustworthy and appropriate sources for their
particular academic purpose.
Exercise
What do you know about the experience of your institution’s students (and potential
students) with using technology for educational purposes. (The responses to the
questionnaire for students might provide some insights for this exercise.)
What do you think could be provided to develop students’ digital literacy at an institutional
level, e.g. by a library or similar unit?
What could be provided to develop students’ digital literacy within academic programmes,
courses or modules?
There are many reasons why it is important to monitor and evaluate TEL developments in
terms of their use by both students and staff.
For example, monitoring can determine whether students have used the technology as expected
by those designing learning sequences and activities. If they have used the technology, have
the anticipated learning processes and/or outcomes been achieved? If they have not used the
technology as expected, what changes or remedial measures can be put in place to rectify the
situation for current or future students?
• determining the extent of use of the TEL infrastructure, tools, resources, etc., by
students and staff (on an individual or a course/module basis),
• determining whether students’ extent and pattern of use of TEL materials and
resources match the teachers’ expectations,
• establishing which students (and staff) are making little or no use of TEL materials and
resources, and
• ascertaining which TEL materials and resources could benefit from amendment,
revision or improvement.
• establishing how well TEL materials and resources have enabled students to achieve
the learning outcomes of a module or course (and possibly identifying any elements
that would benefit from revision),
Mechanisms and procedures should be established for monitoring TEL developments within
a department, faculty or whole institution — but note that the particular circumstances of
an institution will facilitate or limit the use of specific techniques for collecting evaluative
information.
Many VLEs or LMS can produce data and statistics on the use of the various materials,
resources, tools, etc. — simple quantitative data such as the number of site visits, logon
duration or pages visited — but turning those data into useful information — data analytics —
will require educational judgments to be made by teachers and managers of the systems. The
system data can link a unique user (i.e. a student or staff member) with visits to individual Web
pages or tools, but the interpretation of the data derived might entail apportioning that raw
data into meaningful sub-divisions. For example, what is the minimum length of time that a
user needs to be visiting a Web page in order to gain something from it, rather than just clicking
through to another page? Does the system differentiate between different elements within the
same Web page (e.g. an activity rather than reading matter)?
More importantly, data on visits to TEL Web pages or tools provide no information about
what the user actually did during that visit: quantitative data tell us nothing about the types
of interactions or activities with which learners (and teachers) are engaging. The data cannot
tell us whether a student undertook a specific learning activity unless that activity is associated
with a separate Web page or pages. If a student “visits” a discussion forum, the data probably
cannot tell us whether the student simply read the postings, responded to postings they read
or initiated a new discussion thread. Similarly, data on visits to a wiki or a blog do not indicate
the nature of the activity undertaken — you would need to analyse the entries on those tools
to understand what students were actually doing. So, while the data might help you to discover
what proportion of students had ever (or never) used a resource or tool, they provide no
qualitative information about the activity undertaken during visits.
N.B. There are many ethical issues that need to be considered if TEL data enable individual
students or teachers to be identified. Concerns are much less likely to be expressed when
group data are presented (e.g. a course group as a whole).
Exercise
Can you list the types of routine information that could be used for monitoring and
evaluation purposes in your institution (e.g. student demographics, assignment
submission rates, grades attained by students, usage data from a VLE, etc.)?
What additional sources of information (quantitative and/or qualitative) would be useful for
evaluating TEL developments in your institution?
Who would be responsible for collecting and analysing such data and information in your
institution (e.g. individual teachers, each department/faculty, an administrative unit
with institution-wide responsibility)?
What mechanisms would need to be put in place in your institution to ensure (a) adequate
monitoring and evaluation of academic programmes, courses or modules, and (b) that
the findings of such studies are acted upon to improve TEL projects?
To optimise the sharing of lessons learned from evaluation studies, procedures should be
developed for the documentation of findings and the sharing of outcomes within the institution
(and possibly more widely).
Baran, E., Correia, A.-P., & Thompson, A. (2011). Transforming online teaching practice:
Critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers.
