2016 TELI Handbook

Technology-
Enabled Learning
Implementation
Handbook
Adrian Kirkwood and Linda Price
Technology-Enabled
Learning Implementation
Handbook
Adrian Kirkwood and Linda Price

The Commonwealth of Learning (COL) is an intergovernmental organisation created by Commonwealth
Heads of Government to promote the development and sharing of open learning and distance education
knowledge, resources and technologies.
Commonwealth of Learning, 2016
© 2016 by the Commonwealth of Learning. Technology-Enabled Learning Implementation Handbook is

made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 Licence (international): http://
creativecommons.org/licences/by-sa/4.0.
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.
Technology-Enabled Learning Implementation Handbook
ISBN 978-1-894975-81-0
Concept and Planning: Sanjaya Mishra

Authors: Adrian Kirkwood and Linda Price
Questionnaires: Anup Kumar Das and Sanjaya Mishra
Programme Assistant: Patricia Schlicht
Copy Editor: Lesley Cameron
Layout Design: Denise Tremblay
Cover Design: Ania Grygorczuk
Production Coordinator: Ania Grygorczuk
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
4710 Kingsway, Suite 2500

Burnaby, British Columbia
Canada V5H 4M2
Telephone: +1 604 775 8200
Fax: +1 604 775 8210
Web: www.col.org
E-mail: [email protected]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword.............................................................................................................................. v
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED LEARNING....... 1

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1
What is Technology-Enabled Learning?.................................................................................. 1
What are the potential benefits of adopting TEL?............................................................ 2
The need for clear institutional aims or goals................................................................... 4
Learning from the experience of others........................................................................... 5
Avoiding disappointment in the adoption of TEL............................................................ 5
Teacher as agent: The crucial role of the teacher in TEL........................................................ 6
Significant influences on teachers and how they use technology....................................... 7
How prepared for TEL is your institution?............................................................................ 7
SECTION 2: REVIEWING INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES AND

INFRASTRUCTURE............................................................................................... 10
The complexity of teaching and learning in large institutions................................................. 10
The interrelationship between the components............................................................... 11
The impact on TEL of differing beliefs and practices....................................................... 12
Preparing an institutional review for TEL.............................................................................. 13
Some tools to help you undertake an institutional review................................................. 13
Reviewing institutional policies and strategies.................................................................. 14
Auditing existing resources and infrastructure................................................................. 15
Anticipating what additional requirements will be necessary............................................ 16
Creating a Policy Review & Infrastructure Audit (PRIA) Report........................................... 16
SECTION 3: DEVELOPING THE INSTITUTIONAL STAKEHOLDERS................ 18

Engaging academic staff........................................................................................................ 18
Demonstrations and hands-on experience........................................................................ 19
Working in teams to develop TEL materials and resources............................................... 20
Reconciling differences between departments.................................................................. 20
The importance of good communication flow................................................................. 20
Reporting structure........................................................................................................ 21
User-group scrutiny of TEL initiatives............................................................................. 22
Developing a scholarly approach to Technology-Enabled Learning........................................ 22
Valuing scholarly approaches to Technology-Enabled Learning....................................... 24
Evidencing scholarly approaches to Technology-Enabled Learning.................................. 25
Engaging students.......................................................................................................... 27
SECTION 4: DEVELOPING INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES AND

STRATEGIES FOR TEL.......................................................................................... 30
Introduction......................................................................................................................... 30
Teachers’ assumptions about teaching and learning............................................................... 30
Students’ expectations about teaching and learning............................................................... 33
Institutional assumptions about teaching and learning with technology................................. 33
Adding TEL to existing courses............................................................................................ 34
“Doing things better” or “Doing better things”?.................................................................. 35
Developing shared understandings and use of terminology.................................................... 36
Unintended consequences of technology-led professional development activities................... 38
Using external resources for teaching and learning................................................................ 38
Exploring the use of OER within the institution.............................................................. 39
Enabling students to work effectively with external resources.......................................... 41
Drafting institutional policies and strategies for TEL............................................................. 42
SECTION 5: IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND STRATEGIES................................ 45

Implementing the technical infrastructure for TEL................................................................ 45
Technical training for academic staff................................................................................ 45
The importance of capacity building and professional development....................................... 46
Academic professional development................................................................................ 47
Development of students’ digital literacy skills................................................................. 48
Monitoring and evaluating TEL developments................................................................ 49
Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 52
REFERENCES................................................................................................................... 53
APPENDIX 1: Questionnaire on Learner Use of Technology.............................................. 59
APPENDIX 2: Questionnaire on Faculty Use of Technology for Teaching and Learning..... 69
APPENDIX 3: Questionnaire for Survey of Technology-Enabled Learning in

Educational Institutions............................................................................................... 80
APPENDIX 4: Interpretation of Preparedness for Technology-Enabled Learning

Questionnaire Results.................................................................................................. 88
APPENDIX 5: TEL Policy Template................................................................................... 89
iv TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED LEARNING IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK

FOREWORD
In its Strategic Plan 2015-2021, “Learning for Sustainable Development,” the Commonwealth
of Learning (COL) introduced a new initiative — Technology-Enabled Learning (TEL). There
has been a significant increase in access to technologies, particularly mobile technologies,
in developing countries in the past decade, and more educational institutions, teachers and
students in the Commonwealth now have access to digital tools and the Internet. However, this
increase in access to and use of these technologies is not evenly distributed across all countries,
and technologies are not being used to their full potential in some areas. The interventions
planned under the TEL initiative will allow more government and educational organisations
to “adopt policies and strategies for, and devote resources to, technology-enabled learning
for innovation and skills.” In order to achieve these outcomes, COL has embarked on several
activities with governments and educational institutions to promote policy, technology and
capacity building.
The Technology-Enabled Learning Implementation Handbook has been developed to

assist educational institutions in adopting appropriate policies, strengthening technology
infrastructure, building the capacities of teachers, helping learners to take advantage of the
available technology and open educational resources (OER) for learning, and undertaking a
rigorous approach to the assessment and evaluation of TEL. The objective is to provide both a
systematic approach and evidence of improved learning outcomes in a TEL environment. We
expect that institutions implementing TEL will use this handbook to gather data for evidence-
based decision making. This handbook provides you, our partners, with a strategy to engage in
a systematic process of critical thinking, decision making, implementation and reflection not just
to promote but also to demonstrate improved student engagement and learning.
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.
Professor Asha S. Kanwar

President & CEO
Commonwealth of Learning
TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED LEARNING IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK v

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO
TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED LEARNING
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.
What is Technology-Enabled Learning?

One would think that a good way to start in a handbook of this kind would be with an
explanation of what is meant by Technology-Enabled Learning so that readers have a clear
appreciation and understanding of what is being discussed from the outset. However, this
would also be quite unusual: far too often in the field of educational technology so much is
assumed or taken for granted that basic educational questions are left unanswered.
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.
TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED LEARNING IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK 1

A range of terms, which each emphasise particular characteristics of the phenomenon, exists
to describe it — for example, computer-assisted learning, networked learning, eLearning and,
more recently, technology-enhanced learning. The latter term is being used increasingly in
various parts of the world (see, for example, Balacheff, Ludvigsen, Jong, Lazonder & Barnes,
2009; Goodman, 2001; Keppell, Suddaby & Hard, 2011; Tay & Lim, 2013; Walker et al.,
2014). It suggests that technology can enhance learning in some way, but it is unusual to find
explicit statements about what this “enhancement” actually involves and how learners benefit
(Kirkwood & Price, 2014).
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.
What are the potential benefits of adopting TEL?
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.
Very Important Not very Does not

important important apply
Increasing technology use by students

in preparation for their working lives
(developing familiarity, skills, etc.)
Achieving financial benefits for the
institution (e.g. increasing student numbers,
reaching new target audiences, etc.)
Increasing accessibility for students who
would not be able to attend conventional
classroom sessions (due to location, disability,
or work/domestic commitments, etc.)
Changing the environment in which
educational activities can be undertaken to
increase flexibility for students in terms of
where, when and how they study
2 TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED LEARNING IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK

Very Important Not very Does not
important important apply
Providing students with additional

opportunities to communicate with
teachers, support staff and fellow students
Providing opportunities for students to
access books, journal articles and other
resources (texts, sound recordings, still and
moving pictures) in digital format from a
variety of sources and locations
Enabling students to become self-directed
learners
Ensuring greater consistency in the quality
of teaching and availability of resources
Enabling feedback on learning activities and
assignments to be provided more rapidly to
students
Increasing flexibility for teachers in terms
of where and when they undertake their
teaching and assessment activities
Improving the teaching practices of
academic staff (e.g. increasing learner
engagement through active, student-
centred learning)
Quantitative improvement in student
learning outcomes (i.e. higher marks or
grades achieved)
Qualitative improvement in student learning
outcomes (i.e. deeper understanding,
conceptual development, better application
of knowledge to real-world situations)
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.

The need for clear institutional aims or goals
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;
• offering courses in association with other institutions, on a collaborative teaching or

franchise-type basis;
• 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).

Learning from the experience of others
A surprisingly small proportion of published accounts of projects involving the use of

technology for teaching and learning provide a clear indication of the educational rationale and
anticipated outcomes for both the teacher(s) and students involved and the institution. A lack
of clarity on these matters makes it extremely difficult for those concerned — and any other
educators who might be interested — to learn any useful lessons from the experiences of others.
It seems reasonable to ask questions about the outcomes achieved following the investment of
large amounts of time and money. Unfortunately, attention appears to focus too often on the
technology or tools involved in a project, rather than the teaching or learning processes
and practices.
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.
Avoiding disappointment in the adoption of TEL
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).

