1 / 24

Sue Greener and Asher Rospigliosi University of Brighton S.L.Greener@brighton.ac.uk

Tread softly: making secure steps towards wider adoption of pedagogically-focussed e-learning at Brighton Business School. Sue Greener and Asher Rospigliosi University of Brighton S.L.Greener@brighton.ac.uk A.Rospigliosi@brighton.ac.uk. Back story.

steel-monroe
Télécharger la présentation

Sue Greener and Asher Rospigliosi University of Brighton S.L.Greener@brighton.ac.uk

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tread softly: making secure steps towards wider adoption of pedagogically-focussed e-learning at Brighton Business School Sue Greener and Asher Rospigliosi University of Brighton S.L.Greener@brighton.ac.uk A.Rospigliosi@brighton.ac.uk

  2. Back story • Learning and Teaching Fellowship grant, UoB • Three phase project: • Initiation • Support • Feedback • It grew…. • Annual Learning and Teaching Conference • 2009 Conference • Friday 10th July 2009: From spark to flame

  3. Research enquiry (dream?) Beginning with the perceived “problem” of adoption of new technologies by academic staff How do experienced and new academics begin to fit e-learning into their personal pedagogies? Bringing a psychological and sociological perspective to the problem of adopting TEL - how does this offer us insight into wider technology adoption strategies? Could we help to enthuse, encourage, support those who were not natural early adopters?

  4. Surfacing initial assumptions • Roger’s model (1962) of innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards – does it help? • Moore (1991) crossing the chasm between early adopters and the follower groups • Anderson et al (1998), based on Geoghegan (1994) – just two groups: early adopters (EA) and mainstream faculty (MF) • Four factors stop us crossing the chasm/gap • Ignorance of the gap • The technologists’ alliance • Alienation of mainstream faculty • Lack of compelling reason to adopt

  5. Where do you place yourself on technology adoption • CAL (EA) • UofB (MF)

  6. What is your job? • CAL (EA) • UofB (MF)

  7. What VLE does your institution have? • CAL (EA) • UofB (MF)

  8. Who do you use TEL with? • CAL (EA) • UofB (MF)

  9. How long have you used TEL? • CAL (EA) • UofB (MF)

  10. Why did you take up TEL? • CAL (EA) • UofB (MF)

  11. Had you used TEL as a learner? • CAL (EA) • UofB (MF)

  12. What barriers did you face? • UofB (MF) • CAL (EA)

  13. What support might have helped? • CAL (EA) • UofB (MF)

  14. Qualitative responses 1 “how motivating it is when students learning becomes fun” • What surprised them? • EA: – mainly positive • MF: more negative • What didn’t they like? • EA: • MF: “learning moves out of your control” “colleague inertia” “It takes hours”

  15. What was familiar about this learning process? • EA focussed on problems with software, crashes, problem solving • MF focussed on time taken and related to ease of use “like learning Word only easier”

  16. What contradicted your prior beliefs? • EA tended to find external responses contradicted their prior beliefs: • MF focussed on personal perceptions which were contradicted: “student confidence in using software is always lower than I expect” “technology is a tool not a solution” “that it would be complicated and that I would fail to understand it” “found it more useful and less scary”

  17. When asked to reflect on the experience of first using new technology to enhance learning • EA: • MF: some were excited about technology, some feeling over-stretched, some more relaxed than they were, found routines difficult to remember, some, as with technologists, focussed on learning not technology. • No clear distinction with application of hindsight “it’s much more about pedagogy in my classroom, not the technology” “regaining confidence – enjoying learning new skills again”

  18. Problems they faced • Students’ digital literacy • Staff resistance • Technology seen as gimmick • Lack of time to learn • Pressure to conform to VLE • Availability of software, hardware • No distinction here between two groups • Some saw problems as politically based (institutional strategies, resourcing) • Few saw problems in making sense of technologies in relation to learning and teaching • Everyone in study had persisted with using new technologies

  19. Examples of ideas offered for encouraging adoption • Showcases, demonstrations, workshops/training – show it is relevant and useful to improve experience of teaching and learning for both students and teachers • Guest speakers in best practice • Contact with experienced colleagues, buddying, coaching • Sharing student feedback • Shadowing those with experience • Team-working • Focussing on pedagogic gains (student motivation etc) • Enthusing and encouraging • Time to play (sandpits) • Senior manager commitment • Adopting technologies for peer assessment and feedback • Using less jargon-ridden language • Relating adoption to promotion/career paths/staff review • Small project funding • Celebrating achievements, encouragement of scholarship • No obvious distinction between our two groups • Strategies focus on pedagogic beliefs, perceived usefulness, role modelling (how), experimentation, reward, access to resource, promoting awareness, mainstreaming

  20. A touch more literature • A more complicated picture than we thought • Technology Acceptance Model • Liao and Lu (2008) discuss TAM and alternates and derive “relative advantage” and “compatibility” as drivers to new technologies adoption by teachers • Compatibility? With beliefs, values, teaching philosophy…..

  21. So how can we better analyse the different responses of academics in relation to TEL?

  22. So how can we better analyse the different responses of academics in relation to TEL? • By teaching beliefs? Pedagogies in practice? student, teaching and content-centred (Greener 2008) • By discipline? Becher and Trowler (1989) work on academic tribes • By sub-discipline, including hard/soft, urban/rural, convergent/divergent and pure/applied focus? (Trowler 2009) • By internet use? Peripherals, normatives, all-rounders and active participants? (Eynon 2009) • Are Eynon’s “active participants” similar to Drent and Meelissen’s “personal entrepreneurs” (2008)? • Could other academic groupings be distinguished by skill sets (Deursen & van Dyk 2009)

  23. Which leads us to the future of this project • New staff engagement – action learning project • Profile analysis of academic staff in HE in relation to TEL. • digital skillset • degree of digital independence • pedagogic beliefs • openness to sharing and learning • Practical application: not just focussing on technology adopters/champions . • We need to tread softly in the mainstream and understand better how to meet their needs.

  24. Had I the heaven's embroidered cloths,Enwrought with golden and silver light,The blue and the dim and the dark clothsOf night and light and the half-light, I would spread the cloths under your feet:But I, being poor, have only my dreams;I have spread my dreams under your feet;Tread softly because you tread on my dreams. William Butler Yeats

More Related