Distance Education, 32, 321–439.
Bates, T. (2012). What’s right and what’s wrong about Coursera-style MOOCs? Retrieved from
http://www.tonybates.ca/2012/08/05/whats-right-and-whats-wrong-about-coursera-
style-mooc
Becker, R., & Jokivirta, L. (2007, Spring). Online learning in universities: Selected data from
the 2006 Observatory Survey. Retrieved from http://www.obhe.ac.uk/documents/
view_details?id=15
Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (2007). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and
delivering e-learning. London: Routledge.
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The “digital natives” debate: A critical review of
the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 775–786.
Benson, R., & Brack, C. (2009). Developing the scholarship of teaching: What is the role of
e-teaching and learning? Teaching in Higher Education, 14, 71–80.
Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.). Buckingham: SRHE and
the Open University Press.
Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices?
Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers and
Education, 50, 475–490.
Brown, S., & Knight, P. (1994). Assessing learners in higher education. London: Kogan Page.
Carroll, J. (2007). A handbook for deterring plagiarism in higher education (2nd ed.). Oxford:
The Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford Brookes University.
Conole, G., Brasher, A., Cross, S., Weller, M., Clark, P., & Culver, J. (2008). Visualising
learning design to foster and support good practice and creativity. Educational Media
International, 45(3), 177–194.
Downing, K., Lam, T.-F., Kwong, T., Downing, W.-K., & Chan, S.-W. (2007). Creating
interaction in online learning: A case study. ALT-J, 15, 201–215.
Elgort, I., Smith, A. G., & Toland, J. (2008). Is wiki an effective platform for group course
work? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24, 195–210. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.124.3966&rep=rep1&type
=pdf
Eynon, R. (2008). The use of the world wide web in learning and teaching in higher education:
Reality and rhetoric. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45, 15–23.
Gibbs, G. (1999). Using assessment strategically to change the way students learn. In S. Brown
& A. Glasner (Eds), Assessment matters in higher education: Choosing and using diverse
approaches (pp. 41–52). Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education
and the Open University Press.
Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005). “Distance education” and “e-learning”: Not the same thing. Higher
Education, 49(4), 467–493.
Helsper, E., & Eynon, R. (2009). Digital natives: Where is the evidence? British Educational
Research Journal, 36, 503-520.
Hockings, C. (2005). Removing the barriers? A study of the conditions affecting teaching
innovation. Teaching in Higher Education, 10, 313–326.
Jelfs, A., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2013). The use of digital technologies across the adult life
span in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, 338–351.
Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or digital natives: Is
there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers & Education, 54, 722–732.
Katz, R. (2010). Scholars, scholarship, and the scholarly enterprise in the digital age. Educause
Review, 45(2). Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/
EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume45/ScholarsScholarshipandtheSchol/202341
Kember, D., & Kwan, K.-P. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to
conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28, 469–490.
Kennedy, G., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K.-L. (2008). First year
students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal
of Educational Technology, 24, 108–122.
Keppell, M., Suddaby, G., & Hard, N. (2011). Good practice report: Technology-enhanced
learning and teaching (An Australian Learning and Teaching Council Report). Retrieved
from http://www.olt.gov.au/resource-good-practice-report-technology-enhanced-
learning-and-teaching-2011
Kirkwood, A. (2009). E-learning: You don’t always get what you hope for. Technology,
Pedagogy and Education, 18(2), 107–121.
Kirkwood, A. (2014). Teaching and learning with technology in higher education: Blended and
distance education needs “joined-up thinking” rather than technological determinism.
Open Learning, 29(3), 206–221.
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2005). Learners and learning in the 21st century: What do we know
about students’ attitudes and experiences of ICT that will help us design courses? Studies
in Higher Education, 30(3), 257–274.
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2008). Assessment and student learning: A fundamental relationship
and the role of information and communication technologies. Open Learning,
23(1), 5–16.