In practice, the technologies and tools most frequently employed in institutional learning
environments are commonly used to replicate, reinforce or supplement traditional teacher-led,
didactic practices with little or no significant benefit being achieved in terms of student learning
(Blin & Munro, 2008; Eynon, 2008; Kirkwood & Price, 2014; Roberts, 2003).
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.
Teacher as agent: The crucial role of the teacher in TEL

One critical factor for the successful implementation of TEL is the ability of teachers to know
why, when and how to best use technology for teaching and learning. However, getting teachers
to use TEL effectively is far from simple, as it involves taking into account a complex variety
of intrinsic and extrinsic influences. While there is much published research on teachers’ use of
technology, it is much more difficult to find reports that relate those uses of TEL to how the
teachers involved think about the processes of teaching and learning — their beliefs — and how
they enact those beliefs in their teaching activities — their practices. Where TEL interventions
have had disappointingly little impact on students’ learning outcomes, it is most likely that the
fundamentals of what constitutes teaching and learning have been taken for granted and/or not
considered necessary.
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

than developing their technical skills and competence. For example, one review of competency-
based approaches to professional development for online teaching found three important
dimensions that were being overlooked and in need of further exploration: “empowering
teachers,” “promoting critical reflection” and “integrating technology into pedagogical
inquiry” (Baran, Correia & Thompson, 2011).
Significant influences on teachers and how they use technology
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:
• Individual differences in teachers’ attitudes to the adoption of innovations

(Rogers, 1995).
• Individual differences in teachers’ conceptions of and approaches to teaching (Kember

& Kwan, 2000; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992, 2001; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996).
• The established departmental/faculty/institutional ethos and ways of working

(Hockings, 2005; Knight & Trowler, 2000; Lindblom-Ylänne, Trigwell, Nevgi &
Ashwin, 2006; Norton, Richardson, Hartley, Newstead & Mayes, 2005;
Pickering, 2006).
• Competing demands of discipline-based research and administration.
The complex relationships between influencing factors are considered further in Section 2.
How prepared for TEL is your institution?

We trust that the guidance provided in this handbook will help you assess how well-prepared
your institution is for the adoption or expansion of TEL. The following activity will help you
begin this assessment: please place a tick (√) in the column you think is most appropriate.
Less than 25-50% 51-75% More than

25% 75%
What proportion of the teaching staff already have some

experience of using technology for teaching and learning?
What proportion of the teaching staff have expressed some

interest in using TEL?
What proportion of the teaching staff have expressed some

reservations about using TEL?
What proportion of the students already have some access

to computing equipment?

Less than 25-50% 51-75% More than
25% 75%
What proportion of the students already have some

experience of using technology for learning?
What proportion of the students have expressed some

interest in using TEL?
What proportion of the library and academic support staff

already have some experience of using TEL?
What proportion of the library and academic support

staff have expressed some interest in engaging with the
adoption of TEL?
What proportion of the senior academic managers

have engaged in discussions about the implications of
implementing or expanding the use of TEL?
What proportion of teaching spaces in the institution are

equipped for TEL activities?
What proportion of teaching spaces in the institution are

suitable for TEL and associated activities?
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?

• The effective preparation of TEL materials and resources is likely to require input from
a number of technical and design specialists. How willing are academic staff and others
to work in teams for TEL implementation? What experience of this do they have?
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.

SECTION 2: REVIEWING INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
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
The complexity of teaching and learning in large institutions

Enthusiastic individuals and small groups were responsible for most of the early uses of digital
technology for teaching and learning. These early adopters usually oversaw all aspects of the
process, from developing or adapting tools and resources to utilising them with their own
students. They also evaluated the outcomes. More recently, the increased use of a virtual
learning environment (VLE) or learning management system (LMS) has brought about
technology adoption at a departmental, faculty or institutional level. However, there are
wide variations in how “enterprise-wide” systems have been adopted and implemented by
educational institutions for teaching and learning (see, for example, Walker et al., 2014).
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):
• the teacher’s academic context,
• the student’s academic context,
• the departmental context, and
• the institutional context.
Figure 2.1 shows components of each cluster of factors and the relationships between them.

= Strong influence
External political environment Internal political environment
= Weak influence
Institutional Institutional
Physical and philosophy policies Management
organisational approach
structures
Departmental Departmental and
Beliefs about interpretation of disciplinary
Institutional institutional conditions philosophy
teaching in higher Academic
context
education identity
Departmental
context
Teacher’s academic
context
Departmental
Departmental
disciplinary discourse
disciplinary policies
Teaching practices Practices with

technology
Beliefs about learning

and teaching
Digital literacy
Student’s academic
context Approach to
Access to learning
technology Learning practices
Figure 2.1. Factors influencing teaching and learning with technology in higher education: A framework
The interrelationship between the components
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).

The impact on TEL of differing beliefs and practices
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?

Preparing an institutional review for TEL
We suggest that a thorough review, or reality check, be undertaken before you proceed with
the introduction — or expansion — of TEL in your institution. This will involve examining
the existing environment and how prepared your institution is for the implementation of
TEL. Teaching and learning with TEL is more than a simple transaction between a teacher
and students in a closed room, so many associated aspects will need to be taken into account.
The appropriate technical infrastructure must be installed in the institution and subsequently
maintained. Academic staff will require professional development not only in technical aspects
of TEL, but also in how to make best use of technology for their pedagogic purposes. Students
will need support to adopt new ways of working digitally for their academic studies. Managers
will need to adopt new ways of thinking about resource allocation and monitoring due to the
new ways of developing digital materials for teaching and learning. That development of digital
resources is likely to require input from specialists with pedagogic, design and media expertise.
The review should therefore not just focus on teachers and learners; it should also involve
technical/support staff and senior managers/policy makers.
Some tools to help you undertake an institutional review
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:
• Access to and Use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) — these

questions elicit information about individuals’ access to and use of ICTs, equipment,
applications, social media and their TEL environment.
• Perceptions of Use of Technology-Enabled Learning — these questions explore

attitudes to and expectations about the use of TEL.
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.

The questionnaire about the educational institution as a whole (Appendix 3) includes items
that focus on:
• TEL Environment in the University/Institution — the physical and digital

infrastructure, applications and tools, use of social media, digital course creation and
OER as well as training and policy issues.
• 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).
Reviewing institutional policies and strategies
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?

Exercise
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.
• (If the Survey of TEL in Educational Institutions questionnaire in Appendix 3 has

been conducted, the responses should contribute to your answer to this question.)
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?)
Auditing existing resources and infrastructure
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?

• Are there adequate arrangements and sufficient digital storage for backing up all
systems and documents?
• 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?
Anticipating what additional requirements will be necessary
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.
Creating a Policy Review & Infrastructure Audit (PRIA) Report

The preparedness of teaching staff, students, managers and technical/support staff for TEL
implementation can largely be determined from the findings from the questionnaires (see
Appendixes 1, 2 and 3). However, a PRIA report should be created from the analysed responses
from those questionnaires together with the findings from the audits of the existing resources
and infrastructure. The combination of different information sources should provide an
excellent overview of how well your institution — and its staff and students — is prepared for
TEL. It should also provide some very useful insights into what changes or additional measures
are likely to be necessary for the effective implementation of TEL.

What next?
In Section 3 we look at the steps you will need to follow to develop institutional
stakeholders, both in preparation for and during the implementation of TEL. You will need
strategies and structures for engaging teaching staff, academic managers and students in
the implementation process. Mechanisms can be established for promoting, rewarding and
sharing scholarly approaches to the development of TEL innovations.

SECTION 3: DEVELOPING THE INSTITUTIONAL
STAKEHOLDERS
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.
Engaging academic staff

A number of strategies need to be adopted in order to engage staff. These range from gathering
generic feedback from staff to establishing more formalised structures that enable direct
reporting lines to institutional management. In the early stages of implementation, all academic
staff should have the opportunity to engage in discussions about TEL at a departmental or
faculty level. Such discussions should not be confined to technical and organisational issues
(e.g. technical requirements, potential changes to ways of working), but should also cover
pedagogical matters and the many ways in which technology could be used for teaching and
learning. Although technical familiarity will need to be developed among teaching staff, this
should never be done in isolation from a wide-ranging consideration of potential innovations in
teaching and learning practices. “Why?” should be discussed as much as “How?”

Exercise
It might be helpful for academic staff to undertake, at a departmental or faculty level, a

SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats) analysis of the implementation or
expansion of TEL.
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.
What opportunities does TEL offer?

For example, attracting more widely dispersed students; making it possible to teach
topics otherwise impossible (or very difficult) to include in the curriculum.
What are the threats associated with using TEL?