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2012). The influence upon design of differing conceptions of
teaching and learning with technology. In A. D. Olofsson & O. Lindberg (Eds), Informed
design of educational technologies in higher education: Enhanced learning and teaching
(pp. 1–20). Pennsylvania, USA: IGI Global.
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2013a). Examining some assumptions and limitations of research on
the effects of emerging technologies for teaching and learning in higher education. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 536–543.
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2013b). Missing: Evidence of a scholarly approach to teaching and
learning with technology in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education,
18, 327–337.
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2015). Improved quality and validity: Reframing research and
evaluation of learning technologies. EURODL Special Issue: Best of EDEN RW8, 102–115.
Knight, P. T., & Trowler, P. R. (2000). Departmental-level cultures and the improvement of
teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education, 25, 69–83.
Knight, P., Tait, J., & Yorke, M. (2006). The professional learning of teachers in higher
education. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 319–339.
Kreber, C., & Kanuka, H. (2006). The scholarship of teaching and learning and the online
classroom. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 32, 109–131.
Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A., & Ashwin, P. (2006). How approaches to
teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context. Studies in Higher Education, 31,
285–298.
Marshall, S. (2010). Change, technology and higher education: Are universities capable of
organisational change? Research in Learning Technology, 18, 179–192.
Nicholls, G. (2005). New lecturers’ constructions of learning, teaching and research in higher
education. Studies in Higher Education, 30, 611–625.
Norton, L., Richardson, J. T. E., Hartley, J., Newstead, S., & Mayes, J. (2005). Teachers’
beliefs and intentions concerning teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 50,
537–571.
Oliver, M., & Conole, G. (2003). Evidence-based practice and e-learning in higher education:
Can we and should we? Research Papers in Education, 18, 385–397.
OECD. (2007). Giving knowledge for free: The emergence of open educational resources. Paris:
OECD.
Papamitsiou, Z., & Economides, A. A. (2014). Learning analytics and educational data mining
in practice: A systematic literature review of empirical evidence. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 17(4), 49–64.
Price, L., & Kirkwood, A. (2014). Informed design of educational technology for teaching and
learning? Towards an evidence-informed model of good practice. Technology, Pedagogy
and Education, 23(3), 325–347.
Price, L., Kirkwood, A., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2014). Mind the gap: The chasm between
research and practice in teaching and learning with technology. In J. Case & J. Huisman
(Eds), Investigating higher education: A critical review of research contributions
(chapter 13), London: Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open
University Press.
Price, L., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2004). Why is it difficult to improve student learning? In
C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Theory, research and scholarship
(pp. 105–120). Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
Price, S., & Oliver, M. (2007). A framework for conceptualising the impact of technology on
teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 16–27.
Roberts, G. (2003). Teaching using the Web: Conceptions and approaches from a
phenomenographic perspective. Instructional Science, 31, 127–150.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Rowntree, D. (1987). Assessing students: How shall we know them? (2nd revised ed.). London:
Routledge Falmer.
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching held by academic teachers.
Higher Education, 24, 93–111.
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and
learning. Higher Education, 41, 299–325.
Tay, L. Y., & Lim, C. P. (2013). Creating holistic technology-enhanced learning experiences.
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Changing approaches to teaching: A relational perspective.
Studies in Higher Education, 21, 275–284.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to
teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57–70.
Protecting the privacy of the respondent is important — all personal information will be kept
confidential and used only in aggregate form.
A. Background Information
1.5 Your age group: Below 20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41 and above
Devices Yes No, but I plan to buy No, and I do not plan
one in the next 12 to buy one in the next
months 12 months
Desktop computer
Laptop
Smartphone
Tablet device (e.g. iPad)
2.1 Where do you access the Internet? (Tick () all that apply.)
Home Office Cybercafe Do not access
2.2 You have access to the Internet through (tick () all that apply):
Dial-up connection ADSL connection Leased line Wireless Mobile devices
2.3 Which device do you use most frequently to access the Internet?
Smartphone Tablet or iPad Laptop Desktop computer
2.4 You have broadband Internet connectivity at (tick () all that apply):
Home Office Cybercafe Do not access
2.5 Where do you get access to broadband Internet in your university/institution? (Tick () all
that apply.)