For example, restrictions on hardware and software use imposed by the companies
that make them (e.g. licensing restrictions or limitations); changes in requirements for
teaching spaces.
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:
• changing characteristics of the potential student body,
• students’ changing expectations about what and how they study,
• potential employers’ changing expectations,
• institutional funders’ (including government’s) changing expectations, and
• developments in the technologies and tools available for TEL.
Demonstrations and hands-on experience
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/

or from other institutions, if appropriate) to provide demonstrations of TEL innovations with
which they have been involved. These demonstrations should preferably illustrate a variety
of different tools and pedagogical approaches and should also provide some insights into the
development process and evidence of the impact that they have had on students’ learning.
Wherever possible, sessions should also be organised — perhaps over a prolonged period —
to give teaching staff hands-on experience of using TEL materials and resources so that they
become aware of its potential advantages and limitations in practice. Such sessions should not
be focussed solely on developing technical familiarity and skills; they should also involve explicit
consideration of the related pedagogical issues.
If possible, it might be advantageous to establish a TEL Resource Centre in an appropriate

location (e.g. your library) where academic and support staff can see demonstrations of and/or
get hands-on experience in using TEL materials and resources and also be introduced to the full
range of tools and applications available in your institution.
Working in teams to develop TEL materials and resources
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.
Reconciling differences between departments
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.
The importance of good communication flow
Throughout the implementation process, academic staff should be encouraged to provide

feedback, as this will help the institution to develop appropriate uses of TEL. However, it is
equally important to have mechanisms that enable the feedback that has been provided to be
acted upon. This feedback needs to be discussed at senior levels, as it may not always be possible
to act on suggestions and proposed courses of action due to competing activities or pressures
within (and external to) the institution. If suggestions are not being acted on, staff need to
know why. Otherwise, the development of institutional TEL capacity building will not only be
limited but also might lead to staff disillusionment and dissent.
Reporting structure
A reporting structure should be embedded in the existing governance structure of the

institution, with reporting to existing committees. This will enable a seamless bi-directional
flow of information and views between management and end-users (teachers and learners). See
Figure 3.1 for an example of how this might be constructed.
Council/Board of
Governors
Senate
University
Information University Teaching/
Technology Education Committee
Committee
TEL Steering Group
TEL Working Group
TEL Student TEL Staff

Super-User Group Super-User Group
Figure 3.1 Example of a governance structure that enables TEL information flows, decision making
and actions

However, the information should not flow in only one way: information flow in both directions
is important, and this needs to be factored into the construction of the groups and their
reporting lines. So, clear mechanisms need to be put in place for reporting back to the staff who
are working closely with TEL.
User-group scrutiny of TEL initiatives
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?
Developing a scholarly approach to Technology-Enabled Learning

Teaching with technology should not be viewed as distinct from other forms of teaching.
Like all teaching, it should be undertaken in a scholarly manner. However, while technology
brings fantastic opportunities to support and develop education, it also brings considerable
responsibility (Kirkwood & Price, 2014). That is, it raises questions about how we can deploy
our resources and investments wisely in order to make the best possible uses of technology to
provide good student learning experiences.
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)?

To address this, it is crucial to provide a culture in which it is imperative for staff to adopt
scholarly approaches to teaching with technology.
What do we mean by a “scholarly approach”?
• Posing a problem about a TEL issue
• Studying that problem through appropriate methods for the disciplinary

epistemologies
• Applying the results in practice
• Communicating the results to others, including the public
• Reflecting on the findings and their implications
• Subjecting the findings to peer review
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 go about investigating and reflecting on their practices in an educationally

informed manner, and
• 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.

Exercise
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?
Valuing scholarly approaches to Technology-Enabled Learning
Some institutional policies contribute significantly to the successful scholarly implementation

of TEL. These include policies relating to career development, work planning and promotion.
Such policies indicate what is actually valued within an institution and how it is valued, as they
are essentially the structures within which academics have to work. They act as agencies that
both enable and constrain how academics operate, and influence how academic teachers engage
with and approach using TEL.
An important aspect of embedding a scholarly approach to TEL is to first value such an
approach. Academics tend to recognise the value of a scholarly approach through rewards and
promotions processes. Promotion policy, and its enactment, is highly influential in determining
what an institution actually values in relation to TEL as opposed to what it states that it values.
For example, what key components are stated in the criteria for rewards and promotions that
would recognise and reward scholarly TEL activities? And what evidence would staff need to
present in order to demonstrate that this had been successful?
Exercise
How does your institution recognise scholarship activities relating to TEL in its rewards and
promotions criteria?
How well are these applied and acted upon?
How are scholarship activities relating to TEL supported?
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 academic professional development activities are provided to engender

scholarship relating to TEL?
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?

Evidencing scholarly approaches to Technology-Enabled Learning
A fundamental component of a scholarly approach to TEL is that it should be informed by

enquiry and evidence. This often requires cultural change within a department, faculty or
institution. One way of engendering this change involves providing a repository that enables
staff to illustrate how TEL has been applied in a scholarly manner and what effects have been
achieved in terms of student learning. It is highly likely that a TEL innovation in one academic
area could be adapted for use in another, even if there is no obvious relationship between them.
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:
• the educational goals and purposes of any technology use,
• how the learning should be designed, and
• how value should be determined.
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:

For academics: Generating evidence of an intervention
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 was the topic/discipline and at what level?
• What technology/tool was used and why?
• What evidence was used to drive or support the design of the intervention?
• What was the design of the intervention?
• What was the context within which it was used?
• How did the intervention relate to assessed activities (formative or summative)?
• How many students were involved?
• 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?

For policy makers: A guide to TEL policy development
The professional development programmes that educational institutions adopt in respect of

technologies for learning and teaching focus primarily on teaching individuals how to use
particular technologies and less frequently on why their use is important. A more effective
approach involves engaging teachers in an examination of their beliefs about teaching and
the approaches they adopt to determine how they relate to the institution’s learning and
teaching strategy.
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?

Engaging students
A fundamental component of any successful embedding of scholarly and progressive TEL

activities is having a good stream of data and feedback from students on their experiences. This
encompasses a number of activities:
• Regular student focus groups and/or interviews
• Student experience surveys
• TEL usage statistics (learning analytics)
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

of report enables better management information and more institution-wide decision making.
This leads to more consistency in student learning experiences. However, decisions made
regarding TEL improvements, and the resulting changes, need to be systematically reported
back to students so that their buy-in and assistance are more likely when gathering information
about TEL and its use in an institution.
Exercise
What processes are in place in your institution for gathering information from students
about their experiences with TEL?
What systems might need to be introduced or expanded?
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?
How is information about decisions and changes relayed back to students?
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.

SECTION 4: DEVELOPING INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES AND
STRATEGIES FOR TEL
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’ assumptions about teaching and learning

These two terms — teaching and learning — are in constant use in educational institutions, but
most of the time their actual meaning is taken for granted. When talking among themselves,
teachers usually assume that others share their understanding of what the teaching process
involves and how it is best conducted. Students tend to do the same in terms of learning.
Also, when teachers assign learning activities or tasks for their students, they assume that the
learners share their understanding of what purpose is to be served. Unfortunately, there is little
supporting evidence that these assumptions are correct. For example, teachers might think of
teaching in terms of:
• imparting knowledge and skills to learners,
• making learning possible, and
• developing students’ conceptions and understandings of a topic.
Teachers with those varying conceptions of teaching will similarly view learning in different
ways (Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001; Trigwell, Prosser & Waterhouse, 1999).
Learners, however, are likely to think of teaching as:
• conveying and explaining the topics of a syllabus, and
• telling them what they need to know and understand for assessment purposes.

They are likely to think of learning as:
• acquiring new knowledge and skills,
• 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:
• a number of different specialists might be involved in creating materials, resources,

etc., and they all need to be sure that they have a shared understanding of the precise
educational intention and purpose of their task; and
• 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).

So, how teachers employ technology reflects how they conceive their teaching role. Learning,
particularly in higher education, is usually expected to involve more than simply the acquisition
of new information, procedures or processes. Therefore, teaching should entail developing
students’ capacity to think about their subject in qualitatively different ways, so transmissive
teaching will often be inadequate for developing the intellectual skills required of graduates.
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.
Advantages of TEL for teaching Disadvantages of TEL for teaching

e.g. e.g.
• Can engage students in a variety of ways • Students will not attend face-to-face
(using text, sound, visuals, etc.) in their sessions (lectures, etc.)
learning • More difficult to control what resources
• Supports students’ interactions with their students access and make use of
peers and enables them to engage in
collaborative work
• Better prepares students for their careers/
personal lives
• Enables better provision of feedback on
assignments and tasks
• Can involve students in different locations,
possibly different countries, and enable
them to work together
• Ensures more consistency in the quality of
teaching
• Enables the teaching of topics that were
previously impossible or difficult to teach
in current circumstances
Advantages of TEL for learning Disadvantages of TEL for learning
e.g. e.g.
• Offers greater flexibility for learners in • Requires access to high-specification
terms of where and when they study computer and the Internet — potential
• Supports students with specific learning problems with access and reliability
difficulties who may find aspects of the • Requires institution/teachers to develop
curriculum difficult to access appropriate digital literacy skills in
• Helps to develop students’ abilities to link learners for them to make effective use of
theoretical and practical aspects of a topic TEL
• Makes more active learning possible • Increases potential for plagiarism by
students