Classrooms Library Hostels
Faculty rooms Laboratories Reception lounge
Seminar halls Students’ common rooms Open areas
2.6 Do you get Wi-Fi/wireless Internet connectivity on your campus? Yes No
2.7 I use the Internet:
Daily Alternate days Once a week Irregularly Rarely Never
2.8 On average, how much time do you spend on Internet-related activities (email, browsing, social
media) daily?
<1 hour 1-2 hours 3-5 hours >5 hours Do not use daily
3. Use of ICTs
4. Social Media
5.1 Are you a member of any mailing list or discussion forum? Yes (Go to 5.2) No (Go to 6)
5.2 How many email-based discussion forums are you subscribed to? 1-5 More than 5
5.3 Do you moderate any discussion forum or mailing list? Yes No
5.4 How often do you post to discussion forums/mailing lists?
Several times a day Once a day Once a week
Once a fortnight Not very frequently
6.1 Please rate your experiences with the following resources/services/spaces provided by your
institution.
7.1 Have you ever taken an online course? Yes (Go to 7.2) No (Go to C)
7.2 In the past year, have you taken a MOOC (massive open online course) through any
institution/organisation (e.g. Coursera, Udacity, edX, MITx, your college/university, etc.)?
No, and I don’t know what a MOOC is
No, but I do know what a MOOC is
Yes, but I didn’t complete it
Yes, and I completed it
1. Please rate the following statements about technology use in your studies.
Statements Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly
agree agree nor agree
disagree
I want to use technology in my studies
because:
It will help me get better results in my
subjects.
It will help me understand the subject
material more deeply.
It makes completing work in my subjects
more convenient.
It motivates me to explore many topics I
may not have seen before.
It allows me to collaborate with others
easily, both on and outside of the campus.
It will improve my IT/information
management skills in general.
It will improve my career or employment
prospects in the long term.
Comment.
Thank you.
Protecting the privacy of the respondent is important — all personal information will be kept
confidential and only be used in aggregate form.
A. Background Information
1.1 Name of the university/institution: __________________________________________________
1.2 Country: ________________________________________________________________________
1.3 Your email: ______________________________________________________________________
1.4 Gender: Female Male
1.5 Your age group: Below 26 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55
56-60 61-65 66-70
1.6 Your position: Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor Lecturer
1.7 Your highest qualification: PhD MPhil or MTech Master’s
1.8 Primarily involved in:
Undergraduate teaching Graduate or postgraduate teaching Doctoral research
1.9 Your years of teaching experience:
5 or <5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21-25 years
26-30 years 31-35 years 36-40 years 41-45 years
2. Internet Access
2.1 Where do you access the Internet? (Tick () all that apply.)
Home Office Cybercafe Do not access
2.2 You have access to Internet through (tick () all that apply):
Dial-up connection ADSL connection Leased line Wireless Mobile devices
2.3 Which device do you use most frequently to access the Internet?
Smartphone Tablet or iPad Laptop Desktop computer
2.4 Do you have broadband Internet connectivity on your campus?
Yes (Go to 2.5) No (Go to 3)
2.5 Where do you get access to broadband Internet? (Tick () all that apply.)
Classrooms Library Hostels
3. Use of ICTs
3.1 Please rate your comfort level with the following computer-related activities.
Computer-related skills Expertise User level User level User level Non-user
level (Advanced) (Intermediate) (Basic) level (N/A)
(Trainer)
Word processor (e.g. Word)
Spreadsheets (e.g. Excel)
Presentation (e.g.