Students’ expectations about teaching and learning
In a similar manner, students’ expectations about and conceptions of what teaching and
learning involve will be influenced by their prior experience. Students who have little or no
experience of formal learning other than in primary and/or secondary schools will imagine
that learning at higher levels will be much the same. In very many cases, their experience
would have involved didactic teaching and the passive acquisition of knowledge for the
purpose of successfully passing assessment and examination tasks. These students will feel
comfortable with didactic teaching in higher education, but might encounter dissonance
between their expectations and those of their teachers if they encounter less familiar approaches.
Many educators have come across students who express concerns about “drawing their own
conclusions” in essays or who make statements such as “Why don’t you tell us what we are
expected to learn instead of getting us to discuss the topic among ourselves?” Kember (2001)
found that students entering university frequently held a set of beliefs about teaching and
learning that could be labelled “didactic/reproductive.” His research confirmed that “students
who commence higher education with didactic/reproductive beliefs can find the process
difficult and even traumatic. They are uncomfortable with teaching approaches that do not
correspond with their model of teachers presenting information to be passively absorbed by
students” (Kember, 2001, p. 217).
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).
Hence, an important task for teachers is to engender in students a conception of teaching

and learning that provides an educational rationale for learning activities, and particularly
those that involve TEL. Furthermore, teachers need to ensure that their students develop the
necessary and appropriate intellectual skills for active participation in the learning process, rather
than assuming that these already exist. Responsibility for these important aspects of learner
development should not be left to individual teachers: appropriate policies should be introduced
and implemented at departmental, faculty and/or institutional levels.
Institutional assumptions about teaching and learning with technology

Senior managers are often keen to promote the wider adoption of TEL as a catalyst for
changing the nature of teaching and learning within their institution. They hope to change not
only the means through which teaching takes place, but also the nature of the teaching and

learning processes. However, unless there is a reason — and appropriate opportunities — for
teachers to question and reassess their beliefs about the nature of teaching and learning, they
are most likely to use TEL in ways that simply reinforce their current practices. Technology in
itself is very unlikely to bring about significant changes in how teachers teach and expect their
students to learn. The same is true for students: they need to understand why they are expected
to undertake learning tasks, and not just how to execute them.
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).
Adding TEL to existing courses

In recent years, many institutions that primarily offer distance education have attempted to get
students online in order to support and enhance their teaching, learning and administration
processes. One particular facet of educational interaction that technology can facilitate is greater
student-student and student-teacher communications, something that is often lacking for those

who study independently. Sometimes referred to as “the Achilles heel of distance education”
(Guri-Rosenblit, 2005, p. 475), it can be overcome by a variety of online means.
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.
“Doing things better” or “Doing better things”?

In Section 1 we stressed that innovations with TEL need to have a clearly articulated rationale
if everyone involved is to understand its goals or aims (i.e. what the innovation is supposed to
achieve and why that is important). The goals or aims might be administrative or managerial
(e.g. improved administration of enrolment, notification of assessment requirements and
the assignment schedule, etc.) — such goals are often linked to efficiency and/or reducing
costs — or they might be educational (e.g. improved access to digital resources, enhanced
communication or the use of digital tools for students to co-operate or collaborate on projects,
etc.) — in which case, there might be a need for even greater clarity about the intended aims
and outcomes. Let’s look at online library resources as an example.
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.

So, some TEL innovations might be concerned with “doing things better.” They mirror or
supplement existing educational practices while improving the consistency of provision, the
accessibility of resources or the convenience for learners to study where and when they choose.
They do not, however, change the nature of the learning that they support. Many institutions
have launched MOOCs as a form of TEL provision for dispersed learners. More often than not,
such courses make lectures available to students as streamed videos; however, note that not only
does the teaching remain a lecture as per traditional methods, but what students are expected
to learn from those lectures is not changed in any substantial way. MOOCs have therefore been
criticised for perpetuating transmissive didactic teaching practices (Bates, 2012; Dolan, 2014).
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.).
• Develop the capacity to participate in academic discourse and a community of practice

related to their discipline or profession.
• “Learn how to learn” to develop greater self-direction and the capacity — and
aspiration — to continue learning throughout life.
• Develop an understanding that knowledge can be contested (legitimate differing

perspectives) rather than absolute.
• 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.
Developing shared understandings and use of terminology

Institutional activities aimed at raising awareness of TEL and its potential effects on teaching
and learning need to go beyond technology-led familiarisation sessions and training on “how to
use” particular technologies and tools. Opportunities must be created for the potential benefits
and pitfalls of using technology for teaching and learning to be discussed explicitly. Adopting
a pedagogically-led approach is likely to have a less threatening and a longer-lasting influence
than adopting a technology-led one. At the very least, this should help avoid considerable time
and effort being wasted by teachers in developing learning activities and resources that will be
underused by their students.

It is not just a matter of providing professional development or training sessions on the use
of TEL. The issues can be better addressed during the process of curriculum and course
design within departments or faculties. In addition to considering what content should be
presented, those involved should consider at the same time how the content is to be taught and
assessed. Everyone involved in developing TEL materials and resources needs to have a shared
understanding of the teaching and learning processes that are proposed, and this should be
brought about through explicit discussion. What particular form will any proposed teaching
activity take and what will students be expected to do? Teaching might involve one or more of
the following:
Presentation Students are expected to assimilate information through reading, listening,

watching, observing, etc.
Interactive/adaptive Learners actively engage with simulations, exercises, etc.
tuition
Finding and handling Students develop skills to effectively engage with, evaluate and select
information information to use in appropriate ways.
Experiential problems Relating academic knowledge, models and theories to students’ own
or tasks experiences in personal, domestic or work contexts.
Communicative activity Students engage in dialogue with teachers, tutors, fellow students or people
outside the course.
Productive activity Students record, create, assemble, store and retrieve items relating to their
learning (including for assessment purposes).
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?

Where there is known to be variability in the meanings ascribed to educational processes and
how they are enacted (e.g. teaching, learning, assessment), these processes and terms must be
examined and discussed rather than all stakeholders assuming that they are unambiguous and
understood in the same way by all involved. Ultimately, students must share the understandings
of their teachers. They need to know what is expected of them, and teachers should not assume
that their students understand the educational processes in the same way as the teachers do.
Unintended consequences of technology-led professional

development activities
We pointed out earlier that a teacher’s conceptions of teaching and learning influence how that
teacher actually teaches. Research has also shown that those conceptions influence a teacher’s
expectations of — and engagement with — professional development activities. In a study of
new university lecturers, Nicholls reported that:
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.
Using external resources for teaching and learning

The institutional adoption of TEL does not mean that the institution must assume total
responsibility for the creation of digital materials and resources to support teaching and
learning. There are a variety of external sources of trustworthy digital assets that can add great
value to teaching and learning activities.
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

collections and online journals. Library staff would also be responsible for promoting the use of
these resources both by academic staff in their teaching and by students in their learning.
Exploring the use of OER within the institution
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
OECD (2015), Open Educational Resources: A Catalyst for Innovation.2
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

Jorum4 – “Free learning and teaching resources, created and contributed by teaching staff
from UK Further and Higher Education Institutions.”
OER Commons5 – “Find Free-to-Use Teaching and Learning Content from around the
World. Organize K-12 Lessons, College Courses, and more.”
DOER – Directory of Open Educational Resources6 – Open Educational Resources from

Commonwealth universities and educational institutions.
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.”
OpenLearn8 – “Aims to break the barriers to education by reaching millions of learners

around the world, providing free educational resources and inviting all to sample courses
that registered [Open University] students take.”
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
To what extent do teachers in your institution already make use of OER?

(If you have already conducted a survey of teachers using the Questionnaire on Faculty
Use of Technology for Teaching and Learning in Appendix 2, the responses should
enable you to answer this question.)
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

website of COL’s regional office in New Delhi — the Commonwealth Educational Media
Centre for Asia (CEMCA). You can use it as the basis for discussion about the potential benefits
of OER in your institution, or, if your institution would like to adopt a stand-alone OER policy
document, you can adapt it to meet your institution’s particular context and requirements. A
better option, though, would be to incorporate an appropriate set of OER guidelines within
an integrated TEL policy for your institution. In Section 5 we will be looking in more detail at
implementing policies and strategies, so you might wish to look at the template in Appendix 5
now and note the main points for an OER policy for your institution. These can then be
revisited when you move on to considering an integrated TEL policy.
Enabling students to work effectively with external resources
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.

Exercise
To what extent do learners in your institution already make use of TEL?

(If you have already conducted a survey of learners using the Questionnaire on Learner
Use of Technology for Teaching and Learning in Appendix 1, the responses should
enable you to answer this question.)
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?
Drafting institutional policies and strategies for TEL

Throughout the world of education there are many teachers and senior managers who view
digital technologies as being primarily a means of delivery — that is, they see the adoption
of TEL mainly in terms of changing how teaching practice is organised for the students.
The majority of TEL projects undertaken to date have involved replicating existing teaching
practices. Teachers using it have assumed that the adequacy and appropriateness of existing
teaching practices are beyond question. However, in higher education there is considerable
evidence that casts doubt upon such complacency (Biggs, 2003; Blin & Munro, 2008; Kember
& Kwan, 2000; Laurillard, 2002; Price & Richardson, 2004; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996).
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

a number of others. Therefore, achieving effective innovation with technology has implications
for many aspects of institutional culture, including:
• 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.
• Policies and strategies for the professional development of academic staff —

enabling practitioners to understand differing conceptions of and approaches to
teaching, learning and assessment and to reflect on and appraise the adequacy and
appropriateness of their existing beliefs and practices.
• Policies aimed at advancing and rewarding scholarly activities relating to TEL

— encouraging and rewarding teachers who undertake scholarly investigations of
their pedagogical practices (and their students’ learning) with the aim of improving
their educational processes and practices. This should include scholarly (rather
than technologically deterministic) activities relating to learning and teaching with
technology.
• Policies and infrastructure for sharing TEL scholarship activities — promoting

and enabling the sharing of TEL activities designed using scholarly principles
to improve teaching and learning practices and the scholarly evaluation of their
effectiveness. This would involve the establishment of a digital repository for retaining
“successful” TEL activities and the associated documentation together with search
facilities to enable their retrieval by other interested teachers.
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

in Appendix 5, as variations in the circumstances of institutions will necessitate considerable
differences in the detail. If you have undertaken the various exercises throughout this
handbook, you should already have considered many of the issues and be in a position to
complete most of the sections.
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.