PowerPoint)
Email
Search engines
Databases
Multimedia authoring
Graphic editing
Digital audio
Video editing
Web page design
Learning Management
System
Web 2.0 tools (wikis, blogs,
social networking and
sharing tools)
5.1 Are you a member of any mailing list or discussion forum? Yes (Go to 5.2) No (Go to 6)
5.2 How many email-based discussion forums do you subscribe to? 1-5 More than 5
5.3 Do you moderate any discussion forum or mailing list? Yes No
5.4 How often do you post to discussion forums/mailing lists?
Several times a day Once a day Once a week
Once a fortnight Not very frequently
6.1 Please rate your experiences with the following resources/services/spaces provided by your
institution.
Resources/Services/Spaces Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Not
available
eClassroom facilities (e.g. computers,
projection systems, lecture capture
systems, SMART boards, etc.)
Computer labs (for practical and
Internet access)
Email services (institutional)
Learning Management System
(e.g. Moodle, etc.)
1.1 Nature of the classes that you teach (tick () all that apply):
Traditional face-to-face
Completely online
Blended, where some components of the study are done online
1.2 Please indicate how often you use the following digital resources/platforms in your teaching.
Types of Resources Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never
Images (pictures, photographs, including from
the Web)
Presentations (e.g. PowerPoint, including from
online sources)
Word files (activity sheets/handouts/notes)
Digital films/video (e.g. from YouTube)
Audio recordings
Simulations and 2D/3D animation
Learning Management System
Blogs
Social bookmarking
1.3 Have you created and shared the following teaching and learning materials?
Types of Resources Never Yes, but not Yes, and shared
shared with others through an open
licence
Images (pictures, photographs, including from
the Web)
Presentations (e.g. PowerPoint, including from
online sources)
Word files (activity sheets/handouts/notes)
Digital films/video (e.g. from YouTube)
Audio recordings
Simulations and 2D/3D animation
Blogs
Course packs
1.4 Are you aware of open educational resources (OER) in your discipline? Yes No
1.5 How often do you use the following OER platforms for your teaching and learning?
OER Platforms/Sources Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never
OER Commons
Saylor Academy
WikiEducator
OpenStax College
BC Campus Open Textbooks
NPTEL, India
MIT Open Courseware
OpenLearn, UK
CollegeOpenTextbook
Directory of Open Access Journals
Directory of Open Access Books
MERLOT
2.1 Have you received training on the use of ICTs for teaching and learning? Yes No
2.2 Does your university/institution provide regular training on the use of new technologies for
teaching and learning? Yes No
2.3 Have you ever participated in any online training? Yes (Go to 2.4) No (Go to 3)
2.4 Have you attended any massive open online courses (MOOCs)? Yes No
2.5 Which of the following MOOC platforms are you aware of? (Tick () all that apply.)
Coursera Udacity EdX iVersity FutureLearn None
Yes No Do not
know
3.1 Is there a policy for ICT use in teaching and learning in your
university/institution?
3.2 Is there a strategy for Technology-Enabled Learning in your
university/institution?
3.3 Is there an ICT policy in your university/institution (covering
what technologies to use and not use for teaching and learning)?
3.4 Is there a privacy and data protection policy in your university/
institution?
2.1 Please rate your experiences with the following resources/services/spaces provided by your
institution.
Resources/Services/Spaces Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent Not
available
Access to data storage
Data visualisation software
Citation/reference management
software
Plagiarism detection software
Institutional repository for sharing
of research
Funds to support open access
publications
2. Please rate the following motivators for you to use Technology-Enabled Learning.
Motivator Very strong Strong Average Weak Very weak
motivator motivator motivator motivator motivator
Personal interest in using
technology
Intellectual challenge
Self-gratification
Training on Technology-
Enabled Learning
Better Internet bandwidth
at workplace
Credit towards promotion
Professional incentives to
use Technology-Enabled
Learning
Technical support
Peer recognition, prestige
and status
Improved infrastructure
(hardware and software)
deployment
Release time/Reduction in
existing workload
To be a trendsetter by early
adoption of technology in
education
F. Your Comments
There is a need to develop a Technology-Enabled Learning policy and strategy in your university.
Comment.
Thank you.