SECTION 5: IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND STRATEGIES
Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot
change anything.
George Bernard Shaw
Implementing the technical infrastructure for TEL

The PRIA report — and in particular, the audit of existing resources and infrastructure —
should provide an indication of the extent to which your organisation needs to install new
technical infrastructure and/or upgrade existing facilities to meet your projected needs. You will
need to consider:
• equipment (hardware) to be used by individual teachers and/or in teaching spaces,
• equipment (hardware) to be used by students (their own or equipment provided by

the institution in teaching spaces or elsewhere),
• networking equipment to provide adequate capacity and coverage throughout the

institution,
• servers for digital storage of materials, resources, online tools, etc.,
• servers for student services (communications, project work, sharing facilities, etc.), and
• servers for student and course administration.
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.
Technical training for academic staff
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

use for TEL. If a commercial VLE or LMS has been adopted, it is unlikely that many of your
teaching staff will have much previous experience of working with that particular system or with
the range of the tools and facilities that it offers.
Accordingly, it will be necessary to implement appropriate means of delivering technical training

(initial and ongoing) for teachers and other staff who support teaching and learning. Initial
training will be required to enable them to start preparing materials and resources, using basic
tools to support the teaching and learning processes and for conducting course or module
administration. As additional tools and facilities are added, or as existing ones are updated
or replaced, further ongoing training will be necessary. Both initial and ongoing training can
be provided on an institution-wide basis, for individual departments or faculty, or for specific
modules or courses.
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?
The importance of capacity building and professional development

Various groups of staff throughout the institution will need capacity building and/or
professional development to accompany the introduction of the infrastructure (equipment and
systems) for TEL. Almost certainly, the following will be necessary:
• 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.

• Technical support staff will need to extend their understanding of the development
process for courses and modules and how they can best contribute their expertise.
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
Target group Focus of CPD Purpose of CPD Aim of CPD

Senior University policy To develop a fuller To promote strategic decision
managers and decision making understanding of the making that embeds the
regarding the use effects of university TEL necessary structures and
of TEL and related policies and resources to support policy
strategies on students, decisions relating to TEL
staff and resources
Middle Faculty- and To understand the To promote strategic decision
managers department-level implications of faculty- making that supports the
policy making on and department-level TEL coherent application of faculty-
the use of TEL in the and related policies and and department-level TEL
overall curriculum strategies for students, and related policies in course
staff and resources programmes and modules by
providing appropriate structures
and policies for staff and students
Individual Curriculum and To develop an To promote contextualised
teaching staff course development understanding of the reflective practice and tactical
using technology pedagogical rationale of choices for pedagogically
using TEL in their courses driven technology use, aimed
and modules and the at improving the quality of the
implications of their student experience
choices for students, staff
and resources
Academic professional development
In most educational institutions, a considerable amount of time is spent on the professional

development of academics, particularly in relation to using technology for teaching and
learning. However, some academic professional development models have been criticised for
their reliance on deficit models that seek to “up-skill” deficient teachers. Such an approach
oversimplifies the complexity of teaching and learning processes and, without any justification,
takes for granted a shared understanding of the underlying concepts and theoretical principles.
Pedagogical issues and variations in models of teaching and learning are rarely addressed

explicitly in courses and sessions that have a technology focus, and their usefulness has been
questioned (Benson & Brack, 2009; Oliver & Conole, 2003).
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.
Development of students’ digital literacy skills
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.

Academic programmes must ensure that opportunities exist for students to develop their digital
literacy skills. Such skills are not simply about knowing how to use technology, but also about
knowing how to use it effectively for learning.
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?
Monitoring and evaluating TEL developments
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?
Monitoring activities might include:
• 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.
Evaluation activities might include:
• 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),

• identifying teaching or learning activities that worked particularly well for students
(and then sharing best practices with other teachers in the same department, faculty or
institution), and
• undertaking a scholarly investigation of a particular innovation to share with the wider

academic community (through publication, conference attendance, etc.).
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).
To build a better understanding of the effectiveness of TEL developments, evaluation

procedures that enable the educational benefits to be scrutinised should be established.
Emphasis needs to be given to the types of interactions or activities with which learners and

teachers are engaging and their effectiveness for achieving the pedagogical goals. In Section 3
we suggested that it would be useful to arrange for feedback to be collected regularly through:
• student focus groups and/or interviews,
• student experience surveys, and
• TEL usage statistics (learning analytics).
Usually, relying on a single method of data collection (e.g. a questionnaire or multiple-choice

test) to determine whether the expected outcomes had been achieved would be ineffective.
Multiple methods, usually involving both quantitative and qualitative data, would be necessary.
For example, different methods are required in order to ascertain (a) the extent of TEL use
by students, (b) their attitudes to or views on using TEL, (c) any problems or issues that they
encountered, (d) the learning that they have derived from using TEL and (e) any changes in
their understanding and behaviour that might be attributed to their engagement with TEL
learning sequences or activities. For a critique of some of the methods that have been used, see
Kirkwood and Price (2013a, 2014).
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)?
To whom would the analysed information be reported?
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).

Conclusion
Throughout this handbook we have attempted to illustrate the complexity of teaching and
learning processes, a complexity that increases when technology is involved. Nothing should
be taken for granted when considering teaching and learning activities, and it is necessary to
recognise the complex factors that can have an impact on TEL innovations when trying to
evaluate them. Instead of focusing primarily on the technology concerned, evaluative studies
should aim to understand and illuminate all aspects of the educational process, but in particular,
the impact on students and their learning.
We hope that following a systematic process of implementation of TEL in your institution

would help you achieve a better understanding of the complex processes associated with TEL,
particularly as they affect your institution’s educational goals, policies and practices. Rather than
starting with technological imperatives, we hope that you will be able to place greater emphasis
on your institution’s aspirations for educational and pedagogic processes and consequently be
better placed to attain real benefits from the implementation of TEL.

REFERENCES
Balacheff, N., Ludvigsen, S., Jong, T. de, Lazonder, A., & Barnes, S. (Eds). (2009).
Technology-enhanced learning: Principles and products. Heidelberg: Springer.
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.
Boud, D. (1995). Enhancing learning through self-assessment. London: Kogan Page.
Brown, G. (1997). Assessing student learning in higher education. London: Routledge.
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.

Dolan, V. L. B. (2014). Massive online obsessive compulsion: What are they saying out there
about the latest phenomenon in higher education? International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, 15, 268–281.
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.
Fanghanel, J. (2007). Local responses to institutional policy: A discursive approach to

positioning. Studies in Higher Education, 29, 575–590.
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.
Goodman, P. S. (Ed.). (2001). Technology enhanced learning: Opportunities for change.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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. (2001). Beliefs about knowledge and the process of teaching and learning as a
factor in adjusting to study in higher education. Studies in Higher Education,
26(2), 205–221.
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. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher
education: What is “enhanced” and how do we know? A critical literature review.
Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 6–36.
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.
Laurillard, D. (2002) Rethinking university teaching (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
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.
OER Commons. (n.d.). What are OER? Retrieved from https://www.oercommons.org/about
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.
Pickering, A. M. (2006). Learning about university teaching: Reflections on a research study

investigating influences for change. Teaching in Higher Education, 11, 319–335.

Price, L., & Kirkwood, A. (2008). Technology in the United Kingdom’s higher education
context. In S. Scott & K. C. Dixon (Eds), The globalised university: Trends and challenges
in teaching and learning (pp. 83–113). Perth, Australia: Black Swan Press.
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.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
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.

Walker, R., Voce, J., Nicholls, J., Swift, E., Ahmed, J., Horrigan, S., & Vincent, P. (2014). 2014
Survey of Technology Enhanced Learning for higher education in the UK (UCISA Report).
Oxford: Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association. Retrieved from
https://www.ucisa.ac.uk/~/media/groups/dsdg/TEL Survey 2014_29Sep2014

APPENDIX 1
Questionnaire on Learner Use of Technology

The primary aim of this questionnaire is to assess the Technology-Enabled Learning environment
and enabling policies, including learners’ access to media and technology, and their nature of use and
preferences for adopting technologies for learning in an educational institution.
The questionnaire shall be completed by a randomly selected stratified sample of learners in an

institution. Use appropriate sample size determination and random number table for the survey.
Protecting the privacy of the respondent is important — all personal information will be kept
confidential and used only in aggregate form.
Please respond to all the questions by following the instructions.
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 20  21-25  26-30  31-35  36-40  41 and above
1.6 Your level of study:  Undergraduate  Graduate or postgraduate  Research
1.7 Year of study:  Year 1  Year 2  Year 3  Year 4
1.8 Your faculty discipline:

 Humanities  Natural Sciences
 Social Sciences  Engineering and Technology
 Commerce and Management  Agriculture and natural resources
 Health and Medical Sciences  Fine and Performing Arts

1.9 Do you have a physical or learning disability that requires accessible or adaptive technologies for
your coursework?
 No
 Yes, I have one or more physical disabilities that require accessible or adaptive
technologies
 Yes, I have one or more learning disabilities that require accessible or adaptive
technologies
 Yes, I have both physical and learning disabilities that require accessible or adaptive
technologies
 Prefer not to answer
1.10 Most of the courses you are currently studying are:
 Traditional face-to-face
 Completely online
 Blended, where some components of the study are done online
B. Access to and Use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs)
1. Ownership of and Access to ICTs
1.1 Do you own any of these devices?
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)   
1.2 Do you have access to any of these devices at your university?

Devices Yes, provided by Yes, I use my No, my university
the university personal device in does not allow me to
the university use these
Laptop   

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 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):
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
3.1 Please rate your skills in the following computer-related activities.

Computer Skills I can’t I can use it I can I can use it I can use it
use it to a small use it well very well
extent satisfactorily
Word processor (e.g. Word)     
Spreadsheets (e.g. Excel)     
Presentation (e.g. PowerPoint)     
Email     
Search engines     
Databases     
Multimedia authoring     
Graphic editing     

Computer Skills I can’t I can use it I can I can use it I can use it
use it to a small use it well very well
extent satisfactorily
Digital audio     
Video editing     
Web page design     
Learning Management System     
Web 2.0 tools (wikis,     
blogs, social networking
and sharing tools)
4. Social Media
4.1 Do you have a profile/account on a social media platform or platforms?

 Yes (Go to 4.2)  No (Go to 5)
4.2 Which social media platforms do you use? (Tick () all that apply.)
 Facebook  Slideshare or similar presentation platform
 Twitter  Photo sharing (Instagram/Flickr/
Picasaweb, etc.)
 Google+  Research sharing sites (Academia.edu,
ResearchGate.net, etc.)
 LinkedIn  Social bookmarking sites (Delicious,
ScoopIt, Pinterest, etc.)
 Blog (using Blogger or Wordpress or  Goodreads.com (for connecting with
within institutional website/CMS) authors and readers) or similar
4.3 How frequently do you update your social media status?
 Several times a day  Once a day  Once a week
 Once a fortnight  Not very frequently  Not at all
4.4. On average, how much time do you spend on social media daily?
 <1 hour  1-2 hours  3-5 hours  >5 hours  Do not use daily
5. Mailing Lists and Discussion Forums
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?
 Once a fortnight  Not very frequently

6. Technology-Enabled Learning Environment
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.)
ePortfolio      
Network bandwidth/speed of Internet      
(download and upload)
Wi-Fi access      
Online or virtual technologies (e.g. network      
or cloud-based file storage system, Web
portals, etc.)
Access to software (e.g. MATLAB, GIS      
applications, statistical software, qualitative
data analysis, graphics software, textual or
image analysis program, etc.)
Download and use of free and open source      
software for teaching and learning
Support for maintenance and repair of ICTs      
Access to data storage      
Data visualisation software      
Citation/reference management software      
Plagiarism detection software      
Institutional repository for sharing of research      
e-Journals      
e-Books      
Citation databases      
Bibliographic databases      
e-Newspapers      

available
e-Theses and dissertations      
Patent database      
e-Proceedings of conferences      
Statistical databases      
7. Use of Online Courses
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
C. Perceptions of Use of Technology-Enabled Learning
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.

2. Please rate how useful each of the following technologies currently is or would be in your
studies (regardless of whether or not you have used each technology in the past).
In your studies, how useful do you Not at Useful Neutral Useful Very Do not
think it would be to … all useful to a useful know
limited
extent
Design and build Web pages as part of      
your course?
Create and present multimedia shows as      
part of your course requirements (e.g.
PowerPoint)?
Create and present audio/video as part of      
your course requirements?
Download or access online audio/video      
recordings of lectures you could not
attend?
Download or access online audio/      
video recordings to revise the content of
lectures you have already been to?
Download or access online audio/video      
recordings of supplementary content
material?
Use the Web to access university-based      
services (e.g. enrolment, paying fees)?
Use your mobile phone to access Web-      
based university services or information
(e.g. enrolment, paying fees)?
Use instant messaging/chat (e.g. Skype,      
Messenger, Hangout, etc.) on the Web
to communicate/collaborate with other
students in the course?
Use instant messaging/chat (e.g. Skype,      
Messenger, Hangout, etc.) on the Web
to communicate with teachers and
administrative staff from the course?
Use a social networking platform (e.g.      
Facebook) on the Web to communicate/
collaborate with other students on the
course?
Use microblogging (such as Twitter)      
to share information about class-related
activities?
Keep your own blog as part of your      
course requirements?

In your studies, how useful do you Not at Useful Neutral Useful Very Do not
think it would be to … all useful to a useful know
limited
extent
Contribute to another blog as part of      
your course requirements?
Use the Web to share digital files related      
to your course (e.g. sharing photos, audio
files, movies, digital documents, websites,
etc.)?
Use Web-conferencing or video chat to      
communicate/collaborate with other
students in the course?
Receive alerts about course information      
(e.g. timetable changes, the release of new
learning resources, changes in assessment)
via RSS feeds on the Web?
Receive alerts about course information      
(e.g. timetable changes, the release of new
learning resources, changes in assessment)
via text message on your mobile phone?
Contribute with other students to the      
development of a wiki as part of your
course requirements?
Receive grades/marks from your lecturer      
via text message on your mobile phone?
Receive pre-class discussion questions      
from your lecturer via text message on
your mobile phone?
Use a personal dashboard on the      
university intranet to access all your
academic information related to courses,
grades, etc.?
Use an ePortfolio system to record your      
achievements for future use beyond the
course of your studies?

3. Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements.
Statements Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Do not

agree agree nor agree know
disagree
I get more actively involved in courses      
that use technology.
I am more likely to skip classes when      
materials from course lectures are
available online.
When I entered college, I was      
adequately prepared to use the
technology needed in my courses.
Technology makes me feel connected      
to what’s going on at the college/
university.
to other students.
to teachers.
Technology interferes with my ability      
to concentrate and think deeply about
subjects I care about.
I am concerned that technology      
advances may increasingly invade my
privacy.
I am concerned about cyber security      
(password protection and hacking).
In-class use of mobile devices is      
distracting to me.
In-class use of mobile devices is      
distracting to my teacher.
Use of tablets/laptops in class improves      
my engagement with the content and
class.
Multitasking with my technology      
devices sometimes prevents me from
concentrating on or doing the work that
is most important.
When it comes to social media (e.g.      
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn), I like
to keep my academic life and social life
separate.
I wish my teachers in the university      
would use and integrate more
technology in their teaching.

D. Your Comments
There is a need to improve the Technology-Enabled Learning environment in your university.
Comment.
Thank you.

APPENDIX 2
Questionnaire on Faculty Use of Technology for Teaching and Learning

The primary aim of this questionnaire is to assess the Technology-Enabled Learning environment and
enabling policies, including understanding teachers’ access to media and technology, and their nature
of use; teachers’ perceptions and beliefs about the use of technology for teaching and learning; and
the use of digital resources, including open educational resources, for teaching, learning and research
in an educational institution.
The questionnaire should be completed by a randomly selected stratified sample of teachers in an

institution. Use appropriate sample size determination and random number table for the survey.
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
1.2 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

1.10 Your faculty discipline:
 Humanities  Natural Sciences
 Social Sciences  Engineering and Technology
 Commerce and Management  Agriculture and natural resources
 Health and Medical Sciences  Fine and Performing Arts
B. Access to and Use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs)
1. Ownership of and Access to ICTs
1.1 Do you own any of these devices?

Devices Yes No, but I plan to buy No, and I do not
one in the next 12 plan to buy one in
months the next 12 months
Laptop   
1.2 Do you have access to any of these devices at your university?

Devices Yes, provided by Yes, I use my No, my university
the university personal device in does not allow me to
the university use these
Laptop   
2. Internet Access
2.1 Where do you access the Internet? (Tick () all that apply.)
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?
2.5 Where do you get access to broadband Internet? (Tick () all that apply.)

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
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)

4. Social Media
4.1 Do you have a profile/account on a social media platform(s)?

4.2 Which social media platforms? (Tick () all that apply.)
 Facebook  Slideshare or similar presentation platform
 Twitter  Photo sharing (Instagram/Flickr/
Picasaweb, etc.)
 Google+  Research sharing sites (Academia.edu,
ResearchGate.net etc.)
 LinkedIn  Social bookmarking sites (Delicious,
ScoopIt, Pinterest, etc.)
 Blog (using Blogger or Wordpress or  Goodreads.com (for connecting with
within institutional website/CMS) authors and readers) or similar
4.3 How frequently do you update your social media status?
 Once a fortnight  Not very frequently  Not at all
5. Mailing Lists and Discussion Forums
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?
 Once a fortnight  Not very frequently
6. Technology-Enabled Learning Environment
institution.
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.)

available
ePortfolio      
Network bandwidth/speed of Internet      
(download and upload)
Wi-Fi access      
Online or virtual technologies (e.g.      
network or cloud-based file storage
system, Web portals, etc.)
Access to software (e.g. MATLAB,      
GIS applications, statistical software,
qualitative data analysis, graphics
software, textual or image analysis
program, etc.)
Download and use of free and open      
source software for teaching and
learning
Support for maintenance and repair      
of ICTs
C. Using ICTs for Teaching and Learning

1. Use and Creation of Digital Content for Teaching
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     
Blogs     
Social bookmarking     

Types of Resources Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never
Microblogging (Twitter, Facebook, etc.)     
Open textbooks     
Open access research papers     
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     

1.6 Please rate your skills in integrating the following in teaching and learning.
Technologies I can’t I can use it to I can use it I can I can use it
use it a small extent satisfactorily use it well very well
(e.g. Moodle)
Online collaboration tools (e.g.     
Adobe Connect, Google Docs)
ePortfolio     
eBooks/eTextbooks     
Online video/audio     
Educational games/simulations     
Lecture capture tools     
Accessible tools (for people with     
disabilities)
Social media (blogs, wikis, etc.)     
2. Training and Staff Development
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
3. Policy Issues for Technology-Enabled Learning
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   
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?