2.12 Do you have any e-classroom facilities in your university/institution, integrating ICT in
classrooms? Yes (Go to 2.13) No (Go to 2.15)
2.13 If yes, what kinds of hardware are available in e-classrooms? (Tick () all that apply.)
Public address system SMART Board or interactive whiteboard
LCD projector (fitted with desktop
computer/laptops/DVD players)
2.14 Number of e-classrooms you have: _______
2.22 Are the educational e-contents or audio-visual materials produced by your university/institute
available with a Creative Common licence? Yes (Go to 2.23) No (Go to 2.27)
2.23 If yes, do you have an institutional repository for OER?
Yes (Go to 2.24) No (Go to 2.25)
2.24 If yes, provide the website address of the repository: ______________________________
Online Courses
2.33 Please indicate which of the following resources/services/spaces are provided by your
institution (tick () all that apply):
Resources/Services/Spaces Available Not available Planned
2.34 Do you organise regular training for faculty and learners to use technology effectively?
Yes (Go to 2.35) No (Go to 2.38)
2.35 If yes, how often do you organise training?
Once a month Quarterly Yearly
Twice a month Half-yearly As and when required
2.36 Total hours of training organised in the last year: _________
2.37 Total number of teachers trained in the use of technology for teaching and learning: _________
2.38 Is there a policy for ICT use in teaching and learning in your university/institution?
Yes No In development
2.39 Is there a strategy for Technology-Enabled Learning in your university/institution?
Yes No In development
3.1 Please respond to the following statements using the codes below:
Codes: 1= Strongly disagree or does not exist; 2= Disagree or only marginally demonstrates existence;
3= Neither agree nor disagree or existence or otherwise is difficult to explain; 4= Agree or it does exist;
5= Strongly agree or it definitely exists and is well established.
Statements 1 2 3 4 5
Policy
There is a well-documented Technology-Enabled Learning policy.
The Vision and Mission of the Technology-Enabled Learning policy are
aligned with the mission of the organisation.
The Vision and Mission of the Technology-Enabled Learning are well
understood across the organisation.
There is a commitment on the part of institutional leaders to use technology
to achieve strategic academic goals.
Strategic Plan
There is a strategic plan for the implementation of Technology-Enabled
Learning.
The strategic plan for Technology-Enabled Learning has measurable goals
and outcomes.
The strategic plan for Technology-Enabled Learning is approved by the
senior management of the organisation and is supported by adequate
financial provisions.
D. Comments
There is a need to develop a Technology-Enabled Learning policy and strategy in the organisation.
Comment.
Thank you.
• Score 55–94: Limited preparedness. The institution has addressed some aspects of the
Technology-Enabled Learning system, policies and infrastructure, but they need further
development.
• Score 95–129: Developing preparedness. The institution has put in place some of the
aspects of a Technology-Enabled Learning system, policies and infrastructure, and is in the
process of developing a robust system.
• Score 165 and above. Exceptional preparedness. The institution has successfully
implemented a Technology-Enabled Learning system and its effect can be easily observed.
In what ways does the institution expect to benefit from the implementation of TEL? (Some
specific examples would be better than ambiguous phrases such as “An enhanced learning
experience for students.”)
2. Educational Rationale
Why is it important for the institution to adopt TEL? What aspects of the existing arrangements
for teaching, learning, learner support, student administration, student diversity, student
recruitment and retention, etc., need to be changed or improved?
“Doing things better” or “doing better things”?
To engender a more scholarly approach to the design, development and support of learning,
particularly in relation to TEL?
7. TEL Governance
Developing an appropriate governance structure for TEL that is fully embedded within the
institutional governance of the institution?
Ensuring adequate representation of all relevant departments, faculties and sites within the
institution?
Ensuring the adequate flow of information to and from users (teachers and students) through
appropriate means?
Tel: +1.604.775.8200
Fax: +1.604.775.8210
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.col.org
SUGAR
July 2016 Printed on Sugar Sheet , 100% Forest Free
TM
SHEE T
TM
100% F or est Fr ee