Yes No Do not
know
3.5 Is there a policy on dealing with plagiarism in your university/   
institution?
3.6 Is there a policy for the use of open educational resources in your   
3.7 Is there a system in place for the use of open source software in   
your university/institution?
3.8 Is there a workflow and escalation procedure for repair and   
maintenance of ICTs in your university/institution?
D. Using ICTs for Research and Scholarship
1. Access to e-Resources in Library
1.1 Does your library provide access to subscription-based e-resources?

 Yes (Go to 1.2)  No (Go to 2)  Do not know (Go to 2)
1.2 If yes, which kind of library resources do you regularly access for teaching and learning?
Digital library resources Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never
e-Journals     
e-Books     
Citation databases     
Bibliographic databases     
e-Newspapers     
e-Theses and Dissertations     
Patent databases     
e-Proceedings of conferences     
Statistical databases     
Any other, please mention     
________________________

2. Availability of Research Support
institution.
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
E. Perceptions of Use of Technology-Enabled Learning
1. Please rate the following attitude statements.

disagree
Technology-Enabled Learning can solve     
many of our educational problems.
Technology-Enabled Learning will bring     
new opportunities for organising teaching
and learning.
Technology-Enabled Learning saves time     
and effort for both teachers and students.
Technology-Enabled Learning increases     
access to education and training.
Technology-Enabled Learning will increase     
my efficiency in teaching.
Technology-Enabled Learning enables     
collaborative learning.
Technology-Enabled Learning can engage     
learners more than other forms of learning.
Technology-Enabled Learning increases the     
quality of teaching and learning because it
integrates all forms of media: print, audio,
video and animation.

disagree
Technology-Enabled Learning increases the     
flexibility of teaching and learning.
Technology-Enabled Learning improves     
communication between students and
teachers.
Technology-Enabled Learning enhances the     
pedagogic value of a course.
Universities should adopt more and more     
Technology-Enabled Learning for the
benefit of their students.
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

3. Please rate the following barriers to your use of Technology-Enabled Learning.
Barrier Very strong Strong Average Weak Very weak

barrier barrier barrier barrier barrier
Concern about faculty workload     
Concern about students’ access to     
technology
Lack of training on Technology-Enabled     
Learning
Lack of technical support in the     
university
Lack of institutional policy for     
Technology-Enabled Learning
Lack of professional prestige     
Concern about the quality of e-courses     
Lack of incentives to use Technology-     
Enabled Learning
Lack of credit towards promotion     
Intimidated by technology     
Concern about security issues on     
the Internet
Inadequate availability of hardware     
and software
Poor Internet access and networking in     
the university
Lack of time to develop e-courses     
Lack of instructional design support for     
Technology-Enabled Learning
No role models to follow     
F. Your Comments
There is a need to develop a Technology-Enabled Learning policy and strategy in your university.
Comment.
Thank you.

APPENDIX 3
Questionnaire for Survey of Technology-Enabled Learning in Educational

Institutions
The primary aim of this questionnaire is to assess the Technology-Enabled Learning environment and
enabling policies in educational institutions.
The questionnaire shall be completed by a responsible officer in a university/institution to provide

relevant data.
A. About Your University/Institution

1.2 Website: _________________________________________________________________________
1.3 Number of students enrolled: _______________________________________________________
1.4 Number of faculty and academic staff employed: ______________________
1.5 Number of non-teaching and support staff employed: ____________________________
1.6 Level of teaching (tick () all that apply):
 Undergraduate  Graduate or postgraduate  Doctoral research
1.7 Status of your institution:  Public  Private not-for-profit  Private for-profit
B. Technology-Enabled Learning Environment in the University/Institution
2.1 Number of desktop computers/tablets/laptops in the university/institute connected to the

Internet:
2.1.1 Desktop computers: _____________________
2.1.2 Tablets: _____________________
2.1.3 Laptops: _____________________

2.2 Do you have broadband Internet connectivity at your premises?
 Yes (Go to 2.3)  No (Go to 2.7)
2.3 If yes, for whom is the broadband Internet made available? (Tick () all that apply.)
 Officials and staff  Faculty members  Students  Researchers  Visitors
2.4 Where do you provide access to the broadband Internet? (Tick () all that apply.)
2.5 How do you get broadband Internet connectivity at the university/institution?
 Through a government-supported Internet service provider
 Through a private Internet service provider
2.6 Current level of Internet bandwidth available in the university/institute is:
 <1 Gbps  1-5 Gbps  6-10 Gbps  >10 Gbps
2.7 Do you have Wi-Fi/wireless Internet connectivity on your campus?  Yes  No
2.8 Is there any access control in place for restricting any particular kind of online content from
being accessed or downloaded (reasons could be related to limitations on Internet speed or
security concerns)?  Yes (Go to 2.9)  No (Go to 2.10)
2.9 If yes, what kind of content do you not allow users to access or download? (Tick () all
that apply.)
 Social media (e.g. Facebook, Twitter,  Massive downloads of videos, audios,
LinkedIn, Instagram, etc.) reference books, etc.
 Video channels (e.g. YouTube,  Software download (e.g. Cnet.com,
Vimeo, etc.) Sourceforge.net, etc.
 Chat/messengers (e.g. WhatsApp,  Adult content
Viber, Skype, GTalk, etc.)
 Audio channels (e.g. iTunes,  Emails
online MP3 players, etc.)
2.10 Does your university maintain any official profile/institutional group on social media platforms?
 Yes (Go to 2.11)  No (Go to 2.12)
2.11 If yes, where do you maintain an official profile/group on social media platforms? (Tick () all
that apply.)
 Facebook  Email-based discussion forums
 Twitter  LinkedIn
 Google+  Institutional wiki page
 YouTube, Vimeo or similar  Flickr, Picasa Web Albums, Instagram or
 Blog (using Blogger or Wordpress or similar for photo sharing
within institutional website/CMS)

e-Classrooms
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: _______
Educational e-Content Creation
2.15 Do you have any educational e-content or an audio-visual production unit/studio/centre?

 Yes (Go to 2.16)  No (Go to 2.17)
2.16 Number of e-content materials produced in the last year:
• Course-related textbooks: _______
• Audio lessons: _______
• Video lessons: _______
• Multimedia lessons: _______
• Online courses: _______
2.17 Do you participate in any e-content or audio-visual repository/content-sharing platform for
disseminating your produced educational content?  Yes (Go to 2.18)  No (Go to 2.25)
2.18 If yes, what type of external content-sharing platform/repository do you usually use? (Tick ()
all that apply.)
 State-level repository  National repository
 Regional repository  International repository
2.19 Provide website addresses of the repositories that your institution participates in/ contributes to:
_____________________________________
2.20 Do you have an institutional video channel (e.g. YouTube or similar)?
 Yes (Go to 2.21)  No (Go to 2.22)
2.21 Provide a link to the video channel: ______________________________________________
Open Educational Resources
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: ______________________________

2.25 Is your university/institution a member of any OER consortia or any formal OER network?
 Yes (Go to 2.26)  No (Go to 2.27)
2.26 If yes, please give their names: _____________________________________________________
Online Courses
2.27 Has your university/institution produced or designed any online course?

 Yes (Go to 2.28)  No (Go to 2.29)
2.28 How many online courses (including MOOCs) do you offer in the current year?
Number of eLearning courses: ______________
2.29 What is the total number of learners studying online in your university/institute?
Number of learners: ______________
2.30 Nature of online courses (tick () all that apply):
 Completely online  Blended (face-to-face with some online
component)
 Online (with limited face-to-face contact)
2.31 Do you have any external partners for collaborative designing and delivery of online courses?
 Yes (Go to 2.32)  No (Go to 2.33)
2.32 If yes, what type of external partner or collaborator do you usually have?
 Public state-level institution  Private for-profit organisation
 Public national-level institution  Private not-for-profit organisation
Other Online Facilities
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
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.)   
ePortfolio   
Network bandwidth/speed of Internet (download and upload)   
Wi-Fi access   
Online or virtual technologies (e.g. network or cloud-based file   
storage system, Web portals, etc.)

Resources/Services/Spaces Available Not available Planned
Access to software (e.g. MATLAB, GIS applications, statistical   

software, qualitative data analysis, graphics software, textual or
image analysis program, etc.)
Download and use of free and open source software for teaching   
and learning
Support for maintenance and repair of ICTs   
Access to data storage   
Data visualisation software   
Citation/reference management software   
Plagiarism detection software   
Institutional repository for sharing of research   
e-Journals   
e-Books   
Citation databases   
Bibliographic databases   
e-Newspapers   
e-Theses and dissertations   
Patent databases   
e-Proceedings of conferences   
Statistical databases   
Training on Technology-Enabled Learning
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: _________
Policy issues for Technology-Enabled 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?

2.40 Is there an ICT policy in your university/institution covering what technologies to use and not
use for teaching and learning?  Yes  No  In development
2.41 Is there a privacy and data protection policy in your university/institution?
2.42 Is there a policy on dealing with plagiarism in your university/institution?
2.43 Is there a policy for the use of Open Educational Resources in your university/institution?
2.44 Is there a system in place for the use of open source software in your university/institution?
2.45 Is there a workflow and escalation procedure for repair and maintenance of ICTs in your
university/institution?  Yes  No  In development
C. Institutional Preparedness for Technology-Enabled Learning
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.

IT Support Department
The organisation has an IT department that handles procurement, installation     
and maintenance of technologies for teaching and learning.
There is an ICT policy in place, which is implemented by a high-powered     
committee in the organisation.
The head of the IT support department reports to senior management and is     
responsible for overall functioning of the technology in the organisation.
The head of the IT support department is well qualified and up to date in     
order to manage the technological requirements of the organisation.
Technology
There is adequate hardware infrastructure for teaching and learning (e.g.     
access to computers for students and learners).
There are adequate applications and software for teaching and learning (e.g.     
access to appropriate software, intranet, Learning Management System, etc.).
There is adequate networking infrastructure in the organisation (e.g. access to     
adequate bandwidth).
There are adequate policies and procedures in place to protect privacy and     
organisational data.
Content
There is support available for the creation of digital multimedia content in     
the organisation (e.g. production of eCourses, audio and video materials,
animation, etc.).
There are instructional designers in the organisation or faculty members are     
trained to organise learning content appropriately.
Teachers have adequate access to the online systems to develop courses for     
Technology-Enabled Learning.
Documentation
There is a variety of help available to support teachers and students in using     
technology effectively.
Lessons learned in the implementation of the Technology-Enabled     
Learning are stored and shared within the organisation for others to access
and learn from.
The workflow processes and responsibilities to implement Technology-     
Enabled Learning are well documented in the organisation.
Organisational culture
Faculty and staff members are willing to learn about new technology in     
the organisation.
Faculty and staff members support each other easily.     
There is a culture of knowledge creation and sharing in the organisation.     

Leadership
Leaders in the organisation are involved in the implementation of     
Senior management in the organisation regularly review, monitor and evaluate     
the progress of Technology-Enabled Learning.
The top leadership of the organisation is supportive of Technology-Enabled     
Learning and provides encouragement and motivation to the faculty and staff
to achieve the academic goals.
Human Resources and Training
Faculty members are qualified and trained to use technology for teaching     
and learning.
Faculty and staff members receive regular training to update them in the use     
of Technology-Enabled Learning.
There are adequate staff to support Technology-Enabled Learning.     
The organisation has a structure in place to create teams for content     
development and delivery of Technology-Enabled Learning.
Faculty members trust the support received from instructional designers and     
technology support staff while developing and delivering the courses.
The IT staff members are highly skilled and trained to provide the needed     
support.
TEL Champions
There are early adopters of Technology-Enabled Learning in the organisation.     
There are TEL champions in the organisation who support and care about     
pedagogic innovations.
There are faculty members who can take leadership roles in developing     
appropriate policies and a Technology-Enabled Learning strategy for the
organisation.
There are TEL champions to research and disseminate good practices in     
D. Comments
There is a need to develop a Technology-Enabled Learning policy and strategy in the organisation.
Comment.
Thank you.

APPENDIX 4
Interpretation of Preparedness for Technology-Enabled Learning

Questionnaire Results
In Appendix 3, section C, we listed a series of statements to assess institutional preparedness for
Technology-Enabled Learning. See below for how to interpret the scores.
• Score below 55: Negligible preparedness. There is no comprehensive Technology-Enabled

Learning system or infrastructure, and policies are incomplete. The structures in place need
immediate attention.
• 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 130–164. Established preparedness. The institution has an established Technology-

Enabled Learning system as well as policies, infrastructure and practices in place.
• Score 165 and above. Exceptional preparedness. The institution has successfully
implemented a Technology-Enabled Learning system and its effect can be easily observed.

APPENDIX 5
TEL Policy Template

Please remember that this template is written in note form and should be used for guidance and
inspiration. Use the pointer and questions to deliberate on the policy development based on the data
gathered through the surveys, and then articulate sentences for your TEL policy. COL will gather
examples of TEL policies developed over the Strategic Plan period (2015-2021) and share these as
examples of how to develop appropriate policy in institutions.
1. The Goal(s) or Aims of Technology-Enabled Learning in [institution]
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.”)
What will be the benefits for learning?

What will be the benefits for teaching?
What will be the benefits for the institution?
Are any other benefits anticipated?
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?
3. Drivers for Change

Changes in the national (and international) educational environment?
The need to increase student engagement and improve student outcomes?
Changing expectations in the workplace in terms of what graduates are capable of doing?
Responding to changes in students’ characteristics and their expectations?
The necessity for graduates to have well-developed digital literacy skills?
Demands for improved pedagogical expertise and digital literacy for academic staff?

4. Technology and Infrastructure
[Drawing upon findings from your institution’s Policy Review and Infrastructure Audit (PRIA)
Report.]
Adequacy (or inadequacy) of existing equipment and infrastructure for enabling the
institution’s goal(s) for TEL to be achieved?
The need for additional equipment and infrastructure?
Implementation of a single institution-wide system or separate systems for each site, faculty or
department?
Responsibility for maintaining technology infrastructure and providing technical support to
staff and students?
Organisational responsibility for the design and development of TEL materials and resources,
applications, digital tools, etc.?
5. Opportunities for Development

Developing academic teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and practices for the purpose of
designing teaching and learning activities that improve the quality of face-to-face, blended and
online learning?
Developing the understanding and competence of responsible academic managers in relation to
approving and funding TEL projects and innovations?
Developing the digital literacy skills of students and their understanding of acceptable academic
practices?
Developing an institutional framework for quality enhancement in teaching and learning?
Building capacity and mechanisms for the design, implementation and reporting of monitoring
and evaluation activities (including learning analytics) for quality assurance and quality
enhancement purposes?
Developing appropriate TEL design principles and standards as an aid to supporting improved
consistency and quality?
Creating a mechanism for the sharing of (a) TEL materials and resources and (b) the scholarly
experiences associated with their development and evaluation?
6. Embedding and Aligning with Existing Policies

Ensuring alignment with the institution’s mission statement and top-level policy relating to
teaching and learning?
Ensuring alignment with the policy (policies) relating to student assessment and academic
practice?
Ensuring alignment with the policy (policies) for developing students’ digital literacy?

Ensuring alignment with the policy (policies) for the professional development of academic
staff?
Ensuring alignment with the policy (policies) for the reward and promotion of academic staff?
Ensuring alignment with the policy (policies) for the rewarding scholarly activities relating 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?
8. Periodic Review of the TEL Policy

Ensuring that a mechanism and/or procedure is established to review the TEL policy after
one or two years to ensure that it remains up to date and adequately reflects the changing
educational and technical environment?

4710 Kingsway, Suite 2500
Burnaby, BC V5H 4M2
Canada
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

2016 TELI Handbook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016 TELI Handbook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016 TELI Handbook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technology-

Adrian Kirkwood and Linda Price

Commonwealth of Learning, 2016

© 2016 by the Commonwealth of Learning. Technology-Enabled Learning Implementation Handbook is

Technology-Enabled Learning Implementation Handbook

Concept and Planning: Sanjaya Mishra

4710 Kingsway, Suite 2500

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED LEARNING....... 1

SECTION 2: REVIEWING INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES AND

SECTION 3: DEVELOPING THE INSTITUTIONAL STAKEHOLDERS................ 18

SECTION 4: DEVELOPING INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES AND

SECTION 5: IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND STRATEGIES................................ 45

APPENDIX 1: Questionnaire on Learner Use of Technology.............................................. 59

APPENDIX 2: Questionnaire on Faculty Use of Technology for Teaching and Learning..... 69

APPENDIX 3: Questionnaire for Survey of Technology-Enabled Learning in

APPENDIX 4: Interpretation of Preparedness for Technology-Enabled Learning

APPENDIX 5: TEL Policy Template................................................................................... 89

iv TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED LEARNING IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK

The Technology-Enabled Learning Implementation Handbook has been developed to

Professor Asha S. Kanwar

TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED LEARNING IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK v

What is Technology-Enabled Learning?

TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED LEARNING IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK 1

What are the potential benefits of adopting TEL?

Very Important Not very Does not

Increasing technology use by students

2 TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED LEARNING IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK

Providing students with additional

TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED LEARNING IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK 3

• offering courses in association with other institutions, on a collaborative teaching or

4 TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED LEARNING IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK

A surprisingly small proportion of published accounts of projects involving the use of

Avoiding disappointment in the adoption of TEL

TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED LEARNING IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK 5

Teacher as agent: The crucial role of the teacher in TEL

6 TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED LEARNING IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK

Significant influences on teachers and how they use technology

• Individual differences in teachers’ attitudes to the adoption of innovations

• Individual differences in teachers’ conceptions of and approaches to teaching (Kember

• The established departmental/faculty/institutional ethos and ways of working

• Competing demands of discipline-based research and administration.

How prepared for TEL is your institution?

Less than 25-50% 51-75% More than

What proportion of the teaching staff already have some

What proportion of the teaching staff have expressed some

What proportion of the teaching staff have expressed some

What proportion of the students already have some access

TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED LEARNING IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK 7

What proportion of the students already have some

What proportion of the students have expressed some

What proportion of the library and academic support staff

What proportion of the library and academic support

What proportion of the senior academic managers

What proportion of teaching spaces in the institution are

What proportion of teaching spaces in the institution are

8 TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED LEARNING IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK

TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED LEARNING IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK 9

The complexity of teaching and learning in large institutions

• the teacher’s academic context,

• the student’s academic context,